Rene Guenon

[Anonymous No.16344662]

What is the best book to start with Rene Guenon, assuming that I am very familiar with the works of Carl Jung, and somehow familiar with the works of Freddy Neech.

[Anonymous No.16344667]

>>16344662
Just start with books on human history, evolution, the universe and mathematics.

[Anonymous No.16344682]

>>16344667
Okay, I'm already familiar with human history, evolution, the universe, and mathematics. I've already took a class in early Greek philosophy so I'm familiar with them too. Where do I start for Renny G?

[Anonymous No.16344685]

>>16344662
Crisis of the Modern World

[Anonymous No.16344688]

Jung is wrong on every account. This is coming from someone who read his entire bibliography and some of his collected works. The three authors I am most familiar with are Jung, Nietzsche and Eliade, so we are not much different in our interests.

Start with Intro to Hindu doctrines (first half) and east & west.

[Anonymous No.16344721]

>>16344688
>He's wrong because trust me bro

[Anonymous No.16344786]

>>16344721
He's wrong because he's wrong. I am not here to type out on essay on the why and how. If you are truly interested in intellectual pursuit then you follow the hints. If my post bugged you so much, then listen to your intuition and simply ignore it. Jung is wrong because it leads nowhere, that should be enough to warrant second thoughts. True knowledge is actualized.

[Anonymous No.16344792]

>>16344786
>trust me bro
You post many words yet say nothing, I'm in awe

[Anonymous No.16344928]

>>16344682
>Okay, I'm already familiar with human history, evolution, the universe, and mathematics. I've already took a class in early Greek philosophy so I'm familiar with them too. Where do I start for Renny G?
Then why would you care about tradition, seeing it will never fit a univere where humanity is millions of years old and goes back to monkeys.

[Anonymous No.16344953]

>>16344928
Define T/tradition

[Anonymous No.16344958]

>>16344786
>he man just accept he is wrong, and follow like your intuition, man, I aint gonna explain anything man, like man, just dont be ignorant man.

[Anonymous No.16344963]

>>16344953
>Define T/tradition
I cant, I literally do not belief it even exists, other people do and I want them to explain why tradition fits a universe where humanity is millions of years old and goes back to monkeys.

[Anonymous No.16344965]

>>16344786
>He's wrong because he's wrong

[Anonymous No.16344988]

>>16344958
>>16344792
>>16344965
>12 replies
>5 posters
looks like Jung did not bring any serenity into your life.

[Anonymous No.16344990]

>>16344786
Who is right in your view? Who should we be reading instead of Jung?

[Anonymous No.16345001]

>>16344662
OP here, there seems to be two options: Crisis of the Modern World, and/or Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines and East and West.

Between these two, which should I start with?

>>16344688
Why not the just explain why you feel Jung is wrong? In particular, who is he wrong as opposed to?

[Anonymous No.16345013]

>>16344988
I have question, reread that bitchy comment, can you honestly look in the mirror and call yourself a man? Do you honestly think a man wants serenity?

The more I debate with traditionalists, the more I get the impression I am basically talking to pc leftists. Its the same passive-agressive and vaque dismissive attitude.

[Anonymous No.16345020]

>>16345001
>Why not the just explain why you feel Jung is wrong? In particular, who is he wrong as opposed to?
He wont, traditionalism is literally the rightwing equivalent of pc basedboy feminism.

[Anonymous No.16345024]

>>16345001
Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, 100%

[Anonymous No.16345031]

>>16345013
I agree, Traditionalists end up becoming far too dogmatic

[Anonymous No.16345052]

>>16345001
I'd suggest Crisis, it's shorter and more relevant. The first half of Intro to Hindu Doctrines (not Studies in Hinduism, that's another book) is a good overview of Guenon's metaphysics but I did fine reading it after Crisis.
>>16345013
Don't lump us all together, I'm a traditionalist but was the first one to call the other guy out

[Anonymous No.16345054]

>>16345031
Yes, that too, but it goes further, there is something highly feminine about lacking the desire for a decent debate, or wanting to go back to an imaginary past, or reveling in mysticism and the occult.

Traditionalism is for the scared and spineless.

A more masculine movement would have said: Fuck islam, middle east will become our colony, freaking love technology, lets build space stations!

[Anonymous No.16345062]

>>16345052
>Don't lump us all together, I'm a traditionalist but was the first one to call the other guy out
Yes, not every communist or anarchist is pink haired, nose-ring wearing pedophile, but that is the kind of pull these people are having.

A strong desire for an imaginary past is not a healthy and masculine trait.

[Anonymous No.16345064]

>>16345052
Where are the traditionalists of today, anon? Is there traditionalist twitter or something, discord servers? Facebook groups? You don't see many around but I'm very interested in the ideas

[Anonymous No.16345070]

>>16345064
You will no doubt find a few of them in homobars, movement attracts homosexuals like flies to stickypaper.

[Anonymous No.16345080]

>>16345054
In my experience they avoid debate because most of their beliefs are founded on appeals to authority of religious texts and shoddy history and comparative mythology.
The Perennial strand of comparative religion isn't taken very seriously these days, but some people have built their identity at least in part around it so they have to cling to it at all costs.

[Anonymous No.16345086]

>>16345054
Possibly one of the stupidest posts ive ever read.

[Anonymous No.16345094]

>>16345080
Trusting in appeals to authority is to be expected if you are slightly feminine.

>>16345086
Nice, got an argument, or just snark?

[Anonymous No.16345106]

>>16345064
Honestly? Most traditionalists on the internet suck. There's some discord servers but most people you'll encounter there are the kinds >>16345054 and >>16345062 were talking about. It's really a solitary endeavour for now unless you manage to find other like minded people in real life.
I'm also more into Evola because he advocated for action instead of passivity, but Guenon was one of his greatest influences and is a treasure trove of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16345119]

>>16345094
You seem kinda obsessed with this masculine/feminine divide. What is a masculine movement in your view? Futurism or something?

[Anonymous No.16345131]

>>16345106
I'm also more into Evola, are there any thinkers who are 'Evolian', for lack of a better word? Who follow his ideas and expand on his concepts? I'm interested in what he calls the organic state and things like that

[Anonymous No.16345132]

>>16344963
tradition means not being a faggot and think your idea is the best without assessing the pros and cons of the old ones first.

[Anonymous No.16345174]

>>16345131
None that I've found so far sadly, but there's supposed to be some in Italian. Most of the Traditionalist (inspired) writers I've found are more along the lines of Guenon and Schuon, which are interesting, but Evola just hits that sweet spot.

[Anonymous No.16345180]

>>16345174
Yeah, thanks anyway. I know there's that Handbook for Traditional Living so I'll read that at some point, even if its just a summary of Evola's thought.

[Anonymous No.16345196]

>>16345013
There is nothing passive-aggressive. Like I said, true knowledge is actualized. Has Jung changed you for the better? I know it did nothing to me, even though I studied his works over 5 years. Samefaging my post is pathetic, it's not "masculine". In fact "traditionalism" is infinitely more masculine, since it relates to the qualitative elements of manifestation (the masculine principle) rather than the quantitaive (substance, feminine) that is very dear to modernity.

>>16345020
>traditionalism is right wing
Traditionalism, first, does not exist. It's not "dogmatic" like some other anon pointed out. And it's so far removed from the modern conception of politics that I can't possibly explain how they are not related - these conceptions do not even belong in the same realm.

>>16345064
"Traditionalism" cannot be formalized through any of these mediums. Planning, politics are the "antithesis" of the traditional order.

>>16345001
Jung is wrong in that he inverts the meaning of symbols and attach them to the inferior states of being, denying symbols of their transcendantal aspects. Jung is unapologetic satanism, the successful inversion of everything "traditional" (I don't like that term and none of the so called "traditionalists" ever use it as some form of dogma, as it is widely 'understood' on /lit/), the birth of a fake spirituality.

Read Guénon's works on symbolism and individuation, and the understandings of such concepts among traditional societies, then juxtapose them to Jung's peculiar creation and you will realize it is not simply a creation of his, but the unapologetic inversion of the traditional understanding of these concepts. It cannot be coincidental, as Jung's works inscribes itself negatively - it is a departure, the negation of everything traditional.

Crisis of the modern world is not great. Possibly the least interesting work of Guénon, simultaneously his most famous. Read Intro and East and West. Then règne de la quantité

[Anonymous No.16345204]

>>16345180
Yes that's actually a good one, the first half is a summary of Evola but the second half is about how to implement it in real life. I think Arktos is publishing a sequel as well soon.

[Anonymous No.16345237]

>>16345196
You say it doesn't exist and then say that it's not dogmatic? What's the 'it's' referring to then?

[Anonymous No.16345241]

>>16345196
>Jung
Isn't that also Evola's criticism of Jung, that he fails to distinguish between the subconscious and the supraconscious and therefore lowers everything? I haven't read much of Jung yet so I just have to take him for his word. Thanks for the (belated) detailed answer anyway.
Also I disagree about Crisis, I appreciate Guenon but he can be over-meticulous at times and Crisis is pretty straightforward compared to most of his other works. Also a good bridge after having read Evola.

[Anonymous No.16345254]

>>16345237
He means Traditionalism as a distinct spiritual/political movement doesn't exist, so it can't be dogmatic.

[Anonymous No.16345313]

>>16345196
Don't you think that you might be shadow projecting anon? You seem to have a visceral, moralizing reaction to Jung's work, but isn't it on you for not actualizing any of Jung's work?

I know I've started doing some shadow work. Made me realize the shallowness of my Catholic faith and made me realize that I was projecting the notion of materialist degeneracy on everyone else, when it reality, the "truth" that I acted out in the day to day is fundamentally atheistic. I'm a terrible Catholic.

[Anonymous No.16345398]

>>16345313
>You seem to have a visceral, moralizing reaction to Jung's work
Not at all. I still peak into some of Jung's book from time to time but only because I understand the inverted nature of his works. I highly recommend not to do this until you've internalized the principle of inversion at the end of manifestation, else you open yourself up to negative influence. There is also nothing "magical" about this, unlike some dogmatic "traditionalist" larpers will have you believe.

>shadow projecting
Psychology is infra-individual. Not everyone is bound to psychology, some authors, like Nietzsche, understood this intuitively on a surface level (the Aristocrat is not moved by his complexes, he acts purely out of his own volition) Which is why modernity is obsessed with psychology, because it ignores anything supra-indidividual, and tries to "bound" Man to the inferior realm of materiality. The shadow is the most ludicrous of all Jungian concept by the way. If you check the archive I wrote an extensive essay on the nature of the Shadow and the obsession some Jungians have with this bogus concept. I wrote it around 2016 iirc. When I read Jung, I never put much emphasis on this concept, unlike the anglosphere who makes an obsession with the shadow, for reasons that are clarified by the study of traditional doctrines. That the shadow is making such a resurgence, and taking such an important place in the reification of Jung's inverted doctrines is not coincidental either.
All of this is intelligible and will open up infinite possibilites of understanding, if one dilligently puts in the work, according to his own nature of course.

[Anonymous No.16345585]

>>16345398
Can you point me to your legendary archive?

[Anonymous No.16345631]

>>16344662
Check the wikia. I'll spoonfeed you: start with Intro to Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.16345679]

>>16345054
>True masculinity is “ah yeah let’s put Walmart’s all over the Middle East so we can conquer those faggot mudslimes with their traditional markets
>True masculinity is “ah yeah let’s take over the poppy fields so we can conquer (LIKE A MANLY MAN) the American pain market

This modern shit is the same thing as your >I freaking love technology bullshit that is far shittier than any Traditional doctrine

[Anonymous No.16346872]

>>16345679
Yeah let's unpack this a bit. Why should the bestial Amerimutt Empire destroy the Aryan warrior kleptocracies of the Middle East? The US military is full of shudra, vaisya, and... women. It would be eliminating kshatriya castes like the Alawites or the Pashtuns to enable mass democracies. Really trad.

[Anonymous No.16346989]

>>16344662
Doesn't Guenon fucking hate Jung for being reductive to spirituality with psychologization?

[Anonymous No.16347004]

>>16344792
>>16344958
>>16344965
>>16344990
>he's right because he's right
You Redditors are so fucking autistic and pedantic with this "You NEED to validate your post to ME" shit, you know that? Not him btw.

[Anonymous No.16347017]

>>16345054
>Fuck islam, middle east will become our colony, freaking love technology, lets build space stations!
A skinnyfat white male with a shitty unkempt beard wrote this.

[Anonymous No.16347046]

>>16345054
>Fuck islam, middle east will become our colony
Amerimutt detected.
>freaking love technology, lets build space stations!
Heckin' epic based Elon Musk bro!

[Anonymous No.16347077]

>>16345398
>the Aristocrat is not moved by his complexes, he acts purely out of his own volition
Where are these people? These aristocrats who are above psychology as if they were gods? Also, Jung's psychology is not fully individual. There are some individual aspects, sure, but it is mainly collective.

[Anonymous No.16347114]

>>16346872
Yes, using the American military to install mass democracy of the third and fourth estate is anti traditional and what the post I was replying to was implying was masculine or something. It really shows the virus of modernity infecting masculinity

[Anonymous No.16347163]

>>16347114
No one posting ever seems to have a working definition of masculinity from which they derive all their opinions on it, even though such definitions could easily be furnished, made up on the spot, pulled from another philosopher, etc. It's always just this or that is or is not masculine. So of course we end up with people arguing that it would be masculine to get Iraq its first female president

[Anonymous No.16348585]

>>16347163
It's just modernity's obsession with sex.

[Anonymous No.16348670]

>>16346989
yes, Guenon's attack is more directed at psychoanalysis and less so at psychology

[Anonymous No.16348699]

>>16345631
>wikia
link?

[Anonymous No.16349189]

>>16344662

[Anonymous No.16349230]

>>16344953
As Traditionalosts define it, capital T Tradition is the preservation and passing down the message and testimony of revelation from the divine source. The definition is etymologically based on the latin word tradere, which means to pass down.

[Anonymous No.16349234]

>>16344662>>16344682
>>16345080

>>16349189
why do girls and s o y men like theosophy and perennialist so much. Is it some brain damage like nihilism preventing them from separating good from bad?

[Anonymous No.16349255]

>>16345080
>founded on appeals to authority of religious texts and shoddy history and comparative mythology.
nonsense, in his books on metaphysics, (Man and His Becoming, Symbolism of the Cross, Multiple States etc), Guenon extensively documents how the Taoist, Vedantic, Sufi, Kabbalistic etc texts often contain the same ideas formulated in different but similar ways

[Anonymous No.16349258]

>>16345001
Either is fine, but ignore Guenon's batshit crazy solution of an intellectual and spiritual elite who introduce Eastern metaphysics to the West as a means to save it.

[Anonymous No.16349262]

>>16349234
The members of the traditionalist school were mostly all right-wing or reactionary white men, and that is often true of its modern day fans as well in western countries, so y types are not actually attracted to it because it critiques the egalitarian and progressive worldview they believe in.

[Anonymous No.16349273]

>>16349234
You do know that a woman literally invented theosophy right? It was the first new age religion. If she were alive today she'd have a Sailor Moon avatar on Twitter

[Anonymous No.16349326]

>>16349258
>batshit crazy solution of an intellectual and spiritual elite who introduce Eastern metaphysics to the West as a means to save it.
There might actually be a trojan horse way of doing this once 'the West' is firmly controlled by a Googlecratic surveillance state that grants people social credit for doing corporate mindfulness seminars and yoga.

[Anonymous No.16349349]

>>16349262
I think there is definitely a tradsoi component of people who buy books and consume images of gothic architecture in order to construct for themselves a persona they feel is authentically trad, and do so as isolated consumers excited to achieve henosis with the great product.

[Anonymous No.16349429]

>>16349326
That pic needs "I am very smart" at the end.

[Anonymous No.16349701]

His first book is the way to go.

[Anonymous No.16349742]

there's some based YT videos from the community

[Anonymous No.16350572]

La Crisis del mundo moderno

[Anonymous No.16350589]

>>16344662
I have a theory that /lit/ decided to latch on to Guenon because his face is ugly as fuck and perfect for flooding the catalog.

[Anonymous No.16350604]

>>16350589
I’ll do you one better (although that probably is a good reason he is memorable):
Guenon was all about contemplation, he retired to a Islamic commune and had no effect on anything.
Evola agreed with much but decided to encourage action, and was always considered the catalyst for Italian postwar neofascism.

Evola was suddenly being reread and that scares certain people, so they need to deflect and encourage the obscure passive little Frenchie, as opposed to the only thinker who calls for action.

There really is an occult war, and memes are weirdly now a part of it.

[Anonymous No.16350665]

>>16344688
Agreed Jung is retarded and so is the tradition of psychoanalysis.
Post-structuralism largely destroyed them - Jung ends up reducing Divinity to this interplay of sign regimes which he confuses for the Real instead of somehow being indicative of it much like how Freud confuses the Oedipus complex for the psyche instead of merely be representative of some truth about the psyche.

This is precisely the flaw that apophatic theology via negativa escapes.

Starting with An Introduction the Study of the Hindu Doctrines is a good rec

[Anonymous No.16350675]

Oh no no no Guenon bros, how do we respond to this?

[Anonymous No.16350721]

>>16350604
>Evola was suddenly being reread and that scares certain people, so they need to deflect and encourage the obscure passive little Frenchie, as opposed to the only thinker who calls for action.
>There really is an occult war, and memes are weirdly now a part of it.
Yep. Memes are a direct interface to our psychic vehicles. What easier way to layer ideas into the subconscious than through funny little image macros you don't have to apply much discernment to, but laugh and move on

[Anonymous No.16351404]

>>16345119
>You seem kinda obsessed with this masculine/feminine divide. What is a masculine movement in your view? Futurism or something?
A democratic and liberal society, only way for that to work is for the average male to ophold a certain masculine identity, all others are just cope.

>>16345132
>tradition means not being a faggot and think your idea is the best without assessing the pros and cons of the old ones first.
No, traditionalism is literally, reading a bunch of modern authors, not reading anything from the great books anymore and pretending you know everything.

>>16345196
>Like I said, true knowledge is actualized. Has Jung changed you for the better?
I am not a Jungian, but yeah he did, as does reading every great mind, in exact term he made me look at my own psychology in new a better ways.

>I know it did nothing to me, even though I studied his works over 5 years.
If that where true, Jung would have literally lead you into a mental breakdown, because no man can do something pointless for 5 years and survive mentally intact.

So in all honestly you are just lying.

>>16345196
>Traditionalism, first, does not exist. It's not "dogmatic" like some other anon pointed out.
Wow, its not real, but it is also real. Maybe improve your basic understanding of logic.

[Anonymous No.16351409]

>>16345679
>This modern shit is the same thing as your >I freaking love technology bullshit that is far shittier than any Traditional doctrine
I have a question, why do youcare what happens to primitive medieval people who do not belong to your blood?

>>16347017
>A skinnyfat white male with a shitty unkempt beard wrote this.
Not every man is your dad.

>>16347046
I am Dutch though, again, why do you care what happens to primitive mud people who are not bloodrelated?

[Anonymous No.16351493]

FUck ho-yo-urself

[Anonymous No.16351498]

>>16351404
>democratic and liberal society

[Anonymous No.16351779]

>>16351498
Everyone of the people in that image want to ban our democratic and liberal society and replace it with authoritarian socialism.

[Anonymous No.16351841]

>>16351779
midwit detected

[Anonymous No.16351866]

>>16350675
>Shankara is right in that he tries to show that Brahman is the ultimate reality
okay
>wrong in the way he argues his point
hmmm
>Firstly, he does not try and show the reality of Brahman through reason. Instead he appeals to authority.
False, his works make extensive arguments for Brahman being the ultimate reality and cause of everything, he uses classic theologian arguments like the teleological argument and various cosmological arguments, he also points out the contradictions in opposing theories like the naturalist Vaisheshika doctrine and in the Samkhya doctrine which denies an intelligent source of creation. Shankara just didn’t try to build an autism LEGO theology from the ground up based on nothing but speculation. Shankara as a Hindu accepted the doctrine of the revealed scriptures of the Upanishads as a sufficient reason for accepting that Brahman is the Absolute, and then defended that position and attacked contrary ones using logical arguments.
>Similarly, he does not provide a good explanation for the nature of Brahman
His works are like 5000 pages explaining the nature of Brahman extensively, this is simply not true
>It is said to be inactive and unchanging. These are qualities that make it difficult to prove as real.
Why should that make it difficult to prove as real? We can detect the sun shining ever though it doesn’t take action or change from its nature of shining, when we pick up a rock and examine it, that rock doesn’t take action or change into another rock.
>Thirdly, it makes the mistake of assuming that the ultimate reality must be a substance
Shankara explicitly denies the claim that Brahman is a substance, and he explains that this is refuted by the Upanishadic passages which refer to It as pure consciousness and which also negate It’s materiality by saying “without sinews, without body” and as “soundless, touchless, formless, imperishable, tasteless, odorless”
>fourthly, he does not expand the scope of his argument to appeal to anyone but those who believe in Brahman
This is not a flaw, the intended audience of Shankara’s writings are fellow Hindus who are already conversant with Hindu metaphysics, they are not aimed at the popular masses, nor at foreigners, nor at profane armchair scholars without any skin in the game
>Finally... Shankara does not take into account other traditions which demonstrate the truth of Brahman
If this means foreign religions, Shankara was not aware of any that taught of Brahman, so he can hardly be faulted for that

It reads like it was assembled from a random collage of internet forum and quora arguments written by people who did not understand Advaita that well. Advaita Vedanta is irrefutable, there is no amount of advancement in AI technology that will ever enable an AI to successfully refute Advaita.

[Anonymous No.16351871]

>>16351841
>midwit detected
Not an argument. Try again.

[Anonymous No.16351893]

>>16351866
Based Advaita Anon irrevocably and irrefutably BTFOs AI forever. How will reddit ever recover

[Anonymous No.16351898]

>>16344688
Is there a good book which explains why Jung is wrong?

[Anonymous No.16352262]

>>16351871
you just confirmed what I said

[Anonymous No.16352313]

>>16352262
>you just confirmed what I said
Nice try, still waiting for an argument.

[Anonymous No.16352619]

>>16351866
>Advaita Vedanta is irrefutable
That is the gayest thing you've ever said

[Anonymous No.16352736]

>>16352619
classical Advaita promotes volcelism and is thus opposed to and incompatible with homosexuality

[Anonymous No.16352749]

>>16344963
This exact type of thinking can be applied to literally anything and thus ultimately leads to pure nihilism

[Anonymous No.16353797]

bump

[Anonymous No.16353816]

>>16352749
>This exact type of thinking can be applied to literally anything and thus ultimately leads to pure nihilism
This sentence makes no sense.

If we are the result of concrete events of a very distant past, then that way of thinking obviously does not lead to nihilism. I am bound by my pasgt.

[Anonymous No.16353843]

>>16352736
>>16351866
is consciousness conscious?

[Anonymous No.16354009]

I've finished my read-through of Ride the Tiger, lads:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK87is-69MU&list=PLSxFMMyM3TNev7rRTkZ1vOggfWZkCfwjm&index=1

I've put all the 8 parts into a playlist... There wasn't any Evola thread up and running (any thread worth posting in anyway) so I figured this might be tangential to the discussion.
Feels like quite the achievement, I'm thinking about recording a short commentary on the book, and then recording some other work, perhaps something by Guenon himself.

[Anonymous No.16354044]

>>16354009
nice job

[Anonymous No.16354064]

>>16354044
Thanks Anon. Feel free to give it a listen, I'm doing this for free and all. I know the audio quality isn't on point, because I'm recording with a very cheap gaming headset, but for my next read-through I am going to try and do my best to improve on the sound quality. As for which book I am going to read next, I am open for suggestions. Possibly something relating to so-called "traditionalism".

[Anonymous No.16354102]

>>16353843
is water wet?

[Anonymous No.16354156]

>>16351779
>>16351841
These >>16351498 types of people are obviously Sanders/Warren conservative liberals. They're not actually "leftists" in spite of what you hear. The true left wants to do the only thing that would change everything, seize property and the means of production from the wealthy class oppressors. That's the only thing that will change anything, not taxing the wealthy.

[Anonymous No.16354173]

>>16349273
You're an idiot. Helena Blavatsky was a white supremacist.

>Her writings include numerous statements that aboriginal Australians were human-animal hybrids without souls, and she regarded the "superior" races as being threatened by Jews and dark-skinned people, who could not be salvaged even by indoctrination into her cult, because they were just bad. Her reasoning for such bigotry never seem to have expanded beyond the level of "they live like savages!" or "they're too hairy!" (she actually said that). She also advocated a belief in a sort of natural selection/genocide hybrid which she thought would lead to the "natural" extinction of all the ethnic groups she didn't like in favor of those she did. Blavatsly also rejected the idea that humanity had evolved from apes, claiming the opposite was the case-apes had devolved from early humans due to "putting themselves on the animal level".

But hey, being that you're on this right-wing shithole you probably think just like her.

[Anonymous No.16354223]

>>16354173
that must be why that one neurotic jewish poster who gets hysterical in Guenon threads is always so desperate to link Guenon to Blavatsky/theosophy

[Anonymous No.16354224]

>>16354102
then consciousness is conscious OF something. how is consciousness nondual?

[Anonymous No.16354237]

>>16354173
imagine just posting shit without source

[Anonymous No.16354249]

>>16354223
Is he aware that Guenon wrote an entire book just to denounce and distance himself from Theosophy?

[Anonymous No.16354366]

>>16354249
Yes, but when he is determined to cause as much drama and arguing as possible then the facts don't even matter, in fact in some of his posts he deliberately writes wrong information as if he believes it, just to make it a more tempting bait to reply too. He always argues in bad faith.

[Anonymous No.16354954]

>>16354102
answer me

[Anonymous No.16355491]

>>16354954
>>16354224

You are making the mistake of attempting to define consciousness as inherently dualistic, and then saying, “well, since it’s inherently dualistic there can be no possibility of non-dual consciousness”, in other words it’s circular logic that doesn’t advance any real critique. In order to debate the subject of whether non-dual consciousness exists, we first have to agree on its parameters as a hypothetical category. If you insist on defining it in a way that precludes you from being wrong it just ends up being sophistry. It would have been more logical to say “all consciousness except non-dualistic consciousness, is inherently dualistic”. And when you consider it from this angle the point you are trying to make becomes completely meaningless.

Non-dual consciousness is consciousness that transcends the subject-object dichotomy, the knower and the known become identical as one self-effulgent infinite Self. Someone who has reached non-duality does not have non-dual consciousness as their object of knowledge, but there is instead a sentient presence which persists uninterruptedly as a continuum of pure self-revealed bliss. This bliss does not form the ‘object’, of non-duality but due to this bliss being identical with the non-dual consciousness itself this bliss thereby is sentient, or more properly, the essential nature of sentience or consciousness is itself bliss.

[Anonymous No.16355504]

>>16355491
brety good post Anon

[Anonymous No.16355714]

>>16344662
start with charles upton 'the system of the antichrist'

[Anonymous No.16355983]

>>16355504
thank you

[Anonymous No.16356056]

>>16355983
hey I wrote that, way to steal credit

[Anonymous No.16356146]

>>16356056
thank you :)

[Anonymous No.16356183]

>>16356056

[Anonymous No.16356203]

>>16356183
>>16356056
>>16356146
>>16355983
>>16355504
>>16355714
>>16355491
WHAT IN MALARKEY IS GOING ON IN HERE

[Anonymous No.16356294]

>>16355491
but the fact is that consciousness is always conscious, consciousness is conscious of something otherwise it wouldn't be what it is.

> a continuum of pure self-revealed bliss
in a nondual state of consciousness are you aware of this bliss? ok, you are the bliss but how do you get to experience anything that is not experienced?
nondual states in my opinion are much like the buddhi state (prajna).

like the pratyabhijna system of trika shaivism even though they refer to it as nondual it is not only Prakasa, but also Vimarsa, a sciousness sciring into itself, it surveys itself and is not inactive, inert, powerless.

[Anonymous No.16356328]

>>16356056
We are all one in Brahman through Guenon (PBUH)

[Anonymous No.16356341]

>>16344662
bros...im gonna contemplate...

[Anonymous No.16356350]

>>16355714
this is good advice. Upton gives you a more recent version of Crisis of the Modern World and refers to Guenon all the time throughout the book. It'll make you want to dive into Guenon afterwards

[Anonymous No.16356529]

>>16356294
>but the fact is that consciousness is always conscious, consciousness is conscious of something otherwise it wouldn't be what it is.
I am not disagreeing, this claim doesn't contradict Advaita in the slightest. Non-dual consciousness is not consciousness that is not conscious of anything at all.
>in a nondual state of consciousness are you aware of this bliss?
Non-dual consciousness is consciousness that is conscious of it's own essential nature of luminous bliss, but in a manner that doesn't involve the distinction of subject-object. This can be accomplished without the subject-object distinction because the sentient experience of that non-dual consciousness consists in participating in its own essence or self-nature of bliss by being that very bliss itself, but without any dualistic relation of that bliss being different from its experience through sentience. Bliss experiences itself non-dualistically, and this experience of itself as bliss is bliss. Some people in attempting to refute Advaita make the mistake of creating their own arbitrary standard of what real non-dualism is and then wrongfully attack Advaita for not adhering to that person's idiosyncratic standard of non-dualism despite Advaita never claiming that it did.
>ok, you are the bliss but how do you get to experience anything that is not experienced?
I don't understand what you are asking, if something is not experienced then it's not experienced, one cannot "experience something that is not experienced"

[Anonymous No.16356718]

>>16356529
>if something is not experienced then it's not experienced, one cannot "experience something that is not experienced"
>Non-dual consciousness is consciousness that is conscious of it's own essential nature of luminous bliss
we have consciousness and consciousness of its nature. i know this elusiveness inherent in consciousness will not be actual, it won't elude of itself but i can't see how consciousness experiencing consciousness will not redound to something at least like bhedabheda, difference and non-difference at the same time which imo is what prakasavirmasamaya suggests.

>Some people in attempting to refute Advaita make the mistake of creating their own arbitrary standard of what real non-dualism is...
can you explain to me why the prajna state, where there is no subject-object distinction, is not nondual in the same sense?

[Anonymous No.16357266]

>>16356718
>but i can't see how consciousness experiencing consciousness will not redound to something at least like bhedabheda, difference and non-difference at the same time
Because non-dual consciousness doesn't experience itself as an other, but experiences itself as itself. In order for there to be a case to be made for both difference and non-difference, there would have to be some difference somewhere. However, when non-dual consciousness experiences itself as itself there is no difference remaining. Consciousness being defined by its experience, experience is not different from consciousness, ("Being the witness of all cognitions, and by nature nothing but the power of consciousness, the Self is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as non-different from them. There is no other door to Its awareness" - Shankara, Kena Upanishad Bhasya 2.4) To say that non-dual consciousness experiences consciousness and to hold this up as evidence of duality is to forget that this is the same as saying that experience experiences experience or that consciousness cognizes consciousness; where is the difference here? Consciousness is not different from its experience, and so this experience of itself as such cannot possibly form a dualistic 'other' which is opposed to or contrasting with that non-dual consciousness itself.

To deny consciousness any sentient experience of itself as such is to change it into a fictional concept which no longer has anything to do with consciousness. Non-conscious or insentient consciousness doesn't exist. This is the fundamental mistake in your line of reasoning, that you have come up with a fallacious strawman definition of non-dualism which is not accepted by anyone, and that in order for non-dual consciousness to conform to your imagined standard of what non-dualism is it has to not even have any sentient experience, but if this were true then it would cease to be consciousness. There is not a contradiction in the notion of a non-dual consciousness as propounded by Advaita Vedanta, the contradiction lies in how you have arbitrarily and incorrectly defined 'non-dualism' so as to by default exclude consciousness from being associated with it. More sophistry. Richard Robinson writes in one article about how Nagarjuna uses the same fallacious debate strategy of attempting to prove contradictions in his opponents doctrine by intentionally defining his opponents terms for him in contradictory ways which are not accepted by that opponent or supported by logic.

[Anonymous No.16357268]

>>16357266
>can you explain to me why the prajna state, where there is no subject-object distinction, is not nondual in the same sense?
The epistemic Advaya non-dualism of the Mahayana is different from the ontological Advaita non-dualism of the Vedanta. I know that some people hold that these lead to the same experience when practiced, but I don't really care enough to argue for or against this claim. Buddhists regard the sentience which experiences prajna to be conditioned and transient, whereas to the Advaita that sentience which experiences non-duality is itself unconditioned and undecaying.

[Anonymous No.16357777]

>>16344662
>Freddy Neech.
Nietzsche's critiques of modern western society contrast interestingly with Guenon's and in some cases they agree or appraise certain things in a similar way

[Anonymous No.16357830]

>>16354173
>green texting a tumblr blog

[Anonymous No.16357875]

>>16357777

[Anonymous No.16358306]

>>16345196
>Jung is wrong in that he inverts the meaning of symbols and attach them to the inferior states of being, denying symbols of their transcendantal aspects.
This is incorrect. Having a psychological understanding does not remove the transcendental nature of the symbol.
It's a risk, but it's not a mistake that Jung makes.

This is good
https://frithluton.com/articles/symbol/

[Anonymous No.16358314]

>>16354173
>But hey, being that you're on this right-wing shithole
where do you redditors even come from
ah

[Anonymous No.16358573]

>>16344662
reminder:
"THE CRISIS OF THE MODERN WORLD"

>(26)we think that if a Western tradition could be rebuilt it would be bound to take on a religious form in the strictest sense of this word, and that this form could only be Christian; for on the one hand the other possible forms have been too long foreign to the Western mentality, and on the other it is only in Christianity-and we can say still more definitely in Catholicism that such remnants of a traditional spirit as still exist in the West are to be found. Every 'traditionalist' venture that ignores this fact is without foundation and therefore inevitably doomed to failure; it is self-evident that one can build only upon something that has a real existence, and that where there is lack of continuity, any reconstruction must be artificial and cannot endure. If it be objected that Christianity itself, in our time, is no longer understood in its profound meaning, we should reply that it has at least kept in its very form all that is needed to provide the foundation of which we have been speaking. The least fantastic venture, in fact the only one that does not come up against immediate impossibilities, would therefore be an attempt to restore something comparable to what existed in the Middle Ages, with the differences demanded by modifications in the circumstances; and for all that has been completely lost in the West, it would be necessary to draw upon the traditions that have been preserved in their entirety, as we stated above, and, having done so, to undertake the task of adaptation, which could be the work only of a powerfully established intellectual elite."

>(95)we even assert that everything of value that there may be in the modern world has come to it from Christianity, or at any rate through Christianity, for Christianity has brought with it the whole heritage of former traditions, has kept this heritage alive so far as the state of things in the West made it possible, and still contains its latent possibilities. But is there anyone today, even among those calling themselves Christians, who has any real consciousness of these possibilities?