Guenon's take on initiation

[Anonymous No.18400330]

What the fuck janny, I was having an actual discussion on Guenon's writings

Anyway, could I get an explanation as to what, according to Guenon, makes initiation so important that if you don't get it from someone else, you're irremediably fucked? This is the main idea that permeates through all his books and he pretty much shits on independent praxis. Why?
Apparently any form of practice that doesn't involve initiation qualifies as mysticism at best and only leads to salvation but nothing more. What does he mean by something "more" than salvation?

[Anonymous No.18400342]

Butterfly wants it :3

That much is obvious, I think thats why no one says anything critical anymore. I think I am the stupid one for questioning that its obvious. I really don't have anything to prove after what she did two nights ago.

At this point what is she waiting for? Give me a sexual post in my direction >:3

[Anonymous No.18400355]

>>18400330
>What does he mean by something "more" than salvation?
I never read Guenon but he probably means you will never reach true Sufism without it, only get a D+ and be a pleb compared to the Sufist coomers out there.

[Anonymous No.18400359]

>>18400330
That was a low blow by jannie
I think Marxists were seething

[Anonymous No.18400369]

>>18400330
>as to what, according to Guenon, makes initiation so important that if you don't get it from someone else, you're irremediably fucked?
A transmission of spiritual influence/understanding from master to disciple that allows the disciple to reach the state that the master already has, presuming that they follow the insurrections on reaching it correctly. The Upanishads say that you need to be guided to liberation by someone who has reached it if you want to attain it.

> What does he mean by something "more" than salvation?
he means moksha, for Guenon ‘salvation’ is just entry into the Brahmaloka which is temporary, you can attain moksha there but its not assured

[Anonymous No.18400371]

>>18400355
Yeah frankly I just want to know if I should take everything he says on initiation seriously, because if so, that means everyone who was accomplished yet not initiated through conventional means pretty much wasted their time and attained nothing (or even condemned themselves). It's a disturbing thought and it's been bothering me for a while.

[Anonymous No.18400377]

>>18400342
Be careful. She has obviously taken over your head

[Anonymous No.18400382]

>>18400369
>A transmission of spiritual influence/understanding
Why can't that understanding be reached independently through specific practices and study?

[Anonymous No.18400383]

Shame you weren't permabanned.

[Anonymous No.18400396]

>>18400383
Go back to your buddhist circlejerk thread

[Anonymous No.18400398]

>>18400377
Yeah its a little tradeoff though because she obviously wants it. I have something that she wants

She wants my dick :3

[Anonymous No.18400402]

>>18400382
Because its like an invisible energy that is beamed from their third eye directly into yours when you are in close physical proximity to them.

[Anonymous No.18400409]

>>18400402
But they got that from another master, who got it from another master, etc, but eventually the lineage gets to a point where the original master attained this realization on his own.

[Anonymous No.18400411]

>>18400371
I don't know how serious Guenon is compared to the Salafists, if a Sunni says something it means follow it or hell, I don't know about the Suffists.

[Anonymous No.18400432]

>>18400409
this is a good point, I think only teachers say "you have to attain it from a master" because they get MONEY from there Suffi community and hindu vacation places, "yeah bro you will never achieve spirituality without paying me"

[Anonymous No.18400479]

>>18400432
Yeah I'm really wary of alleged gurus who ask for money and unfortunately that seems to be most of them nowadays. According to Guenon if you don't travel to India, Tibet or Egypt and drop everything to live there for ten years as an initiate, you're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.18400485]

>>18400409
>but eventually the lineage gets to a point where the original master attained this realization on his own.
No this is precisely what most traditions deny, they say instead that the people at the start of the chain of initiations received it from God as a revealed teaching which they in no regard “realized” on their own unless you take realization to mean honing in on the pre-existent scripture God is sending to them like a radio signal

[Anonymous No.18400489]

>>18400485
But we have access to scripture and practices too. Why could those masters receive initiation from God, but we can't? There have been mystics since forever and none of them waited to be initiated in order to initiate their own relationship with the divine.

[Anonymous No.18400493]

>>18400432
>yeah bro you will never achieve spirituality without paying me"
In most traditional Sufi and Hindu orders there is no monetary fee, if you seek out an actual Sampradaya with a multi-century long history behind it and go speak with their masters at their centers, they will almost never ask for money.

[Anonymous No.18400507]

>>18400489
>Why could those masters receive initiation from God, but we can't?
Because God doesn’t initiate people and give them scriptures will-nilly, but it only happens rarely on occasions of immense significant when entire traditions arise
> There have been mystics since forever and none of them waited to be initiated in order to initiate their own relationship with the divine.
Yes, and to Guenon all or almost all of them were following ‘passive’ mysticism, which is not the same as but is inferior to learning the essential metaphysical doctrines and the spiritual realization of their import

[Anonymous No.18400516]

>>18400330
>What does he mean by something "more" than salvation?
This is what he means by "salvation": "But, when a being must pass to another individual state, nothing guarantees that there it will again occupy a central position relative to the possibilities of that state, as it does in its present state; on the contrary, there is even an incomparably greater probability that it will encounter one of the innumerable peripheral conditions comparable in our world to those of animals or even vegetables".
According to Guenon, after you die, your soul is at the same "level" as it was on earth but on a different non-material plane. This is why in order to achieve the union with God, you have to do it in this world. And if you achieve it, your spiritual state will be that of the "universal man", and not an individual one, which makes you just being "saved"(from "hell" and the infernal states). Also, this is from his correspondence with Evola: "As long as a man desires Paradise or has fear of Hell, he will not be able to aspire to the least grade of initiation".

[Anonymous No.18400543]

>>18400507
>God doesn’t initiate people
Isn't that the basis of hermeticism though? The great work is done alone, it's a purely personal process and hermetic praxis itself accomodates the specificities of the practicioner depending on where he is on the path.
It also exists in kundalini, where self-initiation is entirely possible and a genuine option as far as I can understand.
>all or almost all of them were following ‘passive’ mysticism
So, Meister Eckhart was less spiritually "mature" or realized than a random sufi initiate? How does this make any sense? I just don't get it.

[Anonymous No.18400552]

>>18400330
Initiation is so you can develop into a transcendental state of Being via sacred rites, and it is a higher achievement than salvation because it is spiritually direct action following a long chain of Tradition, whereas salvation is much more passive spiritually so can really be achieved by anyone as long as they have some sense of basic self control over their more sinful nature, salvation is more about redemption and becoming rather than transcending and Being. The concept of salvation is different than moksha or nirvana, which is much more what Guénon would’ve been interested in spiritually achieving.

[Anonymous No.18400581]

>>18400516
Okay, I get the distinction and it makes sense that your achievements in this life would define your situation in the next life. But to me that doesn't constitute evidence that the only way to achieve a state of union with the One is to be initiated by a guru into an esoteric order. I remember reading about Plato saying that the student was "initiated" through philosophy, and Plato himself had most likely been initiated into orphism and the eleusinian mysteries. It's really this whole "all or nothing" attitude towards initiation that I find difficult to believe. Especially since some traditions say you can be initiated by otherworldly beings for example. The concept seems much more malleable than what Guenon described.

[Anonymous No.18400601]

>>18400543
>Isn't that the basis of hermeticism though?
Guenon was of the view that Hermeticism contained ideas in alignment with Traditional metaphysics but that it was not a complete tradition, lacking an initiatory chain and so on. So you could perhaps do it, but the perspective of Guenon etc is that this wont lead to the same sublime heights as initiation into a genuine tradition.
> So, Meister Eckhart was less spiritually "mature" or realized than a random sufi initiate? How does this make any sense? I just don't get it.
Do we really know for sure that Meister Eckhart was never initiated into anything? In any case the random Sufi initiate would only be an equal or higher if he had actually had the corresponding spiritual realizations that are the fruit of joining a tradition and following their teachings under the guidance of a teacher, being initiated itself does not make you enlightened.

[Anonymous No.18400620]

>>18400543
>It also exists in kundalini, where self-initiation is entirely possible and a genuine option as far as I can understand.
Kundalini is not a school or sect but is a type of practice that somebody would typically be taught after they had already joined a Hindu tradition and linked up with a teacher of it who could also teach them kundalini. It’s been so tainted by new-age material that I would not trust anything Kundalini-related unless I heard it spoken about in-person to me by a living teacher of it who was guiding me in it.

[Anonymous No.18400669]

>>18400493
>power only comes as cash
>minarets build themselves
>you must speak allow or no one would know what is expected of them to give
These are odd implications.

[Anonymous No.18400670]

>>18400601
What was Guenon's criteria to judge whether something was aligned to genuine tradition or not? Hermeticism is pretty much the main basis for western esotericism as a whole. Isn't he taking the problem by the wrong end by saying "it's not traditional because it doesn't have a chain of initiation" (that is assuming Hermes Trismegistus was a fabrication in the first place)?
>this wont lead to the same sublime heights
The goal is the philosopher's stone or refinement of the light body into a "jewel" which sounds extremely similar to the highest attainments in some branches of tantric Hinduism and Buddhism; what is it lacking?
>Do we really know for sure that Meister Eckhart was never initiated into anything?
Again I feel like this is taking the problem in reverse, it's obvious from his writings that Eckhart was one of the most accomplished mystics in the western tradition and that to reach that level would take immense dedication. I mean you can assume that everyone who attains a high level of realization was initiated, but it's a bit of a leap in reasoning. Whether or not his writings are valuable is a controversial subject, but Jung for example derived his knowledge from his own investigations into the self.
>>18400620
Yes it's not a sect but as far as I know it's a tantric method used to reach moksha, and it's theoretically possible to be initiated by deities instead of men to the practice of kundalini. Not saying it's common, recommended, or anything else, just that it's possible.

[Anonymous No.18400693]

>>18400669
what are you talking about? Its not clear

[Anonymous No.18400699]

>>18400581
>It's really this whole "all or nothing" attitude towards initiation that I find difficult to believe.
This attitude of Guenon should be understood in the context of the time in which he lived. On the one hand, it was full of pseudo-spiritual people which claimed to be initiated but they had no acces to any initiatic chain, and on the other hand, the exoterists almost forgot that initiation was a thing.
I also heard that there is a path of self-initiation in hinduism but I don't know anything about it, so I can't trust it. Also, considering the fact that all religions have an initiatic chain or at least they used to have, it is clear to me that the higher states of being can be achieved only like this. If not, what would be the role of initiatic groups? I see that you mentioned hermeticism, Guenon also talked about it and I am pretty sure that he considered this path to be linked with initiation.

[Anonymous No.18400735]

>>18400699
I understand Guenon's disdain for theosophy, new age, thelema and whatever else. I just think this obsession with initiatic lineages (most of which are dead anyway) is counter-productive. My own example is telling since here I am getting worried over this instead of actually practicing something.
>all religions have an initiatic chain
The point of secret knowledge was to not let it fall into anyone's hands, wasn't it? I think the whole point of esotericism is that you only access the knowledge you're ready to access, and having a chain of initiation makes this easier since you can "filter" people.
>linked with initiation
The great work as I understand it can be undertaken alone. I don't claim to be an expert on hermeticism, far from it, but from what I've researched so far, although hermetic orders have existed, alchemy as a process of "self-refinement" and spiritual realization can be done alone and the steps are outlined in the hermetic corpus (Jung also commented extensively on them and made them more accessible in our era of modernity, which may be a good thing or a bad thing).

[Anonymous No.18400820]

>>18400693
>speak with their masters at their centers, they will almost never ask for money.
It's just so odd that they somehow still get money. That they develop this control over young men and boys. But there must be nothing to it. Those paintings were probably about something else. I'm sure there is nothing scandalous in centuries of such history.

[Anonymous No.18400842]

>>18400735
I don't think that the hermeticists of the Middle Ages took this path on their own, without a teacher. I am not an expert on hermeticism either but this idea is in contradiction with all the other spiritual paths so it seems obvious to me that is wrong.
>Jung
Jung was in Guenon's eyes, without any exaggeration, a satanist. He basically made a caricature out of religion and tried to explain everything with his theories about the psyche, which have nothing to do with the spiritual domain. I see that you posted a pic of The Reign of Quantity, Guenon wrote in there the dangers of this type of things. So I really don't see why you would trust Jung, he is no better than those theosophists who wrote about Vedanta, Buddhism, etc. and understood nothing of them.

[Anonymous No.18400886]

>>18400842
I don't know. I haven't read about the initiatic tradition in hermeticism, maybe there were lineages and so on but even then, as I said, it can still be undertaken alone and isn't the only path with a self-initiatic component.
>tried to explain everything with his theories about the psyche
This thing about Jung being a reductionist and assimilating everything to psychological phenomena is wrong, he definitely did not believe spirituality was merely a projection of the unconscious, at least that's what transpires from his more enigmatic writings. I'm not really into that but I'm fairly certain Jung was an actual gnostic, and his interest for alchemy was more than just a way to symbolically express his psychoanalytic theories. I think people misunderstand and assume the reverse: it's not that he tried to explain psychology through religious symbolism, it's more that he tried to adapt religion to the modern era through psychology.

[Anonymous No.18400931]

>>18400886
>it's more that he tried to adapt religion to the modern era through psychology
Well yeah and that is wrong. I am not interested in continuing this conversation on this topic so I suggest you to read or reread Guenon's writings about psychoanalysis, the fissures in the great wall, sacred vs profane science, etc. It is all in there and I have nothing new to add.

[Anonymous No.18400939]

>>18400330
>Apparently any form of practice that doesn't involve initiation qualifies as mysticism at best and only leads to salvation but nothing more. What does he mean by something "more" than salvation?

he means buddhist annihilation

deliverance = buddhist annihilation and the best thing evar!!!

salvation = normies going to heaven and believing in God

[Anonymous No.18400940]

>>18400931
I read Guenon's argument against psychoanalysis and found it unconvincing.
>that is wrong
Since he managed to more or less revive the alchemical tradition, I don't think so. But whatever.

[Anonymous No.18400957]

>>18400939
>individuality as such subsists
Well, yes. That's the whole point, union with God was never about destruction. But I think he knows this, otherwise he wouldn't have used the term "supreme identity". His wording is ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.18400964]

>>18400940
>Since he managed to more or less revive the alchemical tradition, I don't think so.
This is like saying that Varg Vikernes revived the odinist tradition lmao, is hilarious. Be honest man, you just find Jung "interesting" and you fool yourself into believing that he was right.

[Anonymous No.18400978]

>>18400382
because it is the external manifestation of an internal event : you become able to attain realization and this good tendency manifest itself. From another point of view God gives you the necessary help. Why does it have to get manifested and why do you have to get helped ? Because without this fruit there can't be another tree and because without a proper ground, there can be no growing of the seed. Or if there is a seed without the fruit protecting and nurishing it, the seed will die off without flowering.
Also, it just is like that. The immense majority of humanity is unable to initiate itself. Even if Guénon doesn't reject this, he says it's so unlikely that is should be considered impossible. It is the case for weak men of the dark age

[Anonymous No.18400992]

>>18400964
Not sure why you're lashing out, your comparison makes absolutely no sense and you're strawmanning for no reason. I thought you weren't interested in continuing this conversation?
>fool yourself into believing that he was right
I've given Guenon the benefit of the doubt, but it seems to me that the one who's fooling himself is the one who believes you need to receive an initiation according to specific (and honestly pretty arbitrary) requirements otherwise you're not doing real spirituality.

[Anonymous No.18401004]

>>18400978
>From another point of view God gives you the necessary help.
Yes. Why does this help have to manifest itself through extremely specific circumstances, implying all other similar circumstances (initiation by a deity, or initiation through philosophy in the platonic sense) to be counter-productive at best?

[Anonymous No.18401023]

I think the most sensible practical reason for initiation is that assuming the guru is legit you know you're not being misled. If you do things on your own, or through the guidance of some higher entity, there's a chance that you might stray from the path.
Although traditions, through scripture and commentaries, have made it clear how you should walk the path and how to make sure you're not fucking it up, so maybe it's a non-issue if you do your work diligently.

[Anonymous No.18401026]

>>18400939
>he means buddhist annihilation
No he doesn’t you dummy, the Buddhists dont admit that anything continues on into Parinirvana, in Vedanta which is what Guenon was talking about your consciousness is eternal and can never be annihilated. The eternal existence of something is the opposite of annihilation.

[Anonymous No.18401051]

>>18401004
Initiation by a deity is the extreme extremely improbable I talked about.
And then book is proof you are guided rationally, but not on all levels, so not existentially (or universitarians would be initiates).
God manifest itself as a man, a guru, because he is the Suprem Self that is in the guru, in human counciousness, this Self realized in the guru. The spiritual master is really God himself coming to you in a form you can see because he realized he is God (he is the Self).

Humans are the image of God, because they can be free from the limited world and bear God in themself. With the guru you find the very God you try to worship.

[Anonymous No.18401059]

>>18401023
>there's a chance that you might stray from the path.
the chances are immense for the weak men of the kali yuga

[Anonymous No.18401082]

>>18401059
I love kali yuga type Sissy Hypno where I can imagine myself as the tranny while a HUNKY man rams his cock inside, I open my brown eye immediately.

[Anonymous No.18401090]

>>18401051
>extremely improbable
It seems to happen in eastern religion relatively often.
>guided rationally
Well that's Plato's point. To be a philosopher is to be guided towards the highest good, and this encompasses everything else. I don't know if he was right but the neoplatonists seemed to agree at least.
>God manifest itself as a man, a guru
This really drives home the idea that you have to find an extremely competent and legit guru otherwise you're absolutely fucked.
>>18401059
Starting out with a defeatist attitude won't lead anywhere good. The path has always been a difficult one anyway, that much is agreed upon by everyone.

[Anonymous No.18401101]

>>18400964
>you just find Guenon "interesting" and you fool yourself into believing that he was right.
Dear guenonfag, he's just some guy with a horse face, calm your tits.

[Anonymous No.18401112]

>>18401090
>The path has always been a difficult one anyway
its difficult to not look at Sissy Hypno not gonna lie

[Anonymous No.18401116]

>>18400330
>What does he mean by something "more" than salvation?
guénon fell for the self identification with God of the advaitins, monism, spiritual pride.

Zaehner describs this illusion as:
>There is danger certainly; but only if we mistake the part for the whole, only if we mistake our own soul in its timeless unity for the living God. According to the great Muslim mystic, Al-Junayd of Baghdad, this is not only a danger, but a trap that the Lord himself sets for the mystic who has advanced so far that he has put behind him the fear of God -- who has forgotten that "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10. 31). Such a man will mistake his own soul for God, and in very single mystical tradition, whether it be Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim, this will happen; and again in each of these traditions this mistake will be refuted by mystics who have had the two experiences -- that of the "isolation" of the transcendent and timeless "self" or soul and that of the overwhelming eruption into that soul of the love of God. The mistake is so easy to make; indeed, it is almost inevitable, for man was made "in the image and likeness of God", and unless he knows God either by faith or, better still, by experience, he can scarcely fail to mistake the image, once purified by asceticism and a total detachment from all temporal things, from the living God whom the image reflects.

>... The second type of mysticism is the most strange; it is that described "from his own unforgettable experience" by Buber, and philosophically pin-pointed by the Samkhya-Yoga in India: the experience of the unfractionable oneness of the transcendent self, separate and isolated not only from the world of matter and mind, but also from all other "selves" and from all present knowledge of the living God. This we meet with among the Sufis; it is probably what the Buddhists of the so-called "Defective Vehicle" understand by nirvana. It can be tasted by all men, for this is the "image of God" in the human soul which even Original Sin could not blot out. It is this "image" that the mystic, as Buber saw, is almost bound to mistake for the godhead itself, as the non-dualist Vedantis did, and as Vivekenanda has done in recent times. It is the "trap" that a jealous God puts in the way of the spiritually proud.

[Anonymous No.18401132]

>>18401116
>There is danger certainly
more like danger of being a Hyono slut

[Anonymous No.18401137]

>>18401090
>extremely competent and legit guru
that’s why you only seek an actual sampradaya which has been following the same traditional structure and procedures for centuries, they dont let new age retards and megolamaniacs represent them and become their heads but they are quite serious. Its actually not that hard to find a legit guru, but you just have to seek out the actual Hindu schools with long histories backing them up instead of random self-promoting celebrity gurus

[Anonymous No.18401155]

>>18401090
>It seems to happen in eastern religion relatively often.
Buddha was an avatara and initiated (had lots of guru) also the asians are initiated. It takes several forms but always with q guru.
Plato gave esoteric teaching (we know it for sure), didn't oppose instituted religions and mysteries and was an initiate in the Eleusian mysteries.
Yeah, you are fucked with abad guru, but there is also the idea that no matter what, through obedience, if it's a initiated guru, no matter his flaws, he is the mean to your destruction of the ego. The influence can be independent of the level of the spiritual master.

Yeah, we must no be defeatist, but we must take the practicall way, not the difficult/nearly impossible one just for the challenge (pridefullness)

[Anonymous No.18401166]

>>18400939
>my secret crypto theosophist clubs achieve a higher end than mystics
imagine believing this

how many initiations did he take again? 5? 6? this is the charlatanism of a proud intellectual

[Anonymous No.18401178]

>>18400330
just take some fucking shrooms or DMT and it will be 10 better than ruminating the written diarrhea of a schizo dead guy
I really don't understand you neurotic autists take really take seriously all that useless mental gymnastic

[Anonymous No.18401181]

>>18401166
>this is the charlatanism of a proud intellectual
whats charlatan-like about taking multiple initiations? nothing

[Anonymous No.18401194]

>>18401178
>I really don't understand you neurotic autists take really take seriously all that useless mental gymnastic
you can’t understand because you’re a hylic

[Anonymous No.18401195]

>>18401181
he acknowledged many of them were invalid. can you think a secret club of people achieve higher end than a mystic?

[Anonymous No.18401201]

>>18401166
>secret crypto theosophist clubs
not secret (not crypto), not club, theosophist in the noble etymological meaning.
He complied to a tradition you fool.

[Anonymous No.18401222]

>>18401194
they used to lock autistic idiots and other evolutionary dead-ends like you in monasteries where you could fester in your own self-imposed psychic misery

[Anonymous No.18401226]

>>18401155
Plato's dialogues constitute an initiation in themselves; the esoteric teachings are included inside them and can be gleamed from studying the dialogues. The neoplatonists understood this well.
>the practicall way
This seems to be a matter of opinion. But I want to remain careful.
>>18401178
You're right in a way, I'm wary of extreme dogmatism and I always try to keep a level of distance to not get roped into bullshit. I don't think you can get genuine spiritual insight with substances though, at best they'll show you what's behind the veil but won't grant you genuine understanding.

[Anonymous No.18401228]

>>18401201
yeah name one valid chain of initiation

[Anonymous No.18401260]

>>18401228
depend on the tradition you believe in. But they always give you their parampara (their spiritual ancestors). I would say hindu initiations

[Anonymous No.18401268]

>>18401226
Understanding with the mind is not enough (even if even for this, the help of legitimate teachers is necessary)

[Anonymous No.18401281]

>>18401268
According to whom? I'd be more inclined to trust Plato than anyone from the 20th century, frankly. Although I too am a bit puzzled by the way he thought philosophy alone was sufficient to attain the Good.

[Anonymous No.18401283]

>>18401082
>>18401112
>>18401132
is this a bot,

[Anonymous No.18401288]

>>18401226
reading these convoluted and vague schizo books won't ever bring you any benefit in your daily life.
You will get bored eventually and will just wonder why are you wasting time with that crap. If you are young it's alright to get by this phase now instead of falling for it in your middle or late adulthood
guenon or whatever author gets memed here were still monkeys with ego, wants and desires, with a predisposition for mental circlejerking and huffing farts

>>18401268
>legitimate teachers
charismatic psychopaths that know how to play with idiots coming to them like lambs to slaughter begging to be used and abused

[Anonymous No.18401293]

>>18401288
A life without spirituality is an empty life. I haven't really enjoyed reading Guenon but reading about philosophy and religion in general has definitely brought me benefits.

[Anonymous No.18401305]

just popping in to let you all know that Guenon is open to self-initiation being a thing, just not on a scale

[Anonymous No.18401309]

>>18401305
>self-initiation being a thing, just not on a scale
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.18401343]

>>18401281
In said philosophy in the broad sense. Not philosophical writings... philosophy was not just what you have today, you could not revive they platonist or greek tradition.

[Anonymous No.18401351]

>>18401343
he*

[Anonymous No.18401358]

>>18401343
There's no need to "revive" anything, philosophy is an exercise of the mind. This fixation on the birth, death, revival and perpetuity of traditional lineages is only a guenonian (or traditionalist) thing.

[Anonymous No.18401391]

>>18401358
fuck you.
Pseuds like you are the reason traditions, God's gifts to men, get destroyed. Your talks can't even exist in any tradition, it just comes now as a political and ideological psyop go justify the spiritual poverty they are in (and also their own egoistical tendency)
Only those who know God know of the way, you don't and you listen to them. Unless you want to stay a prideful ignorant.

[Anonymous No.18401394]

>>18401391
Can't even exist in any normal civilisation*

[Anonymous No.18401397]

>>18401391
Wow, you sure convinced me with your autistic meltdown.
I need to thank you, though. Now I'm fairly certain that Guenon's take can be safely disregarded and that I don't have to take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.18401406]

What would Christian initiation look like?
The world today as is mentioned in numerous forms of scripture is full of false information and false teachers. As such how is one to discern the real from the fake? I'd rather follow my soul than fall into the trap of a false teacher lest I stray from the correct path

[Anonymous No.18401410]

>>18401293
>spirituality
we obviously have different meaning for this word. Spirituality should be concerned with your place in the world and among other people.

if you want to pierce the veil take psychedelics, have a near death experience, have temporal lobe epilepsy, take meditation and sensory deprivation to the extreme

>reading about philosophy and religion in general has definitely brought me benefits
it's just scratching an itch but it's like watching other people playing a sport or a musical instrument without you being able to
sure thing waste time reading what some bored crusty dead fart rambled about "tradition" or "initiation"
I won't provide you with my own experiences I lived by since they are independent of retarded gatekeeper schizos and will be more real your most intense experience

>>18401391
tell me one one so called fabled tradition that got destroyed

[Anonymous No.18401415]

>>18401397
>Now I'm fairly certain that Guenon's take can be safely disregarded and that I don't have to take it seriously
you only wanted it from the beginning, hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.18401418]

>>18401406
Christian hermeticism or kabbalah, perhaps? Some would say gnosticism.
>how is one to discern the real from the fake
Good question and I don't think guenonians have the answer, I get the distinct impression that traditionalism is just another jerkoff.
>I'd rather follow my soul
My thoughts exactly.

[Anonymous No.18401429]

>>18401410
the traditions of western world, that westerners stopped following : christianity mostly and it's spiritual path manifest mostly in hesychasm but with now dead branches.

[Anonymous No.18401435]

>>18401397
You want traditions when it serves you, but not when it hurts your ego

[Anonymous No.18401436]

>>18401415
No, I'm serious, I had genuine doubts and talking to you cleared them all up.
>>18401410
>your place in the world and among other people.
That's a part of it, but to focus only on the material is unbalanced. It's also important to focus on what's beyond. Psychedelics aren't enough, or rather they don't really lead anywhere.
>watching other people
If you're not also thinking for yourself you're doing it wrong. Regarding the initiation thing you're right, I'm starting to think it's not a great use of my time, but that doesn't extend to all philosophy.
>my own experiences
Do tell, a tl;dr at least, I'm genuinely interested.

[Anonymous No.18401447]

>>18401436
Doubts about what you want. But submitting to the precepts of a tradition is too much for your new age brain, and now you feel that.

[Anonymous No.18401459]

>>18401435
Nah, the ego is something to get past. Which you've evidently failed to do by clinging to your guenonian dogmatism.
>>18401447
>new age
Sure thing retard, Plato and the hermetists are new agers. You're really not making a good case for traditionalism. The only thing you're showing is blind adherence to dogma because Guenon said so, and everyone who disagrees is a dumb hylic. How original.
I got what I needed from this conversation, let's stop here.

[Anonymous No.18401488]

>>18401459
dogmatism is the fact of all religions. It makes you break you personnal thoughts, opinions, desires (which you don't because you judge yourself better than all tradition).
All traditions have initiatory chains. I answered you on Plato but I don't know for hermetism (and I don't have to). Guénon just repeat what hinduism, taoism, buddhism, christian orthodoxy,... say to give some examples.
Free for you to think you are above dogmas.

[Anonymous No.18401502]

>>18401459
>I got what I needed
An emotional confirmation of what you emotionally want. In no way a rational justification.

[Anonymous No.18401525]

>>18401488
You use the same rhetoric as tradcath larpers.
>don't think for yourself, you're not worth shit, just obey, Guenon knows better because uh he said so ok?
No thanks. I'll keep reading real philosophers.
>>18401502
Quite the opposite, it's very rational. At no point in this thread was a legitimate argument made that could convince me Guenon was right; and eventually, the guenonfag just started seething and calling me names instead. This tells me everything I need to know.
By all means if this is the right path for you, keep going, I really don't give a shit. But now I know for sure that I'm not getting roped into it.

[Anonymous No.18401543]

>>18401488
>It makes you break you personnal thoughts, opinions, desires
just like Sissy Hypno

[Anonymous No.18401564]

too much seething in this thread, just watch some sissy hypno and destroy your ego-pussy.

[Anonymous No.18401582]

>>18401564
Is sissy hypno the true perennial tradition?

[Anonymous No.18401585]

>>18401459
The fact you think you can get a conclusion from a form of presentation of your interlocutor and not from rational points proves you are emotionally driven.

>At no point in this thread was a legitimate argument made that could convince me Guenon was right
You answered none of them. And to say something that will irritate your ego the authority argument, while not the best, is a valid argument in logic. The testimony of saints too (even if it revolves again on the argument of autority). The fact rhe majority of people must be guided (even if it's an empirical argument).

The fact you are a prideful pseud and we tell you that is independant on the fact we are angry or not against you.

Anyway you are not qualified for initiation.

[Anonymous No.18401608]

>>18401582
yes, it is the only true way to destroy ego.

[Anonymous No.18401620]

>>18401585
>you can get a conclusion from a form of presentation of your interlocutor
You absolutely can. If you behave like a retard, you can be safely dismissed as a retard.
>You answered none of them
I answered all of them and asked more questions and eventually it all looped back to "just assume Guenon is right". Guenon isn't my prophet, so this is not satisfying.
>a valid argument in logic
Indeed, which is why I used it for Plato. I don't consider a 20th century esotericist to be in the same league. I was never moved by anything Guenon wrote or found any of it exceptionally insightful, unlike other philosophers or authors for whom I have more respect and whose authority on those matters I would be ready to follow, more so than Guenon's at least.
>prideful pseud
>y-you're not qualified anyway!
kek
You're a fucking retard, I'm going to bed. You won't manage to convince me, I'm done with traditionalism, so don't bother.

[Anonymous No.18401623]

no need for long debates and studies, just put on your headphones or fire up some gifs if you are the visual kind and get hypnoed into oblivion.

[Anonymous No.18401640]

EGO DEATH

[Anonymous No.18401644]

>>18401620
yeah you got filtered. Of course you are not qualified for what you reject.
I answered on Plato but you did not answered me back. You doing that repetitively is just proof you are not here to talk but to prove yourself right.
Just a question, do you at least externally follow a religion/tradition or do you think you don't need that ?

[Anonymous No.18401656]

>>18401644
>I answered on Plato but you did not answered me back.
Not him. Are you telling me he was initiated in the Eleusis Mysteries?

[Anonymous No.18401660]

SISSY TRADITION

[Anonymous No.18401687]

there is no higher end other than salvation. what he wants is self divinization as if it was possible and not satan's oldest trick.

>>18401406
baptism, confirmation and holy communion are the initiatic sacraments in catholicism, which is the only valid tradition after the incarnation of Christ

>>18401418
>Christian hermeticism or kabbalah, perhaps?
lol get this mumbo jumbo crap out of here

[Anonymous No.18401688]

>>18401656
yes. This is discussed by Guénon.
Another ancient interpretation of the life of Plato is that he was of divine origin (Though I don't remember what god is attributed to his birth if there is any) so it also solves in another way the question of initiation (that is a false problem since exceptions can be admitted).

[Anonymous No.18401696]

>>18401687
>mumbo jumbo
Read a book you retarded nigger

[Anonymous No.18401698]

>>18400369
>for Guenon ‘salvation’ is just entry into the Brahmaloka which is temporary, you can attain moksha there but its not assured
why cant you attain moshka easily there? and what about it is temporary?

[Anonymous No.18401700]

>>18401688
guénon is not infallible. he said china would never be communist

[Anonymous No.18401708]

>>18401688
>how could this man have figured out so much stuff? maybe he self initiated?
>no, he must've been a god
you can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.18401709]

>>18401696
back to /x/ with your fringe superstitions and desire for magic

[Anonymous No.18401716]

TWO ways to get initiated

A
1-find master to sissfy you
2-get fucked in the ass

B
1-watch sissy on your own
2-fuck your own ass

[Anonymous No.18401741]

some sissies want a master and some don't, no need to debate and seethe

[Anonymous No.18401751]

About to filter sissy/sissies/sissfy

[Anonymous No.18401757]

>>18401751
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.18401771]

>>18400820
Hindu temples have historically been patronized by royalty, wealthy philanthropists and the state.

[Anonymous No.18401772]

>>18401751
oh come on, I thought you guys are about ego death

[Anonymous No.18401774]

>>18400939
how could guénon seriously believe a bunch of intellectuals together achieved a higher end than a mystic? as in the 'traditions' he got initiated, as in schuon's tariqah (schuon and his followers literally claimed he was initiated as sheik through a dream). you can't make this up.

who initiated plotinus? (dont say ammonius saccas)

if someone decides to forge a line of succession he could delude lots of people that would be deprived of this that is supposedly "higher than salvation". so this means what is "higher than salvation" is purely accidental, depends on circumstances. yeah ok lmao

[Anonymous No.18401780]

you opinion is wrong

[Anonymous No.18401783]

>>18401708
my points still stand

[Anonymous No.18401789]

you know what my tradition is? Slssy tradition

[Anonymous No.18401792]

>>18401195
>can you think a secret club of people achieve higher end than a mystic?
if they are initiated into a chain of knowledge that goes back to a divine source then yes, absolutely

[Anonymous No.18401803]

Plato made boys watch s!sy hypn0

[Anonymous No.18401804]

>>18401222
ywnbarw

[Anonymous No.18401812]

So many wrong opinions in this thread, I don't even care to refute them. Just read more Guenon and pay attention to what he is saying.

[Anonymous No.18401818]

>>18401700
it is more complex. He said China or the chinese state could fall for some western crap but that the tradition within would not. And indeed, taoism did not, and the people is still overwhelmingly taoist/believer of some kind, even with atheist propaganda and government. So yes, china is not the government placed there.

[Anonymous No.18401821]

>>18401525
>the guenonfag just started seething and calling me names instead.
Guenonfag here, that poster wasn’t me

[Anonymous No.18401827]

>>18401821
Guenonfag here, this poster isn't me

[Anonymous No.18401834]

Plato fucks s1ssy bousy

[Anonymous No.18401837]

>>18401821
that poster here, I'm not guenonfag

[Anonymous No.18401838]

>>18401700
>he said china would never be communist
Guenon (pbuh) is still infallible, in East and West, he wrote that if China ever did fall to communism, they would mould it to their own Chinese character and go back to their own Chinese ways, which is exactly what they have been doing the past few decades

[Anonymous No.18401844]

>>18401827
*that poster here, I'm not guenonfag

[Anonymous No.18401849]

>>18401827
I only call atheists and B*ddhists hylics

[Anonymous No.18401863]

>>18401838
East and West was such a based book that idc how accurate it is today

[Anonymous No.18401865]

do it, search it on google, you know what it is

[Anonymous No.18401866]

>>18400330
did Guenon/Evola write about platonism and neoplatonism? if so where?

[Anonymous No.18401867]

only someone fooled by satanic ideas would look down on salvation thinking there's a beyond being annihilationist supra-heaven

[Anonymous No.18401875]

>>18401867
>annihilationist supra-heaven
whats that? brapolonist poopa peeepeee

[Anonymous No.18401881]

analsex supra-heaven

[Anonymous No.18401932]

>>18400957
>But I think he knows this, otherwise he wouldn't have used the term "supreme identity". His wording is ambiguous.

he's explicit in his letters to Coomaraswamy that what he really means is just annihilation

[Anonymous No.18401940]

>>18401708
>>how could this man have figured out so much stuff? maybe he self initiated?
>>no, he must've been a god
Nope. What he said is that Plato was initiated by a Cult.

[Anonymous No.18401944]

>>18401026
he says it's all annihilated in his letters to Coomarasamy, there's nothing you can describe as "your consciousness" in his buddhist advaita

keep seething about pronouns and take meds, tranny

[Anonymous No.18401958]

>>18401178
someone is paying to shill him here, that's the only reason

[Anonymous No.18401963]

>>18401944
This faggot again, one day I will become a mod on 4chan and ban your ip forever

[Anonymous No.18401967]

>>18401774
>who initiated plotinus? (dont say ammonius saccas)

Guenon said Plotinus was badly initiated, even though he never read him.

[Anonymous No.18401972]

>>18401944
>>18401932
so a follower of a crypto buddhism (advaita) was actually crypto buddhist to its fullest. kek

[Anonymous No.18401974]

>>18401201
>He complied to a tradition you fool.

literally 30 years after being "initiated" into sufism by an alcoholic swedish hippy painter

it's a such a cringe turn of the century theosophist larp

[Anonymous No.18401980]

>>18401963
take meds

[Anonymous No.18401989]

>>18401866
in his letters to Coomaraswamy he says he never read Plotinus but by the sounds of it he must have had a botched """initiation""" because Plotinus claimed to have achieved union with the One only 3 or 4 times

a good crypt-buddhist LARPer would have said they have permanently achieved union with the One in this life (an obvious lie but whatever) not just a few glimpses of it

[Anonymous No.18401994]

how to go to analsex heaven?

[Anonymous No.18402004]

Who initiated Abraham or Moses? No one.
Self initiation is fine.

[Anonymous No.18402005]

>>18401994
you have to annihilate that ass

[Anonymous No.18402015]

>>18401932
>he's explicit in his letters to Coomaraswamy that what he really means is just annihilation
Wrong

[Anonymous No.18402016]

>>18402004
no need to find a master to fuck you anally, you can ass fuck yourself instead

[Anonymous No.18402020]

>>18402004
Prophets are initiated by God, retard.

[Anonymous No.18402028]

>>18401944
>, there's nothing you can describe as "your consciousness" in his buddhist advaita
Advaita isn't Buddhist, and yes the Atman-Brahman consciousness is you and you are the Atman-Brahman consciousness

Shankara (pbuh) decisively refuted Buddhism

>>18401958
lol

[Anonymous No.18402032]

>>18402015
having absolutely no trace of you is what everyone except DMT psyopped retards consider annihilation

>b-but the void is the real you

take meds, not drugs

[Anonymous No.18402033]

>>18401774
>who initiated plotinus? (dont say ammonius saccas)
Wasn't Ammonius Saccas his master?
So how can you say Plotinus wasn't initiated?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonius_Saccas

[Anonymous No.18402034]

>>18402020
And the world is a fuck in 2021 with no existing traditions other than ones that have been so twisted and profaned that they dont even resemble what they once were.
Seek Christ, everything else is a dead end.

[Anonymous No.18402035]

>>18402020
god loves anal sex, he invented analsex heaven

[Anonymous No.18402038]

>>18402028
>Shankara (pbuh) decisively refuted Buddhism

he just repeated buddhism and called it something else...pajeet IQ consider this a BTFO?

[Anonymous No.18402040]

>>18402028
read this >>18401116
Zaehner refuted self identification with God

>this "image" that the mystic, as Buber saw, is almost bound to mistake for the godhead itself, as the non-dualist Vedantis did

[Anonymous No.18402045]

>>18402034
>And the world is a fuck in 2021 with no existing traditions other than
other than s*ssy h*pno, just PURE EGO DEATH

[Anonymous No.18402051]

>>18402034
Funny that Christianity is one of the most twisted traditions.

[Anonymous No.18402060]

I can't believe sucking my freemason's cock is going to bestow upon me spiritual powers that will make me become a buddhist. Thanks, Guenon!

[Anonymous No.18402065]

>>18401974
he did everything before going to Egypt.

[Anonymous No.18402067]

>>18402060
its not oral, its anal that grants spiritual powers

[Anonymous No.18402071]

>>18402051
Yeah I wont argue that. Its why I said seek Christ not go to Church.

[Anonymous No.18402073]

>>18402065
he didn't do shit, in fact he pretended like he was catholic to everyone around him and continued to smoke opium

only when he got trapped in Egypt and realized everyone hated him back in France that he decided 'exoteric' is essential and started pretending he was a third-worlder

[Anonymous No.18402083]

>>18402071
seek christ
go to anal heaven

[Anonymous No.18402103]

>>18402032
>having absolutely no trace of you
That's not what Advaita teaches you nincompoop, they teach that (you) are eternal consciousness which continues forever as eternally-free bliss-awareness

>he just repeated buddhism and called it something else
No he didn't, Advaita is different from Buddhism in practically every way, Shankara refuted the Buddhist NPC-like denial of us having a witnessing consciousness, and he also refuted their shabby attempts at explaining an alternative source for the universe aside from God.

>>18402040
Calling something a mistake isn't a refutation, it's a rhetorical attack. Zaehner provides no arguments that demonstrate a problem or contradiction in the doctrine of Advaita, but he only expresses the reasons for why he subjectively feels that they are mistaken or deluded in their realizations; this in itself is not a refutation.

[Anonymous No.18402112]

>>18402051
twisted in what sense? buddhists rarely agree on a single doctrinal point. mahayana vs theravada vs tibetan vs zen. zen is not even regarded as buddhism by some. same happens in islam and other religions. don't even mention hindus

[Anonymous No.18402113]

>>18402071
This is why I stay muslim, there are no priests and we have the same prayers and holy book from the start of this religion, in the same language.

[Anonymous No.18402146]

>>18402103
he mentions other types of mysticism as a refutation of it.

>and again in each of these traditions this mistake will be refuted by mystics who have had the two experiences

what makes the advaita experience truer than that of another mystic? admit it you are just larping with a self-service crypto buddhism you found on the internet. the theosophists have been doing this for way longer than you (they also read shankara and not madhva or ramanuja).

[Anonymous No.18402192]

everyone wants to go to analsex heaven, but no one wants to get fucked anally

[Anonymous No.18402195]

>>18402146
>he mentions other types of mysticism as a refutation of it.
>>and again in each of these traditions this mistake will be refuted by mystics who have had the two experiences
Alleging that someone else has refuted Advaita, but without actually reproducing or summarizing their arguments, is not actually refuting Advaita. It's simply just more empty rhetoric. I am familiar with Ramanuja's and Madhva's arguments against Advaita and I have explained why they are wrong on this very board before btw.
>what makes the advaita experience truer than that of another mystic?
In the sense Guenon uses the word, its not mysticism. If we take it in the generally used wider sense, then my person opinion is that I view Advaita as true because I find their arguments about metaphysics more compelling than other schools, and because I have yet to find anyone east or west, religious or secular, who does a better job of describing the nature of consciousness.

>admit it you are just larping with a self-service crypto buddhism you found on the internet.
I'm not larping because I'm not pretending to be an Advaita monk. I'm simply someone who enjoys reading about it and I view it as true, even if I'm not a formal member of it. It would only be role-playing if I was role-playing as an official member and saying I was a monk etc. And Advaita is not Buddhism but it's very much opposed to Buddhism.
>the theosophists have been doing this for way longer than you (they also read shankara and not madhva or ramanuja).
So? Why should I care? Something isn't tainted because of who reads it. What a silly way of thinking about things.

[Anonymous No.18402658]

>>18402103
>That's not what Advaita teaches you nincompoop, they teach that (you) are eternal consciousness which continues forever as eternally-free bliss-awareness

there's no you, learn french and read Guenon's letters to Coomaraswamy, it's just buddhist annihilation but made more inconsistent because you keep saying dumb shit like ITS GONNA BE SO BLISSFUL MAN

advaita turns out to be peak emotivism

[Anonymous No.18402707]

>>18402658
this does seem to be the biggest elephant in the room when it comes to advaitins. my experience is that there are 4 kinds
>1: not very serious, just vaguely interested in the philosophy, western types. maybe study it for a living and "culturally" value it but that's it
>2: very serious but not interested in big "why" questions - got into the practice so deeply, possibly through their own culture, that they don't really think about that sort of doubt
>3: very online advaitins, e-traditionalists, who want to be trad for reasons not entirely based on advaita itself, which means accepting and defending advaita

group 1 can be ignored, group 2 can be very wise and even welcoming, especially on specific topics they are focused on, but let you go your own way if you still want to press on basic doctrinal issues beyond their default 5 second spiel of "no no no, it's blissful to become brahman, it's not annihilation." they just aren't focused on that.

group 3 is the one caught in a bind because they are trying to commit to trad/advaita purely intellectually and fashion themselves in its image, so they have to really milk those 5 second spiels. instead of giving the spiel and then shrugging if it doesn't satisfy the inquirer.

another way in which buddhists are similar to advaita and advaita to buddhism. from my experiences buddhists are either secular and shallow and don't care, or they are deep in it and equally don't care if you don't "get" it. but i haven't met many buddhists who obsessively argue about how it's not annihilationism, mostly e-traditionalists do that.

[Anonymous No.18402723]

>>18402707
forgot group 4, group 4 is just weaker versions of group 3, people who want to be seen as followers of guenon but don't actually crave metaphysical knowledge

[Anonymous No.18402883]

>>18402707
one question that deserves to be asked is why advaita since it is not the orthodox vedic religion

[Anonymous No.18402971]

>>18402103
This thread is now blessed by Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso. Understanding that Consciousness and Emptiness are non-dual will rise from the ocean of nectar like a white lotus, but only if you post "/lit/ forced guenonfag to read a book" in this thread

[Anonymous No.18402995]

>>18402103
>Advaita is different from Buddhism in practically every way
Please be aware that guenonfag, the advaita expert on /lit/ and number one Adi Shankara superfan, has finally accepted the consensus of scholarship and Hindus that Shankara was ripping off mahayana buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18403102]

>>18402995
Where is batailleposter? He's the final nail in the coffin against cyberguenonianism

[Anonymous No.18403178]

>Bhaskara is positively vitriolic when writing about the Advaitin’s concept of maya, referring to it’s adherents as bauddha-matavalambin (those that cling to Buddhist ideology) and goes on to say that their philosophy reeks of Buddhism (bauddha-gandhin). Bhaskara concludes that, “No one but a drunkard could hold such theories” and that Mayavada is subversive of all sastrika knowledge:

>Expanding on the contradictory and baseless philosophy of maya propagated by the Mahayanika Buddhists, the Mayavadis have misled the whole world. (Bhaskara’s Brahma-sutra-bhasya 1.4.25)

-

>In his Siddha-traya, theVaisnava philosopher Yamunacarya(917–1042 CE) stated thatBuddhism and Mayavada was essentially the same thing. The only difference he could see was that while one was openly Buddhist (prakata-saugata), the other wassimply covered (pracchana-saugata)

[Anonymous No.18403186]

>Following on from Yamunacarya, his disciple**Sri Ramanuja (1017-1137 CE)**also concurred that Mayavada was another form of Buddhism. In his Sri Bhashya commentary on the Vedanta-sutras, Ramanuja says that to claim that non-differentiated consciousness is real and all else is false is the same as the Buddhist concept of universal void. Furthermore, Ramanuja states that the concepts of such crypto-Buddhists make a mockery of the teachings of the Vedas (veda-vadacchadma pracchana-bauddha).

>Another acarya in the line of Ramanuja,Vedanta Desika(1269–1370) wrote his famous Sata-dusini, a text expounding one hundred flaws found in Mayavada. In that work he refers to Sankara as a rahu-mimamsaka (one who obscures the true meaning of Vedanta), a bhrama-bhiksu (a confused beggar), a cadmavesa-dhari – one who is disguised in false garb, and goes on to assert that,“By memorizing the arguments of the Sata-dusini like a parrot, one would be victorious over the crypto-Buddhists.”

-

>In another work, Paramata-bhangam, Vedanta Desika refers to Sankara as,“One who studied the Vedas in the shop of a Madhyamika Buddhist”(referring to Sankara’s param-guru Gaudapada of whom we will speak of later in this article).

-

>Amongst all acaryas and philosophers,Sri Madhvacarya was certainly the most hostile towards Sankara. Throughout his campaign to establish his philosophy of Dvaitavada, Madhva continuously attacked Mayavada, which he considered to be the worst kind of heresy. In his Anu-vyakhyana, Brhad-bhasya and Tattvodyota, Madhva also makes the claim that the Advaitins arecrypto-Buddhists – na ca sunyavadinah sakasad vailaksanyam mayavadinah (there is no doctrinal difference between Buddhism and Mayavada). He even quotes Buddhist texts and compares them to Advaitin works to prove his point.

[Anonymous No.18403234]

>>18403178
>>18403186
>mayavada
Top kek that's what I'm calling guenonposting from now on

[Anonymous No.18403240]

[Anonymous No.18403332]

>>18403234
https://vaniquotes.org/wiki/Mayavada_is_very_dangerous_philosophy

>"very dangerous, these Mayavadis"

>The dangerous Māyāvāda theory set forth by Śaṅkarācārya—that God is impersonal—does not tally with the injunctions of the Vedas.
SB 4.21.27, Purport: At the present moment, although the so-called brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras have lost their original culture, they claim to be brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras by birthright. Yet they have rejected the proposition that such social and spiritual orders are especially meant for worship of Lord Viṣṇu. The dangerous Māyāvāda theory set forth by Śaṅkarācārya—that God is impersonal—does not tally with the injunctions of the Vedas. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore described the Māyāvādī philosophers as the greatest offenders against the Personality of Godhead.

[Anonymous No.18403422]

All these Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, they are very learned, but they'll never accept that God has form. They say it is kalpanā, it is imagination. >So Caitanya Mahāprabhu has designated them very, very dangerous, these Māyāvādīs.
Lecture on SB 7.6.10 -- Vrndavana, December 12, 1975: Just like you are praying that śūnyavādi, nirviśeṣa śūnyavādi, pāścātya deśa tāriṇe. These two, very dangerous position, nirviśeṣa. The Buddhists, they say there is no God, śūnyavādi. "Everything, at the end, everything is zero. You have got this body. When this body is finished, then everything becomes zero." Because they do not believe in the soul, not in God. There are many nāstik. Vasu bhūta sa dehasya kuta pūrna... bhavet: "The body, I see it is burnt into ashes. Where is life? There is no life. There is no soul." So this is bauddhya-vāda, śūnyavāda—everything becomes zero. And the vedāśraya nāstikya-vāda, the Māyāvādīs, they do not say there is no God, because in the Vedas there is God. So they do not say directly, but they say, "Yes, there is God, but He has no head, no leg, no hand. He cannot talk, He cannot eat." Then what remains? He is making zero, God, zero, by negative definition—"He has no head, He has no... And he has no leg." So both of them are zero, advocate of zero. But one directly says, "No, there is no God. Everything is zero." And these Māyāvādīs, nirviśeṣa-vādi, they say the same thing—zero—but in a different way. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that these Māyāvādīs, zero-vādis, they are more dangerous than the bauddha. Vedāśraya nāstikya-vāda. All these Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, they are very learned, but they'll never accept that God has form. They say it is kalpanā, it is imagination. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu has designated them very, very dangerous, these Māyāvādīs. He has therefore strictly forbidden, māyāvādī-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: (CC Madhya 6.169) If you hear this Māyāvādī speaking, then your future is doomed. You are finished. Because as soon as you have become infected with the Māyāvāda philosophy, it will take millions of years to come to the platform of devotional service. It is so dangerous. Māyāvādī-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa. Sarva-nāśa means everything is finished when you become godless, or you think yourself as you are God. The Māyāvādīs do that. They accept God, Kṛṣṇa, as God, but Kṛṣṇa's body is māyā. He has assumed a form, with a body which is created by māyā, just like our body is created by māyā.

[Anonymous No.18403427]

>If you hear this Māyāvādī speaking, then your future is doomed. You are finished. Because as soon as you have become infected with the Māyāvāda philosophy, it will take millions of years to come to the platform of devotional service. It is so dangerous.

>The Buddhists, they clearly say there is no God. Zero. Śūnyavādī. So we can understand their position, and the Māyāvādīs, they're so dangerous that they will not say that God is zero.

>There are two kinds of dangerous person. One person is atheist, agnostic. And another person is Māyāvādī, impersonalist. Nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādī.

[Anonymous No.18403486]

>>18402658
>learn french and read Guenon's letters to Coomaraswamy, it's just buddhist annihilation
Wrong, you almost certainly misunderstood what you read. I’ve read Shankara and he explains why and how its not annihilationism. If Guenon earnestly thought otherwise, which I highly doubt, that would mean that I myself understand Advaita better than Guenon, and so do all the many scholars who have correctly agreed that its not annihilationism. I think what actually happened though is that you misunderstood what Guenon meant because you haven’t studied Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.18403490]

>>18402883
>is why advaita since it is not the orthodox vedic religion
Advaita is arguably is the most correct reading of the Upanishads which are the cream of Vedic thought.

[Anonymous No.18403507]

>>18403486
>many scholars who have correctly agreed that its not annihilationism
It's theology. Negate your world, play in ours. It's the actual nihilism.

[Anonymous No.18403509]

>>18403178
None of those guys appeared to have understood Shankara that well, some of them likely never even read him. They act like Shankara meant that the world is complete nothingness and has no existence whatsoever which is not what Advaita teaches.

>>18403186
> Ramanuja says that to claim that non-differentiated consciousness is real and all else is false is the same as the Buddhist concept of universal void.
It was foolish of Ramanuja to say this because the non-differentiated consciousness of Brahman still revels eternally and blissfully in His own self-revealing presence. The Buddhist void is not self-revealing, there is no eternal consciousness like Brahman in the Buddhist void. This is actually ironic and hypocritical of Ramanuja to write since Ramanuja’s analysis of the nature of consciousness is much closer to the Buddhist position on consciousness than Shankara’s is.

[Anonymous No.18403518]

>>18403509
>everybody is wrong except shankara, guenon and me

[Anonymous No.18403519]

>>18403509
>Ramanuja’s analysis of the nature of consciousness is much closer to the Buddhist position on consciousness than Shankara’s is.
Rent-free for an entire yuga

[Anonymous No.18403537]

kek:

>Prabhupāda: Everything for jīva souls, all relationship. Kṛṣṇa is one, the Supreme, and all the jīva souls are part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore the eternal relationship is there. Now they are exhibited in these twelve kinds of humor, either directly or indirectly. Jīva soul, a part and parcel, cannot be separated from the Supreme. Sun and the light, electric bulb, and the diffusion of light, they cannot be separated. But this portion is covered. It appears darkness. So when it is covered, that is called māyā, and he thinks that "I have no relationship with God," or "I am God," "There is no God." This is māyā. He is covered. He cannot see. So he has to be treated by this Kṛṣṇa consciousness treatment, and the māyā will be separated, and he will see, "Ah, yes, I am part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa." Then he comes to the direct relationship. Anyone, so-called spiritualist or transcendentalist, if he is claiming that "There is no God," "I am God," "There is voidness," these are all disturbing positions, different symptoms of this disease of māyā. It is disease. How one can think of, that he is God? That means he does not know what is God. If I say here that "I am President Nixon," would you accept it? Would you accept? Any one of you, if I say that "I am President Nixon," will you accept? Why? Why? Why? Why you do not accept me? I say, "I am President Nixon." Why do you not accept? Why?

>You are sane, that you do not accept me as President... That is one thing. At least you are not insane. So if I say, "God," and you accept, then how much insane you are. Just try to understand. How much insanity is there, one who is claiming that "I am God" and one who is accepting that he is God. This is insanity.

[Anonymous No.18403541]

>>18403422
>All these Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, they are very learned, but they'll never accept that God has form.
Because it’s denied by the Upanishads, which maybe they could have learned if they actually studied the Upanishads closer instead of devotional literature.

“Which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so tasteless, eternal and scentless, beginningless, endless, beyond the Mahat, and constant, knowing that, man escapes from the mouth of Death.” - Katha Upanishad. 1.3.15.

> They accept God, Kṛṣṇa, as God, but Kṛṣṇa's body is māyā. He has assumed a form, with a body which is created by māyā, just like our body is created by māyā.
Which is confirmed by Krishna himself in the Bhagavad-Gita

“Though I am unborn, of imperishable nature, and though I am the Lord of all beings, yet, governing My own Nature, I am born by My own Maya.” - Bhagavad-Gita 4.6

[Anonymous No.18403556]

>>18403518
No, other people who reach non-dualism through their own metaphysics that fits their own culture and era end up being right as well, that’s part of the beauty of Traditionalist perennialism. Daoism, Sikhism, Sufis like Ibn Arabi, certain Christian Neoplatonist mystics etc many other men throughout history have reached nearly identical conclusions to Advaita.

[Anonymous No.18403560]

>>18400359
The jannies are tranny-Marxists, it should come as no surprise

[Anonymous No.18403561]

>>18403519
Shankara refuted Buddhism and vanquished it from India, Buddhists can only seethe and gnash their teeth in despair.

[Anonymous No.18403568]

>>18403556
read >>18401116
the fact eckhart or ibn arabi had some experience that appeared to be non-dual doesn't mean advaita is real. zaehner says this happens in every tradition which still doesn't prove self identification with God is right. to this day people debate whether plotinus believed in theistic union or monist self identification. i can point to sufis who preached dualism, same for hindus. same for christians. so? you are cherry picking

[Anonymous No.18403572]

>>18401222
They used to intellectually incapable peasants like yourself in servitude where you could work for our enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.18403578]

>>18403561
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18403586]

>>18403568
>i can point to sufis who preached dualism, same for hindus. same for christians. so?
None of them are considered orthodox or generally accepted by any means. They are usually philosophical/religious outcasts, and rightly ridiculed as such.

[Anonymous No.18403597]

>>18403568
>the fact eckhart or ibn arabi had some experience that appeared to be non-dual doesn't mean advaita is real
I didn’t say that was the reason it was, I already said that it was their logical metaphysical arguments and their evidently correct analysis of consciousness that convinced me

>i can point to sufis who preached dualism,
None of them are as influential within Islam as Ibn Arabi

>you are cherry picking
Wrong, it would only be cherry picking if I was selectively picking them to say that actually everyone teaches non-dualism. I never said that but I merely said that not only Shankara, Guenon, and myself were right but I acknowledged that others had reached this conclusion in other religions, thats not denying the presence of people who disagree, and its not citing those other non-dualists to support any argument but its only an observation that I made in response to your question; so it’s not cherry picking but you are just losing track of the conversation and wrongly assumed I was citing all these people to show Advaita is true.

[Anonymous No.18403601]

>>18403586
>Ahmed Sirhindi isn't orthodox

[Anonymous No.18403620]

>>18403561
>vanquishes buddhism like a washington post headline
>mayavada considered more dangerous than buddhism by orthodox hindu schools
Seems subversive and counter-traditional to me

[Anonymous No.18403626]

>>18403586
>>18403597
shoo shoo crypto-buddhist!

[Anonymous No.18403640]

impersonalists obliterated

[Anonymous No.18403641]

>>18400432
This is basically Nietzsche's take on the Priestly class

[Anonymous No.18403653]

>>18400382
>Why can't that understanding be reached independently through specific practices and study?

Actually it can, sort of, if an event referred to by Guenon and Evola as Self-Initiation happens. Strictly speaking this isn't the result of mere self study and practice, as initiation as framed by Traditionalists is an event where the divine enters the mundane to raise it up. The mundane can not simply climb its way to the peak of the mountain, there is eventually a gap in the path to which only initiation bridges.

Self-Initiation, or Initiation outside the framework of a tradition, isn't something that can be reliably triggered. Guenon only makes mention of it because people should remember that the various traditions of the world exist because the divine, and not the other way around. There isn't a reason, within the Traditionalist framework, that the divine could not descend down on anyone within this thread at any moment and for us all to witness the birth of a genuine new prophet. The odds are fairly unlikely.

Evola was a slightly more open to the idea, although within strict limitations. This is because where Guenon was primarily concerned with the strict delineation of authentic extant traditions, Evola was more concerned with spirituality within the Kali Yuga, he saw most traditions as sparking embers in a burnt out fire. This is not to say he dismissed them, but he saw them as receding over a horizon, never to be regained in their particularity, as the Kali Yuga progresses.
He believed that certain paths that were unneeded, deemphasized, or inappropriate in previous ages, would become the only means of deliverance during the zenith of the dark age.
These paths, whatever they be would primarily be characterized by a heroic quality. They would be reminiscent of the hero's of Greek legend who attained divinity on the battlefield. This doesn't mean that all the paths would involve physical violence, but deliverance through heroic overcoming is the common thread through all his works, despite their distinct phases.

[Anonymous No.18403717]

>>18403620
Advaita is an orthodox school of Hinduism. According to how the schools are classified, all of the Vedanta schools are orthodox by virtue of belonging to one of the 6 darshanas.

[Anonymous No.18403727]

>>18403640
I refuted that argument in that last thread you posted it already and you gave up trying to defend it after like one or two posts

[Anonymous No.18403738]

>>18403717
According to the other quote miner those are worse than Buddhists. Are you saying Buddhism is an orthodox school of Hinduism?

[Anonymous No.18403854]

>>18402113
>the start of this religion
>Tradition
Pick one, retard.

[Anonymous No.18403862]

>>18402723
>people who want to be seen as followers of guenon
imagine the smell

[Anonymous No.18403871]

>>18403556
>revealed religions
>Tradition
pick one, retard

[Anonymous No.18403876]

>>18403738
>those are worse than Buddhists
They are saying that because they are motivated by a sectarian competitiveness where they want their Vedanta school to succeed over Advaita and by wrongly slandering Advaita as heretics they think such rhetorical devices will aid their arguments.
> Are you saying Buddhism is an orthodox school of Hinduism
No, because Buddhism is not one of the six Hindu Darshanas, and because Buddhism denies the Atman and rejects the Vedas. Advaita is one subschool of a Hindu Darshana and it accepts the Vedas and Atman

[Anonymous No.18403879]

>>18403876
You sound like you drink camel piss.

[Anonymous No.18403893]

>>18403879
so what if I do?

[Anonymous No.18403906]

>>18403876
>they are motivated by a sectarian competitiveness
>they think such rhetorical devices will aid their arguments
Huh this sounds awfully familiar

[Anonymous No.18403911]

>>18403906
Orientalists are stinky retards.

[Anonymous No.18403927]

>>18403597
Nothing is as influential within Islam as obeying the Infidels.

[Anonymous No.18403936]

>>18403738
Not him, but, from my brief research the Hindus that are, at least, most outspoken against Mayavada all seem to be from ISKCON. I am sure there are a few other groups, but just googling the term Mayavada mostly brings up ISKCON adjacent website quoting their own text's refutations of Sankara.

[Anonymous No.18403961]

>>18403936
You sound like a retard searching bits of food in a bucket full of camel shit.

[Anonymous No.18404004]

>>18403961
You sound like an ESLchad whose only frame of reference is the camel he lost his virginity to.

[Anonymous No.18404019]

>>18404004
>orientalist
>telling you're not obsessed with camels, but normal people are
Nice projection, retard.

[Anonymous No.18404053]

>>18404019
>I'm an orientalist
Because I commented in this thread? If that is the case you can't be a normal person because you are commenting here too.

I think you are angry at someone else further up the thread, or maybe you are always like this. Honestly no idea what your issue is.

[Anonymous No.18404073]

>>18404053
>making fun of orientalist retards
>"angry" at "someone"
You stinky orientalists are so bad at trying to look respectable...
LOL

[Anonymous No.18404090]

>>18404073
Okay. You are just baiting then. See ya later and enjoy your camel obsession, ESL.

[Anonymous No.18404109]

>>18404090
Keep being a stinky orientalist, loser.
LOL

[Anonymous No.18404260]

>224 posts
>28 posters
This board is pathetic

[Anonymous No.18404298]

>>18402071
How do you seek Christ without the church? Become some kind of neognostic like Jung?

[Anonymous No.18404304]

>>18402995
>>18403102
I wish people would focus more on Guenon's retarded takes on tradition instead of obsessing about advaita bullshit

[Anonymous No.18404308]

>>18403556
>people who reach non-dualism through their own metaphysics that fits their own culture and era end up being right
...Except if they did it by themselves and without a guru, right?

[Anonymous No.18404321]

>>18403653
Instead of worrying about this, you could just read actual scripture and focus on your own spiritual path.

[Anonymous No.18404896]

Rene Guenon’s library has 3,000 volumes. A detailed inventory has been established. There are many works of metaphysics and ancient and modern philosophy, grammars and dictionaries of most Eastern and Far Eastern languages and dialects, including a grammar of the Sanskrit language, in Latin, published in 1832 in Berlin, an English Sanskrit dictionary, published in Bombay in 1912; and a small Marathi-English dictionary (Bombay 1888).

About fifty works on Islam, - (Among the oldest - an old volume of Chrœstomatia Qorani Arabica by Nollino, published in Leipzig in 1893 - and a Grammar of Arabic by Savary, published in Paris in 1813 )

About fifty books on China including some original editions on rice paper.

About fifty books also dealing with Hebraism, some of which are in Hebrew - We should mention the Latin translation of the Zohar and Sefer Yetzirah, a small bound book dating from 1552, of which there is only one copy in the world, that of the National Library.

Nearly two hundred books on Freemasonry, including the Chronology of the History of FM in 2 volumes, bound, published in Paris in 1815 and the Essay on Freemasonry by JL Laurens published in Paris in 1806.

Nearly four hundred works about India, Tibet, Hinduism, etc.

A series of works on Spiritualism, Martinism, Hermeticism, Theosophy, Rosicrucians, Cathars, Alchemy, Astrology, Philosophy of Numbers (The Numbers in four volumes published in Paris in 1644), Magic (such as the Infernal Dictionary by J. Collin de Plancy - Paris 1863).

Don Quixote de la Manca in 4 volumes, published in Madrid 1782. - Les Caractères de la Bruyère - Paris 1790. - Rules and secret statutes of the Templars, –1840. - The New Testament in Syriac and Latin - Paris 1863. - Phytogmonica Jo Baptistæ (in Latin) - Frankfurt 1591. - History of the Oracles, by Monsieur de Fontenelle - Paris 1707 Interviews with Phocion, by A. Mably - Amsterdam 1767. - Mytho-hermetic dictionary - Joseph Pernety - Paris 1758. - Amphitheatrum Sapientiæ Æternum, by henrico Konrathlips, 1690. - A Chaldean manuscript - Book of prayers from the 18th century. A leaflet type manuscript (probably Thibetian).

Different series of journals complete the Library, such as The Blue Lotus since the year of its publication in 1894, The Initiation since 1889, Psyche since 1917, the complete collection of the Veil of Isis and Traditional studies. The names of Matgioi, Stanislas de Guaita, Martinès de Pasqually, Sédir, Papus, Burnouf, Eliphas Lévy, Saint Yves d´Alveydres, and other well-known esotericists are abundantly represented in them. Among the more recent books, many bear the dedication of René Guénon.

From: Igor Volkoff, Journey through the library of René Guénon


Imagine thinking that you can refute Guenon lmao.

[Anonymous No.18404914]

guenonfag continues to lose arguments in every thread

[Anonymous No.18404951]

>>18404896
>the Infernal Dictionary by J. Collin de Plancy - Paris 1863

[Anonymous No.18405015]

>>18403486

[Anonymous No.18405116]

>>18404896
>he owned a lot of books so he was smart
that's a new low for guenonfag
>>18405015
kek, guenon was an annihilationist confirmed

[Anonymous No.18405228]

>>18403653
Interesting.
Indeed the more time passes, the most difficult it becomes and the more heroic personal purification is needed, since the ancient helps fades away.

[Anonymous No.18405236]

>>18401812
this

[Anonymous No.18405238]

>>18405236
>I won't explain why you're wrong, just read more
Guenon and his followers are fucking retarded
Stay delusional

[Anonymous No.18405254]

>>18405238
you are just a troll or angry, or both

[Anonymous No.18405257]

>>18404896
Ibn Arabi refutes him. And Ibn Arabi is the guy Guenon thought was closest to Advaita within Islam, except that Guenon never even read him, as is shown by the lack of books he had by him in his library.

[Anonymous No.18405260]

>>18405238
There is no guenon followers, since those who agree with Guénon just enter into a tradition.

[Anonymous No.18405261]

>>18405257

[Anonymous No.18405278]

>>18405261
nice

[Anonymous No.18405306]

The superior Rene (Girard) already BTFO satanic monistic pridefulness in his first book, Deceit, Desire and the Novel.

[Anonymous No.18405310]

>>18405306

[Anonymous No.18405316]

>>18405310

[Anonymous No.18405321]

>>18405316

[Anonymous No.18405323]

>>18405321

[Anonymous No.18405326]

>>18405260
Traditions are necessary because making a religion from scratch is impossible and stupid
The autistic initiation shit is retarded

[Anonymous No.18405328]

>>18405323

[Anonymous No.18405329]

>>18405328

[Anonymous No.18405334]

>>18405329
/lit/ doesn't believe your satanic delusions...monistic pridefulness is a cancer that has been debunked in every thread but guenonfag is too prideful to accept it

[Anonymous No.18405341]

>>18405326
>Traditions are necessary because making a religion from scratch is impossible and stupid
I agree with you.
But at the same time, all religions, if not modern, have rites of initiation. Even in catholicism, the link with a spiritual father is considered necessary (and I have read this in Theresa of Avila). Initiation can be as simple as a spiritual master teaching you a prayer and giving you a blessing, his guidance can be simple or complex.
It's just the proof you are integrated into a living tradition, since all traditions have this at some point.

[Anonymous No.18405353]

guenonfag wants you to become THIS

[Anonymous No.18405354]

>>18405341
Yeah, but self-initiation is a thing. You don't need to be initiated by a master into an esoteric lineage (they don't even exist in christianity anymore, to take your example)

[Anonymous No.18405367]

>>18405334
>The affirmation of the self ends in the negation of the self.
Of course, it ends in the negation of the limitative form of the ego.
>De rouge-
De Rougemont I suppose. Quoting him on this matter shows the western point of view since Rougemont blames the Orient for the western world fall in modern passion.

The westerns can't rationaly explain pure spirituality and their rationalism get them mad. They call everyone "pantheist", including orthodoxy and hesychasm. They get scandalizd by the term "deification" even if it was used by all the christian until at least Thomas Aquinas. There is nothing new in it.

[Anonymous No.18405401]

>>18405354
Yes, you will get initiated at some point.

Then according to the tradition there will be some kind of secret : in hinduism you can't talk about the prayer or yantra the spiritual master gives you, in orthodoxy you can't talk about your relation with the spiritual father (your thoughts, what you tell him,...) that is strictly personnal as well as the prayer some times nor can't show some things to non-christians (liturgy and communion) and like in catholicism, you can't talk about the visions you get. In catholicism also there is the secret of confession.
Depending of the tradition and of the level of what is considered as initiation for some given tradition, there will always be some secret. No absolute secret, though.
Esoterism/interiority, is inevitable. Lineage neither (catholicism, still as priestly and thus spiritual confessor lineage). The question is just in what lineage, tradition do you believe in.

[Anonymous No.18405435]

I am sure that the majority of this haters of Guenon and non-dualism are lazy normies who want to live a "normal life" so they are triggered when authors like Guenon call for total devotion to a tradition and leaving all modern fallacies behind. Same for those who are against the concept of initiation, it is too hard for them to look for actual initiatic groups, especially if it means to move from their current countries, so they try to find everywhere something that can prove their idea of self-initiation. You are all pathetic.

[Anonymous No.18405438]

>>18405435
Ok projecting consoomer
Fuck off and go larp somewhere else

[Anonymous No.18405442]

>>18405401
*has

[Anonymous No.18405445]

>>18405354
Actually I just read the first 20 pages of his 'Insights into Christian Mysticism' and he said that initiation is pretty much dead as it is all now exoterism but it still exists somewhat with Hesychasm and as such probably other institutions of this nature (e.g. Martinism)

[Anonymous No.18405450]

>>18405367
tl;dr you're seething about pronouns

[Anonymous No.18405461]

>>18405450
wut ?
I don't understand your epic trolling

[Anonymous No.18405462]

>>18405401
Well the point is that any legitimate tradition, even if it's dead, provides you with the tools to realize the truth. I'm not arguing against the importance of secrecy, but against that the idea that if you're not getting initiated by some specific master who belongs to a specific surviving esoteric lineage, you're wasting your time. This is retarded bullshit and pure autism
There shouldn't even be a distinction between initiation through a master and "self-initiation", there's just initiation, which is available to those who seek it out
>>18405445
Yeah I know he says that but it's a dumb take so just disregard it

[Anonymous No.18405477]

>>18405435
There is nothing more MODERN than being a literal tourist, globe-trotting in search of live laugh love experiences to fill your empty head with.

[Anonymous No.18405493]

>>18405477
kek this
Take a moment to think about the kind of westerner who would go to India to get "initiated" into a religion he has no ties to because a 20th century frenchman said so, and ask yourself if that's really what true spirituality is about.

[Anonymous No.18405516]

>>18405462
>there's just initiation, which is available to those who seek it out
Of course if you seek it truly you will get it. God will give it, in a form or in another.

Now he gives it to you (as for the majority of initiates) in the tradition you are in, there is no reason to refuse it. If God has manifested initiation in your life externally, this is the manifestation of initiation for you. It is spitting on the soup to search something else if you can have access to initiation.

The "esoteric lineage" of India are well-known and are not hidden, the same for any lineage in any tradition. Every lineage having some kind of secrecy and being lineage, if you are in a tradition and don't integrate fully it means you don't make what is necessary for your complete transformation.

The work before complete integration is not a waste of time but a preparation. It's good to go to a liturgy, but then you should also get guided by a priest, let him teach you prayer, confess you,...
Integration means you go inside, so it is the etymological meaning of esoterism.

[Anonymous No.18405518]

what is the best companion book for Guenon? Prophet for a Dark Age?

[Anonymous No.18405544]

>>18405477
>Everyone that moves is a tourist hedonist
>>18405493
Such travels existed way before. In fact it's a cliché of the greek world of antiquity. But was seen as an initiatic journey.

>>18405435
This guy analysis seems true, for some point you are mad at Guénon. But remember he invented nothing nor forced anyone to travel, in the west there are some initiations now.

[Anonymous No.18405556]

>>18405516
>in the tradition you are in
Yeah of course. Guenon's mistake was to claim true initiation is only given in specific traditions even though it's available everywhere. I'm not indian so I'm not gonna travel to India to get initiated into kashmir shaivism or whatever, it would make no sense on any level whatsoever.
I don't currently belong to any tradition because I'm seeking things out on my own for now, but if I were to look for an "external tradition" I wouldn't look outside of Christianity.
I agree with what you said otherwise.
>>18405544
The issue isn't traveling in itself, try to think for a second

[Anonymous No.18405558]

>>18405518

[Anonymous No.18405596]

>>18405556
That is a good point, you can discuss of the initiatic status of catholic or protestant lineage. It seems to be the center of the problem.

I would suggest you orthodoxy, the most traditional form of christianism and if you are american there would be plenty of opportunities.

Since you don't reject the concept of initiation but the fact it's opposed to christian lineage by Guénon, you could find a christian lineage with an orthodox spiritual father.

[Anonymous No.18405605]

>>18405596
Sry for the spacing

[Anonymous No.18405616]

>>18405556
It was initiatic journeys. People of the antiquity didn't laught at alexander the great in the story of his travel for wanting to stay with indian ascetics.

[Anonymous No.18405618]

>>18405596
I live in Europe, both catholicism and orthodoxy are available to me
What I reject is the exclusionary view of initiation as something that doesn't exist outside of a few arbitrarily selected lineages. But you'd have to be dumb to disagree with the idea of initiation and traditions as a whole obviously, since a pick-and-choose approach (outside of mere knowledge seeking) that rejects actual religions is basically New Age, and New Age is cancer

[Anonymous No.18405632]

>>18405616
The context is completely different, to pretend it's the same thing is disingenuous. This isn't antiquity, you're not a conqueror and there are traditions in your own country and culture that are perfectly adapted to you even though they won't make you feel as special than becoming a shaivist or whatever. The journey is essentially an inner one, having it also be external is mostly incidental

[Anonymous No.18405634]

>>18405618
That's a great point of view. Now you just have to choose between the two. But in orthodoxy there is some kind of exclusivism that say the catholicism has no real deification (and there is sometime the same idea in conservative catholicism).
And in both all others religions and their initiation are rejected as false.
This point of view is part of their way

[Anonymous No.18405643]

>>18405632
In antiquity also there were tradition, and alexander is just one example. Others tried the same. It was not to feel special but to sarch for the wisdom of the east.
The internal journey is started with external means, since to find interiority is the objective of the journey.

[Anonymous No.18405646]

>>18400931
I think the problem with modern psychoanalysis is that its too polticial and non-exacting.
I think psychology in general will be largely thrown in the dumpster when we have AI and neuroscience running things.

On another side I think religion and philsophy when practiced properly have a more hollistic approach to solving your problems traditionally in a more meaningful manner rather than saying you are broken with borderline personality disorder do X, Y, Z to manage it was well as taking these mood regulating pills.

I feel like modern psychiatry/psychology misses the mark and wants to treat people like they are broken down machines. Maybe not all the time but that was my experience with it, it seems rather imprecise and alienating.

[Anonymous No.18405648]

>>18405634
I'll have to do some serious research and probably talk to actual priests. Right now I'm starting from the beginning with the western esoteric and philosophical tradition

[Anonymous No.18405658]

>>18405643
>sarch for the wisdom of the east.
Sure. As I said, the context is different now. No need to search for the wisdom of the east when you have millennia of western wisdom to study.
>to find interiority
How does that imply an external journey to another country?

[Anonymous No.18405661]

>>18405648
Good luck, or God be with you.
However you will have to reject esoterism in catholicism or orthodoxy (maybe it can be accepted if you just find prefiguration of Christ in it).

[Anonymous No.18405662]

>>18405646
Jung pretty much just took hermetic principles of ascending to higher states of realization and gave them new names

[Anonymous No.18405668]

>>18405661
>you will have to reject esoterism in catholicism or orthodoxy
There were plenty of esotericists among Christian mystics and theologians, though I guess they're not strictly considered as such by the church

[Anonymous No.18405670]

>>18405658
Pilgrimage is a traditional mean of purification.
And meeting actual spiritual awakened masters who might bless you and talk to you face to face isn't the same as reading books written for a vague group.

[Anonymous No.18405678]

>>18405668
I don't know what you mean by esoterism. It's study might not be a problem but it becomes one when it goes in the way of exclusive love for Christ.

[Anonymous No.18405680]

>>18405670
You could just go to a monastery, like Mt Athos or even one in your country. All I'm saying is it doesn't have to be some exotic tradition

[Anonymous No.18405684]

>>18405643
>The internal journey is started with external means, since to find interiority is the objective of the journey.
Again this is completely vapid modernism, finding yourself by traveling, live, laugh, love. If as you say the goal is interiority it would not be external to you in the first place. How does one pass from the external to the internal? No don't answer—you will just cite more guenonian catechism. With the world being as small as it is today thanks to communication technology, there is no point in pretending to be Alexander or Xuanzang or whoever in order feel more authentic about the information you collect. In fact you probably already know a thing or two about this being a poster on a tocharian tapestry forum.

[Anonymous No.18405687]

>>18405678
>I don't know what you mean by esoterism
Many Christian mystics and scholars were greatly inspired by the neoplatonists and the alchemists. It's not strictly esoteric because it wasn't hidden behind initiation and the promise of secret knowledge though

[Anonymous No.18405693]

>>18405680
>He-Man Woman Haters Mountain isn't exotic
I guess if you are an elderly Greek villager maybe it isn't but I assume you have had a Western co-ed upbringing and the pre-20th century attitudes of Orthodox monastic communities are as exotic to you as Kashmir Saivism.

[Anonymous No.18405697]

>>18405680
For some, orthodoxy is exotic. Anyway if someone can't agree with the way of orthodoxy he can think going to another more adapted tradition is better for him. It doesn't make him a tourist, like it didn't for the men of the antiquity.

[Anonymous No.18405699]

>>18405687
Churches have a haphazard relationship with mystics because they have extra-sacramental, extra-sacerdotal "experiences." The idea of an esoteric Christianity would be a hellenistic/egyptian atavism, not something the churches teach, because then there would be no church, no priest, no Paul.

[Anonymous No.18405704]

>>18405693
I don't think so, you're neglecting the iconography, the cultural heritage and all those factors that make Christianity (even orthodox), its liturgy, its practices and its symbols much more familiar than shaivism. I might be biased because my parents were raised orthodox but I think my point stands anyway

[Anonymous No.18405710]

>>18405684
>If as you say the goal is interiority it would not be external to you in the first place.
Pilgrimage is an external way of taming your external agitation. You don't just have to get informed, you have to make this information your truth, internalize it. Meditation of prayer is just one way to do it.

[Anonymous No.18405714]

>>18405704
I am not referring to the exoteric religious practices and images but the idea of going to bother some monks because someone on /lit/ told you orthodoxy is based or that kashmir saivism initiates non-Indians or whatever bs flavor of the month has come up among the local secular protestants

[Anonymous No.18405716]

>>18405697
>he can think going to another more adapted tradition is better for him
Yeah, this applies to all traditions though and not only the ones with extant lineages
For most westerners it's a non-issue because Christianity is a good fit generally

[Anonymous No.18405722]

>>18405716
>For most westerners it's a non-issue because Christianity is a good fit generally
This rigorous laziness is going to be the death of the western churches.

[Anonymous No.18405726]

>>18405687
You can get inspired as long as it is just secondary and it serves your love of Christ.
But even in this case it is often seen as dangerous and having bad influence (and it is mostly seen like this by orthodox)

[Anonymous No.18405728]

>>18403906
I don't employ rhetoric as my main stratagem, I instead reveal Buddhism for the foolishness that it is by expositing its inner contradictions

>>18404308
No, most of them had spiritual teachers including Ibn Arabi, Sikhs etc

>>18404896
>Don Quixote de la Manca in 4 volumes, published
HOLY BASED, just when I thought Guenon could not possibly be any more based, he still manages to surprise me

[Anonymous No.18405729]

>>18405699
>hellenistic/egyptian atavism
As much as I would like such a thing to exist, it doesn't anymore. You could practice it on your own I suppose.

[Anonymous No.18405733]

>>18405714
>I am not referring to the exoteric religious practices and images
I am. As much as the traditionalists like to pretend that exoteric practices are just fluff and meaningless details, they're not, they matter.
What's your point?

[Anonymous No.18405743]

>>18405257
Sufis like Ibn Arabi when they say self mean nafs which is not the Atman of Advaita, so thats not even contradicting Advaita in your picture

[Anonymous No.18405744]

>>18405716
yes. This doesn't deny the fact some traditions might be heretic, invalid or bellow others. But that's another subject.

[Anonymous No.18405746]

>>18405733
The exotic/non-exotic breaks down when you cross from laity to monastic community. There is nothing more exotic to your daily life than monasticism.

[Anonymous No.18405749]

>>18405733
>As much as the traditionalists like to pretend that exoteric practices are just fluff and meaningless details
They don't

[Anonymous No.18405754]

>>18405632
>there are traditions in your own country and culture that are perfectly adapted to you even though they won't make you feel as special than becoming a shaivist or whatever.
It's not about feeling special, stop projecting your own neurosis onto others

[Anonymous No.18405757]

>>18405744
>some traditions might be heretic, invalid or bellow others
Unless you go out of your way to become a new ager with retarded shit like thelema, or larp as a gnostic (i.e. neoplatonism but edgy and more semitic) then there's really nothing to worry about.

[Anonymous No.18405761]

>>18405729
Yes those are defunct, but the point being that the universal soteriology of Christianity makes esotericism into demonology.

[Anonymous No.18405765]

>>18405754
>It's not about feeling special,
For most people it is, these people jump on eastern religions without even considering the western esoteric alternatives, because they have a childish kneejerk reaction against Christianity without having bothered to understand it let alone its esoteric inspirations, stop pretending you don't understand

[Anonymous No.18405768]

>>18405757
That's still a legitimate debate. To no go outside of the european world, it exist still between orthodoxy and catholicism, catholicism and orthodox, both and protestantism, different types of protestantism.
Yes, you need to be cautious.

[Anonymous No.18405776]

>>18405768
Christianity isn't the only available western path outside of new age retardation

[Anonymous No.18405777]

>>18405765
>because they have a childish kneejerk reaction against Christianity without having bothered to understand it let alone its esoteric inspirations
The only thing esoteric about Christianity is the hidden slave revolt. You'd never know that's who won underneath all the gold and marble.

[Anonymous No.18405785]

>>18405761
>makes esotericism into demonology.
Esotericism as in hidden secret knowledge purportedly unavailable to the common people? Yes, I suppose. Ancient knowledge from western esoteric traditions that inspired many? I doubt it. It's a murky subject though and honestly I don't really care, I know what interests me and what I feel pulled towards

[Anonymous No.18405796]

>>18405776
masonry ? companions ? Which other ?

[Anonymous No.18405804]

>>18405785
If you want to read something fun, the actual trial of Joan of Arc has been preserved and can be read in its entirety. You aren't allowed to have unvetted religious experiences under Christianity, and you never were.

[Anonymous No.18405810]

>>18405796
Kabbalah, Neoplatonism/Hermeticism
Of course these are "unavailable" within the guenonian framework but who cares

[Anonymous No.18405832]

>>18405810
Kabbalah isn't "unavailable within the guenonian framework". Neither is Hermeticism but you have to be initiated into it. When it comes to Neoplatonism, it is already integrated in other traditions, and there are no neoplatonic rites for example, can't practice a philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18405842]

>>18405832
>Kabbalah isn't "unavailable within the guenonian framework".
If you're not a jew it is.
>Neither is Hermeticism
There are no extant Hermetic traditions. They're all dead.
>no neoplatonic rites
There are rites in Neoplatonism, see Proclus and Iamblichus, and you can practice a philosophy, that's the idea behind Platonism.

[Anonymous No.18405844]

>>18405810
So you prefer to try to self-initiate instead of simply getting initiation into a formal tradition, just because it's too exotic for you ?
And you think larping as a lonely neoplatonist/hermeticist is not romantic dellusion ?
We don't have any testimony of someone searching to get self-initiated, let alone if he had the possibility to get initiated the normal way.
Good luck anon good luck.
Of course only the others are into new age.

[Anonymous No.18405849]

>>18405832
>can't practice a philosophy.
The absolute state of this board

[Anonymous No.18405860]

>>18405842
>There are rites in Neoplatonism
Is not a living tradition

[Anonymous No.18405865]

>>18405844
You only think self-initiation is impossible because Guenon said it was. Stop basing your entire worldview around this man, he's really not that relevant. Read actual scripture for a start.
>just because it's too exotic for you
Yes, I have absolutely no interest in eastern religion, I don't share their beliefs and to adopt one of these would feel like larping on a level far beyond anything else.
>larping as a lonely neoplatonist/hermeticist
Funny you'd call that a larp but not the westerner who gets initiated into some remote hindu sect that's as far removed from his culture and psyche as it possibly can.
But no, it's not delusion, neoplatonism as a philosophy can be easily practiced, hermeticism as well, and considering these traditions survived through all western iconography and symbology, they don't feel foreign or exotic at all.
>We don't have any testimony of someone searching to get self-initiated, let alone if he had the possibility to get initiated the normal way.
It doesn't fucking matter.

[Anonymous No.18405876]

>>18405860
Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.18405884]

>>18405865
>You only think self-initiation is impossible because Guenon said it was
Not him, but the Upanishads say that without a teacher you won't attain enlightenment

>nny you'd call that a larp but not the westerner who gets initiated into some remote hindu sect
Well, if you actually get initiated into it as an Indian would, then you are no longer role-playing but are properly filling the role of the initiate. Pretending that you were "initiated" by books is arguably the real larping. If you want to be self-taught and experiment yourself then that's okay but don't conflate it with real initiation.

[Anonymous No.18405891]

>>18405865
>they don't feel
Well, let your ego and your feels self-initiate you then.
All traditions say you have to comply, all says wisdom is transmitted, most says your origin doesn't matter. Most say your origin is part of the ego and you have to forget it as well as the ego.
You got everything wrong.

[Anonymous No.18405892]

>>18405865
Not that guy but I am muslim and in order to go on the "sufi" path, you need initiation. Guenon's views on this subject are perfectly compatible with the islamic point of view. Is not his fault that Christianity lost its original initiatic form.

[Anonymous No.18405893]

>>18405884
>you need a physical guru from an extant lineage to be "initiated" otherwise you're larping
Arguments with guenonians always go in a loop, it's useless to talk to you people. Whatever.

[Anonymous No.18405896]

>>18405893
Then shut up and don't post on our threads.

[Anonymous No.18405899]

>>18405891
No they don't, you're lying and distorting the truth because you view everything through the lens of Guenon's writings.
You're the one who gets everything wrong because you're incapable of seeing past your retarded dogma. I'm not interested in talking to you anymore, we're past bump limit anyway.
>>18405896
This is my thread you retarded fucking mouthbreather, kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.18405902]

>>18405893
If you don't take the way it is intended to be taken you are taking up a role.
No spiritual way consist of only books

[Anonymous No.18405908]

>>18405902
>what is praxis

[Anonymous No.18405909]

>>18405899
>kill yourself.
You are one the good path to self initiation...
You answer anything and act exactly like a deluded person.

[Anonymous No.18405917]

>>18405908
praxis consist mostly in obedience to a master and community (which you don't have).

[Anonymous No.18405928]

>>18405909
>act like a retard
>get called a retard
>"wow you're not enlightened"
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.18405947]

>>18405928
Will anger be your tantric way to self initiate ?

[Anonymous No.18405948]

This thread should be nuked. It is all about social inepts wanting to join a secret club to larp with and pretend initiation is a vertical magical buff. Barren, sterile, desert.

[Anonymous No.18405966]

>"initiation is a vertical magical buff"

[Anonymous No.18405978]

>>18405948
So what's the alternative

[Anonymous No.18405980]

>>18405978
Authentic love for God.

[Anonymous No.18405989]

>>18405842
>There are no extant Hermetic traditions
What about Rosicrucianism?

[Anonymous No.18405993]

>>18400330
As an Advaitin, wouldn't initiation imply duality?

[Anonymous No.18406032]

>>18405980
Prayer then?

[Anonymous No.18406037]

>>18405947
ur mums ass will be my tantric way

[Anonymous No.18406040]

>>18405948
Studying ancient religions and putting their stuff into practice is extremely interesting though

[Anonymous No.18406088]

>>18406037
Your pride and anger shows the extant of your self-illusion

[Anonymous No.18406107]

>>18406088
You're neither as smart nor as enlightened as you think you are, far from it even. Keep gargling a dead frog's balls while acting holier than thou on 4chan I'm sure that'll do wonders for your initiatic journey

[Anonymous No.18406119]

>>18405989
Well?

[Anonymous No.18406121]

>>18406107
at least try not saying such things as "kill yourself" and then search initiation.

[Anonymous No.18406144]

>>18406121
Sorry I used rude words on a Kazakh tapestry weaving chatroom

[Anonymous No.18406145]

>>18405743
Have you read Ibn Arabi?

[Anonymous No.18406152]

With every post guenonfag loses followers.

Don't fall for the satanic secret buddhism psyop.

[Anonymous No.18406153]

>>18405948
Is it wrong to operate under the assumption that initiation is necessary to attain the highest forms of spiritual realization?

[Anonymous No.18406160]

>>18406152
I am now immunized against the guenon meme but I am also wary of calling everything that doesn't fit a certain framework 'satanic'

[Anonymous No.18406175]

>>18406144
Going to /lit/ doesn't allow you anything, anger is counter-initiatic
Anyway you are not able to put your self, or your ego, in question

[Anonymous No.18406191]

>>18406175
Ok wise 4chan guru but please shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.18406196]

>>18406191
you are the self-proclaimed guru, since you want to self-initiate.

[Anonymous No.18406201]

>>18406196
>you are X because Guenon said so
Explain why I should give a shit

[Anonymous No.18406202]

>>18406201
he lives rent free in your guru self-initiating head

[Anonymous No.18406208]

>>18406202
kek all this self-initiation bad bullshit is literally just Guenon's deluded ramblings, nobody but him gave a single shit, even Evola said it was fine
You're a fucking retarded cultist

[Anonymous No.18406214]

>>18406160
>>18406160
Yes but advaita/monism/buddhism is satanic. What else do you want to call it? They want you to become inanimate and like it. I don't think Greek paganism is satanic even though their after-life is pretty obscure and borderline non-existent.

There's something very pernicious about the non-dual shilling and I think it can damage lots of sensitive people. The ones who succeed in pursuing it are ones who don't actually take it to heart. They still cling to a form of the personal self (they are usually very arrogant on top of it) and they have a reified/idealized vision of what they think the advaita heaven is like (ie. they give it attributes when they critique others of doing exactly that with supposedly lower forms like theistic salvation). In other words, they don't believe what they say, and that's why they don't lose their minds. It's all a massive exaggeration of some people navel-gazing too much.

[Anonymous No.18406228]

>>18406208
Call me when, after your spontaneous initiation, you take students for your neo-neoplatonic cult, or non-jewish kabbalist new tradition

[Anonymous No.18406230]

>>18406208
Evola was a pseud, look at the way in which Guenon talked to him in their letters.

[Anonymous No.18406233]

>>18406214
I'll add that I don't even think Buddhism is satanic, despite thinking it's retarded. Buddhists don't lie like the advaitins do. And they're not preoccupied with pretending like the consequences of their logic doesn't exist.

Advaitins have to lie. To themselves and to others, and the surprise end goal is annihilation. This is why it's satanic.

[Anonymous No.18406232]

>>18406214
I agree with everything you said, but what model do you personally subscribe to?

[Anonymous No.18406244]

>>18406228
Call me when you stop being a massive faggot
I don't expect a call anytime soon
>>18406230
>X was wrong because guenon said so
This is so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.18406267]

>>18405993
Duality only pertains to the relative and conditional world of multiplicity, this initiation within this world leads one to end their own ignorance through knowledge, realizing the underlying non-dual effulgent Supreme Being.

>>18406145
Portions of his works, but never one from beginning to end. I have seen enough already though to clearly see that he hints at non-dualism, although not the exact same type as Shankara, which Guenon never maintained but Guenon always maintained that when non-dualism appears elsewhere it is clothed in forms that appropriate to that culture, its context and mentality etc

In that passage you are quoting by the way, that's not even hugely contradicting Advaita either

Ibn Arabi when talking about spirits he does not mean the Atman, but really it would be equivalent to jivas. When Ibn Arabi says that jivas don't return to oneness, that's not contradicting Advaita since in Advaita the jiva doesn't attain oneness with Brahman, instead the Atman-Brahman is always united with Itself and the jiva as a delimited thing can never become the Atman, which illumines it.

The Jiva is not even fully destroyed (nothingness) when the body of the enlightened man dies, but it is part of the manifested or unmanifested possibilities which just return to unmanifestedness when they are no longer manifest, which isn't nothingness. So you can even view Ibn Arabi talking about the soul having its own place for it forever as the jiva in Advaita returning to its own particular unmanifested state that has been accorded to it, from which it never arises again (it remains as such for eternity) one moksha happens.

Ibn Arabi = the delimited beings (jivas) subsist through God but don't become identical to him or merge into him
Shankara = the delimited beings (jivas) subsist through God but don't become identical to him or merge into him, that which is inside the jiva (the Atman) and which "attains moksha" already always had moksha as its own nature, and it was never the same as the jiva to begin with.

[Anonymous No.18406273]

>>18406244
Is not because Guenon said so. Read any sage of the past and you will see that I am right. Evola's tradition was new age shit.

[Anonymous No.18406278]

>>18406273
It doesn't matter, my point still stands, Evola was just an example

[Anonymous No.18406286]

>>18406214
>Yes but advaita/monism/buddhism is satanic. What else do you want to call it? They want you to become inanimate and like it.
Consciousness can never become inanimate, which means non-living. So Advaita does not want you to become inanimate since they say you are eternal consciousness, although Buddhism arguably does.

>There's something very pernicious about the non-dual shilling and I think it can damage lots of sensitive people.
Why is it pernicious in your view?

>and they have a reified/idealized vision of what they think the advaita heaven is like (ie. they give it attributes when they critique others of doing exactly that with supposedly lower forms like theistic salvation).
Do you have an example? I have no idea what this is referencing

[Anonymous No.18406301]

I hate this thread, jannies delete it

[Anonymous No.18406315]

>>18406267
>Duality only pertains to the relative and conditional world of multiplicity,
I have a hard time grasping the philosophy behind this relative reality. If this reality, maya and everything that is sprung fourth out of it (including the guru) is an illusion, how could it possibly liberate me?
Isn't the whole purpose of maya too conceal our true nature, and are there aspects of maya that's better than other ones?

[Anonymous No.18406320]

>>18406301
yes, horrible thread with horrible OP and trolls

[Anonymous No.18406369]

>>18406267
I've read way more Ibn Arabi then you and it's emphatic he's not saying what Shankara and Guenon are saying. Every serious Ibn Arabi scholar points this out from the start. Memory and personal identity are preserved

>So you can even view Ibn Arabi talking about the soul having its own place for it forever as the jiva in Advaita returning to its own particular unmanifested state that has been accorded to it, from which it never arises again (it remains as such for eternity) one moksha happens.

You're not talking about Ibn Arabi.

[Anonymous No.18406372]

>>18406369
Everyone is an idiot except guenonfag, according to him.

[Anonymous No.18406378]

>>18406372

[Anonymous No.18406384]

>>18406315
Try reading Adi Shankara's writings or a book on Advaita for an explanation of all these sorts of questions, they are basically all already anticipated and addressed by Advaitins. You may end up being surprised at how logical and intuitive it is when you read through Shankara's commentaries.

>I have a hard time grasping the philosophy behind this relative reality. If this reality, maya and everything that is sprung fourth out of it (including the guru) is an illusion, how could it possibly liberate me?
You are already liberated, but this is covered up by ignorance (arising from or caused by the Lord's power) that superimposes the false notion of embodiment, doership, agentship, bondage, etc over this liberation, overlaying it with a false presentation that you are engrossed in and take to be reality. The ever-constant liberation is like the sun that is shining even when the clouds obscure it from out vision. The scriptures and the Guru's transmission of their teachings merely functions to point out and eliminate the ignorance that superimposes the falsehood, once the ignorance is eliminated, the fact of one's own eternal liberation reveals itself as having had been the underlying reality all along over which the false presentation had been overlaid, like the sun revealing itself after the clouds in front of it pass away.

>Isn't the whole purpose of maya too conceal our true nature, and are there aspects of maya that's better than other ones?
Yes, maya conceals our true nature. Parts of maya can be better or worse relatively to another, but all of maya and everything in it is inferior to liberation

[Anonymous No.18406412]

>>18406372
>>18406378
>reading Ibn Arabi translated and commentaries from scholars
your argument is invalid

[Anonymous No.18406420]

>>18406412
Guenon certainly never read Ibn Arabi in the original. Keep moving the goal posts when you lose the argument though.

[Anonymous No.18406426]

guenonfag be like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsd3kay5HSI

[Anonymous No.18406427]

>>18406384
>Try reading Adi Shankara's writings or a book on Advaita for an explanation of all these sorts of questions
Will do. I have only watched videos from the Vedanta society of New York. But I think they represent some form of neo-Advaita?

>You are already liberated, but this is covered up by ignorance
But if Brahman is not a doer of actions. How did Brahman conceal himself/superimpose maya upon himself? If Brahman didn't do it as an action, Maya surely must be something distinct from him?

>maya and everything in it is inferior to liberation
But maya is at the same time, the guardian of the gate leading to realization? I don't know, Kashmir Shaivism makes a lot more sense to me.

[Anonymous No.18406433]

>>18406369
>it's emphatic he's not saying what Shankara and Guenon are saying
The mere fact of Ibn Arabi saying that memory and personal identity are preserved does not show that he is not an ontological non-dualist like Shankara also is, it just means he interprets what happens at death differently.

In cases like these Guenon would have just most likely said that Advaita was more correct and that Ibn Arabi 's doctrine when practiced gets you to the same state of non-dual realization as Advaita but without being fully correct in their doctrine like Advaita is about the details of what happens after death. You have this weird strawman where you think Guenon or I said that Ibn Arabi and Shankara agree on every single little detail. They don't need to agree on every single detail to both be ontological non-dualists.

In any case, the jiva in Advaita is not "destroyed" but it's subtle body just returns to an unmanifest state where it is preserved forever.

[Anonymous No.18406462]

>>18406433
>and personal identity are preserved does not show that he is not an ontological non-dualist like Shankara also is, it just means he interprets what happens at death differently.

Guenon thinks this is of a markedly inferior quality though.

>this weird strawman where you think Guenon or I said that Ibn Arabi and Shankara agree on every single little detail. They don't need to agree on every single detail to both be ontological non-dualists.

I don't. Guenon claims there's an essential unity and dismisses differences (like you do) but then when presented with the fact that the differences are very real, you claim it doesn't matter anyway. Guenon is explicit that people who think like Ibn Arabi (THE figure for esoterism and sufism in Islam) are stupid and won't be reaching the same heaven. And Ibn Arabi is explicit that people who think like Guenon are inferior and are of no use to anyone.

[Anonymous No.18406512]

>>18406427
>But I think they represent some form of neo-Advaita?
In their videos on Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, and other 19th and 20th century figures, they probably will mention NeoVedantic ideas

However, in all of Swami Sarvpriyananda's videos where he is just talking about the teachings or metaphysics of Advaita, he seems to consistently stick to traditional Advaita in his explanations, and he references Shankara often. I have watched around 10 of his videos and that's been my impression.

>But if Brahman is not a doer of actions. How did Brahman conceal himself/superimpose maya upon himself?
Because it's His eternal nature to do so, like the sun perpetually emitting light. It's not an action which is initiated, its has no beginning or end and is not caused by volition, but Brahman just stands there forever with His metaphorical hand raised, unmoving, while maya emanates from it. He causes only the jivas to superimpose though, He is not affected by it or subject to it.

>If Brahman didn't do it as an action, Maya surely must be something distinct from him?
Brahman is not identical to maya, Brahman sustains maya, it is contingent upon Him as His power which depends on Him being there as the being wielding and sustaining it.

>But maya is at the same time, the guardian of the gate leading to realization?
Yes, what else would be? What would the purpose of introducing another category?
>I don't know, Kashmir Shaivism makes a lot more sense to me.
I also find Kashmir Shaivism interesting, but when I read the book "The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy" by Sharma, he points out that there are many logical contradictions in Kashmir Shaivism from the perspective of Advaita,, and he explains why Advaita is more logically consistent. I have never seen a convincing response to Sharma's arguments, and they have convinced me that Advaita is more logical, I view Kashmir Shaivism as being another interpretation of the truth that is more fully expressed by Advaita. You can read that book here and that chapter on Kashmir Shavism and judge for yourself if you want.

https://archive.org/details/TheAdvaitaTraditionInIndianPhilosophyChandradharSharma

[Anonymous No.18406520]

>>18406512
fuck off, you're ruining the board

we don't need 20 guenon threads every day and the same wall of text hindu spam

[Anonymous No.18406542]

>>18406462
>Guenon thinks this is of a markedly inferior quality though.
So? I'm not a Muslim and I'm not shilling Ibn Arabi, and I don't care if Guenon loved every eastern thinker equally or not. If Guenon thought some were inferior in aspects I don't care at all.

>Guenon claims there's an essential unity and dismisses differences (like you do) but then when presented with the fact that the differences are very real, you claim it doesn't matter anyway.
I'm claiming that there is still an essential unity between them because both seem to lead to states of non-dual understanding where one experiences non-dual consciousness while in the body, this is where there is essential unity IMO, if if turns out that only one side is fully correct about what happens after the body dies, that doesn't take away from the essential unity with regard to how they both lead to similar states of consciousness while living.

>Guenon is explicit that people who think like Ibn Arabi (THE figure for esoterism and sufism in Islam) are stupid and won't be reaching the same heaven.
>And Ibn Arabi is explicit that people who think like Guenon are inferior and are of no use to anyone.
So? I don't care. Even Schuon condemns Ibn Arabi at times and says he is trapped in Semitic modes of thinking.

[Anonymous No.18406548]

>>18406520
I don't mind, but I do think we need a religious/spirituality-board. /X/ is retarded and /Lit/ too limited.

[Anonymous No.18406572]

>>18406520
>fuck off, you're ruining the board
Guenon and eastern threads are some of the best threads here, if you don't like them then stop being a baby and just click on another thread or start your own. I don't even make the majority of Guenon and eastern threads btw
>we don't need 20 guenon threads every day and the same wall of text hindu spam
That they garner hundreds of replies regularly, often but not always with 50+ or 60+ unique posters, indicates that people here are more interested in talking about these subjects than a lot of the other stuff talked about on /lit/

[Anonymous No.18406575]

>>18406572
>Guenon and eastern threads are some of the best threads here
lmao they're always complete garbage, get a grip

[Anonymous No.18406632]

>>18406575
>lmao they're always complete garbage, get a grip
cope

[Anonymous No.18406661]

>>18406542
>So? I don't care. Even Schuon condemns Ibn Arabi at times and says he is trapped in Semitic modes of thinking.

Yes, ironically Schuon of all people perceived that Ibn Arabi wasn't really 'their guy' and tried to distance himself from him. But Schuon was also a child molester (inb4 it's not rape since he could maintain an erection).

But you should care because it shows the weakness of the perennialist hermeneutic. Guenon becomes a Muslim because he thinks it's the best place for him to practice his annihilationist tradition, when the biggest figure of non-dualism in Islam explicitly argues against core tenets of advaita and Guenon. In other words, Guenon is a massive LARPer who doesn't really know what he's talking about.

The people who taught Guenon advaita broke off all contact from him when he published The King of the World too. That goes to show how much of an idiot Guenon was. Not even his own advaitin teachers ended up respecting him. His sanskrit teacher thought his ideas about Hinduism were retarded. Catholics realized that he wasn't actually Catholic and began to despise him. The Egyptians thought he was a weirdo LARPer with a "let me tell you about your culture" attitude. And he misunderstood Ibn Arabi, although never made a real effort to read him. Likewise, he dismisses Plato and Plotinus without ever having read them.

A complete hack.

[Anonymous No.18406667]

>>18406661
>since he could maintain an erection).

since he could not maintain an erection*

[Anonymous No.18406674]

>>18406632
seethe and dilate guenontranny

[Anonymous No.18406819]

>>18406661
>But Schuon was also a child molester (inb4 it's not rape since he could maintain an erection).
Please elaborate on this one.

[Anonymous No.18406909]

>>18406661
>But you should care because it shows the weakness of the perennialist hermeneutic.
No it doesnt, it just means that Ibn Arabi correctly understood how to arrive at non-dual consciousness while alive but he didn't fully understand the rest of all the details of the truth, which is elaborated in Advaita.
>Guenon becomes a Muslim because he thinks it's the best place for him to practice his annihilationist tradition, when the biggest figure of non-dualism in Islam explicitly argues against core tenets of advaita and Guenon. In other words, Guenon is a massive LARPer who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
No, because as I explain above it's not a problem at all if you view Arabi as partially partaking in the same truth as Advaita, there are other Islamic thinkers and Sufis who take a different view than Arabi anyway, and Guenon's Sufi group that he joined was not just an Ibn Arabi fanclub. There is no contradiction is holding that Sufi practices allow one to arrive at non-dual realization, while the Hindu non-dual doctrines contain all the rest of the truth concerning what comes after death.

>The people who taught Guenon advaita broke off all contact from him when he published The King of the World too.
Where is the evidence for this? I have never even seen evidence that he was taught Advaita instead of teaching himself. The claims that he was taught it by Indians was only repeated by others and not himself it seems.

>His (Jewish) sanskrit teacher thought his ideas about Hinduism were retarded.
Because the academic "critical" viewpoint is reflexively hostile to such viewpoints, they are afraid to let themselves agree that any one schools interpretation is more correct because that would be "taking sides" and "non-objective", for them truth is relative.

>Catholics realized that he wasn't actually Catholic and began to despise him.
He didn't claim to be one after becoming a Muslim
>The Egyptians thought he was a weirdo LARPer with a "let me tell you about your culture" attitude.
Why do Egyptian Sufis congregate at his home to this day then?

>And he misunderstood Ibn Arabi, although never made a real effort to read him.
It cannot be stated with any certainty that he never read him or a translation of him. In one part of his life he wrote to someone else asking about certain quotes from him, but we don't know if Guenon read him later in Egyptian Arabic, of which there are translations of Ibn Arabis work. Certainly there could have certainly been Egyptian translations of his works laying around in the Egyptian sufi circles Guenon participated in.

>Likewise, he dismisses Plato and Plotinus without ever having read them.
Wrong dumbass, he read Plato and he cites Plato on occasion throughout his works. He never read Plotinus, but since Guenon is not interested in only temporary union with God but eternal union then he has reason to dismiss Plotinus who apparently only had a brief and temporary glimpse of union.

[Anonymous No.18406918]

>>18406909
>thinking guenon is even in the same league as plotinus
lmfao nobody takes that long faced faggot seriously outside of your circlejerks, dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.18406965]

>>18406918
>lmfao nobody takes that long faced faggot serio-

Rene Guenon is the most correct, smartest and most important person of the twentieth century. There was no smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute Guenon and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that the French traditionalist René Allé in one collection dedicated to R. Guenon compared Guenon with Marx. It would seem that there are completely different, opposite figures. Guenon is a conservative hyper-traditionalist. Marx is a revolutionary innovator, a radical overthrower of traditions. But Rene Halle rightly guessed the revolutionary message of each of Guenon's statements, the extreme, cruel noncomformity of his position, which turns everything and everything upside down, the radical nature of his thought. The fact is that René Guenon is the only author, the only thinker of the twentieth century, and maybe many, many centuries before that, who not only identified and confronted with each other secondary language paradigms, but also put into question the very essence of language (and metalanguage).

The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting (especially at a certain historical stage), subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting labor and capital (which, in fact, was a colossal revolutionary and predictive course, because it allowed many things to be systematized and brought together into a single, more or less consistent, dynamic structure). Being a great paradigmatic success, Marxism was so popular and won the minds of the best intellectuals of the twentieth century. But R. Guenon is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation, putting everything into question.

- Aleksandr Dugin, author of Political Platonism and The Fourth Political Theory

[Anonymous No.18406997]

>>18406965
wow great quote, thanks

[Anonymous No.18406998]

>>18406965
Give us the whole three posts anon

[Anonymous No.18407020]

>>18406965
dugin would be considered a counter initiation agent by guenon

[Anonymous No.18407037]

>>18406965
you think I'm gonna read that shit?