/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19070265]

start with the Traditionalists

[Anonymous No.19070469]

>>19070265
Also end with them

[Anonymous No.19070694]

>>19070265
Guenon is the only person worth reading anymore.
You guys like Schuon at all?

[Anonymous No.19071921]

The Greeks were traditionalists.

Except for Socrates but he got what was coming to him,

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY3cHnRY No.19071958]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19071963]

>Recent cult follower from the modern age
Pfff

[Anonymous No.19071964]

>>19071921
I think you're confused, this is about the traditionalist school, not "traditionalism."
Some of guenons cohort talk about the platonic tradition being valid, but I assume you're referring to the Nietzchean valuing of the homeric over the platonic.

[Anonymous No.19071971]

>>19071958
Guenon was basically apolitical. Evola isn't regarded well by current traditionalists. Besides they admit that tantra is legitimate, which would exclude this idea that only traditional living would be admitted under their thought.

>>19071963
Guenons writing is for the modern age.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19071979]

>>19071921
The Hellenic invasion destroyed the old traditionalism. Obscured it all in a haze of red blood brutality. A males playground.

[Anonymous No.19071996]

>>19071979
Shut up you fucking whore.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19072009]

>>19071996
How about you shut up.

[Anonymous No.19072087]

>start with the traditionalists
>it's a bunch of theosophists larping as orientalists larping as mystics
Maybe you ought to start with the Greeks. Or the Jeets. But definitely not someone who couldn't tell Islam and Hinduism apart.

[Anonymous No.19072095]

>>19071979
Butters, the Greeks also invented lesbians. You're welcome.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19072111]

>>19072095
It was forbidden to even mention it after Sappho in most places

[Anonymous No.19072117]

>>19070265
Baseé!

[Anonymous No.19072125]

>>19072087
Hated theosophy, hated orientalists, hated mystics.
I can guarantee guenon knew more about islam and hinduism than you.

Have you even read him?

[Anonymous No.19072211]

>>19072125
>if you don't like my guru that means you just haven't read him!

[Anonymous No.19072220]

>>19072211
There's plenty of valid critiques of guenon. The above comment was just clearly unfamiliar with his writings.

[Anonymous No.19072225]

>>19072220
>throw together a bunch of eastern texts and call it a primordial tradition of initiation
It's called theosophy. It's not "traditional." It's modern.

[Anonymous No.19072241]

>>19071958
This is the most based image. Every time someone posts it to make us look bad but it makes us look great

[Anonymous No.19072245]

>>19072225
What are you even talking about? When did they throw together eastern texts?

In guenons main books on the east he gives mainly an outline of advaita vedanta which is in-line with shankara. Where did his outline of advaita diverge from shankara, for example?

He also draws comparisons to other traditions as well. Is your claim that religions have no commonalities?

[Anonymous No.19072264]

>>19072245
Theosophists popularized Vedanta to western audiences. And Guenon ultimately moved to Egypt to be a Muslim. If you like Vedanta you could just read Shankara. Not sure why you would need to rely on a French Muslim or his ideas about "tradition," or need a "traditionalist" school to tell you all religions are derivations from a primordial tradition. You could simply be a Vedantist and leave it at that, instead of trying to have some ahistorical larper theosophist framework.

[Anonymous No.19072288]

>>19072264
Theosophy isn't considered legitimate vedanta, so someone wanting to learn vedanta would do better to read guenon. Sure you could read shankara instead, but many have found guenons approach to vedanta to be enlightening. Generally those who get into vedanta through guenon will want to read the texts directly, obviously.

Many who are interested in religion often come to the conclusion that there are many similarities. The trads are unique in that they don't recommend syncretism like many other "perennialists" do. So the trads can be seen as a robust comparative religious project due to the fact that the members are involved deeply in the respective religions rather than a syncretic creation like theosophy.

Guenons vocabulary of comparative religion is seen as valuable in this comparative project and ends with an attempt to find the primordial core to all of it. Which its fine if one finds that a dubious claim, but others find it compelling.

You honestly don't seem like you know this subject at all.

[Anonymous No.19072332]

>>19071958
>old = good
this but for real

[Anonymous No.19072343]

>>19071979
Wow these hellene invaders sound based af

[Anonymous No.19072344]

>>19072288
>ends with an attempt to find the primordial core to all of it.
This is just theosophy in reverse. Instead of the end product being syncretic, it's some unknown template imagined through its purportedly extant varieties. Same modernist smooshing together of "things I like" into "system of things I like."

[Anonymous No.19072361]

retroactive

[Anonymous No.19072371]

>>19072344
Theosophists aren't the only people to think of religions as having a similar core. In regards to Vedanta, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda made the same claim, for example.

Also, I assume you're a presupposing that there isn't a reality on which religion is based, because then it would make sense that those who engaged with that reality would come to similar conclusions and express them in their given cultural context. I'm fine if you believe that there isn't a religious reality beyond individual forms but obviously a religious person would. Also, maybe most religious figures would claim their religion is the only true one, which is a fine critique of guenonian traditionalism, however even then most would claim the other world religions have some truth which would reestablish the comparative project.

So do you just not like religion? because you seem very uninformed about this subject you want to debunk.

[Anonymous No.19072375]

>>19070265
Sorry, I only read real actual philosophy. And also I'm not an incel, so I don't need brainlet theory to cope for not being enough.

[Anonymous No.19072390]

>>19070694
I'm planning on checking Schuon, Coomaraswamy, etc., out at some stage. At the moment I'm reading a relatively recent book which intermittently cites all of them (although not solely) which another anon recommended to me a few weeks ago. It doesn't give much in the way of actual argumentation, it is simply a good summary and integration of Western philosophic-mystical strains with the rest of the Indo-European traditions, although unlike Guenon it focuses a lot more on the applicability of Western strains to metaphysics, rather than the criticism thereof (which Guenon was usually more focused on).

[Anonymous No.19072396]

>>19072375
Well guenon hated philosophy so your comment is redundant.

[Anonymous No.19072414]

>>19072371
He wrote a book attacking theosophy. It is an obvious influence. His project is only truly dissimilar from it in that he decided to become an Egyptian Muslim. Assuming all religions are varieties of the same Religion is an inherently modern attitude of studying and cataloging. And this is especially incompatible with the Islamic religion, which is the most purist of all monotheisms.

[Anonymous No.19072418]

>>19072390
Yeah I haven't been too impressed with schuon so far, but the modern trads seem to put him above guenon even.

Uzdavinys might be of interest to you if youre interested in a western philosophy expression of guenon. He focuses on the platonic tradition.

Whats the unique value of that pic related?

[Anonymous No.19072455]

>>19072414
>He wrote a book attacking theosophy. It is an obvious influence.
Whats your point here. He critiqued theosophy and I've already explained where he has similarities and differences. "The only tradition" by Quinn is on this point explicitly.

>His project is only truly dissimilar from it in that he decided to become an Egyptian Muslim.
Nope, we've already explained where they differ:
Syncretic vs not.
Legitimate exposition of vedanta vs not.
Advocated joining a living traditional religion vs not.

>Assuming all religions are varieties of the same Religion is an inherently modern attitude of studying and cataloging.
It was a necessary step intellectually when the religions became more aware of each other. The fact that there were similarities to be found points to the trads point more than the modern which now claims comparative religious studies in that fashion is debunked and claim a postmodern impossibility of comparing different religions and cultures.

>And this is especially incompatible with the Islamic religion, which is the most purist of all monotheisms.
The trads are aware, as we've already discussed, that the major figures in the world religions would claim their religion is the only one. They disagree. You can claim this as modernist, but it points to the the legitimacy of religion. Anyone who finds that claim valid would be moved towards a premodern mentality or trandscence and immanence than towards a secular modernity, so I don't think is the win you think it is.

[Anonymous No.19072457]

>>19072418
>Whats the unique value of that pic related?
The synthesis of Indo-European cultures and metaphysics, and how the Platonic/Peripatetic and Christian philosophical strains (as well as pre-Socratic) did not significantly differ from it. As I said, it's a summary and integration of these topics. In terms of actual metaphysics, it doesn't say anything that Guenon didn't say more clearly and elaborately himself from what I've read so far (about half of the book). A lot of it is recounting of the views of historic philosophers or mystics in the West, which is again something one doesn't see as much in Guenon.
>Uzdavinys might be of interest to you if youre interested in a western philosophy expression of guenon. He focuses on the platonic tradition.
Did you post that thread before with his book as the OP picture? I'll take a look at him as well.

[Anonymous No.19072477]

>>19072455
>legitimate exposition of vedanta
>converts to Islam anyway
>has other theosophistic baggage about a primordial tradition
You can skip him and lose nothing of the Islam or Hinduism you want to adopt. Religions have been aware of each other for a long time without having writers from western countries start saying they're all just modes of the same thing. That's the unique expression of a dispassionate, un-traditional culture that is pervasively secular. And I suspect monkey man realized this and finally abandoned that culture for the Islamic world.

[Anonymous No.19072480]

>>19070265
>The Anarch is to the anarchist, what the monarch is to the monarchist. — Ernst Jünger.

the same can be said between those who follow a tradition and those who are traditionalist

[Anonymous No.19072490]

>>19072457
Hmm, I wonder what part of it isn't redundant.
Guenon integrated the aristotlean/scholastic tradition. Schuon and Uzdavinys integrated the presocratic through neoplatonic tradition as well as the christian mystical tradition.
Its nice to see newer trad books, but I'm trying to see the value.

No I didn't post uzdavinys book earlier, but nice to see him get mentioned. Although, I'm glad the focus is on guenon here. I haven't seen any of the later trads match up to him in value, even though schuon seems to get more recognition in other spheres.

[Anonymous No.19072513]

>>19072477
>legitimate exposition of vedanta
>converts to Islam anyway
Are you an idiot? How does converting to Islam have any bearing on whether his book expresses vedanta accurately?

>has other theosophistic baggage about a primordial tradition
>You can skip him and lose nothing of the Islam or Hinduism you want to adopt.
But the main reason many people get into guenon is for the robust comparative religious project. Also, people into guenon generally don't want to "adopt" random aspects of different religions, that would be syncretism.

>Religions have been aware of each other for a long time without having writers from western countries start saying they're all just modes of the same thing. That's the unique expression of a dispassionate, un-traditional culture that is pervasively secular.
Wrong. Abelard thought the pagans had discovered the trinity. Thomas Aquinas utilized the truths of Aristotle to expound catholicism. Agustine and neoplatonism. The Islamic tradition and Mediterranean alchemy. Taoism and buddhism in zen buddhism. In fact utilizing the truths of other religious traditions is the rule rather than the exception even in the premodern.

>And I suspect monkey man realized this and finally abandoned that culture for the Islamic world.
Yeah, he left the west because he believed it was degraded. Once again, you seem really ignorant of this subject.

[Anonymous No.19072524]

>>19072480
I like the quote, but wouldn't one be more likely to search for acceptance into an actual tradition once they had seen the value through studying traditionalism? Isn't this exactly what the traditionalists advocated for?

[Anonymous No.19072526]

>>19072513
>utilizing the truths of other religious traditions is the rule rather than the exception even in the premodern.
There are brief historical moments where this is tolerated, but why do you think this is not syncretism? You can repeat that I am ignorant all you want but no amount of name dropping will spare you your own incoherence.

[Anonymous No.19072570]

>>19072526
It is you who is being incoherent. If the traditional religions were syncretic then neither theosophy nor guenon is being antitraditional in finding similarities in the traditions. If theosophy is not antitraditional in being syncretic then guenon would not be antitraditional in being like theosophy. If syncretism is not a modern aberration then guenon is not antitraditional in finding the world religions to be similar, and is thus not a modern perversion.

I'm not claiming any of the above is true or not, just pointing out your inconsistencies.
As to your main point, whether the traditional religions were in fact syncretic and thus one would be fine to be syncretic and follow theosophy rather than a traditional religion, I would follow this line of arguing. Augustine and Aristotle did not syncretise Christianity and Greek philosophy, they used Greek philosophy as a way of analyzing the truths they found in the Christian tradition. This is similar to the traditionalist project that is attempting to deepen ones engagement with their tradition through the studying of others. What theosophy was doing was not an examination of hinduism through the lense of the western occult tradition, it was an entirely new project based on blavatsky's writing where she threw various religions into the mix to express herself. Hindus nor any other religion find her writing to be an accurate representation of their thought, one would not say the same of Aquinas. Or really of Guenon, who's work on vedanta seems in line as far as I can tell, except maybe his strict take on reincarnation which Schuon critiqued. Another example would be schuons book on islam being well regarded in the Arab world.

As to zen buddhism, I don't know enough to say. I would imagine this is syncretic in a sense, but guenon believes they retained their primordial core which he did through analysis with his larger project. The same sort of outlier would those who achieve spontaneous illumination, sort of like the Maharshi. The barometer would be truth, which the trads believed they found in given religions but expressed through the comparative project.

[Anonymous No.19072601]

>>19072570
>Augustine and Aristotle did not syncretise Christianity and Greek philosophy, they used Greek philosophy as a way of analyzing the truths they found in the Christian tradition
Yeah that's syncretic. And of course colored by a disbelief in one system that is stripped for parts to patch the other one. If that is "premodern," what the moderns have is total disbelief, and thus take a scrambled set of parts to make something they can believe in, e.g. theosophy, perennial religion, etc. A Buddhist using Taoist concepts or vocabulary to explain Buddhism to the Chinese isn't being a believer in Taoism, he is using it like a parasitoid. The same of Christians using Greeks. But to the modern all these systems are equally dead and cadaverically used for their own value-making. Guenon comes from this modern space but decides to leave it, since he actually believes in one of the religions. And this retiring is what makes the entire comparative project suspect! A modernism that gave up on itself.

[Anonymous No.19072612]

>>19072601
>But to the modern all these systems are equally dead and cadaverically used for their own value-making
Equally alive. I really don't know why that guy is engaging with you still when you're operating in such bad faith like this. Your entire argument is "they don't believe in one system because they operate also within another system." In reality, pre-moderns did not care about "systems", just as perennials don't. This is you projecting modernism into perennialism and pre-modern thinkers, it is not a genuine critique of anything except your own strawman.

[Anonymous No.19072616]

>>19072612
Perennialism is a modernism.

[Anonymous No.19072621]

>>19072601
The first part of your comment is going to come down to whether you believe there is a trandscendent reality. If there is, and one culture apprehended it, then it follows that others might. The basis for whether Christianity is valid compared to Theosophy would be based on its accuracy to this transcendental truth. I think we have a conflating of terms in that I don't think many would agree that what Aquinas was doing is identical to what Blavatsky was doing and lumping them both as a mere syncretism and equally legitimate, though a secularist might but I would consider this ignorant. Broadly I think a trad would agree that if one could get to orthodox truth through a syncretic new religion then that would be just as fine, however they would say that this would be so rare as to be pointless and perhaps what you would call syncretism (however of a different calibre as shown above between Aquinas and Blavatsky) did happen in the past but you are much better to join a traditional religion than to create a new one by throwing the outward signs of the different religions together in a heap. They even have stated that the true yogi could practice any religion without contradiction, but the aspirant could not. So shankara incorporating what some claim are Buddhist perspectives into vedanta would not be syncretism as he was brining it in line with orthodox thought, while what blavatsky was doing was moving orthodox vernacular away from orthodox truth.

As to the second part, this is what I mean by you being ignorant of the subject matter. Guenon did not change his position on the perennial truth at the core of all legitimate religions when he went to Egypt, he went to Egypt because of it. His philosophy did not change when he left the west, he left the west because of it. You say he left the west because he rejected his philosophy of modernism when it is the exact opposite. This is actually what traditionalism advocates for.

[Anonymous No.19072622]

>>19072616
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.19072627]

>>19072616
Perrenialism is the explication of orthodox truth in the modern context.

[Anonymous No.19072637]

>>19072621
>the perennial truth at the core of all legitimate religions
This is a modern belief
>when he went to Egypt, he went to Egypt because of it.
This is traditional
Simple as

[Anonymous No.19072647]

>>19072637
The idea that there is universal truth and humans have access to it universally is not a modern belief. If you said this to a modern epidemiologist or scientist they would think you were supersitious.

[Anonymous No.19072649]

>>19072647
*epistemologist.

To follow up. The contemporary epistemology is generally fallabalist and empiricist, certainly not foundationalist.

[Anonymous No.19072675]

>>19072649
You're overthinking this. Would a medieval Muslim think the Hindus and Buddhists and Christians he's just subjugated by the sword in the name of God have a valid point in their metaphysics and that Islam and... Hinduism... are emanations of the same proto-faith? No. But 19th and 20th century Europeans could easily espouse this view, because religion has an entirely different meaning to them as moderns, who are at the same time they are doing this also looking for common ancestors of animals, common ancestors of languages, common ancestors of races, and as noted, of religions.

[Anonymous No.19072705]

>>19072675
I see your point however its not so clean. One being that most modernists would disagree with a strong perennialism. Second, what about the Christian belief that Christian truth was found among the pagans, zen buddhism, etc.

I think we can broadly ignore the above since I think I can predict your counters. My olive branch in this case would be that yes the religions did not have as generous additude in the premodern. However, as deep knowledge of the different religions came forward it was discovered that the truths of the different religions had many parallels and that a reconstruction of a universalized premodern mentality allowed one to not only see this comparison but to gain by the shared light of the world religions. Hence the "perennial philosophy" nominally being modern in the sense that it did manifest in the modern in a collected sense, but that it is a manifestation of the premodern perspective based on the greater access to knowledge of the world religions. It was a discovery of the same truth being contained in the world religions, but the noticing of that universal truth became pronounced in modernity.

[Anonymous No.19072722]

>>19070265
>Reject Christianity
>Reject the Enlightenment
>Reject the Greeks
>Reject the Norse

w... we are traditional neh

[Anonymous No.19072725]

>>19072705
No such thing as modernists.

[Anonymous No.19072730]

>>19072612
>In reality, pre-moderns did not care about "systems", just as perennials don't.
They literally divide the world in "their camp" and the others.

[Anonymous No.19072738]

>>19072725
I meant it as one who follows the philosophical mentality ascribed to modernity, generally starting with Descartes. It has become basically either a pseudo religious humanism, scientism, or a postmodern constructivism.

If you mean there is no one modern mentality, sure like as a postmodern no universals exist. However the purer postmodern take would be there is no fact of the matter if there is a modernist or not.

[Anonymous No.19072750]

>>19072722
Rejecting christianity was walked back by almost all trads after guenon.

Thought the norse and Celtic tradition was dead. Which it really is.

Enlightenement is the antithesis of traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.19072755]

>>19072738
The majority of the West is still Christian, the largest political block in Europe and America are still Christians, thats slowly changing.

[Anonymous No.19072758]

>>19072750
>Enlightenement is the antithesis of traditionalism.
The enlightenment is a broad and selfcontradicting tradition of thinkers, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.19072780]

>>19072755
I can see what you mean. However the ruling ideology in the west is generally secularist, which while the majority of people are religious, it sidelines it from polite society in a sense. The belief in the scriptures being truly revealed is generally scoffed at in public and politely ignored if not directly maligned in higher education. The west being a Christian project still doesn't seem right in that most fundamentalist Christians feel directly antagonize by the powers that be. Things like this. However I don't expect you'll accept this line of thinking, and I can see why you wouldn't. I would likely agree that we are going to move towards less secularization in the future.

>>19072758
I think this is going to get nitpicky. So broadly, undoubtedly in the enlightenment tradition you will find all kinds of thinkers however it is generally in this context counterposed to tradition in several ways. It is in the history of thought considered one of the turning points towards secularism, democracy, dominance of science, progress, etc. The counterenlightenment being catholics like Burke and de maistre. This sets the enlightenment as a sort of antagonism to the tradition of society, the revealed religions, and the premodern mentality. I don't know anyone who would place the enlightenment as something other than a radical turning point in Western thought away from the ignorance of the past, hence the "enlightenment."

[Anonymous No.19073299]

>>19071979
stfu lesbo freak

[Anonymous No.19073433]

>>19072675
>Would a medieval Muslim think the Hindus and Buddhists and Christians he's just subjugated by the sword in the name of God have a valid point in their metaphysics and that Islam and... Hinduism... are emanations of the same proto-faith? No.
Guenon never assumed that the average muslim believed in the unity of religions, nor the average "sufi". This unity is visible only at the top of the spiritual hierarchy. Exoteric conflicts are irrelevant from this point of view.

[Anonymous No.19073479]

>>19072780
>. I don't know anyone who would place the enlightenment as something other than a radical turning point in Western thought away from the ignorance of the past, hence the "enlightenment."
Some people don't agree with this distinction between traditional/modern times because it demands them to make a change in their life. Is much more easier to reject this dichotomy and live like the avearge normie while claiming to believe in God.

[Anonymous No.19073526]

>>19072780
>However the ruling ideology in the west is generally secularist,
The majority of European and Americans nations have been ruled by Christian (democratic) governments. Including right now. Germany.

>secularism

Church attendance and Christian involvement in government actually grew in many part of Europe and the New World in the 19th and 20th century.

>democracy
We dont have any, because we are being ruled by elites.

>dominance of science
We are being ruled by people from the humanities, but oke, some how its science....

>progress
That would be eugenics..... not practised.

[Anonymous No.19073723]

>>19073433
I think you are right basically about what Guenon is saying. The problem I could see here, is if these traditional societies are top down, and the brahmin (or the related class) are in control, why would they be directing their cultures against one another in an intolerant fashion? Surely the pope or the saints would be enlightened enough not to do this. I think Schuon's take on religious "nationalism" is a good argument here, that the religions do grant an amount of fanaticism even at high levels, but that doesn't necessarily present an argument against a primordial truth.

>>19073526
I see what you are saying, and I don't generally like to talk about religion through the lense of politics, but you'll have to help me out with this one. I don't think any traditional religious people think that they are winning over society. I don't think anyone who is a traditional christian takes Hillary Clinton's methodism seriously, and most don't take Trump's christianity seriously for that matter. The traditionalist catholics are upset with Francis. What could be called social conservatives seem to be losing on all fronts.

I don't read Guenon for political reasons, but if we project his thought into the political sphere, it seems like his critque of modernity holds. Society being nominally christian doesn't seem to do much good for the religiously traditional subsets of these societies.

[Anonymous No.19074248]

>>19073723
>why would they be directing their cultures against one another in an intolerant fashion?
Guenon would say that the reason for this is our current age (Kali-Yuga), only in the primordial times there was one caste and one tradition, as long as there is multiplicity, there is conflict. Not all spiritual authorities were fully aware of the unity behind their religions, this souldn't be seen in black and white (religious exclusivism or uncritical perennialism) but rather as initiatic connections between esoteric groups, the templars and finally the original rosicrucians with the islamic civilization was the link between west and east, these connections are what proves the unity of religions, from a historical point of view and not only from a doctrinal one. Now, the question would be: If this is true, how was Guenon able to fully grasp this unity of religions since so few people could in pre-modern times and some only in a fragmented way? Does this make Guenon superior to those sages who weren't able to fully see this puzzle? Obviously no since a person is "superior" or not based on his spiritual realization alone, which is independent of books and thinking. I believe that Guenon's achievement of exposing this traditions in such a light was possible due to the age in which we live in, where historical events become much more clear for those who are still able to look at them from a sacred perspective.
I know that this reply is more than what you asked but I hope that will solve some questions which I often see around here.

[Anonymous No.19074646]

>>19073723
You dont get this, we are already part of a traditional society and it sucks.

[Anonymous No.19074676]

>>19074248
Yeah I think that does a fine job.
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.19074713]

>>19074646
I think there's a few problems with this:
-no traditional person feels represented by this western "tradition"
-tradition in a guenonian sense is means adherence to truth, and he's against puritanical moralism, he even sees the tantrics as legitimate.
-in the sense you seem to claim it, one could not be free from a tradtion in some sort.
-i can only assume you want a complete atheistic utopia of some kind, which i have no faith would actually provide freedom.
-you can gain from reading guenon without wanting to live in the middle ages.