From a doctrinal perspective is this correct?

[Anonymous No.19360644]

Dyad/Dualism = Magic

Monad/Monism = Mysticism

[Anonymous No.19360939]

>>19360644
Bump for 550% interest

[Anonymous No.19361026]

>>19360644
no

non-duality = initiatic path

dualism = mysticism

playing around with angels and demons in the intermediary/psychic world = magic

[Anonymous No.19361376]

>>19361026
But theres initiation in both Mysticism and Magic.

>magic is just angels and demons bro
Lol

[Anonymous No.19361473]

>>19361376
the three could be interwoven but there's clearly a hierarchy and the initiatic path is clear on it's goal.
but you will not attain higher states in voodoo or umbanda and are not going to attain the supreme state in mysticism (here you only destroy your pride, but not your ego, nafs).

[Anonymous No.19361633]

>>19360644
If we're talking Evola, this anon is sort of correct: >>19361026
In Introduction to Magic, Evola describes "mysticism" as we know it as a system where a profane and a sacred self coexist but remain distinct. So, "dualism". In the "magical" or initiatic path, the profane and the sacred self are one, with the sacred element being the determining one. I disagree with that anon's characterisation of magic, however - to my understanding, it is the awakening and use of spiritual powers for the ends of the will.
I cannot comment on what Guenon's views are, as I have not read him.

[Anonymous No.19361659]

>>19361026
>dualism = mysticism
Read Esoteric Catholicism for fuck's sake

>>19361376
There's no initiation in magic, the iniciatic domain and the magic domain are totally different in purpose and endgame, and the magic domain is also inferior to the iniciatic domain.

[Anonymous No.19361677]

>>19361659
>Read Esoteric Catholicism for fuck's sake
Not that anon, but I am curious what that would consist in. Enlighten me, anon?

[Anonymous No.19361719]

>>19361659
in the case of the mystic, there's clearly a duality between god and the individual soul.
what do you mean by Esoteric Catholicism?

[Anonymous No.19361720]

>19361677
It''s probably Evola's most famous article, he goes to speak about the degeneracy that happened in Catholic Mysticism where now there's a barrier where god and man no longer are re-united as one by the mystical experience, but instead the mystic becomes simply he's servant, only appraising god instead of uniting with him, thus degenerating christian mysticism in the west. While the original christian mysticism (Theosis) was indeed preservd by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxes, in Catholicism there's now a dualism between man and god in mysticism that should not happen. If you are interested in real catholic mysticism, read The Cloud of Unknowing, it's a wonderful work for catholics interested in real mysticism.

[Anonymous No.19361725]

>>19361719
>>18361720
fuck

[Anonymous No.19361729]

>>19361633
magic is the 'manipulation' of subtle influences(good or bad),
but doing that you could be manipulated by these 'forces'

[Anonymous No.19361739]

>>19361677
Here >>19361720

[Anonymous No.19361748]

>>19361719
>there's clearly a duality between god and the individual soul
>what do you mean by Esoteric Catholicism?

doesn't know Evola's work and doesn't know mysticism, lmao. Just for a few examples of mystical divine union in mysticism with no dualism: Sufi Heart Anhiquilation, Taoism Primordial Chaos and Theosis.

[Anonymous No.19361751]

>>19361720
I have never heard of an essay where Evola says the things you claim that he says. As far as I am aware, he always held that barring some exceptions on the margins of Christian mysticism, such as Meister Eckhart and Saint Francis of Assisi, Christian mysticism was always very limited and exoteric. You are correct that Theosis goes beyond Catholic mysticism, but it still falls short of full integration because of the essence-energies distinction. I discussed this with some Orthodox anons in a recent thread.
>>19361729
I do not believe that Evola separates things into "good or bad" in IoM. He does mention that magic can backfire if you fuck it up.

[Anonymous No.19361756]

>>19360644
Dyad/Dualism = Cringe

Monad/Monism = Based

[Anonymous No.19361774]

>>19361748
Stfu

[Anonymous No.19361780]

>>19361751
>christian mysticism was always very limited and exoteric
there's no problem in mysticism being exoteric, doesn't make it limited, esoterism doesn't make anything more sacred as it doesn't lead to initiation. Read The Cloud of Unknowing, there was NEVER a barrier between man and god in catholicism before the Church got modernized.

[Anonymous No.19361787]

>>19361720
it's not so 'preserved' by the orthodoxes, this popularization of hesychasm (reduced to the recitation of the jesus' prayer, like there's nothing else) just shows that the true hesychasts (those who truly attained the Supreme Identity) are hidden or maybe they don't even exist anymore

[Anonymous No.19361793]

>>19361748
that's not mysticism, that's initiation

[Anonymous No.19361801]

Is there a book that discusses mystical divine union from various Traditions from a non-dual viewpoint?

[Anonymous No.19361803]

>>19361787
Most of real hesychasts are really old hermites

[Anonymous No.19361810]

>>19361793
The mystical experience is what leads to initiation, you can't get heart anhiquilation if you don't get exthasis at dhikr first

[Anonymous No.19361814]

>>19361659
>theres no initiation in magic

Do you have any fucking idea what initiation means?

[Anonymous No.19361819]

>>19361756
>masculine and feminine mean nothing bro

[Anonymous No.19361821]

>>19361810
beyond annihilation (Fana) there's subsistence (Baqa)

[Anonymous No.19361825]

>>19361814
Yes i have, case in point, literal mages agree with me. Read Demons Of Flesh, it's literally stated the point of magic is not the union with god and they don't intend to reach it

[Anonymous No.19361842]

>>19361819
There's no dualism in male and female, they are complement, not oposites.

[Anonymous No.19361844]

>>19361801
sufism and taoism by toshihiko izutsu
mysticism: christian and buddhist by dt suzuki

[Anonymous No.19361849]

>>19361844
'Paths to Transcendence' by Reza Shah-Kazemi also touches on this

[Anonymous No.19361862]

>>19361780
>there's no problem in mysticism being exoteric, doesn't make it limited
Not on its own. Mainstream Buddhism is exoteric. However, Evola asserts that Christianity is both exoteric and limited.
>esoterism doesn't make anything more sacred as it doesn't lead to initiation
That's... wrong? Initiation is exclusively esoteric. Investiture is exoteric, perhaps you are confusing the two.
>Read The Cloud of Unknowing, there was NEVER a barrier between man and god in catholicism before the Church got modernized.
Forgive me but that sounds farcical. What do you mean by modernised? Vatican II? The fundamental man-god dualism has been present since inception.
>>19361825
Not that anon, but who wrote this book? Are we still talking about Traditionalist? Keep in mind that this thread is about Traditionalism and the Traditionalist understanding of magic.

[Anonymous No.19361901]

>>19361810
the difference between mysticism and initiation is that the latter has a clear method and recognizes the multiple stages that lead to the 'final deliverance'; the mystic is open to any kind of influence, that's why in catholicism you have many saints that 'operate miracles' and at the same time are 'beaten by demons'

[Anonymous No.19361908]

>>19361862

>Initiation is exclusively esoteric

How so? Esoteric means “inside something”, sub-reptile, cryptic, secret. Initiation has nothing to do with Exo X Eso terminology.

>What do you mean by modernised?

Post Vatican II

>but who wrote this book?
The Scherck's
The book is literally dedicated to Evola, is 100% part of the most cult tradicionalist cannon

[Anonymous No.19361931]

>>19360644
Neither we're experts in their field. They wrote popular versions of study, a study that was a synchretic mess of pieced together traditions.

Evola and Guenon are like the Sapiens of their day. They have a veneer of mystique because they coat their work is obscurantism and mysticism, and they are "based" now because they held beliefs that would be transgressive today, but pretty much are the equivalent of modern pop psych.

[Anonymous No.19361950]

>>19361931
kys retarded fag and actually try to understand things that you criticize.

[Anonymous No.19361963]

>>19361908
common religion and mysticism = exoterism
initiation = esoterism

read 'Perspectives on Initiation' by Guénon

the fact that the church condemned the works of people like Eriugena and Eckhart just shows that they were already 'modern' at that time (XIII, XIV centuries)

[Anonymous No.19361984]

>>19361908
>How so? Esoteric means “inside something”, sub-reptile, cryptic, secret. Initiation has nothing to do with Exo X Eso terminology.
I don't know what definition of initiation you are using, but it is clearly not the Traditionalist one. Initiation means initiation into the Mysteries, into spiritual knowledge, into noetic perception, into the chain of beings that have participated in these things. It's absolutely an esoteric matter.
>Post Vatican II
That's not convincing at all, sorry.
>The book is literally dedicated to Evola, is 100% part of the most cult tradicionalist cannon
I have never heard of this man but I will try to look for some information on his book. However, it being dedicated to Evola doesn't necessarily mean it follows his principles.
>>19361931
You are so incoherent that you can't even string four sensible sentences together. Did they write "popular" writings or are their works "obscurantist"? Which one is it? It cannot be both. I won't even get started on your talk of "syncretism" or "pop psych" - psychology, of all things.

[Anonymous No.19361986]

>>19361963
Guénon actually fucks up hard when talking that initiation is esoterism, you should check Dugin's article about Orthodoxy and Initiation for he correct's Guénon on the matter

[Anonymous No.19362009]

>>19361986
seriously, what the fuck do you mean by the terms 'initiation' and 'esoterism'?
and what's the problem with Guénon's exposition?

[Anonymous No.19362218]

>>19361720
Its funny. What authority has some self proclaimed super fascist to pronounce about Catholic esotericism? He wasn't even Catholic- was he?- let alone a monastic or blessed or a saint. The cloud of unknowing is good though imo. I think in regards so called Catholic esotericism we need to understand that the whole religion itself is profoundly mysterious and awesome. Christ dwells on earth and enters into our flesh and blood, and God unifies Himself with us in Spirit AND flesh by the sacrament of communion. This is the supreme mystery as I see it. I think it's not inaccurate to see Catholic Christianity as the zenith and transcendence of jewish esotericism.
>>19361751
I think there is a real problem with the essence-energies distinction devolving into a dualism. This is a good refutation of the position imo and yes I know the channel has extreme views about the Holy See: https://youtu.be/d07mgLoOW8g
>>19361780
To be fair there still is no barrier but receiving the sacraments and sin, at least as I see it.
Re initiation and exo and esotericism and the Church (universal): It seems to be our Divine Master addressed this when He spoke this: “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." St Matthew 11:25, and, "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." And what is this conversion but baptism? I think the sacraments have both esoteric and exoteric realities the one clustered within the other. They do initiative us into the esoteric reality and we are bonded onto the Mystical Body of Christ by Communion. Heres the thing though, the learned of which Jesus speaks and St Matthew 11:25 perhaps think of this as a body in the sense of a body corporate but they who have been reborn in Christ see, each to his capacity, the body as both a human body and a Divine body.

[Anonymous No.19362242]

>>19362218
*initiate us into the-
*at St Matthew 11:25-

[Anonymous No.19362335]

>>19362218
this view of the sacraments as both esoteric and exoteric is held by Schuon and Borella.
It's obvious that Christianity originally was purely esoteric. Guénon remarks that the 'exoterization' of Christianity was necessary to 'save the world' because at that time there wasn't any authentic traditions left, but the cost was that the sacraments lost their initiatic or esoteric character.

[Anonymous No.19362378]

If initiation is superior to mysticism then how come that there were countless initiates not remembered for anything and who didn't posses any significant distinction from non-initiated (just look at those two hacks from op-picture, their life was nothing different from other marginalized thinkers of their time). While mystics that we know had clear distinction in their life, deeds, and way of thinking from those who didn't recieve revelation. Initiation is a hoax.

[Anonymous No.19362391]

>>19362335
Jean Daniélou in his chapter on Guénon says there's nothing more abhorrent to christianity than the idea there is first class and second class christians and he is right.

The sacraments in themselves are initiatic.

>>19361963
"One of the eclclesiastic charges raised against Meister Eckhart's eternalism was that God is as old as the world." On the other hand Christopher Dawson says he was orthodox.

>Nevertheless, as Denifle pointed out long ago, Eckhart is not an oriental pantheist nor a modern idealist; he is a medieval Dominican and a scholastic, and in order to understand his views it is necessary to put them in their historical context and relate them to the intellectual milieu in which they originated.

Pope Benedict XVI praised Eriugena and recommended him.

[Anonymous No.19362432]

>>19362378
Indeed. If the initiation they sought was so valid the circles around Guénon and Schuon should have produced some saintly figures, yet all we see is gossip and scandals besides some academics (Nasr, Custinger etc)

Plotinus was also never initiated.

[Anonymous No.19362445]

>>19362391
Matthew 19:16-30
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
“Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

there are clearly two distinct things here.

so they were recognized 500 years later, wow

[Anonymous No.19362453]

>>19362445
John 18:20
Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world: I have always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort; and in secret I have spoken nothing.

[Anonymous No.19362505]

>>19362378
>>19362432
do you know that the traditionalists are just exposing some doctrines, right? they didn't create 'initiation'.

not only plotinus, but socrates, plato, Pythagoras and the other pre-socratics were initiated. read Uzdavynis

do you think initiates care about 'distinctions', 'deeds' or the phenomenal world?
wanna know the first initiate of the Islamic tradition? his name was Muhammed.
The Hesychast chain of spiritual transmission goes back to Moses.

[Anonymous No.19362509]

>>19362505
i am reading Uzdavynis right now and he details how Pythagoras was initiated into all sorts of traditions. what about Plotinus? I never heard he was initiated, on the contrary.

[Anonymous No.19362540]

>>19362453
Mark 4:33-34
33 With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34 He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

Matthew 13:13
13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

[Anonymous No.19362545]

>>19362509
just look at the name of his 'teacher', its obvious, amonius saccas

[Anonymous No.19362580]

>>19362545
are you talking about the possible scythian origin or sakyamuni correlation? i find it hard to believe.

porphyry tells plotinus made an agreement with origen and erennius to not teach what ammonius taught but this was broken. this doesn't necessarily mean initiation (and porphyry would have been initiated by plotinus too if that was the case)

[Anonymous No.19362719]

>>19361825
Okay but what does that have to do with initiation. Initiation is a series of actions to change the consciousness/perception/being of the initiate. Magic has this as much as mysticism.

[Anonymous No.19362839]

>>19361950
He's kind of right though. Evola had pretensions to and was a faliure but at least had some rep. Guenon is legit only known here because of Wikipedia links to Evola.

Evola only became at all popular here in 2016 and we all know its because Bannon named dropped him and people were looking for le based facist philosophical outlook, and since Heidegger is actual philosophy and difficult instead of feel good ego fluff for people who want to think they're special initaties, no one here would read him.

Face it, dude was a no name on even obscure corners of the internet until a reality TV star ran for president. That's what caused his name to spike in search terms. As an intellectual of his era he was a faliure.


Not that making it big almost a century later on a board best known for producing mass shooters, videos of young losers blowing their brains out, and incel culture is much of an accomplishment.

[Anonymous No.19362849]

>>19362719
they have different goals

[Anonymous No.19362908]

>>19362335
I have to agree with this >>19362391 and the reference point of Daniélou. As scripture says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) I also don't think the sacraments are capable of losing their Divine character chiefly because they were instituted by either Christ or the Apostles. That and the Church also teaches the sacraments work ex opere operato which seems to me to contradict the idea that they could become fully exotericised.
>>19362505
>wanna know the first initiate of the Islamic tradition? his name was Muhammed.
I think it was in fact Satan. Who else would promise that Heaven would be like a brothel? Also it makes no sense that one could be an initiate in a tradition you create. Thats not even a tradition by definition, its an innovation which is exactly what Islam is. An innovation by the devil.
The Judeo-Christian tradition has its basis in Adam.
>>19362540
? He tells them what they can understand and uses parables to help them understand what they cannot. Thats how I understand these passages. Whats the point?
>>19360644
Let me be break it down:

dualism and monism = snares of the devil

Trinitarianism = the Way, the Truth and the Life.

[Anonymous No.19362956]

>>19362908
From monism, dualism. Together, they give you the trinity.

[Anonymous No.19362978]

>Christian esoterica
>Evola

[Anonymous No.19362992]

>>19362978
God took Evolas legs during that air raid as punishment for his blasphemies

[Anonymous No.19363093]

>>19362978
Obviously Rome is not as great as God's incarnation in a Nazirine pesant. Its funny too, Catholic Christianity is easily the most hierarchical religion on earth. It can demand quite intense self renunciation of its monastics (something I consider true strength). What he says about force is foolish. The Spirit is the supreme force capable of humbling the Roman empire as he said. On self sufficiency: many monastic order have the principal of ora et labora. On knowledge: the Spirit is often evoked under the name of Divine wisdom. What could be more aristocratic than the Royal and Holy Family of God and the vicar of Christ the King and the communion of Saints as the courtiers in the Kingdom of Heaven...
Christianity is the west. People like Evola are the reason for the "west's decline".