The Reign of Quantity (evangelistic pseudo-metaphysicians of Religion)

[Anonymous No.20445482]

Is Jay Dyer a wolf in sheep's clothing, teaching what would essentialy be reducible to pseudo-metaphysics, when I used to watch him about 2 years ago or something like this, when I was far less well-read, what always irked me was that nonsense that the "Trinity" was the solution to the "many and the one," now after a while after I've read metaphysics rooted in a more comprehensive study of traditional authors I can see the total nonsense in Dyers misrepresentations of "metaphysics" and theology, especially after reading Guénon, the "Transcendental argument," the "many and the one talk," the Trinity - in the way Dyer characterised it, the whole "image" with the bookshelves and such, to essentialy give off this impression of being well read, that npc "presuppositionalism," muh logical fallacies, the whole egoistic larping of these religionists, that whole rubbish about
>you have to study philosophy and religion in a university to get good and understand!
I thank /lit/ for at least pointing me in the direction of authors like Guénon (pbuh), Shankacharya, Schuon and Coomaraswamy, evangelists of any kind now seem like the blind leading the blind, the Muslim evangelistic arguments all are equally relative

Most of these youtube Evangelists are either deluded, or they are major gatekeepers, but their devotees lap their rubbish up in the youtube comments, I realise now that most religion and philosophy in this sense is just emotional consolation driven by sentiment, or at best just an elaborate exercise in discursion, all things considered its totally unimpressive.

The neopagan rubbish too about
>muh abrahamism bad! Worship your own ego while paying homage to names and forms and concepts in your mind, depending on archaeology!
Is essentialy tantamount to a sort of degenerate superstition, such people are just in it for entertainment, whar for me is a source of entertainment is the amount of neopagan posers who pretend to be in sync with tradition and metaphysics.

This video does well to trace where Dyer got the "unorthodox" idea of "many and one" being "solved" by the Trinity, and so on.
https://youtu.be/GC0IUAApMKM

I made this thread, because I wanted to see if other people know of any obvious "pseudo-metaphysician" evangelists, - can be of any religion, who they once watched when ignorant and didn't know what to think, all personally just for a source of entertainment, it could be a Muslim, Christian or whatever, who poses as this "intellectual" type, "theologian" or whatever else, from my position of acquired insight they have become a total entertainment of sorts, it's like watching some pretend shows of NPCs Clinging desperately to their pride, with their touted university degrees, or whatever else, the large majority of them are mere children. The best of them can arrive at well there is the indeterminable "One" with indefinite relative Principles, and through this or that yoga we can realise that our Jīvātman is one with it.

[Anonymous No.20445493]

>>20445482
i don’t know dude, i just read minecraft novels

[Anonymous No.20445502]

>>20445482
Where is my fucking pepperoni pizza?

[Anonymous No.20445509]

>>20445493
>>20445502
What are you on about?

[Anonymous No.20445520]

>>20445482
He looks like a fraud so he probably is.

[Anonymous No.20445529]

>>20445482
Pic. Related is more believable than the acts of all these ego-driven frauds who derive their confidence from their individual effort and worldly educations, most of them gesture with smiles and such as if they're having such a great time expositing their unintelligent fabrications, they get defensive they debate, if a person debates occupationaly then it is absolutely the case that they are are not realised beings,
Unironically, a baby crying is just as good as these intellectuals like Dyer and their cults and "teachings" on theology, God and "metaphysics," useless the lot of them, they only appeal to dimwitted children.

[Anonymous No.20445532]

>>20445482
Buddhism BTFO all you insecure self conscious recluses

[Anonymous No.20445534]

He's literally a Youtube e-celeb, why would you think he has anything of value to say?

[Anonymous No.20445544]

>>20445532
There is nothing wrong with Buddhism, like Dzogchen, Longchenpa, Tantra, in fact they have great methods on realisation and such, and have preserved these initiatory lineages,

"Eat a pile of your own shit every day! Drink all your urine everyday! Delight in the one taste.
You just sit with the parade of your attractions and repulsions. Chew through them! Smear yourself with them!
They come from nowhere, abide nowhere and dissolve nowhere.
This is an injuction for both of what you call beginners and advanced students alike, as there are no steps"
— Chöza Bönmo

[Anonymous No.20445549]

>>20445509
OP works delivering pizzas

[Anonymous No.20445552]

>>20445482
You don't have to deal with this stuff if you just embrace physicalism and nominalism. Plus, physicalism is the real consolation, not religion.

[Anonymous No.20445556]

>>20445532
You are a pseud, "religion" ≠ "metaphysics" they're all just exoterisms which an individual can use to build on, whatever, it seems another npc entered the thread.
>>20445534
As I said, before I was awakened, I went through for a couple months a sentimental yearning, and then I was strung along the path with all sorts of clowns, and charlatans, youtubers and religionists, Jay dyer included, at the time I was not thinking, Dyer was saying things which I thought had some inkling of truth in it but in reality, I was just back then being lead along by appearances, but I have awakened from that phase of ignorance and confusion.

[Anonymous No.20445573]

>>20445552
Your -isms were refuted, and I am definitely not a "materialist monist" as it is called, that is just another incoherence cropped up by the pseudo-philosophers of this day and age in their universities, posturing as such great learned men, phds on "cognition" and those sorts of things "neuroscience" are all nonsense and those profane midwits will never truly circumscribe the nature of the "conciousness" for the fact that it is beyond time and space, so it's impervious to quantisation.

Those pseuds along with the rest of them have also become strikingly fraudulent from my point of view too

[Anonymous No.20445588]

>>20445544
great quote. But good luck trying to get people here to have any sense of the breadth or depth of the buddhist intellectual tradition. /lit/ is terminally reddit-tier when it comes to eastern philosophy

[Anonymous No.20445639]

>>20445532
>Buddhism BTFO all you insecure self conscious recluses
How so?

[Anonymous No.20445662]

>>20445588
"...the five meats and five amritas, one should enjoy them.

The five meats are those of the cow, elephant, dog, human, and horse. The five amritas are excrement, urine, semen, blood, and brains and so on. As for the benefits of eating these, the Shri Guhyasamaja says:

As for the high samaya
Of eating human flesh,
The excellent three vajras
Will be established by that.

As for the high samaya
Of eating human shit,
One will be the leader
Of all the vidyadharas.

By the high samaya of eating the flesh of cows,
One has the five attainments
Of the higher perceptions.

By the pure samaya
Of eating the flesh of horses,
One becomes a master
Of invisibility.

By the high samaya
Of eating the flesh of dogs,
All the host of siddhis
Are perfected and established.

By the high samaya of eating the flesh of elephants,
One becomes supreme
A solid vajra sender.

Also:

The flesh of cows and horses
Should be eaten as food
If we eat no other food great minded bodhisattvas
And Buddhas will be pleased.

Also:

Excrement and semen,
Blood and all the others,
Should be offered to deities.
When this is done the Buddhas
And bodhisattvas are pleased.

If one does not have them, make food in their form or visualize eating them. The
same text says:

As for pure human flesh
If it is fully visualized,
One will gain all the siddhis
That are part of the secret body,
The secret speech, and mind.

Also:

If none of the meats are there,
One can visualize them.
Performing this vajra union,
One will be blessed by the Buddhas.

By practice of these actions like those of worldly degraded people, liberated from
all attachment, one will have the virtues of being without good and evil, pleasing
the dakinis and mahasiddhas, and so forth."

~Longchenpa


You should read Tilopa’s "Gangāma Māhamudra Instructions," the "mahasiddas" and so on of the Buddhist tradition were definitely realised, many just have no disposition or understanding of the yogic point of view, alot of it is pretty incomprehensible to the average person, it's a major pleb filter.

[Anonymous No.20445667]

>>20445662
"The pure mind, the ubiquitous essence -
it is spontaneously, originally, perfect;
so strenuous engagement with the ten techniques
is unnecessary, superfluous.

I am inscrutable and cannot be cultivated.
All the ten techniques are likewise transcended,
so nothing can be done to affect me.
Those who try to approach me on a causal path,
desirous of catching a glimpse of my face,
seeking me through the ten techniques,
fall straight to earth like a tenderfoot sky-walker,
tumbling down due to deliberate effort.

I, the supreme source, I am the revelation,
and transcend every sphere of activity,
so a view of me cannot be cultivated,
and the ten techniques are meaningless.
If you still think that the ten techniques have purpose,
look at me, and finding nothing to see,
taking no view, remain at that zero-point.
Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification;
I embrace all and everything,
so there can be no path that leads to me;
I am forever incapable of dualization,
so there is never anything to be labeled 'subtle';
my form embraces everything,
so there has never been any 'duality';
I am self-sprung awareness from the very beginning,
so I can never be nailed down;
since I am the heart of total presence,
there is no other source of secret precepts."

— Samantabhadra

Inb4 guénonfag chimes in with his typical
>Buddhism is nihilistic soul denial bro!!!

[Anonymous No.20445686]

[Anonymous No.20445695]

>>20445552
but then you have to deal with being literally soulless and boring

[Anonymous No.20445736]

>>20445686
Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.20445739]

>>20445667
>Inb4 guénonfag chimes in with his typical
>Buddhism is nihilistic soul denial bro!!!
Guenonfag here, I dont deny that some schools and teachers in Buddhism are interesting, worth reading, or that some even have valid methods of realizing the absolute. When I say that ‘X about Buddhism is wrong’, it’s because I’m usually debating or challenging people who have readings of Buddhism that disagree with the quotes you posted, like Pali Canon purists who insist there is no Atman and no unconditioned spontaneous awareness, or people who insist on reading Madhyamaka in the same way. These are the majority of the most active and noticeable Buddhist posters here on /lit/, they are the ones why deny the philosophical richness of Buddhism and not me. I’m not the one who is consistently presenting Buddhism as basically boiling down to a Gelug reading of Nagarjuna or a wittgentsteinian ‘no view’ skepticism, they are. Instead of whining about me, you should be the change you wish to see and post more about the types of Buddhism that interest you, and you should challenge the other Buddhist posters who paper over so much of Buddhism.

>the essence is always spontaneously present,
>so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
>self-sprung awareness has never been obscured
This is all fine and well, but like 90% of the most active Buddhist posters on /lit/ disagree with these sorts of statements and say things like “nooo.. Nagarjuna refuted that awareness transcends activity and is always spontaneously and effortless present and unconditioned but I cant explain how or why, there cannot be an essence to anything because… just because!”

Someone who pushes back against their nonsense is the last person you should be whining about

[Anonymous No.20445802]

>>20445482
This happens because we live in a world where teachings which used to be reserved for a very few people, have become accesible for everyone and the masses of religious people don't know what to do with them so they end up with this paranoid mania of a need to refute the heretics, gnostics, pantheists, perennialists, etc. (and other insults like that) even at the cost of misrepresenting their own tradition. You can't change it so the only good thing to do in this situation is to remain sincere and not give up to the environment, whatever tradition you may practice and those around you may believe, stay loyal to the truth.

[Anonymous No.20445947]

>>20445695
>soulless
If Christianity or Islam are true, then you're likely to end up in their equivalent of Hell, so the nonexistence of an eternal soul would be a consolation. I don't know enough about Eastern religions to comment - most people would probably end up in some sort of Naraka until their negative karma is exhausted, but at least it ends at some point.
>boring
Why?

[Anonymous No.20446065]

>>20445739
Thanks for the response, I appreciate the advices, and I had a good laugh reading, I do enjoy the debates you have in here with those guys. Essentialy dzogchen talks constantly about the "Primordial nondual state" or awareness, "rigpa awareness" and they talk about methods to induce it so forth, it is practiced in all the lineages Gelugpa, Nyingama, etc. Etc. There is just no systematic treatment on the subject, it is also not really categorisable, because it's all highly practical and pretty much relies mostly on oral transmission and direct realisation, so you will never be content with anything I write about it here because it doesn't exist, in the way you think it exists - that is in a deconstructable or fixed doctrinal fashion or the tantras
Too there is no philosophy behind them, it is purely integral.
https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rigpa
Really I am interested in the methods they teach and such, which are profound - which undoubtedly are able to give siddhis, and realisation, the tantra is also powerful, i ignore all the nonsense opinions of the other Buddhists, buddhism has been subjected to at least in the west distortion, the brightest dont flock to it, really the "brightest" in this respect are not apparent at all in a position where they can be criticised, it's the same for alot of Taoism and such, the people in public are almost always larpers, the "metaphysics" is not on paper, like in Vedanta but it will "arrive" at a similar place; which is what's important. Really Buddhism is not a religion, and even though I received initiation into a a few tantras and practice, I still feel the results and "awareness" the purification of my view so to speak, that immutability and development, I don't view it as "something" other than just practical "teaching" which I received that's all, and which is not fruitful to discuss or communicate, as it is primarily and totally for me experiential and personal, tantra is "unorthodox" there is no doubt, for me the contemplative aspects are purely advaitic, which can be transposed into the Buddhist language, and is in the tantras, as self-originating, non-dual awareness, whenever they talk about voidness and impermanence it's with respects to the relative, manifestation, in fact the whole tradition calls itself ultimately "Relative knowledge" in its written intellectual form, pointers and instructions for absolute nondual realisation nothing else.

[Anonymous No.20446074]

>>20445662
This is why initiation is a thing

[Anonymous No.20446076]

>>20446065
The "intellectual" and "contemplative" aspects just arise from the experiences themselves.

[Anonymous No.20446086]

>>20446074
The "philosophy" becomes innate and intuitive without studying but in meditiation when you "look into the mind" with one-pointed awareness - that's all that a person needs to do, a retard can become a high level initiate, intellectual coping aside. Whereas some university educated scholar, could not attain the Least degree of realisation.

[Anonymous No.20446101]

>>20446074
It's guaranteed that "sectarians" and "dogmatists" are pseudo-initiates or low level at best, or are just limit testing for fun, given how emotional they get and passionate I really doubt they have attained the least degree of realisation.

Just watch a jay dyer debate like you see on YouTube, these guys are not initiates, and have not attained the level of saint or bodhisattva they have not internalised anything to arrogantly throw around their opinions, as "absolute truth" they're conmen and frauds, or are doing some sort of left-handed practice kek.

[Anonymous No.20446104]

>>20445482
>what always irked me was that nonsense that the "Trinity" was the solution to the "many and the one,
What was his argument? I'm curious.

[Anonymous No.20446129]

>>20445482
Stop sperging out like a midwit on /lit/ because you disovered eastern philosophy and debate him if you think he's obviously wrong. I know you'll come up with some stupid excuse even though he has casual debates with randoms very regularly.

[Anonymous No.20446159]

>>20445482
Leaving aside the fact that every one of his videos has to be prefaced by 10 min of 2016-era vapor wave music (which he apparently thinks is still edgy and cool) followed by additional 10 min of cringy impressions and parody songs (he apparently thinks he’s funny too) before he actually starts talking, I have a few issues with some of the things he says. He’s obviously well-read and philosophically literate. He makes some interesting points about epistemology. But what I fail to understand is his extreme presuppositionalism.
This is a point even fellow Christian and RC apologist Trent Horn called him out for. Jay seems to believe that you can’t give any justification of knowledge if you don’t subscribe to his particular brand of orthodoxy (not even supported by the majority of orthodox Christians in America, according to Dyer himself). This is presuppositionalism taken to an extreme (if not misunderstood altogether? I wouldn’t know as I’m not a specialist).
According to Jay you either have to spouse a world view that takes on face value literal giants and primitive cosmology or else you can’t give an account of such things as logic and mathematics. This is a non sequitur to say the least.
>What about the illogical trinitarian doctrine?
That doesn’t count because the trinity is “above logic”, according to Dyer.
My main issue with this presuppositionalism business though is that it seems to render rational discussion impossible, as there is literal no common ground between individuals with different worldviews. What is left then is for one to try to impose one’s view on the other. Very similar to Isaiah Berlin’s criticism of Marxism’s reducing individuals to their social class and positing an irreconcilable antagonism — even on an epistemological level —, a view that inevitably leads to tribalism and violence.

[Anonymous No.20446227]

>>20446159
>a world view that takes on face value literal giants and primitive cosmology or else you can’t give an account of such things as logic and mathematics.
You seem to be strawmanning his position. I believe his position is that there needs to be an account for anything that gives us the possibility of logic or knowledge in the first place. He demonstrates that empiricism cannot answer the challenge to provide an account and provides the alternative which is Orthodoxy. I don't know how exactly he reaches this alternative as the only remaining position, but that's what I got from him so far.

[Anonymous No.20446232]

>>20445556
The religious order of Buddhism gives it administrative legs that some NEET hobbyists cannot replicate or command. This serperates them from mere metaphysicians to practical leaders who can contend with the reign of quantity and not be absolved by the profaning of the Nothing.

[Anonymous No.20446248]

Guenon’s entire shtick is just newly dressed up Rosicrucianism. These are people that have no roots, no tradition, no anything further back than the 17th century. It is literally just heretical Christianity and the so called Tradition that Guenon preaches is not orthodoxy in any religion anywhere. In the end, he expects you literally to just accept what he says on the basis of vague “intuition” and “it’s esoteric bro so of course it’s not condoned by any religion”. It is a JOKE and it’s absolute INSANE that some of you are so well-read and still take this guy seriously. Actually, it just speaks to how fallen we really are.

[Anonymous No.20446316]

>>20445639
Guenon writes of pure quantity and pure quality. Of pure matter and pure essence. Feminine incarnation and masculine inspiration. The Arahant is done with becoming and has ended the need for deeds having fulfilled purpose in life with the destruction of all defilements. He has divorced himself from the Reign of Quantity if you will within the ontological framework of Samsara though this is not exclusive it is supreme in its engineering and refuge.
All self will suffer the profane encroachment of the Nothing that is the Reign of Quantity that is Mara's blinding of the divine light in all Being. Belief in the infinite is profane obfuscation. The obfuscator is Mara. We can consider Math that the profane has reduced number of its Pythagorean harmonious informative qualities as ratio to endless analysis. Even the quants in the financial sector are hot air vents for crypto mining waste. UAE then is an incarnation of a new money land built on immoral emptiness. Pure purchase against volition keeps it running.
In Mathematics proving the profane wrong to reify the Traditional form of number has been done by use of interesting forms of zero to define the abstruse solutions even in complex form. All incomensurables are extensions of the original rational cogito that is the primordial negative difference that relates all beings in Being. We inherit space and time like old constructs set before like Stonehengeand the Pyramid though they are synthetic. Something as simple as completing a square or lofty like Newton's binomial expansion are direct noumenon discovered but invisbly shaping our course where we began.
I am exploring mathematical beauty of the opposite of the Reign of Quantity here in capital T Tradition with you, perenialist friends.

[Anonymous No.20446364]

>>20446248
Your reductive view is wrong and born out of a hostile fault finding mind among an anonymous international interfaith exploration of math and metaphysics. The Rosicrucians require name and form in reified instance as if monopoly can reify itself above ideals. There is no "none may come to father but through me" here.

Quite the contrary, there is concord in veneration for the ineffable unity divinely inspiring all accomplished seekers in Being.
Just as Indian Islamic and Chinese and European mathematicians prove the same proofs we are exchanging charitably and focused in single pointed mind.
Break free from the sand demons and hear ye hear ye, son of molested choir boy goy
https://youtu.be/R46zJYUbMdE

[Anonymous No.20446388]

>>20446104
https://youtu.be/meE1Ocwiv4A after revisiting it I can't even figure it out exactly, you can watch it here all I can think is pseudo-metaphysics, he calls "impersonalism" or the idea of an apophatic essence ( which is strange since he seems to talk about it elsewhere, but goes on to say the Essence and Energies of God are "ontologically distinct" which adds yet another layer of confusion, just a whole heap of confusion, pair this with his constant denigration of other traditions including his own through his misrepresentation ) Unconditioned Godhead or beyond-being "One" a heresy of "greek Hellenism," and says that that he refutes "plotinian theology" and that there is only personality or otherwise a relativisation of the Godhead, the "philosophical" conclusion is a denial of apophaticism and transcendence in its entirety, and also the claim that there are parts in "God" being that the essence and "energies" in a plurality, are divided ontologically, that the triune determination is actually supreme over that indeterminable unity, based on nothing, at this point its just a set of opinions concocted by dyer, and has no philosophical basis grounded in metaphysics, and the fact that he vehemently denies and denounces an "impersonality" to the God in this exclusive fashion tells you all you need to know,
Dyer has on other occasions said that in the Trinity there are "three independent consciousnesses" and all this other sort of gobbledygook,
Somehow dyer says the "Monarchia" of the Father makes what he says work, but from his point of view - since he denies that sort of "apophatic ground," as "impersonalism" and the refuted heresy of "plotinian theology" none of it even makes any sense, and father which spirates the holy spirit and begets the son, cannot be considered as anything but something which is created but which also creates, at best what dyer is trying to get at is something is unproduced but produces, an unmoved mover, which would ultimately be the equivalent of prakriti, while he denies purusha, he also says that the "Trinity" creates, because of the perfect harmony of love in the Trinity - sort of interesting as that parralels the perfect balance of the Trinity of gunas in prakriti,
Anyway, the point is there is nothing "concrete" in any of Dyers speculations, and there is hardly anything metaphysical about it, it's just a sentimental religous dogma dressed up in a pseudo-metaphysical garb.
At best dyer has constructed a sort of relative idol in his head.

https://youtu.be/HOrDKwtIweU here is a long video on how the "energy essence" refutes something man! He refuted "divine simplicity" that God is "pure Being" because the Diversity is Equal to Unity essentialy, which is just semantics and has no grounding in metaphysics, or philosophy, or even christian orthodoxy.

Bottom line is Dyer, is an aggressive dogmatist who asserts a monopoly, pretends to speak with an Absolute point of view, says "Pure Being" does not exist.

[Anonymous No.20446394]

>>20446388
Dyer fails to ever explain how the "essence and energy" are "related" to the Trinity in detail, as he treats the "trinitarian" hypostases as being absolutely fundamental and just like an "isvara," which makes no sense with his claim that there is an essence:
Dyer:
>the essence is God, which is the nature shared by the three persons, it is absolutely unknowable, but we know that it is shared by the three persons by scripture, and this is God but the fact that there is three persons refutes impersonalism or plotinian theology, but Gods essence is impersonal, but we do not deal with what is impersonal the essence which is distinct from the energies, energies are operations of Trinity which is God, but God is the essence which is unknowable, and the essence is distinct from the energies, so we know God only by his energies which are God distinct from God (ontologically), but we all participate in God, and we can't participate in his essence, only his energies which are distinct... so there are parts in a partless absolute which We reject because, the diversity (of creation I assume) is equal to the unity of (Energies because we do not know Essence) and ah yeah so that is God, thank you for listening to my supreme philosophy and theology.
How does any of this make the least sense?

[Anonymous No.20446464]

>>20446394
To be quite honest as a life long Christian (although perhaps a poor one), I have always considered it the 'mystery' of the Trinity. The Trinity is not something you can merely explain away in a YouTube video or any discussion. It's a divine miracle that sits above logic and human comprehension, three parts but one whole.
I have watched a few of his videos and my main issue with him is not his arguments, some of which I find strong (against sola scriptura) but that he behaves in a frankly overly dogmatic and carelessly arrogant manner.

[Anonymous No.20446474]

OP, which books in particular would you recommend to gain a thorough understanding of theology and metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.20446499]

>>20446464
The good which can come about from religion, is moral purification, inner peace, the feeling a joy which springs up from inside, the overcoming of aloneness, living experience which can also be shared with others, sorry for that long exaggerative digression, and I totally agree and it was sort of my point, the intellectual systematisation which dyer tries to elaborate on, and the sentimental debating and fierceness, adversarial attitude, just kills it all, God bless you.

[Anonymous No.20446519]

>>20446499
And I shouldn't forget the overcoming of death, "Deliverance"

[Anonymous No.20446531]

>>20446364
There is something to be said on the supremacy of an initiation over the uninitiated as well as the supremacy of initations among inatiations, then therein among the supreme: the supreme initiates.

I shit on the Church because it is Platonic evil gruesomely rebelling against Hellenic relics with cross scarring defacement of old icons. They are proud of this iconoclasm but they show their true ugly colors as false gatekeepers. "APOSTLES"

[Anonymous No.20446545]

>>20446364
Stop it. Stop this thing that you do where you try to write like Guenon and use language you would never use in person. You are just shrouding the bullshit in words to make it sound more valid than it is.

Guenon himself claimed that his Tradition was that of the Templars, preserved by the Freemasons after the destruction of the Temple. This points directly to Catharism and Rosicrucianism. All of the claims are the same, from the Sufi mysticism, the Egyptian hermeticism, the esotericism, everything. Everything thing I wrote is exactly correct from line 1 and no one who is honest about this guy can refute it.

That’s the immense irony of Guenon and all of his supporters. What he endorses is THE MODERN PSEUDO-RELIGION PAR EXCELLENCE. It quite literally did not exist until the 17th century and is just another heretical cult shrouding itself in exotic mysticism to capture the desperate hearts of Westerners and if you fall for it you are a fool.

[Anonymous No.20446551]

>>20446394
This is Palamism. It's the Eastern Orthodox explaination of Thomism. There's no actual difference between the two it's just Palamism is from a metaphysical perspective and Thomism is from an intellectual perspective.

[Anonymous No.20446554]

>>20446545
t. One of the last few based men on this board

[Anonymous No.20446555]

Anyone who doesn't act according to their beliefs is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

So, ask yourself the following: if someone claims to be a christian, why do they have so many possessions? Why aren't they preparing right now for the End Times, which according their book can happen any moment from now, quit their jobs, sell all their stuff, and start praying for forgiveness for their sins?

By their fruits, you will know them. Ain't that the truth

[Anonymous No.20446558]

>>20446545
Guenon claims ancient and primordial traditions but can’t even elaborate on what those are. He makes appeals to “intuitive knowledge” and “esotericism”. In other words, “just trust me, bro never mind that I wrote a book and made it mass and publicly available it’s like esoteric”. Haven’t you ever noticed how all Traditionalists become Muslims? That’s because it is simply Christian heresy. That’s it. There is nothing there. You have to be stupid to fall for it.

[Anonymous No.20446564]

>>20446555
Why do people like you pretend to know what you’re talking about?

[Anonymous No.20446570]

>>20446545
I am parsing an old tome like you with my best intentions but I do not intend to be buried in it.
I am not going back to any McSynagogue or True Scotsman Synagogue no matter what Guenon said about Muh Medieval glory. Yes I am boorishly anachronistic and an eastaboo. The only exotic thing worth mystifying oneself over sophistically is a rigorous replicatable edifying enobling of consciousness with direct knowledge as the crowning macguffin. The Dharmic religions especially the Schopenhauer outcast of the Dharmic religions, Buddhism, is the most portable and minimalist therefore accessible and relatable. Islam is inaccessible. We are almost subsumed by it and Europe is just about lost. Pali pedantry will be more European than any further wringing of withered foreskin demon mania. I put my philosophers like dominos pointing to the East.

[Anonymous No.20446572]

>>20446564
Because you can't fake with deeds, my coping friend. No matter how hard you try

[Anonymous No.20446596]

>>20446248
>the Tradition that Guenon preaches is not orthodoxy in any religion anywhere
This anon is correct in this regard and it’s a major critique of Traditionalism, and should be taken seriously. Traditionalism as defined by Guenon is not actually endorsed by the religions he claims are authentically representatives (except maybe in Advaita and some Sufis), and this leaves you in the uncomfortable position of claiming to know more about the religion from reading books than the authorities of the religion who belong to the line of succession. This is a killer for traditionalism unless properly addressed and resolved.

[Anonymous No.20446616]

>>20446558
Reading Guénon is preparation for death and for the annulment of the individual, which is achieved through the liberation of the ego, for the supreme revelation of the self, all to begin an ascent through the degrees of being, that is the 4 worlds, through gross manifestation, subtle manifestation, Formless manifestation, and finally nonmanifestation,

Monad (Unconditioned Uncondition (Non-Manifest) undetermined, infinity, father, denominator, non-spatial source, even-odd perfect, defective, beginning, middle, end, eternity) -> Dyad (Unconditioned Condition, mother, the first determination in union with the rule of the first, generation, movement, change, division, unmoved mover, inactive activity, relativity) -> Triad (Conditioned Uncondition, child (male), second monad, first equality, mean, formless manifestation, harmony) -> Tetrad (Conditioned Condition, child (female), second dyad, formal manifestation, completion)

Of these 4, 2 are can be called divine, the goal is to become one with one, the absolutely free unity, which is best achieved though the understanding of the metaphysical zero, which is silence or meditiation on the divine sound.

>>20446596
The traditionalist doesn't need to disclose or confess his point of view, RESOLVED,

>“Traditionalists are those who show only a kind of tendency or aspiration towards tradition, without having any real knowledge about it; we can thus measure the whole distance that separates the traditionalist spirit from the true traditional spirit, which, on the contrary, essentially implies such knowledge and which identifies itself in a way with it ”
— Guenon (pbuh) destroying the self-proclaimed /trads/

It is truly bizarre how some individuals who claim to preserve and develop the ideas presented by Guenon call the phenomenon around Guenon "traditionalism", call themselves "traditionalists" and even call Guenon "traditionalist", which means a man who has no real knowledge about tradition, according to the definition given by Guenon himself... There is serious confusion in the middle, which shows that the "Guenonists" do not know basic aspects of Guenon's work.

All Guenon is for:
>Guenon explains the universal, metaphysical principles. He is addressed only to those who have the capacity to conceive of universal principles, to know them theoretically. If they can conceive universally, it means that they have spiritual possibilities, they have an initiatory qualification (of an intellectual order). And through Guenon's metaphysics books, they can become aware of their own qualifications and aspire to initiation. That was Guenon's goal.

[Anonymous No.20446635]

>>20446558
>all become Muslims
I saw Guenon rage quit religion and come up with a convoluted esoteric reason surveying the world on his spirit quest. Therefore the value I get is not his destination like some lip reciting copy cat but as an inspired seeker on my own journey deliberately not Muslim. Ew.

[Anonymous No.20446650]

>>20446635
Why would we be mentioning Vedanta if this was just a conversion pipeline? Why would we be mentioning Plato eidos and such if this was just Veda school? Why is it so hard to wrap your head around this composition?

[Anonymous No.20446654]

>>20446616
How is that different from saying Tradition is whatever Guenon says it is?

[Anonymous No.20446664]

>>20446555
"Even if I knew Doomsday was tomorrow, I would still plant an apple tree today".

[Anonymous No.20446674]

>>20446654
Guenon says Tradition is Tradition independent of guenon, Tradition is the same before guenon after guenon, tomorrow, today, yesterday, the three times are one - the eternal present, Guenon doesn't exist as such.

[Anonymous No.20446698]

>>20446674
Okay so it’s a cult and if you disguise your lack of arguments as irony you can make the criticism go away?

[Anonymous No.20446701]

>>20446650
Because it is all just vague mysticism and orientalism in the end. Rosicrucians made the exact same claims.

[Anonymous No.20446706]

>>20446698
Yes.

[Anonymous No.20446712]

>>20446616
No, reading Guenon is proto-New Age mysticism for desperate Westerners who feel lost. It’s not all than different from California Buddhists and other New Age cults. That the people who gravitate to it read more than the others means nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.20446750]

>>20446545
>just another heretical cult
Faustian man is always restless and therefore a syncretic savage collating all heretical victories for inspiration. This is the intellectual tradition of all heterodox brave men. It is necessitated by the stultifying stupidity of dogmatic orthodoxy.
Here I think I find you to be the dogmatist par excellence where I otherwise criticize Guenon as a dogmatist who reveres a nonhuman inspired intelligence. I do not revere what you revere and crown the king of heretics king of kings. It is not one who heresies for the sake of heresy but one who asks relentlessly. The man's man wins all arguments and is generative. Never stultified. Never frozen in an idol. Olympic champion. Orphic singer. Riding a tumult not preserving something because there is nothing to preserve as long as the original generative flame to kill Kronos time and time again. The man against time is king.
It has been said Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu the presever in Trimurti. There I must let go of my restlessness and question that in meditation.

[Anonymous No.20446751]

>>20446712
Still better than christcuckoldry tho

[Anonymous No.20446755]

>>20446701
>just
Again reductive and hostile.
You don't respect the venture out forth FROM comfortable shit show housing and furnishing in the current compounded conditioned world. This is a deliberate departure to absence to visualize a new schema. The most effort and elegance I have ever seen for this utmost noble effort.

[Anonymous No.20446845]

>>20446499
I tend to agree. I believe that organized and formal religion has value, for the good of the community and the common man via symbolism and tradition, but I certainly don't subscribe to an overly analytical version of it, and although I find some theology interesting to delve into, I definitely concur that the bitterly adversarial attitude does nothing for anyone.
Of note, Dyer frequently disregards critique with an offhand "go read X," or, "I can tell you haven't read X." While not necessarily untrue, how does this appeal to anyone? Besides which, I am a blue collar worker that drives a truck and has a family. I can't spend every waking hour delving into transcendental arguments.

Non ironically I think he needs a woman to blunt his attitude, or at the very least some years of hard labour.

[Anonymous No.20446885]

>>20446664
Really? You'd plant a tree for a world you believe won't exist tomorrow?

This is almost 'enlightened by my own intelligence' stupid

[Anonymous No.20446969]

>>20446845
>go read x
>i can tell you havent read x
Yeah that is not helpful at all, religion is something which doesn't need to be shared in that intellectual fashion, a master of his craft can express something he has realised deeply usually to even a child, of course not the fullness, which in essence is as incommunicable as the being itself, but of the pointers to others which may be illuminative and helpful, I have found that with my family I am able to diffuse arguments, and create more peace, by really stressing the difference between the real and only the apparent real, of course in those circumstances, I point out what's the point of arguing and I try to be a sort of peacemaker where necessary, but the true fruits of contemplation are reaped by me alone, it's a like a seed inside me which I will be forever content with which I cultivate in secret, never bored, I could occupy myself with myself for an eternity, that is an unmatched freedom. Whenever I see people even if they may appear to be disgusting animals covered in feces, disposed to vice, I recognise that inside they are pure light, and that when I pass judgement on them I am passing judgement on myself, any flaw I see in others is a flaw I see in myself. Really I have found an unmatched permanence and immutability, I see the reality as being a continuos dream, an illusion, reality being an illusion is not nihilism in fact it grants me peace, good and evil may not be real, there may be nothing to guilt over, my body may not even be my own, but as I purify my thoughts and mind, I do not see the point in evil, good is just my nature, and if by chance I do something bad by accident, or by habit, I realise that despair is futile, that it is not me attributing bad to myself and I then stay detached and I feel compelled to not fall into the same habit.
Of course I am still working out some habits which I have developed from early childhood, but really they are becoming so minimal, that I feel in a genuine way that I could reach a state of relative perfection in this lifetime.

When it comes to the worldly concerns, I am not lethargic or apprehensive, I just do in a detached manner, I can do these things as if they were nothing, I am thankful for the conditions of my birth, I have fallen many times through self-abuse ignorance mostly in my younger years.

Death will soon devour this body, which will kill me, it has served me well, it has been a pleasant modality of existence, I don't hate it in the least, but compared to the self it has impermanence, it is not the body which contains me but it is I who contain the body.

What was also hard was overcoming the relative conditionings of existence, I used to be very attached to objects, to my race, that feeling of belonging, I am grateful to all these things, but they too will pass away, I can't cling to the specific circumstances forever.

[Anonymous No.20446974]

>>20446751
It is literally just Christian heresy. It is not even its own thing.

[Anonymous No.20447048]

>>20446974
Christianity today just means nigger worship (in America) and refugee worship (Europe) so being a heretic in these religions is actually a good thing.

[Anonymous No.20447118]

>>20447048
Based and simple

[Anonymous No.20447188]

>>20447048
christianity is not racist or anti-racist, is just colour blind

[Anonymous No.20447198]

>>20447188
And antiwhite and a pussy pipeline for horny juden

[Anonymous No.20447266]

reminder that /lit/ is a HIGH GHIBELLINE board

[Anonymous No.20447270]

>>20447188
There isn't much of a leap to be made from inherited collective guilt over original sin to inherited collective guilt over slavery, national socialism or (pick your countries' variant here).

[Anonymous No.20447285]

>>20446227
>He demonstrates that empiricism cannot answer the challenge
LMAO

[Anonymous No.20447316]

>>20445482
Any response I add will by my own fart huffing grandiosity.

[Anonymous No.20447363]

>>20446654
Because is not.
There are patterns and truth in tradition
What brainlets can cope with is that tere os such thing as myth creation.
You can force traditions into being.
Those traditons survive if hold some truh.
Everything else is aesthetics, storytelling, pseudo philosophy amd emotional appeal.
Spiritualets can cope with it.

[Anonymous No.20447367]

>>20447363
Cant x 2

[Anonymous No.20447440]

>>20446885
Nobody will know when the end times will come, retard.

[Anonymous No.20447441]

>>20445482
Dyer is an idiot grifter who was dumb enough to associate with Ethan Ralph, an IRL loathsome dung eater by going on the gunt's show. Why waste time analyzing his fraudulent gobbledegook? He wrote books about Hollywood movies. He's a dork.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20447507]

Dyer can be extremely based on topics such as Hollywood and general schizo shit
However, similar to TradCath e-celebs, when he talks Orthocuckery he is boring.
>le every other /trad/ition is demonic!
gets tiresome after a while

[Anonymous No.20447798]

>>20447188
Christianity is inherently anti-racist. "Neither greek nor jew". The various ethnic alignments with different sects and mutations of the jesus cult are a result of the overwhelming racial component of all peoples. At the end of the day, christianity demands that your racial heritage be wiped away and replaced with worshiping a corpse.

[Anonymous No.20448148]

>>20445482
Watching any eceleb or youtuber is counter-initiation. No exceptions.

[Anonymous No.20448162]

>>20448148
except Professor Saiyad Ahmad & PewDiePie

[Anonymous No.20448170]

>>20448162
No. There are no exceptions.

[Anonymous No.20448175]

>>20448170
except Professor Saiyad Ahmad & PewDiePie

[Anonymous No.20448184]

>>20448170
They are counter-initiation too.

[Anonymous No.20448350]

>>20445482
Orthobros are just rootless American fundamentalists with fresh coat of paint. Last time I saw one of their videos it was about Christian lamb symbolism being heretical. These people will just turn their new religion into protestantism.

[Anonymous No.20449602]

>>20445482
Dyer is no different from the kind of new age freaks that have been so common in America since the 20th century, only he paints his "metaphysics" with a conservative/right-leaning hue to attract those kinds of audiences. He's just another sketchy pseudo-cult-leader salesman. You did well to read Guenon so you can identify this kind of individuals that will lead you astray.

[Anonymous No.20449662]

He's just a youtuber. I don't get why people seem to take the opinions of these people so personally. I've watched some of his stuff and enjoyed it, and then when he goes religitard mode I tune out. I don't think
>oh my god, how could he even think that??!! This guy is like a total fraud!! I need to stir up drama now because I know I'm right and he's not!!!
This enforcement of the vulgar ego is diametrically opposed to the aims of spirituality. Purify yourself of such dross.

[Anonymous No.20449665]

>>20447507
Yet another based dago post.

[Anonymous No.20449670]

>>20447441
>completely immersed in bottom of the barrel eceleb gossip/drama
Unironically sort yourself out.

[Anonymous No.20449682]

>>20446596
Why do people who are trying to critique Guenon not even understand the difference between religion and esotericism? It seems to be most of his critics too...

[Anonymous No.20449688]

>>20445686
Forgetting about someone

[Anonymous No.20449914]

>>20445482

>Orthodox Christian Metaphysics
>Pseudo-Metaphysics

Yes, you syncretistic(yes I know Guenon says syncretism bad - you're still doing syncretism) neo-Advaitins see anything that can't be turned into Advaita as unorthodox. Fine.

However, none of your post actually explains why his presentation of Orthodox metaphysics is pseudo-metaphysics. Your post is assertions and emotions.

I will agree with you that Jay Dyer is a psued, because of his obviously worldly life that betrays the fact that he only superficially understands what he's teaching, and none of it has been internalized into actual life-changes, and that at a certain point his understanding of Orthodox metaphysics breaks down and when he's unable to explain his understanding he just brute-forces his way into trying to make his opponent feel stupid or uneducated, and he doesn't explicate TAG in a comprehensive enough way to stand on its own, but his refutations of other paradigms hold, and so far he has actually been undefeated in a debate.

That doesn't actually mean that he's a creative or good debater - It's just that everyone willing to debate him has been a legitimately awful debater, and Jay Dyer simply has a good memory for repeating correct arguments, refutations and doctrines. He also avoids debates on topics where he knows that he would get refuted - primarily about whether the recent miracle-working Orthodox Saints considered the Moscow Patriarchate the legitimate successor of the Russian Orthodox Church.

[Anonymous No.20450171]

Its simple, as explicated by Proclus Elements of Theology.

Proposition 5: all multitude is posterior to the one.

The trinity is a multitude/multiplicity. It cannot be Simple, or Simply One, therefore its erronous to say God, is a multiplicity, even with or without an energy essence distinction.

At some point, a trinitarian has to revoke reason and fall back on scripture to uphold his metaphysics. And that in itself, is errenous.

[Anonymous No.20450205]

>>20449914
It's not "orthodox Christian metaphysics," it's Dyers version of it
>>20450171
>Trinity is a multitude
No, that's not how their actual metaphysics works
See here:
https://youtu.be/GC0IUAApMKM
They deny that the Trinity is a multitude, the whole point is Dyer elaborates and invented this idea and emphasises the idea that the Trinity IS a "multitude" that the Trinity being as much a diversity as it is a unity - is pseudo-metaphysical.
The essence and energies too are not actually Distinct, they are One in an Absolute sense, and virtually distinct in the Relative sense, in the same way Maya exists relatively, but does not really exist absolutely, or any relative determination for that matter, the genuine orthodox position is that "indeterminable" "non-manifest" "Godhead," just read Dionysius the pseudo-areopagite:

From the mystical theology:
>That it that is the pre-eminent Cause of all things intelligibly perceived is not itself any of those things.

>Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.

Essentialy the actual orthodox metaphysical position is not then a "pseudo" one in the way Dyer presents, that's my whole point, and there is an impersonality to that indeterminable essence, from which the Triunity derives as a determination thereof as an Isvara, and is consistent with guénon when considered as the personal immanence, of the transcendence, and there are no "energies" but a single energy which again, elaborates only Prakriti the uncreated creation, and essence purusha, the nonmanifest,
There is nothing actually erroneous about the orthodox metaphysics, just Dyers version of it

[Anonymous No.20450231]

>>20445482
I see Guenon similarly, an example of Oikiophobic sentiment glossed over in mysticism, that seems to attract zoomers like flies on shit, I guess the only thing that makes these kinds of gurus tolerable is the fact leddit atheism is dismal in comparison.

[Anonymous No.20450233]

>>20450205
>Trinity IS a multitude that's the whole point, and there is this equal many and one, diversity and unity, and they are equal.

That's why I made this thread saying that Dyer was sowing the seeds of confusion, with his idiosyncratic systematisation of theology, which people are taking at face value because of his whole image of being learned.
He muddles the water of the "Absolute" and the "Relative" and flavours it with the larp, of being Mr. Metaphysician,

As another anon Said American orthodoxy is just fundamentalism with a fresh coat of paint, I fully respect the abrahamic traditions, and see in them a connection to that primordial source.

[Anonymous No.20450237]

>>20450171
But yes, thanks you essntialy refuted the position I was talking about and got straight to the point.

[Anonymous No.20450263]

>>20446551
>There's no actual difference between the two it's just Palamism is from a metaphysical perspective and Thomism is from an intellectual perspective.
Interesting view, do you know books that explain the similarities?

[Anonymous No.20450283]

>>20450205
I'm sorry, but I still think the principal applies here, regardless of how you try to spin it.

It's a more coherent version though, I would agree.

[Anonymous No.20450297]

>>20450231
>guénon attracts zoomers
You're seething and you so not have the intellectual capacity to really understand guénon, read his books on metaphysics and so on and then come back, zoomers are pretenders - too smoothbrained to actually understand those parts, they usually just stick with guénons books on the contingent applications, like Reign of Quantity and sign of the Times, Temporal Power, and so forth -
Guénons books on initiation and metaphysics - just read man and his becoming according to the Vedanta, Multiple States of being, it's great stuff, and once you actually start becoming More well acquainted with eastern metaphysics, you can reread his books and derive even more from them and realise that he really did have a personal knowledge and deep realisation with regards to the things he was talking about,

"Glossed over in mysticism" deluded, you probably think mysticism is that anti-metaphysical sentimentalism where a person defers to something being too "complex," but guénon explains things as well as he could at the time, leaving out obviously the incommunicable aspects to their full extent, limited by his medium and form, in the same way if you read the Upanishads, or any traditional text, Plato's dialogues for example, there is always the unwritten experiential components, which you miss out on - this is all guénon was being mysterious about.

Go ahead and join a sufi tariqa, or whatever, only then can you understand, when you actually submit yourself at the feet of someone who is professing wisdom and method, in a genuine way, inherent possibilities can be drawn out, you are opened to the all pervading presence of the spirit, it is something that the elite of all generations partook in, and it is exactly this component which has been subjected to the most degeneration today, people laugh at you, people denigrate you, so you don't tell them, you keep it secret and you have experiences restricted to the initiates and exceptional people of all ages,
The average modern doesn't even acknowledge thet there is a mind, or that there are experiences or things to be had, so it may come as a shock to you even if you think you're "religous" you may say well that's just delusional, or that oh I'll just take drugs instead, or I don't need a teacher (that may actually be the case, as you may be exceprional) but you will still be lacking that affiliation with the traditional organisation and everything is unforeseen and unmediated.
>>20450283
>coherent version
It is the proper version of all religions, Personal God (Isvara) relative determination deriving from an Impersonal Brahman, the Isvara one becomes nondual with, and realisesthat Brahman, or non-manifestation,
Beneath pretty much all religous forms there is a unity, the diversity is apparent, they all just fluctuate between focussing on that "saguna," or "nirguna," aspect, then everything else is in the domain of "Yoga," and the directly transmitted praxis.

[Anonymous No.20450323]

>>20450283
The same principal applies to all religions which ever use a name, or attribute a condition, personally I agree with you, but you're exclusive claim about it only being about indeterminable principle of nonmanifestation while true from the absolute point of view, does nothing to refure the relative means of experience, and a religion is primarily Praxis there is nothing wrong at all with then talking about conditions of the isvara, and even if it is unacknowledged amongst those on the relative path - transcending it in a gnosis beyond being.

There is nothing to refuted, no right or wrong, no correct view from the Absolute perspective, whatever means is permissible, some are better for some people, but just because you have a certain disposition you refute something.

Merely having a debate is only a sign that you are still sorting things out in your own head, or trying to assure yourself, still on the relative path, insofar as an "Absolute" and "relative" are clearly established, in fact even me making this thread "refuting" dyer is yet another sign of my attachment, and of me "fleshing" things out and criticising myself, because I am not yet complete,
Dyer does well at least talk about "God" it's just that people who watch him, have a less refined perspective on the Absolute, if they take it all at face-value which is again doubtable,

I just want to make it clear there is nothing "refuted" no "accepting" or "denying" or "affirming" no "winning" or "losing" from my point of view.


I only made this thread because I am bored and enjoy writing random words here to people, as an exercise, because admittedly I am still "working" things out, I take no shame in admitting that, and I'm not here to pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous No.20450335]

>>20450297
I'm not reading all that. Kindly commit suicide.

[Anonymous No.20450345]

>>20450335
Nothing lost by me, or gained, not even the time I spent writing it, which was relatively minute.

[Anonymous No.20450356]

>>20450205

There's a difference between the ideas of the Trinity being a specifically many amount, that is a Triad, and being a multitude, that is an indefinite division. Often, this distinction is confused, but it's one that the ancients knew about.

The Orthodox Metaphysics is that the Holy Trinity is eternally a Unity according to the One essence and One energy, and a Triad according to the Three persons.

It certainly would be heretical to say that the Holy Trinity is a "multitude". In the divine names, St Dionysius the Areopegite in the Divine Names, Chapter 2, explicitly affirms that God is both a Unity and a Triad, but never a "multitude". It is known in Patristic literature that God must be a Triad in order for only the Son to be incarnate, since the Father and Holy Spirit did not become incarnate. If the Holy Trinity was *not* a Triad eternally, with truly eternally distinct persons, then the entire Trinity has been incarnate of the Virgin Mary, which is simply not the case. By this, the triadic metaphysics of Orthodoxy was also made manifest, and the distinct and eternal ontology of nature, personhood, and energy, exemplified by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit respectively, was made manifest in the full revelation of the Trinity in Christ's baptism.

[Anonymous No.20450412]

>>20450323
The path to transcendence is knowledge. i.e Know Thyself.

You cannot traverse the path with false convictions and inconsistencies regarding metaphysics.

>>20450356
You equalise man with the divine nature which is a heresey.

[Anonymous No.20450456]

>>20450412
>The path to transcendence is knowledge. i.e Know Thyself.
Ok
>You equalise man with the divine nature which is a heresy.
???

[Anonymous No.20450462]

>>20450412

>You equalise man with the divine nature which is a heresey.

Yes, that is a heresy, which is why I never mentioned equalising man with the divine nature. Did you respond to the wrong Anon?

[Anonymous No.20450508]

>>20446129
He literally doesn’t think that his ‘transcendental argument for his’ can be proven wrong

[Anonymous No.20450552]

>>20450508
>his
*God

[Anonymous No.20450646]

>>20450508
The fact that he holds to this "proof" and "disproof" in regards to the transcendental is just pointless, if he were a serious individual he would just tell his followers, read "anselms" or "kalams cosmological argument" and all that maybe he'd go over them, and say well these proofs are only there to suggest that there is an ultimate Principle, or underlying principle, an irreducibility, something permanent immutable and eternal, he could go over them, and never disgrace the fruits of his intellectual efforts with profane debate, the guy literally starts getting angry, starts yelling in his debates, gets flustered, and says "No No No Listen to me You're not listening to me!" American orthodoxy reality TV show.

[Anonymous No.20450666]

>>20445552
lol this. just have sex.

[Anonymous No.20450672]

>>20450666
Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

[Anonymous No.20450698]

>>20450646
He says that those sort of arguments are worthless because they don’t prove the existence of the ‘Orthodox Christian God’ specifically. In his debate with Dr Alex Malpass he struggled to put his TAG argument in any sort of coherent form.

[Anonymous No.20450705]

David Hume already showed these "truth seekers" are charlatans. Then Nietzche gave us the solution hoe to love our life for ourselves.
Before converting to Orthodox Christianity, Dyer seriously considered becoming an Orthodox Jew. If you're still a serious Christian in 2021, you're a discount Jew.

[Anonymous No.20450707]

>>20450705
>2022, obviously

[Anonymous No.20450714]

>>20445493
basado y rojopillado

[Anonymous No.20450811]

>>20450698
But surely he knows that his TAG is just a modification of these arguments ultimately and that it is all implicit in plato, and that it definitively does not "prove" the existence of the Orthodox Christian God, even admitting the "proof" part, you could say that it substantiates the existence of an organisational Principle..., he has explained the TAG and its basically:

Read the following if you want to not waste your time and bypass the videos:


>You can't say there is no truth without asserting that as a truth, as that would be self-refuting
>"transcendentals" or "categories" or "preconditions" therefore God exists
https://youtu.be/B5VuTpePiH8
and he lists some as follows:
>time and space
>self
>words/meaning
>the past
>universals
>ethics...
He says they are not empirically verifiable, "Transcendental categories" his whole position is refuting empiricism, they are immeasurables ultimately,
They are all preconditions for having "knowledge" - they are presupposed by empirical investigation, the Transcendental argument according to dyer proves that these must exist, in the mind of christ, or mind of God, he says then he digressed all the Transcendentals are all interdependent rather speculatively and says that them "working together" proves.. God (this is where he says he differs from platonism - which only goes so far... and screws up, because they all just say its all the One man.. and thats not enough he says... (You) need a mind, and you need human mind to encapsulate and relare all those Transcendentals together), and he says they are qualities which condition the individual,

Lol, so he says that Human mind which is only fulfilled by the Christian God, because you need a human Mind which is fulfilled by the Christ who has a "human mind" i guess feom dyers point of view....

So essentialy Dyers argument is "proof" for the necessity of the human mind! Wowzers!!!

Why does /lit/ even make a thread on this guy, his argument here is in part true, but fully encapsulated by Plato which he denigrates as incomplete, while he also interpolates that what you need exactly is an incarnational mind, which he calls the human mind,
So dyer has presented then the Transcendental argument for the human mind, and I am left laughing because this sort of argument is obviously the consequences of the popularisation aspect of pseudo-philosophy, combined with the evangelical tendency.

nonetheless his argument can by derived from an elementary reading of the Platonic dialogues, or medieval theologians.

And it is confused and incomplete with respects to the "principles" or otherwise as neologistically put by Dyer who far surpasses the divine Plato "Transcendental categories" "Presuppositions" "Preconditions"

There you go i saved you some time.

[Anonymous No.20450820]

>>20450705
Judeo-Christian is an oxymoron.

[Anonymous No.20450823]

>>20450705
>Hume in a guénon thread...
Anon I....

[Anonymous No.20450865]

>>20450811
https://youtu.be/4MZErPk3_MU
Dyer in this video, why the Trinity?
He says
>Revelation (i assume he means scripture), That is the ultimate meta, that is the ultimate precondition, that is where our arguments stop, that is the final circularity.

Dyer says he doesn't have to disprove every "worldview," but they are all riddled with Presuppositions.
I'm going to create a discord, and refute this guy.
He says most "religous worldviews" are either Monist or Dualist, and so on...
>everything is one man...
He makes fun of that claim, and so on, so he says he doesn't have to refute worldview, but other religous worldviews are wrong because he says so. He's a populariser ultimately.

[Anonymous No.20450877]

>>20450811
>>20450865
What does guénonfag think, how would he retroactively refute Dyer? Maybe an acceptance of his arguments up to a certain point?,

[Anonymous No.20450919]

>>20450705
>Before converting to Orthodox Christianity, Dyer seriously considered becoming an Orthodox Jew.

Source?

[Anonymous No.20451029]

>>20450865

>Saint Gregory the Theologian:

>For this reason the Monad from the beginning moved toward a dyad and at the Trinity came to a halt.
>The Monad moved on account of its abundance, the dyad was surpassed — for it is beyond matter and form, out of which bodies are made — the Trinity was defined, on account of its perfection.


>St Maximus the Confessor about the Above:

>If, while considering the apparent contradiction, O servant of God, you were at a loss regarding the real agreement, it would nevertheless not be possible for two statements to be more unified in meaning than these. for the phrase “the dyad was surpassed” means the same thing as “not coming to a halt in the dyad,” just as the phrase “the Trinity was defined” means the same thing as the “movement of the Monad comes to a halt in the Trinity.” For we believe in a monarchy that is neither begrudging of its bounty (in the sense of being restricted to a single person), nor disorderly (in the sense of being poured out ad infinitum), but which is constituted by a Trinity that is equal in honor by nature: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, “whose wealth is their identity of nature and the single manifestation of their splendor,” and whose “divinity is neither poured out beyond these three, lest we introduce a multitude of gods, nor bounded within them, lest we be condemned for poverty in divinity.”

>This is not, however, a causal explanation for the cause of beings, which is itself beyond all being, but the demonstration of a pious opinion about it, since the Godhead is a Monad (but not a dyad), and a Trinity (but not a multitude), for it is without beginning, bodily form, or internal strife. For the Monad is truly a Monad: it is not the origin of the things that come after it, as if it had expanded after a state of contraction, like something naturally poured out and proliferating into a multitude, but is rather the inherently personal reality of the consubstantial Trinity. And the Trinity is truly a Trinity, not the sum of a divisible number, (for it is not an aggregation of monads, that it might suffer division), but the inherently essential subsistence of the three-personed Monad. The Trinity is truly a Monad, for such it is; and the Monad is truly a Trinity, for as such it subsists, since there is one Godhead that in essence is a Monad and in subsistence a Trinity.

>And finally, having heard the word “movement,” you wondered how the Godhead, which is beyond infinity, is said to “move,” understand that movement is something that happens to us, and not to the Godhead. For first we are illumined by the principle of its being, after which we are enlightened regarding the mode of its subsistence, for the fact of being is always grasped before the manner of being. Thus the “movement” of the Godhead is the knowledge — through illumination — of its existence and how it subsists, manifested to those who are able to receive it.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20451059]

>>20450919
I recall him mentioning it in a video as well

[Anonymous No.20451078]

>>20451029
Part 1.
>The triad, the first odd number, is called perfect by some, because it is the first number to signify the totality—beginning, middle and end. When people exalt extraordinary events, they derive words from the triad and talk of 'thrice blessed,' 'thrice fortunate.' Prayers and libations are performed three times. Triangles both reflect and are the first substantiation of being plane; and there are three kinds of triangle—equilateral, isosceles and scalene. Moreover, there are three rectilinear angles—acute, obtuse and right. And there are three parts of time. Among the virtues, they likened it to modera tion: for it is commensurability between excess and deficiency. Moreover, the triad makes 6 by the addition of the monad, dyad and itself, and 6 is the first perfect number.

From Nicomachus’ Theology
>The triad is the source in actuality of number, which is by definition a system of monads. For the dyad is in a sense a monad on account of being like a source, but the triad is the first to be a system, of monad and dyad. But it is also the very first which admits of end, middle and beginning, which are the causes of all comple tion and perfection being attained. The triad is the form of the completion of all things, and is truly number, and gives all things equality and a certain lack of excess and deficiency, having defined and formed matter with the potential for all qualities.

>They say that it is called 'triad' by comparison with someone being 'unyielding'—that is, not to be worn down/ it gets this name because it is impossible to divide it into two equal parts.

>The triad is pervasive in the nature of number: for there are three types of odd number—prime and incomposite, secondary and composite, and mixed, which is secondary in itself, but otherwise prime; and again, there are over-perfect, imperfect and perfect numbers,- and in short, of relative quantity, some is greater, some less and some equal.

>One could relate to all this the words of Homer, "All was divided into three," (Iliad 15.189) given that we also find that the virtues are means between two vicious states which are opposed both to each other and to virtue; and there is no disagreement with the notion that the virtues fall under the monad and are something definite and knowable and are wisdom—for the mean is one—while the vices fall under the dyad and are indefinite, unknowable and senseless.

>They call it 'friendship' and 'peace,' and further 'harmony' and 'unanimity': for these are all cohesive and unificatory of opposites and dissimilars. Hence they also call it 'marriage.' And there are also three ages in life.

>They call the triad 'piety': hence the name 'triad' is derived from 'terror'—that is, fear and caution. [5.]
[5.] Here trios (triad) is linked with tiein (to be afraid).

[Anonymous No.20451094]

>>20451078
This is all from pseudo-iamblichus, theology of arithmetic by the way:

>The triad has a special beauty and fairness beyond all numbers, primarily because it is the very first to make actual the potentiali ties of the monad—oddness, perfection, proportionality, unifica tion, limit. For 3 is the first number to be actually odd, since in conformity with its descriptions it is 'more than equal' and has something more than the equal in another part; [1.] and it is special in respect of being successive to the two sources and a system of them both. At any rate, it is perfect in a more particular way than the other numbers to which consecutive numbers from the monad to the tetrad are found to be equal—I mean, that is, the monad, triad, hexad and decad. The monad, as the basic number of this series, is equal to the monad; the triad is equal to monad and dyad; the hexad is equal to monad, dyad and triad; the decad is equal to monad, dyad, triad and tetrad. So the triad seems to have something extra in being successive to those to which it is also equal. Moreover, they called it 'mean' and 'proportion/ not so much because it is the very first of the numbers to have a middle term, which it in particular maintains in a relation of equality to the extremes, [2.] but because in the manner of equality among things of the same genus, where there is a mean between greater and less inequality of species, it too is seen as midway between more and less and has a symmetrical nature. For the number which comes before it, 2, is more than the one before it, and this, being double, is the root of the basic relation of being more than; and the number which comes after it, 4, is less than the numbers which precede it, and this, being sesquialter, is the very first to have the specific identity of the basic relation of being less than,- but the triad, between both of these, is equal to what precedes it, so it gains the specific identity of a mean between the others.

Notes:
>[1.] Peziisos (more than equal) is a word made up for the similarity withperissos (odd); similarly for the phrase 'more than the equal'—'the equal' being the dyad, presumably. There could also be a reference to the point made in the next paragraph: the triad is 'more than just equal/ because it is also successive to the monad and the dyad.
>[2.] I suppose this means either that 3 is 1+1+1, where the middle term is naturally equal to either of the extremes; or that in the series 1, 2, 3, the middle term is equidistant from (the arithmetic mean of) the extremes.

[Anonymous No.20451127]

>>20451094
>>20451078
Last part still on the triad:
>Hence, on account of it, there are three so-called 'true' means (arithmetic, geometric and harmonic); and three which are subcon trary to these, [3.] and three terms in the case of each mean,- and three intervals (that is, in the case of each term, [16] the differences between the small term and the mean, the mean and the large term, and the small and the large terms); and an equal number of ratios, according to what was said in ordering the antecedents; and moreover three reversals appear on examination, of great to small, great to mean, and mean to small. [4.]

>The monad is like a seed in containing in itself the unformed and also unarticulated principle of every number,- the dyad is a small advance towards number, but is not number outright because it is like a source; but the triad causes the potential of the monad to advance into actuality and extension. 'This' belongs to the monad, 'either' to the dyad, and 'each' and 'every' to the triad. Hence we use the triad also for the manifestation of plurality, and say 'thrice ten thousand' when we mean 'many times many,' and 'thrice blessed.' Hence too we traditionally invoke the dead three times. Moreover, anything in Nature which has process has three boundaries (begin ning, peak and end—that is, its limits and its middle), and two intervals (that is, increase and decrease), with the consequence that the nature of the dyad and 'either' manifests in the triad by means of its limits.

>The triad is called 'prudence' and 'wisdom'—that is, when people act correctly as regards the present, look ahead to the future, and gain experience from what has already happened in the past: so wisdom surveys the three parts of time, and consequently knowledge falls under the triad.

Notes:
>[3.] The arithmetic mean between a and c is b if a-b=b-c; b is the geometric mean between a and c if b/a=(c-b)/(b-a); b is the harmonic mean between a and c if c/a=(c-b)/(b-a). Fairly early in the history of Greek mathematics, seven further means were distinguished. The three subcon trary means referred to are c/a=(b-a)/(c-b), which is subcontrary to the harmonic; and two which are subcontrary to the geometric: b/a=(b-a)/(c-b) and c/b=(b-a)/(c-b).
>[4.] A ratio is, say, 2:4, whereas the intervals mentioned just before are the differences between any two terms in a proportion: the interval in the ratio 2:4 is 2. The 'reversals' are simply expressing the proportions the other way round, so that, for instance, the geometric proportion 1, 2, 4 becomes 4, 2, 1, and the ratio 2:4 becomes 4:2.

[Anonymous No.20451136]

>>20450705
A Humean talking about truth seems ridiculous to me.

[Anonymous No.20451137]

>>20451127
The important part there:
>The monad is like a seed in containing in itself the unformed and also unarticulated principle of every number,- the dyad is a small advance towards number, but is not number outright because it is like a source; but the triad causes the potential of the monad to advance into actuality and extension.

This is all no doubt related to
>>20451029
In principle.

>The triad is very well suited to geometry: for the basic element in plane figures is the triangle, and there are three kinds of triangle—acute-angled, obtuse-angled and scalene.
>There are three configurations of the moon—waxing, full moon and waning; there are three types of irregular motion of the planets—direct motion, retrogression and, between these, the stationary mode; there are three circles which define the zodiacal plane—that of summer, that of winter, and the one midway between these, which is called the ecliptic, there are three kinds of living creature—land, winged and water; there are three Fates in theology, because the whole life of both divine and mortal beings is governed by emission and receiving and thirdly requital, with the heavenly beings fertilizing in some way, the earthly beings receiving, as it were, and requitals being paid by means of those in the middle, as if they were a generation between male and female.

[Anonymous No.20451143]

>>20449682
Because it’s a bullshit cop out for your nonsense.

[Anonymous No.20451146]

>>20449602
> irony the post
Guenon is the king of new age

[Anonymous No.20451153]

>>20446755
I don’t respect that I wasted several years of my 20s taking these clowns seriously and it nearly ruined my life. Now that I see how ridiculous it was I simply wish to warn others.

[Anonymous No.20451212]

>>20451153
>they wasted several years of my 20s
You are the master of your own fate, you are the captain of your own soul, you being lead around by clowns is your own issue, when and where did these clowns tell you to waste or give up your life in the way that you did, in fact you clearly didn't even assimilate the least conception if you feel that you "wasted" time, and you never actually cultivated the experiential aspects, but everything you did was confined to purely rational study, it took me under a month to read every book of Guènons, and it never has impeded on my life, I don't care to discuss it with people i just occasionaly go on /lit/ all my discussion of the subject is confined to this place alone, it doesn't dominate mind, in fact my mind is for most of the day is totally empty even as I'm writing this I am not even "aware" of the place that these words are coming from its as if my hands were moving automatically, most things like this for me are totally effortless, I don't even have a sense of time anymore, I can go to sleep on command, when I fall asleep I don't lose conciousness, instead I am just in a warm golden light and I just sit there, contemplating effortlessly.

All i have to say is that you were filtered, you must still be under the spell of equality and democratism as a coping mechanism to compensate for the fixity of your abnormal mind.

[Anonymous No.20451234]

>>20451212
>>20451212
>you didn't even assimilate the least conception you never actually cultivated the experiential aspects, but everything you did was confined to purely rational study, it took me under a month to read every book of Guènons, and it never has impeded on my life, I don't care to discuss it with people i just occasionaly go on /lit/ all my discussion of the subject is confined to this place alone, it doesn't dominate mind, in fact my mind is for most of the day is totally empty even as I'm writing this I am not even "aware" of the place that these words are coming from its as if my hands were moving automatically, most things like this for me are totally effortless, I don't even have a sense of time anymore, I can go to sleep on command, when I fall asleep I don't lose conciousness, instead I am just in a warm golden light and I just sit there, contemplating effortlessly.
A very relateable post, in guenons books are the keys to the kingdom.

[Anonymous No.20451267]

>>20451212
Good luck