/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21337234]

>All religions secretly teach depersonalization and annihilationism, just ignore the parts where they don't
>No, I haven't read my sources, just trust me and my freemason handlers
>God and the after-life are like one big opiate

Can't believe how much of a hack this guy is. It's no wonder Guenon appeals to zoomers. It gives them an excuse to aestheticize their xanax pseudo-mysticism.

[Anonymous No.21337250]

>>21337234
Do you have a religion/tradition? Who are your favorite authors?

[Anonymous No.21337279]

>>21337250
Stupid questions.

>Writes the worst metaphysics book of the 20th century

This guy huffed and puffed so much about pure metaphysics and when it came down to actually doing it the result is terrible and incredibly long-winded. Guenon's main strength is to write vaguely to lure impressionable people into his syncretic cult. Awful, awful book.

[Anonymous No.21337287]

>>21337279
So you are satanist/atheist? Expected as much.

[Anonymous No.21337289]

Here's another book by Guenon that is claimed to be one of his very best. I have never read such terrible argumentation made by such an arrogant author in a long time.

I can't believe anyone who is a good reader can pick this up and believe Guenon makes solid arguments and presents actual refutations to criticisms. Everything is a thinly-veiled appeal to authority and then ad hominem of anything that could critique it. "It's trad, these moderns just don't get it." His arguments for why Vedanta are superior are piss-poor. They're not even arguments, just opinions.

Did he even read the sources he cites?

[Anonymous No.21337292]

Yeah, I came to this conclusion myself eventually.

[Anonymous No.21337293]

*pretends to say something while actually saying nothing*

If you were impressed by his "predictions" about currency you are a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.21337311]

>>21337287
You zoomer guenonians are an absolute embarrassment. "Hurr you're a satanist." Go smoke weed and tell yourself there's an evil conspiracy of satanists out to get Guenon and hide his secret teachings. Get a fucking grip.

[Anonymous No.21337331]

>>21337279
>>21337289
>>21337293
This is what happens when a hylic tries metaphysics

[Anonymous No.21337335]

>>21337331
>hylic hylic hylic!

Find another thing to meme.

[Anonymous No.21337337]

>>21337311
I am not a Guénonian nor a zoomer. I asked you about your own beliefs. Apparently you are too much of a coward to answer.

[Anonymous No.21337339]

>>21337311
What did Monkeyman do to you anon? Seems like you're pretty butthurt.

[Anonymous No.21337344]

>>21337339
>satanist! hylic! you're butthurt!

Do you hear how stupid you sound?

[Anonymous No.21337349]

>>21337337
I don't care about what you want. Guenon is a hack and you've invested so much of your life into him that you can't let it go. Go ahead and call me a satanic butthurt hylic.

[Anonymous No.21337358]

>>21337344
But you ARE butthurt. I'm not the one crying about Guénon's philosophy (without telling the actual reasons why his opinions suck/offering counterpoints) on a saturday evening. Something must've happened.

[Anonymous No.21337362]

>>21337358
I posted all the reasons loser. Guenon is just awful and his fanbase is even worse. Call me a doo-doo head hylic.

[Anonymous No.21337363]

>>21337234
>All religions secretly teach depersonalization and annihilationism
Guenon doesn't say this
>>21337279
>no argument

[Anonymous No.21337368]

>>21337349
I did not invest much of my life into him. I am a Muslim who appreciates Traditionalist critiques of modernism (while being skeptical and critical of their pluralist claims). I ask you again. If you are so militant against Guénon, then what authors do you like? Or perhaps your cowardice doesn't allow you to answer?

[Anonymous No.21337371]

>>21337363
He most definitely does. Esoterically all religions and traditions teach depersonalization and annihilationism to the most adept spiritual elites. Everything else is just sentimental exoterism for the masses.

[Anonymous No.21337373]

>>21337362
>I posted all the reasons loser
You didn't, really. You just called him a loser and an opium addict(true). Care to refute his arguments in a more coherent manner?

[Anonymous No.21337375]

>>21337371
>He most definitely does.
Provide a source then you dummy: quote the exact sentences

[Anonymous No.21337384]

>>21337373
What arguments? There are no arguments and if you read Man and His Becoming and Multiple States of the Being you'd know this. He simply states his opinions as if they were arguments and waves away any possible critique.

[Anonymous No.21337386]

>>21337368
Embarrassing post.

[Anonymous No.21337400]

>>21337386
At this point I have to conclude that you are a paid shill. Probably the feds don't like seeing that religion and spirituality is gaining popularity among the young male demographic online, and you are here to try to hinder some of that popularity. You're just doing your job, but you may well want to tell your superiors that it's not working.

[Anonymous No.21337406]

>>21337375
How can you consider yourself a follower of Guenon and not know this? Do you think he teaches classical theism a la Feser? In nearly every book he is clear that individuality is wrong and bad and attaching yourself to "Tradition" is losing that trace, with the goal of losing all of it. Salvation is not the same as Deliverance, which he considers better, but of course he can't argue it rigorously, he just says the latter is higher because it just is.

[Anonymous No.21337413]

>>21337400
>At this point I have to conclude that you are a paid shill.

Ah yes the evil conspiracy of satanist hylic glows. Take your medications. Do you think everyone who critiques Guenon is part of this? Was Schuon? Was Marco Pallis and Coomaraswamy? Is Wolfgang Smith? Guenonians are a cult who cling to his every word and simply refuse to think.

[Anonymous No.21337414]

>>21337234
Which religions don't "teach depersonalisation and annihilationism", exactly?
>Hinduism has knowledge of the supreme identity
>Buddhism denies the existence of the self
>Daoism also denies the existence of the profane self
>the Greco-Roman world gave us henosis
>Christianity tasks every believer with becoming like Christ and cultivating his Christ-nature
>Islam demands total subjection of the human being to the will of God (the religion is literally called "submission")
>Judaism does the same thing as Islam
Just because you're framing ascendance to higher realms as "annihilationism" (of what is inferior and useless) doesn't somehow mean that it isn't the goal of all religions. The Traditionalists make it very clear how all religions share the same goal and the same end.

[Anonymous No.21337420]

>>21337413
Again, I said I myself critique Guénon. But when you are afraid of talking about your beliefs, you arouse suspicion.

[Anonymous No.21337427]

>>21337414
Proving my point that the core of Guenon's armchair history is ignoring everything that doesn't fit with it.

You're now equating things that not even Guenon agreed were the same. Guenon did not think Buddhism was akin to Vedanta. He did not think henosis was Deliverance. Submission is not at all annihilationism. You've obviously never read deeply into any of these religions and forms of mysticism.

[Anonymous No.21337433]

>>21337420
You talk like a cartoon character. Are you dressed as batman or something?

[Anonymous No.21337443]

>>21337433
I am dressed in traditional Islamic garb. You have proven that you aren't arguing in good faith. I can now disregard everything you say.

[Anonymous No.21337448]

>>21337443
k

[Anonymous No.21337454]

>>21337443
>criticize Guenons metaphysics and syncretism and not his critique of modernity
>some dumb Muslim comes in and gets defensive about Guenon because he likes critique of modernity, while admitting he disagrees with the syncretism

imbecile

[Anonymous No.21337461]

>>21337454
I'm not defending him. I'm curious what kind of person would be so militant against Guénon, if not a paid shill or an agent of counter initiation. Go ahead and call me embarrassing or stupid again, though. You're the one who is being exposed.

[Anonymous No.21337467]

>>21337427
Make a fucking argument you god damn loser. Is it or is it not the case that religion attempts the deconditioning (aka "annihilationism") of human beings by encouraging them to divinise themselves and therefore abandon their normal human qualities? If it is not, then name the religion in question and explain how it differs from what I just described, and what the Traditionalists asserted. You will find that there are, in fact, no such religions.
Your cringing and whimpering attempt at muddying the water has been acknowledged, but "Guenon not thinking that Buddhism is akin to Vedanta" or that "henosis was not Deliverance" is just empty manipulation of words and terms without any intellectual content. As to Islam, you are plainly wrong, as submission does indeed imply one will and identity being overwritten by another (the will and law of Allah, and servitude to Allah - the word "Muslim" itself means just that and becomes the identity of the convert).

[Anonymous No.21337470]

>>21337406
>How can you consider yourself a follower of Guenon and not know this? Do you think he teaches classical theism a la Feser?
No, Guenon agrees with Advaita Vedanta, which doesn't teach and which has nothing to do with your meme-tier idea of "depersonalization and annihilationism"

>In nearly every book he is clear that individuality is wrong and bad
No, he doesn't that's incorrect. Individuality is natural to manifested things. Just because a spiritually adept person can ascend beyond this apparent individuality to the plenitude of ultimate reality doesn't mean that individuality is inherently wrong

>and attaching yourself to "Tradition" is losing that trace, with the goal of losing all of it.
He doesn't say that every single initiation is supposed to eliminate individuality afaik: he recognizes different types or grades of initiation

>Salvation is not the same as Deliverance, which he considers better, but of course he can't argue it rigorously, he just says the latter is higher because it just is.
If you are looking for philosophical justification of the metaphysics he accepts (Vedanta) then you should read books on Vedanta and Shankara's works instead of Guenon!

[Anonymous No.21337475]

>>21337467
>>21337470
It's a paid shill, guys. Don't expect much from him. Better yet, don't even engage with him because nothing will come out of it.

[Anonymous No.21337477]

>>21337461
>if not a paid shill or an agent of counter initiation.

Do you hear yourself? You said you rejected pluralist claims of Guenon. YOU are the counter-initiation. You clearly don't fully understand Guenon's philosophy if you think you can pick and choose aspects of it to agree with and not others while screeching about counter-initiation.

You deny Guenon's pluralism, you are part of the evil satanic counter-initiation. BTW, Guenon always preferred Hinduism to Islam.

[Anonymous No.21337481]

>>21337470
>It's not annihilationism because if we call it what it clearly is then it reveals a major contradiction and flaw in our ideology

[Anonymous No.21337484]

>>21337477
How much are they paying you? If I pay double that amount, would you shill in favor of Guénon?

[Anonymous No.21337495]

>>21337484
You need to stop smoking weed. Guenon was into hashish and opiates and it made him paranoid and he constantly thought he was being persecuted because people disagreed with him. Same shit with his fanbase now. It's for stoners who like to mystify their drug high and get paranoid whenever someone tells them to wake up.

[Anonymous No.21337526]

>>21337477
By the way, for other users reading this (I'm not addressing the paid shill), my rejection of Traditionalist pluralism doesn't amount to rejecting the transcendental unity of religions, which becomes evident to anyone who studies world religions in some depth. My concern comes down to the efficacy of other traditions during the "Kali Yuga." I would argue that the strict nature of orthodox exoteric Islam makes it best suited to be the religion of the last age, and a more secure vessel towards authentic esotericism.

This is also in agreement with how Islam understands itself, with many hadiths referring to the blessed Prophet as the Prophet of the End Time. We can already see how Christianity, itself giving birth to modernism, has become spiritually neutered; and the inability of Hinduism to deal effectively with modernism. If it weren't the case that Islam was meant to be the universal religion of the last age (as it insists on being), then there would have been no need for a new religion to arise from the little-known Arabian peninsula and quickly take over almost half of the world.
>>21337495
Weed is haram.

[Anonymous No.21337534]

>>21337526
How long is the Kali Yuga?

[Anonymous No.21337544]

>>21337534
According to Islamic sources, only God knows, and any attempt at guessing it is destined to fail. However, Islamic sources also give us "signs" that are meant to be show that its end is imminent, and judging by these signs, I would say it's pretty close.

[Anonymous No.21337558]

>>21337287
>Everyone who disagrees with me is le satanist

[Anonymous No.21337565]

>>21337526
>paid shill
You follow an incredibly obscure pseudoreligious cult, that almost nobody outside of slightly less obscure rightwing movements and a very small minority of academia has ever heared of, yet there are paid shills....

[Anonymous No.21337584]

>>21337565
Whatever you are, it's certain that you aren't an honest interlocutor. If you were, you would have had no trouble discussing your own beliefs.

[Anonymous No.21337632]

>>21337481
>>It's not annihilationism because if we call it what it clearly is then it reveals a major contradiction and flaw in our ideology
There is no "contradiction" or "flaw": what Advaita teaches is not annihilationism because what everyone is on reality (the true immortal Self) continues on forever and only the non-Self is removed in gnosis and post-death

[Anonymous No.21337761]

>>21337632
>>21337632
>is not annihilationism because what everyone is on reality (the true immortal Self) continues on forever and only the non-Self is removed in gnosis and post-death

Yeah that's called annihilationism.

[Anonymous No.21337763]

There's obviously no point addressing OP, but to make it clear and avoid misrepresentation for anyone passively reading:
Advaita and other congruent traditions are not annihilationism because the point is the realization that there never was any individual to annihilate.
It's not depersonalization either as depersonalization is the experience of "being me observing myself from outside myself", but that me who seems to observe is the illusion.
In regards to both these points this Nisargadatta passage comes to mind:
>You might see the whole Universe as a dream, but so long as there is a 'you' seeing this dream as a separate entity, you will be in trouble. Let us hope, gradually you will come to realize that you are also a dreamed figure in this living dream, an integral part of the dream, and not someone apart and separate from it. Then you will be all right.

[Anonymous No.21337785]

>>21337763
This is just annihilationism. You're preaching annihilation of the self but then you say, "Well it's not actually annihilationism since it was already annihilated to begin with." So instead the "part of you" that "lives on forever" is this simple, basically inanimate, unconscious bare existence, and this is supposed to be a strong argument against why annihilating the self isn't annihilation.

It's just that you start from the axiom that the self never existed, but this isn't a refutation against the accusation of annihilationism, just moving the goalposts.

You don't disagree with annihilationism, but are upset about it because it reveals how absurd Vedanta is and how much it plagiarizes from Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.21337848]

>>21337785
>this simple, basically inanimate, unconscious bare existence, and this is supposed to be a strong argument against why annihilating the self isn't annihilation.
That’s utterly wrong. It’s intensely vivid superconsciousness or “heightened awareness” compared to which the average human state can be regarded as “sleep,” or an automaton.

> It's just that you start from the axiom that the self never existed
Conversely, the Vedantic teaching is that only the Self exists, and all that exists is the Self.

[Anonymous No.21337851]

>>21337234
I was thinking the other day. Jesus talks several times about the eternal life but he also gives hints of some kind of depersonalization when he is addressing his apostles and talking about "being one as the father and I". It seems like Jesus mission was of another kind when he says that he is coming back to the father, that none who has seen the father except himself, when the OT explicitly addresses that "no man can see God's face without dying". The moment he dies he pronounces the "all that has to be done is done" phrase which is present in Buddhist texts, it would be hard to deny the similarities between Buddha's life and Jesus. Saint Paul also gives hints on this when talking about the mystical death that would give rise to Christ, in a kind of "I will die so he will live in me" approach, the "meat for the grown men and the milk for the children" as hinting about some exoteric-esoteric division of the doctrine. Also when he says in Romans "he who has died is freed from sin" it is almost a recall of annihilation as a supreme act of liberation from the samsaric experience, as sin is the cause of the fall from the paradisiac state and the beginning of the cycle of births and deaths. But it seems to me that the whole "sacrifice of God", the "supreme sacrifice" as the render of the Son to the Father, or the rendition of the self to God, and the incarnation, when all eastern doctrines are in agreement that enlightenment is only achievable from a human male form. I believe Jesus achieved this –the symbolism that recalls God as the cornerstone that "shatters" individuality, or the symbolism of the Christ as the bronze snake that climbs the cross in ascension "to higher states of being" when it is obvious that snakes are poisonous and deadly animals.

[Anonymous No.21337862]

>>21337851
sorry for the awful grammar

[Anonymous No.21337913]

>>21337848
Your playing word games like SJWs.

[Anonymous No.21337934]

>>21337851
So you think purgation is annihilation? Would Christians agree with Guenon that no trace of memory of this life persists in the afterlife?

[Anonymous No.21337973]

>>21337934
I don't think the purgatory leads to annihilation. Nor the resurrection is a state of annihilation, that is simply not true as the resurrection of the flesh is dogmatic and true regardless, it can be compared to a higher state of individuality with a prolonged self and a body. You see, in the epistles of Saint Paul justification is given by the attornment of Christ, and thus salvation a.k.a. preserving the individual nature forever. But for those who have made themselves "eunuchs", who have attained the gnosis of Christ "that surpasses all things", I do believe annihilation is possible. So the statement "Truth will make you free" becomes the consummation of the supreme identity, the realization that you and Christ and God are all the same as there is no yourself anymore, and thus you are free from any determined state of existence, which the gnostics understood as pleroma or the plenty of Christ (the gnostics were wrong about other things)

[Anonymous No.21337987]

>>21337973
Gnosis puffs up, but charity edifies.

[Anonymous No.21337989]

>>21337913
The “social justice warriors” are on a crusade for an anti-Traditional dystopic hellscape where accidents of the external ranges and states of the human being (race, gender, sexual orientation) define that human being’s spirit, value, worth. They are chumps of the counter-Tradition and useful idiots for instituting a CCP-style globalist AI-run technocracy. Their ruling philosophy is eliminative materialism, scientism, and atheist utilitarian hedonism.

The concepts of Traditionalism and various religious teachings are, analogously, like an unpalatable food for you which your digestive system can’t handle it well. There is no use bothering about such things if they upset you. You are like the Transcaucasian Kurd in the Sufi joke eating the hot peppers, tears streaming down his face due to how spicy they are. When asked why he was doing that and warned of the consequences it might have for his health, he shouted, “By God, I’ve already paid for them, and I must continue eating all my money’s worth!”

[Anonymous No.21337994]

>>21337785
>since it was already annihilated to begin with
It wasn't "already annihilated", something that never existed can't be annihilated. The self you feel yourself to be likely somewhere behind your eyes is an illusion that's been misidentified with. There is no discrete entity inside the body that is the one seeing and reading this text, the thinker of thoughts, and typer of replies. To awaken isn't to get rid of or destroy this illusory self, it's to see through it. The functions and activity that comprise that self continue but without the sense of being someone that owns and does them. Seeing, hearing, etc happens, but there is the realization that it never happens to or for anyone.

>So instead the "part of you" that "lives on forever" is this simple, basically inanimate, unconscious bare existence
I'm actually not certain of an eternal Self, it doesn't concern me. Everything I said is in fact coherent even with materialism. The difference there however being insight into the nature of the human mind and consciousness rather than insight into the nature of absolute reality. But awakening is simply what remains when all thoughts and concepts including materialism, non-duality, annihilationism, eternalism, and the sense of self are no longer held on to.

>You don't disagree with annihilationism, but are upset about it because it reveals how absurd Vedanta is and how much it plagiarizes from Buddhism.
I'm not strictly Vedantin. I also speak from experience, I know undeniably that whatever it is that happens does indeed happen. To clarify, I've never read Guenon, maybe he is in fact retarded.

[Anonymous No.21337997]

>>21337989
How do you cope with Ibn Arabi going against Advaita? Was he a hylic?

[Anonymous No.21338003]

>>21337994
> It wasn't "already annihilated", something that never existed can't be annihilated. The self you feel yourself to be likely somewhere behind your eyes is an illusion that's been misidentified with. There is no discrete entity inside the body that is the one seeing and reading this text, the thinker of thoughts, and typer of replies. To awaken isn't to get rid of or destroy this illusory self, it's to see through it. The functions and activity that comprise that self continue but without the sense of being someone that owns and does them. Seeing, hearing, etc happens, but there is the realization that it never happens to or for anyone.

Yeah this is just word games akin to what the SJWs and communists play, at worse it's just a glorified drug psychosis.

[Anonymous No.21338022]

>>21337987
>For intensification of the righteousness which is according to the law shows the Gnostic. So one who is placed in the head, which is that which rules its own body-and who advances to the summit of faith, which is the knowledge (gnosis) itself, for which all the organs of perception exist-will likewise obtain the highest inheritance.
>The primacy of knowledge the apostle shows to those capable of reflection, in writing to those Greeks of Corinth, in the following terms: “But having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall he magnified in you according to our rule abundantly, to preach the Gospel beyond you.” [2 Cor. x. 15, 16] He does not mean the extension of his preaching locally: for he says also that in Achaia faith abounded; and it is related also in the Acts of the Apostles that he preached the word in Athens. [Acts 17] ]But he teaches that knowledge (gnosis), which is the perfection of faith, goes beyond catechetical instruction, in accordance with the magnitude of the Lord’s teaching and the rule of the Church. Wherefore also he proceeds to add, “And if I am rude in speech, yet I am not in knowledge.”

This is from Saint Clement of Alexandria (Stromateae). This is what tradcaths (spiritual pharisees) don't want you to know...

[Anonymous No.21338027]

>>21337851
pls don't confuse dharmic """"religion"""" for abrahamic religion. They are similar in the way that opposites are.

the mortification/dying to self in Christianity is dying to adam, the old man, to make way for Christ, the new man, to live in you.

but it would be a grave error to suppose through this that the dying is ultimate dying, annihilation. One is reborn in union with the Father, but it's critical to see this as the apotheosis, literally, of human fulfillment. In Christ we become more of who we truly are. The animation of divine charity makes a soul more vivid.

Also note that in Christianity the original sin is not desire, but pride. That is, in very simple terms, it is misplaced desire, not desire as such (as it is in Judaism). Desire for God is encouraged in Christianity (& that's an understatement).

The greatest souls burn for God with an almost-infinite passion... it's the opposite of Buddhism, where the goal is total nullity of desire.

[Anonymous No.21338029]

>>21338022
the stromata*

[Anonymous No.21338032]

>>21338027
>as it is in Judaism
fuck, I meant Buddhism. Judaism is just a Christianity which refuses to acknowledge its savior

[Anonymous No.21338033]

>>21337997
Sufis often had to hedge their thought to avoid persecution. Also, there’s a fallacy of “-isms” — that because one school is categorized under one “-ism,” that it’s one invariably static system of thought which all adherents of it exactly agree on. Compare Mansur al-Hallaj to Ibn Arabi, they’re like apples and oranges but tied under the same label. Anyway, his thought on the Unity of Being (Waḥdat al-wujūd) and his famous multi-layered saying, “He who knows his self knows his Lord,” is amenable to, at minimum, Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (“qualified non-dual” interpretation of the Vedanta”).

In fact, one of the more explicit intended meanings of this phrase of his, is that he who knows his “Nafs” (in the sense of ego, lower ego, earthly personality which can lead one astray), in attaining to this self-knowledge and engaging in struggle against the Nafs, comes to know his Lord. Also, in examining the handicrafts of a Creator, one can by that means come to know the Creator better. All these types of multi-layered readings have a well-respected precedent in Sufism, they except you to use many of the folds in your brain and get at things indirectly. Or, as the moderners might call it, “lateral thinking”.

[Anonymous No.21338039]

>>21338022
the gnosis of clement is not the gnostic gnosis. It is knowledge, but it is a knowledge given through grace, a gift of the holy spirit, not the result of our own cleverness or facility of intellection...

The end of knowledge is love. Love and knowledge coincide at the point of infinite, which point cannot be reached by human power, but must be given by God.

[Anonymous No.21338057]

>>21338033
Both Hallaj and Ibn Arabi are anti-annihilationist.

It's strange that Guenon cites Ibn Arabi as the paradigm of Sufism and parallel to Shankara when he's not. This forms the basis of which Guenon then advocates Sufism and Islam as the best tradition for those seeking depersonalization and annihilationism like in Shankara. Just another reason why Man and His Becoming According to Vedanta is such a shit book.

[Anonymous No.21338059]

>>21338039
the end of knowledge is not love. How is it going to be love is Saint Clement says that knowledge is the perfection of faith, the summit of faith, the thing that will grant you "the highest inheritance"? He doesn't say that about love, but about knowledge

[Anonymous No.21338079]

>>21337287
>>21337331
>>21337363
>the cult members immediately resort to the insults that are most damning according to their gay little secret club
>no arguments presented
Guenonfags are to the early 2020's what Harrisfags were to the early 2010's

[Anonymous No.21338084]

>>21338057
>It's strange that Guenon cites Ibn Arabi as the paradigm of Sufism and parallel to Shankara when he's not.
The examples I give make it open to comparison.

>they’re anti-annihilationist but Guenon is not

This may be where you’re going wrong, have you ever considered, like readers here have told you, that Guenon is not an annihilationist and that you’re irrationally misinterpreting him for some inexplicable reason? That maybe not everyone else is wrong but you might be wrong in this one case?

[Anonymous No.21338089]

>>21338027
>On the other hand: Augustine says (1 Retract.15): "Desire is the guilt of original sin."

[Anonymous No.21338091]

>>21338003
It should be no problem then to say who or what is it that thinks that.
Anything you can experience or be aware of can't be you including thoughts and beliefs, so who or what holds the belief that it's all word games?
In your experience, what does "I" or "me" refer to?
By how you make it sound, surely there must be something "back here" where your head is behind the eyes that is the referent of "I" or "me" or "myself".

[Anonymous No.21338096]

>>21338091
SJW-tier word games.

[Anonymous No.21338099]

>>21338084
Well those Sufis believe in the continued existence of the individual self, so whatever Guenon believes (definitely not annihilation amirite) it's not the same.

[Anonymous No.21338101]

>>21338089
is the guilt of a crime the same as that crime? Augustine of all people is not THAT fuzzy of a thinker, for fuck's sake

[Anonymous No.21338113]

>>21338089
the guilt of a crime is not identical to the crime itself.

just because words are close together doesn't mean that they denote absolute metaphysical identity.

this is a serious prot error, btw, so I'm glad you brought it up. Original Sin is nothing else than the absence of God. This results in concupiscence (evil desires), but it is not the same as the evil desires.

[Anonymous No.21338148]

>>21338096
Feel free to try to answer the question in your own time, it's not an intellectual answer I'm pointing to. However, it would be of great help, and may change my mind on the issue, if you explain what exactly about those questions and statements is "SJW-tier word games".

[Anonymous No.21338178]

>>21338113
The crime itself was disobeying God, so thus the fault of desire appears to be superior, as the motivation for the crime is the prime cause of the crime.

[Anonymous No.21338208]

>>21338099
Have you ever heard of the Sufi tale of the sands?

A stream, from its source in far-off mountains, passing through every kind and description of countryside, at last reached the sands of the desert. Just as it had crossed every other barrier, the stream tried to cross this one, but it found that as fast as it ran into the sand, its waters disappeared.

It was convinced, however, that its destiny was to cross this desert, and yet there was no way. Now a hidden voice, coming from the desert itself, whispered: “The Wind crosses the desert, and so can the stream.”

The stream objected that it was dashing itself against the sand, and only getting absorbed: that the wind could fly, and this was why it could cross a desert.

“By hurtling in your own accustomed way you cannot get across. You will either disappear or become a marsh. You must allow the wind to carry you over, to your destination.”

“But how could this happen?”

“By allowing yourself to be absorbed in the wind.”

This idea was not acceptable to the stream. After all, it had never been absorbed before. It did not want to lose its individuality. And, once having lost it, how was one to know that it could ever be regained?

“The wind,” said the sand, “performs this function. It takes up water, carries it over the desert, and then lets it fall again. Falling as rain, the water again becomes a river.”

“How can I know that this is true?”

“It is so, and if you do not believe it, you cannot become more than a quagmire, and even that could take many, many years; and it certainly is not the same as a stream.”

“But can I not remain the same stream that I am today?”

“You cannot in either case remain so,” the whisper said. “Your essential part is carried away and forms a stream again. You are called what you are even today because you do not know which part of you is the essential one.”

[Anonymous No.21338231]

>>21337234
>>No, I haven't read my source
When I read this fagot's book, I realized this very quickly. Why do people worship him so much? Guenon was an illiterate opium addict. If you are interested in religion, any religion, read holy books, theologians, religious scholars, talk to real priests lol. This guy didn't know what he was talking about.

[Anonymous No.21338237]

>>21338178
The fault of evil desire did not exist before the fall. The choice to eat the apple was completely free, not at all addled by concupiscence, as we all are now.

As such, there was actually more guilt than there is in our own everyday sins.

[Anonymous No.21338387]

>>21337785
I'm sure you'd agree that each night during deep sleep the sense of self you currently believe yourself to be is absent, and you have no argument, fear, or uncertainty about this. It is an object we can be aware of that comes and goes, even subtly during usual waking life. Why is it so absurd to you then that this present sense of self can simply be clearly and completely absent during waking life too? You have even likely had similar experiences during flow states, in which there is consciousness with no sense of self or at least a diminished sense of self. So what exactly is the problem here? Do you believe this sense of self should be continued to be identified with? If so, why?

[Anonymous No.21338627]

to be fair, reading islamic and christian mystics who adapt philosophy this becomes undeniable. I don’t know if any other islamic philosophy knowers exist here, but the agent intellect as a shared stock of universals which the enlightened man assimilates his mind into as seen in al farabi and averroes necessarily entails self destruction in terms of the personality and ego, in fact averroes is explicit about the individuated human ceasing to be on death. then al arabi copies this, saying God is being and that uniting with God entails ceasing to be oneself, a subject viewing God, and instead seeing how God sees which necessitates the self being destroyed. you find that in the cloud of unknowing author too, with “the full and final self forgetting” being union with God, where even awareness of yourself as a conscious being ceases, you aren’t aware of yourself when you are one with God. i’m shocked guenon didn’t make more of a deal of these writers

[Anonymous No.21338701]

>>21338231
opium addicts are based

[Anonymous No.21338742]

>>21338231
You people see reality invertedly. Notably, I say this as someone who doesn’t view Guenon or the Traditionalist school as the centerpiece of my life but still very well-worth having read (he seems to have shunted Buddhism to the side for much of his life, one point I disagree on but understand). He was not “illiterate” but a hyper-literate polyglot. As someone who has read a fair bit of Hindu literature, a book like Guenon’s “Man and His Becoming According to Vedanta” is exactly what it claims to be (a recounting of the core beliefs of Vedanta concerning the metaphysical constitution of the human being). If you think Vedanta is an outdated, corrupt, or incoherent philosophy, you’re not obligated to study it. It’s like this except instead of a thread it’s reading books you don’t like.

[Anonymous No.21338824]

>>21337234
>profane retard who doesn't understand Guénon makes a thread on him
This is why Traditionalism is for an elite. Dumb 3rd worlders like OP who think they're smart because they can read a book in English need to be kept away from the Trads. Go read Marx.

[Anonymous No.21338834]

>>21338742
Pretty sure he's baiting you, either way don't take him so seriously. Why would you talk about Vedanta to that dirty shudra?

[Anonymous No.21339378]

>>21338834
I’m an unrepentant sentimentalist, because I was once a person interested in mysticism, the idea of a perennial philosophy, and the study of comparative religion, but had an inexplicable dislike of Guenon and the Traditionalist school without having read them in-depth simply out of snobbishness, and also ironically having thought defenders and students of Guenon were the snobs. I do not particularly, overtly, and consciously have idealistic views of “converting people to my viewpoint,” because I know how unlikely it is to hold such a qualified and niche worldview, but a sentimental part of me subconsciously likes to defend it. I wish God to have mercy on everyone and bring them to the understanding that is best for them.

[Anonymous No.21339426]

>>21339378
Based anon. Do you also follow a tradition?

[Anonymous No.21339594]

>>21339426
I used to be fascinated by and sentimentally attached to a specific school: the “Fourth Way” of G.I. Gurdjieff. However, indescribable personal meetings and experiences led me to ... how can I say it? To the state such that, I can’t name any specific religious tradition as mine, and in fact even feel uniquely detached from any of them specifically, but I nevertheless feel tremendous affinity for all of them.

[Anonymous No.21339600]

>>21338627
where do I start with educating myself about the traditionalist perspective to Islam?

[Anonymous No.21339628]

>>21337406
>a la Feser
This explains it: it's the nu-Catholic loudmouths. Read Duns Scotus's refutations of Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.21339646]

Anti-Guenon fag is Guenon Fag forcing a dialectic .

[Anonymous No.21339675]

>>21337400
Spotted the shill, oy vey

[Anonymous No.21339681]

>>21337785
>, unconscious bare existence, and this is supposed to be a strong argument against why annihilating the self isn't annihilation.
The Self or Atman that is left is pure consciousness that is intrinsically self-aware: so it's a mistake to consider it as being "unconscious" in any sense. This pure, partless reflexive awareness is the foundational self and it is prior to, more fundamental than and it is presupposed by the presence of any and all superimposed or attributed notions of self or notions of "personal qualities".

[Anonymous No.21339886]

>>21339594
But anon you need one for daily practice. It's not all theoretical.

[Anonymous No.21340000]

>>21339886
If your brain has enough folds in it to conceive of what a word like “Vishishtadvaita” could mean, I am convinced God has some special dispensation, love for you, and role in His creation which does not particularly care over whether you are nominally Hindu, Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, but maybe that’s just me:

[Anonymous No.21340018]

>>21338387
it’s obvious that my whole life is a movie played on a single screen. There is unity and contiguity to this screen even if the images on it may change. There is nevertheless an underlying subtending Oneness to it all. But animalistic feminine easterner and pigs of soul want to subvert that along with everything.

That’s why we call them “my dreams”

[Anonymous No.21340025]

>>21340018
Why would you identify with a screen?

[Anonymous No.21340029]

>>21339594
so you haven’t really moved at all. Began as a secular atheist and ended there. Budge, man!

[Anonymous No.21340042]

>>21340025
Why would you not? Fuck, you chinks* act like your weird aseptic removal of the self from everyday life is totally natural and intuitive. But it’s the same vibe which leads to the dream of the fisherman’s wife. This clammy fishlike inhuman lack of feeling. I am ME. I was born to a mother and a father. I grew up in a place and time. I have my loves and sorrows, my enemies and hatreds. I EXIST. Two simple words which the whole orient never had the balls to say.

* not racist, only insulting insofar indicative of a chosen spiritual condition

[Anonymous No.21340044]

>>21340029
I have the Koran, the Old and New Testaments, the Bhagavad Gita, and much else besides in the very bedroom I’m sitting in while writing this, and also had very unusual meetings and experiences difficult to convey online (in an anonymous setting where it’s all open to a cynical, disrespectful public) so I don’t feel I have much to defend on this issue.

[Anonymous No.21340051]

>>21340042
For the same reason I don't identify with my body. Because it is transient, imperfect, and will one day corrupt and fall apart. There are many things about me which contain unity and contiguity, including my physical body, the atoms which constitute my body. The question is not if there is unity, it is what is the ultimate source of that unity.

[Anonymous No.21340083]

>>21340000
Regardless of God's mercy and dispensation, each person needs to live and structure his life according to some form of ethical guidance. If you aren't a part of a tradition, then either you're practicing syncretism or you're living your life just like an atheist would live. I would assume neither of those would be a good option, but maybe that's my limited perspective.

[Anonymous No.21340121]

>>21340083
I am in full agreement as to the practical necessity of following ethical precepts and having some type of reverence for a tradition outside of, more ancient than, and wiser than one’s self, for salvation, or even just living a more or less sane and healthy life in the modern day and age, and I in fact even frequently chastise myself for not living up to the high standards of a perfectly chaste, ascetic, religiously-minded life.

The very circumstances of my life and of destiny, however, have so arranged it that, for better or worse, I’m like a cosmic Gypsy (whatever you may think, for better or worse, of those reputable people).

What can I say that wouldn’t be sullying it? I could tell you I’m in telepathic communion with Blavatskian Mahatmas from Tibet, or had some type of inner revelations, that would be irreverent blasphemy according to most people, regardless of my own subjective experiences and beliefs. Ultimately, God does as He wills (and never a truer tautology has been said than that).

[Anonymous No.21340161]

>>21340044
I apologize for being so coarse, but I don’t see what the heap of holy books has to do with anything. I’m on board with direct experience, but that’s it

[Anonymous No.21340189]

>>21338032
Judaism is actually cut off from god because a messiah is supposed to act like a bridge to the heavens

[Anonymous No.21340273]

>>21340018
>>21340042
This seems incoherent and I can't really follow what your position is. You seem to imply you know that you're the non-dual screen and not a character in the movie, but then you say you identify with the character and its story and that it's absurd to not do so?
You seem to think awakening is denial of the movie and its story and characters, but it's not. Awakening is the recognition that you're not the character nor are you even in the movie, and obviously it's not the character that recognizes this. If a character tries to intellectualize and apply non-duality or non-self to the movie you either end up with spiritual bypassing and "clammy fishlike inhuman lack of feeling" or the condition you seem to be in.
>I am ME.
>I EXIST.
The one you think you are, the character, that seems to be making these claims is indeed that "me", and I can concede that you exist albeit not how you think you do. That "me" is a conceptual aggregate of experience, thoughts, feelings, emotions, preferences, beliefs, memory, story, etc. There is no "me" entity at the center of all this. This is already the case. When this is realized, that which "me" comprises doesn't cease to exist nor necessarily change at all. There is simply the realization that this is how it always was, and couldn't have been otherwise, and it is unconditional peace and fulfilment. The character still has its loves and sorrows and the movie continues, there's just no longer an imaginary "me" entity that is identified with the character.

[Anonymous No.21340302]

>>21340161
Funnily enough, I also agree more, in principle, with “experientialist” over “traditionalist.” It is experiences which gives scriptures and sutras, and without which scriptures and sutras are just dead, un-inspired and uninspiring pieces of paper. And even experiences, no matter how fantastical, inspiring, magical and unusual, can be rather misleading, in theory.

From the outsiders’ point-of-view, you could make something like a composite of the Theosophists’ Ascended Masters or Mahatmas, the Tibetan legend of Shambhala/Shangri-La, Gurdjieff’s story of the Sarmoun Brotherhood, the Secret Chiefs of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and so on, to deduce there’s some Central Asian, Middle Eastern, Himalayan, and/or Tibetan immortal Godlike yogis with all the knowledge worth having and from whom we get our revelations, mystical literature and movements from (or maybe they’re even angelic extraterrestrials). But even relegating it to these “authorities” still brings up the issue, “What, cosmically speaking, makes them the authority?” (If you eschew the modern mythology of occultists and more traditionally give this central authority to the Gospels, the Holy Koran, or what-have-you, this issue still stands, requiring at some point a “leap-of-faith” in the vein of Kierkegaard).

But one clever “trick” of the Oriental philosophers, is something that could be called “experiential non-duality,” which waves away these dilemmas altogether, by bringing your focus away from the “subject-matter” of any particular school of thought, and shifting it to the very nature of the subject or mind at hand (your own) which allows you to even meet or conceive of such Gurus or Ascended Masters, read such scriptures and sutras, and so forth.

If you see what seems to be a UFO in the sky, whether it’s really an extraterrestrially-maneuvered-spacecraft is up-to-question. But the very fact that you saw something that looked like a UFO, is not up-to-doubt. This ability to stand at one remove from yourself is the basis of ancient and reputable schools of thought like ZEN BUDDHISM (as well the Tibetan Buddhists’ “mind-training”).

Fun fact: there is no good record of a conclusive “debunking,” “fact-checking,” or reasonable and compelling argument against the core tenets of a school like Zen Buddhism. This is because “Zen” is irrefutable, having to do with the way your mind works and what you can do with your mind, or what angle you can take on its working, no matter from what location, culture, or period of time you’re living in. The very conception of “Traditionalism” is analogous to this. If you’re criticizing Zen because, “The Buddha himself wasn’t a quaint Japanese abbot of a zendo,” you’re missing the point.

[Anonymous No.21340314]

>>21340083
>If you aren't a part of a tradition, then either you're practicing syncretism or you're living your life just like an atheist would live
I agree with this. It's so important to live the path of an actual tradition. I can't tell you the number of people I've seen who try to go esoteric only to fall into a hopeless relativism and ending up losing their moral guidance completely because "It's all the same man". Consistent, prayer, mediation and reflection is incredibly important and a nebulous Perennialism simply doesn't facilitate that. Praying the Rosary, or doing your 5 prayers per day toward Mecca will.

[Anonymous No.21340714]

>>21337234
Do you have a religion/tradition? Who are your favorite authors?

[Anonymous No.21340813]

there has never been an anon able to reelaborate Guenons ideas. I bet no one in /lit/ ever read him.

[Anonymous No.21340832]

>>21337461
You're retarded. Many people hate Guénon, because they think he's wrong. People hate people they think are wrong about important things. Welcome to life.

[Anonymous No.21340834]

There's Unity AND Duality AND Manyfoldness at the same time and all the different times. Once you accept this simple piece of logic you can put all your arguments and ideology aside and start living life. Have fun.

[Anonymous No.21340843]

>>21337848
>That’s utterly wrong. It’s intensely vivid superconsciousness or “heightened awareness” compared to which the average human state can be regarded as “sleep,” or an automaton.
Does it have any specific contents? Does it contain, or ever is, *this* and *that*, or *neither this nor that*? If not, I'm quite sorry, but its fullness is undistinguishable from emptiness to me. You cannot ask people to follow you along a path that they cannot understand as anything other than lesser than where they are now (no, not just not most people: anyone).

[Anonymous No.21340854]

>>21338003
You're wrong, he's the only one in this thread who makes sense (maybe because he's not actually a guénonian). He's basically just saying we have the illusion of a self that is produced from a multitude of discrete experiential events, and this illusion can be overcome. It's Abhidharma + "maybe there is still some kind of eternal self aside from that though", AFAIU.

[Anonymous No.21340856]

>>21340843
>but its fullness is undistinguishable from emptiness to me
Of course it is, because you're still stuck in the discursive mode of thought, which is a limited and contingent faculty which relies solely upon limitation in order to receive thought objects. You are not going to apprehend fullness unless the state is really attained where subject and object are entirely identified.
>? Does it contain, or ever is, *this* and *that*, or *neither this nor that*?
Both (read Shankara's Upadesasahsri). It is Infinite and therefore One, or more accurately non-dual.
>You cannot ask people to follow you along a path that they cannot understand
It's necessary to demonstrate that the human mind is inherently limited and that one cannot trust it for full deliverance. This is basically common sense, most people are happy to admit that the mind is basically fallible and not capable of grasping true reality, even if it is capable of some kind of intermediate representations which are not wholly false.

[Anonymous No.21340860]

this thread is quite interesting!

[Anonymous No.21340869]

>>21338237
NTA, but although OP is right to dislike the "annihilitionism" of the East, I have to say this moralistic stuff from the West makes no sense either to me. This whole idea of an omni God, + human moral responsibility, + original sin, this whole thing seems deeply absurd.
Just making a free choice to do evil as some fundamentla explanatory thing is problematic to me. What's a free choice that's not motivated, if not random and thus blameless? If it's motivated, what caused the motivation? A free choice or something else? If a free choice, we either have an infinite regression or something else. Once we get to something else, then we are not responsible (in Christianity, we'd say: God is).

[Anonymous No.21340873]

>>21338627
>I don’t know if any other islamic philosophy knowers exist here, but the agent intellect as a shared stock of universals which the enlightened man assimilates his mind into as seen in al farabi and averroes necessarily entails self destruction in terms of the personality and ego, in fact averroes is explicit about the individuated human ceasing to be on death.
That's only because they think these universals are psychological in nature and thus posit a "universal mind" all minds "participate" in. But in all forms of platonism for example, these universals are not psychological, and thus a diversity of minds can contemplate them without having to thus be identified with a primal mind.

[Anonymous No.21340878]

>>21339628
Good point, Feser is shit and it's weird to take him as examplar for classical theism of all people. Still, he's point is accurate, Guénon's views are not classical theism which implies a strong, ontological divide between God and creation (including other souls).

[Anonymous No.21340884]

>>21338627
>i’m shocked guenon didn’t make more of a deal of these writers
What do you mean? Al Farabi and especially Ibn Arabi are the main Islamic esotericists he refers to. It was not until later in his life that he developed his Arabic enough to be able to read larger amounts of their literature, as far as I am aware.

[Anonymous No.21340891]

>>21340856
>Of course it is, because you're still stuck in the discursive mode of thought
This has nothing to do with discourse. Distinctions are prelinguistic. I percieve distinctions in perception, when I consider numbers, etc.
>Both (read Shankara's Upadesasahsri). It is Infinite and therefore One, or more accurately non-dual.
Right, so it contains no distinctions, so no specific things, so its infinity is "of nothing in particular", which cannot be distinguished from emptiness.
>It's necessary to demonstrate that the human mind is inherently limited and that one cannot trust it for full deliverance. This is basically common sense, most people are happy to admit that the mind is basically fallible and not capable of grasping true reality, even if it is capable of some kind of intermediate representations which are not wholly false.
I never said I didn't think the human mind was limited, or that there weren't limits to our understanding. I'm saying what you are asking limited minds to do is irrational. From what little any human mind can grasp of reality, the ultimate realization you defend is best interpreted as going crazy, having your faculties of sensitive and intellectual perception shut down, something like that.

[Anonymous No.21340905]

>>21340891
>Distinctions are prelinguistic
Pre-linguistic is not the same pre-discursive. The mind precedes language, which is what grasps things even before you think about them with words or concepts (which are added on in a barely perceptible second-stage of thought - barely perceptible because we are so accustomed to associating thought objects with words in order to communicate our thoughts to others).
>which cannot be distinguished from emptiness.
*By the discursive mind, yes. The non-dual is neither full nor empty (again, see Shankara's dialogue that I cited) due to its intrinsic universality.
>I'm saying what you are asking limited minds to do is irrational.
You haven't reasoned why or how, it's perfectly rational considering "reason" in the sense you are taking the term is not sufficient by itself, which you've just agreed to. Therefore it is rational to understand the need to progress beyond reason, in that sense it is "irrational", but that is just an equivocation and has little to do with what we normally mean by irrational. It's not rational to discard all thought (otherwise I wouldn't be writing here and referring you to Shankara), but it is rational to go beyond it once you know where you are going.

[Anonymous No.21340928]

>>21340878
>Guénon's views are not classical theism
This is correct.
> ontological divide between God and creation
This is not correct. There is a fundamental divide between both God (in the theistic sense) and creation (although Guénon of course posits more than a single creation, which does not however dissolve the necessary ontological boundaries) and even God and Being as such (so that God is the principle for all that exists in a literal sense without being limited by his creation). Created souls are also ontologically distinct qua individuality, however from the unified perspective souls themselves are actually illusory and therefore ontologically distinct from God at least so far as they are illusory modes of being. This is at least Guénon's view on this question. The reason he is not a classical theist is that the theistic God is still limited so far, for example, as he is a personality, but more importantly so far as he is limited by what is referred to as Universal Possibility, which includes possibilities of non-manifestation, whereas God, whilst being in the strict sense unmanifested (ie God is neither a corporeal nor a subtle being, but is Being as such) is limited to the creation of all manifestation (manifestation being Guénon's lingo for what is roughly referred to by theists as creation), but is excluded from the unmanifested states which are encompassed by Universal Possibility, and are thus uncreated. In numeric symbolism, this is why Guénon places the zero as prior to the one, zero is the principle of one, on the principle of all other number.

[Anonymous No.21340961]

>>21340905
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think we're done. You seem intelligent and I wish you well, but I've had this sort of conversations with people who are into the sort of thing you're into time and time again, and I'd rather discuss with people who study philosoph. You people are just committed to your stances and you concieve them in very vague ways. I could keep repeating the same basic arguments to force you to agree but it's useless.
>Pre-linguistic is not the same pre-discursive. The mind precedes language, which is what grasps things even before you think about them with words or concepts (which are added on in a barely perceptible second-stage of thought - barely perceptible because we are so accustomed to associating thought objects with words in order to communicate our thoughts to others).
Please, don't try to puntificate me when you don't even use common philosophical vocabulary correctly. Discursive means sentences, language in action, speaking. So now what you meant was not "discursive" at all, what you meant was something like "the mind project distinctions on things". I disagree, I think it discovers them, but we're not going to discuss that. All that is needed is that you agree in our regular state of being, we always already find these distinctions in things and cannot make decisions without relying on them.
>*By the discursive mind, yes. The non-dual is neither full nor empty (again, see Shankara's dialogue that I cited) due to its intrinsic universality.
So we agree.
>You haven't reasoned why or how, it's perfectly rational considering "reason" in the sense you are taking the term is not sufficient by itself, which you've just agreed to. Therefore it is rational to understand the need to progress beyond reason, in that sense it is "irrational", but that is just an equivocation and has little to do with what we normally mean by irrational. It's not rational to discard all thought (otherwise I wouldn't be writing here and referring you to Shankara), but it is rational to go beyond it once you know where you are going.

[Anonymous No.21340962]

>>21340961
(cont.)
I don't understand what you mean by "not sufficient by itself". I don't think we can make any decision without it relating to distinctions in things. I think there is no concievable reason or motive to undertake a journey that will lead one to not make distinctions between things. Now if you wish to introduce a kind of "tiered" division of reality, were there is a fundamental reality that's without distinctions, and then one in which there are, I would simply argue that it makes no sense either. I don't have a formal argument, but I'd say something like the following. To say that is either to admit that there is a fundamentally real difference between the fundamental reality and the non-fundamental one that contains distinctions, or not. If it is, then the fundamental reality admits distinctions. If it isn't, then there are really no distinctions between the fundamental reality and the non-fundamental which contains distinctions. I'm sure you'll bite that second bullet, but you have to understand this implies distinctions are real and part of the fundamental reality.
I'm sure I could produce a billion arguments of this kind, but the problem is that you simply will refuse to use your rational faculties to *ascertain* fundamental matters. What I'd like you to do ideally, is admit that this is what you are saying, that one cannot ascertain fundemental matters rationally, and thus that there is no rational motive one can have to adopt you view or step into a path that is established to lead to your view's adoption.
Here is an alternative though: you could say that it is rational to step into that path for other reasons, and that it then will lead some to your view. I see it that way personally. Mystics are sometimes people who have mistakenly destroyed their rational faculties, at least as far as considerations regarding basic ontology is concerned, maybe with regards to their emotional make-up as well. Not all, BTW, just the ones who have non-dual views that are more than mere beliefs but directly experienced (anyone can just have mistaken beliefs, I think you have a mistaken belief in non-dualism for example).

[Anonymous No.21340969]

>>21340928
>Created souls are also ontologically distinct qua individuality, however from the unified perspective souls themselves are actually illusory and therefore ontologically distinct from God at least so far as they are illusory modes of being.
See my post above. I think it makes no sense to say distinctions are real at "some level of reality" but "not real at a more fundamental one", and any similar kind of talk. But I understand you think that and I understand that indeed this differentiates Guénon's views from regular pantheism. I think most if not all classical theists today would agree with me though, for what the popularity of an understanding is worth.
>The reason he is not a classical theist is that the theistic God is still limited so far, for example, as he is a personality, but more importantly so far as he is limited by what is referred to as Universal Possibility, which includes possibilities of non-manifestation, whereas God, whilst being in the strict sense unmanifested (ie God is neither a corporeal nor a subtle being, but is Being as such) is limited to the creation of all manifestation (manifestation being Guénon's lingo for what is roughly referred to by theists as creation), but is excluded from the unmanifested states which are encompassed by Universal Possibility, and are thus uncreated. In numeric symbolism, this is why Guénon places the zero as prior to the one, zero is the principle of one, on the principle of all other number.
That's interesting, thanks. I guess this is what differentiates Guénon's understanding of God from the classical theists *from Guénon's perspective*.

[Anonymous No.21341018]

>>21340961
> and I'd rather discuss with people who study philosophy
I would say you want people who already agree with the same basic points as you, so you can stay on ground you are familiar with. There could be different reasons for this, I won't bother playing armchair psychologist because I have no idea what the truth would be given that I don't know you. It seems petty to give up on a conversation just because a word was used in one of its other modalities that you are not used to.
>Discursive means sentences, language in action, speaking.
This is one meaning of the term, the other meaning is moving from subject to subject, or object to object. Some words have more than a single meaning. In Eastern philosophy of mind (particularly Advaita, Zen), "discursive" is used to indicate the mind's activities in the most general possible sense, its grasping even perceptual objects, as well as thought objects. The reason I originally used the term discursive, however, was because you were not originally referring to specific pre-linguistic objects, you were referencing more conceptual terms, like being and non-being. If I knew your entire thoughts from the start then I may have selected a more appropriate term that would lend less to confusion, but of course it is impossible for me to know your thoughts if they are not expressed.
>"the mind project distinctions on things"
No, that's not what I meant. It's irrelevant to the point whether there are distinctions outside the mind or if the mind projects them (given that both are illusory anyway). Shankara actually refutes idealism (the idea that all objects are either purely mental, or are transformed by the mind to be unrecognizable in themselves) in this sense in the text I already recommended, not that it matters to the point here.

[Anonymous No.21341023]

>>21340962

> If it isn't, then there are really no distinctions between the fundamental reality and the non-fundamental which contains distinctions. I'm sure you'll bite that second bullet, but you have to understand this implies distinctions are real and part of the fundamental reality.
It does not imply distinctions are real if they are not part of reality to begin with. One analogy which can also be made analogous to a concept in calculus is foam on the water, the foam on the water is the water, there is strictly speaking no difference, just as in calculus, strictly speaking there is no difference between an infinitesimal (our illusory reality) and zero (ultimate reality). The difference is one of pure illusion, not even just conceptual illusion.
>What I'd like you to do ideally, is admit that this is what you are saying, that one cannot ascertain fundemental matters rationally
Why would I admit this when I've already said exactly the opposite? You are confusing the pointing finger with the moon, to use a traditional saying. That fact that the finger (reason) is not sufficient of itself does not imply that it cannot be employed.

Finally, if you don't want to discuss philosophy with me for whatever reason, then I have already given you the text to consult, or at least to begin with. It says more than I can say here. Take it or leave it.

[Anonymous No.21341064]

>>21340884
Guenon never read arabic lit. He never developed his arabic. When he was in Egypt he was still only reading Hindu stuff.

[Anonymous No.21341071]

>>21341018
>I would say you want people who already agree with the same basic points as you, so you can stay on ground you are familiar with.
No, I want to discuss with people who agree the subject matter discussed can actually be ascertained rationally and through discourse.
>In Eastern philosophy of mind (particularly Advaita, Zen), "discursive" is used to indicate the mind's activities in the most general possible sense, its grasping even perceptual objects, as well as thought objects.
Ok then. But I suggest you don't use it in that way with people unless you explain yourself first, because this is a very strange and metaphorical use of the word.
>If I knew your entire thoughts from the start then I may have selected a more appropriate term that would lend less to confusion, but of course it is impossible for me to know your thoughts if they are not expressed.
Come on now… You cannot possibly think I would've understood that by "discursive" you mean "the mind's activity in the most general possible sense". Whatever though, it's okay, I too will use technical vocabulary by mistake in other contexts.
>No, that's not what I meant. It's irrelevant to the point whether there are distinctions outside the mind or if the mind projects them (given that both are illusory anyway). Shankara actually refutes idealism (the idea that all objects are either purely mental, or are transformed by the mind to be unrecognizable in themselves) in this sense in the text I already recommended, not that it matters to the point here.
Okay then, I said myself it's irrelevant to my point too. I find it puzzling that Shankara would say only a primal consciousness exists but not be an idealist, but I don't know much about him and maybe I'm wrong about him even saying as much.
>It does not imply distinctions are real if they are not part of reality to begin with.
I suggest rereading my argument, I don't even understand what you are saying. What is "to begin with" here? I don't even know how to answer you.
>One analogy
Please no. These are misleading.
>One analogy which can also be made analogous to a concept in calculus is foam on the water, the foam on the water is the water, there is strictly speaking no difference
There is strictly speaking a difference. Foam is not water. But I guess you want to say foam is part of water. Okay then: there is a difference between the water that is foam, and the water that isn't foam. I guess foam is a type of water, or that when we say foam, we mean water that is foamy (the actual thing being foamy+water). If you want to say foamy water is the same thing as water, then they are synonymous, and all water is foamy.

[Anonymous No.21341072]

>>21340905
Look at these word games. Pathetic. You really are like the SJWs and communists.

[Anonymous No.21341073]

>>21341071
(cont.)
>just as in calculus, strictly speaking there is no difference between an infinitesimal (our illusory reality) and zero (ultimate reality).
This just seems wrong, but I'm a mathlet.
>Why would I admit this when I've already said exactly the opposite? You are confusing the pointing finger with the moon, to use a traditional saying. That fact that the finger (reason) is not sufficient of itself does not imply that it cannot be employed.
I actually provided multiple arguments for why it cannot be employed. You're doing exactly what I expecting, you think vaguely with metaphors and you don't adress actual arguments. And what is even that metaphor? The finger here would be reason, but what's the moon? If it is reality, I don't confuse the two: I say reason provides rules as to how to ascertain the nature of reality. If the moon is the path to enlightenment and its practices, or enlightenment itself, I'm saying the finger shouldn't be pointed there.

[Anonymous No.21341083]

>>21337234
OP is one stupid soulless cunt if I've ever seen one. Don't bother with high-class metaphysical thinkers if you're so patently retarded and have not the inclination nor sufficient mental capacity to appreciate such discourse. It's simply not up your alley, you despicable philistine cuck

[Anonymous No.21341112]

>>21337287
>>21337331
>>21337400
>>21337475
>>21337484
>>21338834
>>21341083
Look at yourselves bed-shitting and screeching while you ass bleeds at ‘Guenon affirmed all genuine religions teached X and Y, but they explicitly differ on these questions’, a point most religious practitionners would agree with. You're pathetic. You can call this guy a hylic satanist paid shill for saying that all you want, but I hope you realize your favourite tibetan monk agrees with him and thinks Islam and Bhakti Hinduism are essentialist trash.

[Anonymous No.21341128]

>>21341083
>Don't bother with high-class metaphysical thinkers

Guenon is certainly not one. It's painfully obvious that his fans are poorly read.

[Anonymous No.21341590]

>>21341128
Guenonposters (peace be upon them) are the most erudite, intelligent and insightful posters on this whole board.

[Anonymous No.21341984]

>>21340905
>*By the discursive mind, yes. The non-dual is neither full nor empty (again, see Shankara's dialogue that I cited) due to its intrinsic universality.

lmao and guenon cult followers want you to believe that advaita isn't easily subsumed by buddhism, from which it came from

terrible, terrible philosophy

[Anonymous No.21342074]

>>21340891
>From what little any human mind can grasp of reality, the ultimate realization you defend is best interpreted as going crazy, having your faculties of sensitive and intellectual perception shut down, something like that.
This is because before realization there is a sense of self that owns body and mind, a sense that it is "my faculties of sensitive and intellectual perception, my body, my mind, therefore I will lose them or control over them, and my experience will end like death". But it's not that these faculties shut down or one loses control of them, it's that there's already no one in the body or mind to own or control these faculties nor to be the experiencer of sight, sound, feeling, thought, etc.
>what you are asking limited minds to do is irrational.
In a sense I agree. The imaginary individual can't possibly realize it's imaginary. Rather it's "this", everything you currently experience, that realizes the falsity of the individual. Everything then looks, sounds, feels, etc exactly the same as before, there's just no sense of a self that it looks, sounds, or feels to/for. There is seeing, but no one who sees; thinking, but no one who thinks. It's the realization of what there is (and isn't) prior to the mental activity of thought, intellect, rationality, reason, knowing and not knowing, but not the end nor stupefying of these faculties.

[Anonymous No.21342083]

>>21342074
>>21340962
>the ones who have non-dual views that are more than mere beliefs but directly experienced (anyone can just have mistaken beliefs, I think you have a mistaken belief in non-dualism for example).
>>21341071
>I find it puzzling that Shankara would say only a primal consciousness exists but not be an idealist
I don't want to make any metaphysical claims about reality, there's nothing I said here >>21342074 is necessarily incompatible with any metaphysical belief. And my view isn't solely Advaita, but to perhaps clear up some confusion about "primal consciousness" in non-duality, my understanding is that it too is merely a concept used provisionally to point to its "referent". Ultimately all beliefs and concepts including a fundamental non-dual consciousness or Self, Idealism, the real and illusory, life and death and eternal life, and so on, are dropped too. If Advaita et al is true, it's only true conventionally from the illusory perspective of an individual, from the "absolute awakened perspective" truth and untruth (including the absolute and being awakened and unawakened etc) are seen to be mere concepts that point to "this", what's really here. So there's really just "this", and even that's saying too much.

[Anonymous No.21342531]

>>21340843
What do you mean exactly, “Does it have specific contents?” All conscious experiencing as such must have some content (even, paradoxically, a fugue state, a trance, or the state of dreamless deep sleep — experiencing and consciousness is simply very attenuated, bare, and minimal and such a state, but if the observer or self totally disappeared in such a state, arguably you would not even be able to wake up, have a vague memory of having been in dreamless deep sleep, and say, “I was unconscious”, or, even more pragmatically, would not be able to wake up when someone shoots out your name — so the subtle observer is still there, however attenuated its experiences).

But the point of teachings such as Advaita Vedanta, jnana yoga, the Kashmir Shaiva tradition, and so on, is to bring your attention away from the “Whatness” of experiencing, to the “Who-ness” behind it (which is yourself, or in Vedantic terminology “the Self,” the factor which people are held to be “asleep” to or ignorant of). You are aware, but frequently you are not aware that you are aware. The claim of traditions such as these is that intelligent, conscious and directed self-inquiry eventually leads to the suspension, stilling, quieting or abatement of ordinary, limited, time-space, dualistic, causal-effectual, frustrated, struggling, limiting, “desiring” consciousness (with a qualification, that “mumuksha,” earnest desire for liberation, moksha, or knowledge of God is accepted in the Hindu tradition as an ennobling and uplifting sentiment), revealing the Self as infinite and all-pervading, which is rajayoga samadhi.

Tricky clever artificially used terminology from another culture and dry debates, can just as much stifle an understanding of this as it can lead to it, like trying to produce enlightenment with a Rube Goldberg machine. A good but incredibly non-literal and unofficial translation of a concept from Advaita Vedanta like turiya samadhi is “rising into the state of the Godself”. In the Kashmir Shaiva tradition, this is called Pratyabhijna, “Self-recognition.” This is recognizing God enshrined in the temple of the hearts of all beings, and not in a prideful way either, as the teachings include not just the concept that “I am That” but also that “You are That,” whether or not I or you fully recognize and understand this.

As the Sufi poet Attar wrote at the end of his poem the Mantiq ut-Tair (“The Conference of the Birds”), about thirty birds meeting their Maker, the Simurgh, and discovering they and the Simurgh were one the whole time:


>There in the Simorgh’s radiant face they saw
>Themselves, the Simorgh of the world — with awe
>They gazed, and dared at last to comprehend
>They were the Simorgh and the journey’s end.
>They see the Simorgh — at themselves they stare,
>And see a second Simorgh standing there;
>They look at both and see the two are one,
>That this is that, that this, the goal is won.

[Anonymous No.21342566]

>>21340843
>>21342531
Ultimately, Guenon, Traditionalists, and the authorities of many cultures would agree following a specific tradition and having a guide or “guru” is the most effective means of realizing truths such as this, even if the Inner Guru is technically within you and everyone and all-pervading, and it is admitted that rarely some devoted, dedicated people can attain enlightenment without specific initiation from a specific teacher in a human body. But, again, it’s held by these traditions to be a rare case. You can go around and around in your head about “a drop of water dissolving into the sea,” “the finger pointing to the moon” but it’s useless unless or until you actually get some sudden leap of consciousness or energy which makes the core of the teachings clear. Otherwise, you easily become a silly New Ager (which even I may be, so don’t trust me, or anyone, too easily and quickly).

[Anonymous No.21343273]

>>21342566
>You can go around and around in your head about “a drop of water dissolving into the sea,” “the finger pointing to the moon” but it’s useless unless or until you actually get some sudden leap of consciousness or energy which makes the core of the teachings clear. Otherwise, you easily become a silly New Ager
NTA. I mostly agree but I want to add something that may be of interest to you or others. The core misunderstanding that keeps people in circles, or applying non-duality like a philosophy, or leads to delusions of being enlightened, is the belief that it is the person that wakes up, and that there's some enlightened person in a teacher's body or mind. The truth is no one has nor ever will wake up. The Buddha never woke up, Adi Shankara never woke up, no one.

People try to wake themselves up to true reality/consciousness, but it's true reality/consciousness that wakes up to the fiction of the person. Hearing this the person often still tries to get rid of the person and find some other true reality/consciousness elsewhere, because surely it can't be this ordinary reality/consciousness... right? But it is, it's "this". This plain old attention, awareness, consciousness, whatever you want to call it, that appears as everything.
But of course, this is not something to merely believe, and there's not really anything anyone can do to wake up. Nondual/self-enquiry can "work", that is attending resolutely to the sense of "I"/being or investigating what you are not, and paths are fine, but realization still only happens spontaneously and instantly. Anything the person tries to do is a perpetuation of the illusion, the illusion can't see through the illusion; and everything—including the illusion—is already what's being sought so it can't really be arrived at or attained. There's just a spontaneous realization of "this" that occurs for no one.

[Anonymous No.21343351]

>>21337287
Satan.

[Anonymous No.21343403]

>>21343351
Yes, only paid shill satanists would oppose annihilationist mysticism and syncretism.

[Anonymous No.21343443]

>>21343273
>People try to wake themselves up to true reality/consciousness, but it's true reality/consciousness that wakes up to the fiction of the person. Hearing this the person often still tries to get rid of the person and find some other true reality/consciousness elsewhere, because surely it can't be this ordinary reality/consciousness... right? But it is, it's "this". This plain old attention, awareness, consciousness, whatever you want to call it, that appears as everything.
>I mostly agree but I want to add something that may be of interest to you or others. The core misunderstanding that keeps people in circles, or applying non-duality like a philosophy, or leads to delusions of being enlightened, is the belief that it is the person that wakes up, and that there's some enlightened person in a teacher's body or mind. The truth is no one has nor ever will wake up. The Buddha never woke up, Adi Shankara never woke up, no one.
Right, this is the main obstacle, operating under the impression that there is some enlightenment or realization to be had, or even some experience to be exposed, in the end the Self is existent, ordinarily, without some special effort, exertion and so on, all that is required is discrimination between Self and non-Self, Knowledge, sure, unfortunately though acknowledging yourself to be a discriminating person, able to fall under the New-Age, or legitamized as a follower of a legitimate tradition or delegitimized as follower of something illegitimate is an affirmation of the empirically sacred and profane, and acknowledging the opposite too is an affirmation of something, which in itself constitutes an obstacle, conceiving of yourself as a real or even false person practicing anything, obfuscates the purity of awareness, there is no real suppression of any individuality, or concepts of true, or false required either which is another unnecessary task, which is why accusations of annihilation make no sense, and professions of some eternalization are also erroneous, nothing is to be either objectified or not-objectified in the same way the self is neither existing nor not existing, when the self-cognizant pure awareness is clear, it cannot be grasped as the fruition of prayer, repeated meditations or any activity, because it may become an attachment and dissolving addiction, we are never seperate from the self even as individuals surely, it is right to read proper texts of metaphysics though in case you misapprehend ordinary states of conciousness for supreme states, isnt it? It is also right to pray and petition your true self to reveal itself to you, to communicate with your empirical self, because there is some communication to be had, right, or to devote yourself to phenomena to see it as it is? Prayer and earnest faith, belief, and trusting the initiatic process its all necessary to ensure a proper stabilization of the conciousness, of course? How else can can you gain release?

[Anonymous No.21343457]

>>21337279
>THE Being
Never noticed this yet I own the book and have read it twice
Always thought it was multiple states of being

[Anonymous No.21343471]

>>21342566
You are right dedication and commitment to something is Absolutely required, you need to submit yourself at the feet of a wise teacher, that is the only way, you need to engage in rituals, you need to make it all real, otherwise it is all a false delusion of the satanic counter-initiation, psyopping you into psychic destruction, dont be fooled by the counter-initiation, they want to enslave you and absorb you into the hivemind of the serpent, causing you to reincarnate as footsoldier in another world.
Convert to Islam or Hinduism, and get active in serving the pro-initiation heroes of earth.

[Anonymous No.21343477]

>>21343471
>Convert to Islam or Hinduism,
Counter initiation I shall serve

[Anonymous No.21343508]

>Gradually I began to accept Shankara’s superiority

[Anonymous No.21343512]

>>21343477
The primordial tradition is really just the counter-initiation. The primordial tradition can only be known by the superimposing of the qualities of the counter-initiation and pseudo-tradition on the primordial tradition, and the later negation of all these qualities leaving the primordial tradition entirely alone and existent.

[Anonymous No.21343522]

>>21343457
lol dumbass fucking guenon reader has NO clue what guenon was writing about

its about the multiple states of THE being, as the so-called human moves through different states to final annihilation

you guys are so retarded, honestly the dumbest fan base on this entire site, of any board

[Anonymous No.21343532]

>>21343522
not as bad as the French leftists faggots

[Anonymous No.21343547]

>>21343477
The primordial tradition is really just the counter-initiation. The primordial tradition can only be known by the superimposing of the qualities of the counter-initiation and pseudo-tradition on the tradition, and the later negation of all these qualities leaving the primordial tradition entirely alone and existent.
The next redpill is that the counter-initiation represents jesus and the tradition represents the rabbis and later the muslims and the christians attempted to objectify the primordial tradition failing in the process, but also so did the buddhists and the hindus, and likewise the buddha represented the counter-initiation and the brahmins the tradition, and the negation of all of these superimposed qualities gives direct access to the primordial tradition of conciousness alone, transmitted by conciousness alone.

[Anonymous No.21343556]

>>21343547
Wasn't it confirmed that Soros basically believes in Advaita? Really makes you think. Guenon thinks order will "trickle down" if the spiritual elites go back to believing in annihilationism lmao.

I bet Klaus Schwab believes in this garbage too. Guenon = satanic counter-initiation

[Anonymous No.21343567]

>>21343547
Tell us more anon
What should we do?
How do we break free from the clutches of LE SPHINX?

[Anonymous No.21343569]

>>21343556
>Wasn't it confirmed that Soros basically believes in Advaita
Soros is a guenonposter on /lit/, the NWO is actively trying to reinstate the primordial tradition through the superimposition of the counter-initiation of science on the tradition of religion, few know truly understand this.

[Anonymous No.21343742]

>>21343567
>How do we break free from the clutches of LE SPHINX?
LE SPHINX was a guilty and repentant archon who exposed the way the earth ensnares people, he exposed the way in which tradition exists as a mental object affirming the progression between life and death, it represents existance, having, but also how imitators of tradition, counter-initiation oppose the progression between life and death, representing non-existence, not-having,
What is "Brahman" it is neither existent (relatively), nor non-existent, what is Maya it is neither existent (absolutely) nor non-existent, how do you know Brahman? By the negation of the super-imposition by ignorance of Maya on Brahman, and of Brahman on Maya,
What are the counter-initiation and tradition, but attributes superimposed by ignorance, more or less known to guenon by a subrational psychic compulsion more or less, infact it would be best to say now that the former is Maya projected onto Brahman, and the latter Brahman projected onto Maya. How is the "primordial tradition," revealed? By the negation of all positive attributes (tradition) and negative attributes (counter-initiation or not-tradition) superimposed on the Absolute "primordial tradition," which is not to be confused for something symbolic and empirical or even some traditional unity, of forms, or some silly abstraction like that, guenon devised the concept of tradition in its polarity to emulate the metaphysical method of advaita, this is the main key to breaking free,
The way to break free is simply put, to negate both the objectified tradition and non-tradition, guenon trying his best, doing what he can trying to not reify or objectify what he then termed as "esoterism," he attempted to essentially term "esoterism," to be a correlate of this process of the revealing of the "primordial tradition,"
The way to Brahman or the Primordial tradition according to guenon is simply put, to as an individual person an intimate actor in the world, impose on yourself the attributes of "tradition,"
But because of the ineptitude of his readers what do they do here? The objectify this tradition and thus continue in delusion, they also entirely dismiss the other device the "counter-initiation," and thus in their ignorance larp as very serious individuals following an orthodox tradition, from there maybe they eventually realize Guenons method of superimposing the qualities of tradition probably close to detah and a life-long practical devotion oriented towards a tradition, or they dont and then they die in ignorance, the real path of knowledge begins with the negation of both tradition and counter-initiation, initiation into the primordial tradition properly speaking consists of being given direct sonship to Brahma, to become a "mind-born" son,
Those who cant see what I am telling you never had a real chance to begin with, it is very rational and if you closely evaluate guenons writings, where there may be some sentence which contradicts me,

[Anonymous No.21343744]

>>21343742
Guenon is only being indirect, and you are only seeing the forest for the trees

[Anonymous No.21343758]

>>21343742
*The way to break free is simply put, to negate both the objectified tradition and non-tradition, guenon trying his best, doing what he can trying to not reify or objectify what he then termed as "esoterism," he attempted to essentially term "esoterism," to be a correlate of this process of the revealing of the "primordial tradition," being careful enough trying to disconnect it from the superimposition of "tradition" as a form, why do you think he would dwell on "supra-formal" metaphysical realization at a point, for example? Why was he trying his best to distinguish metaphysics in its universality from "tradition"
It may be required clarification but "metaphysics" is properly speaking the "logic" or "method" of the Primordial tradition, it is unrelated to some apparent unity amongst traditional forms, relating to theological transpositions of it, this condusion is like seeing relative existence for existence.

[Anonymous No.21343762]

>>21343742
*and thus in their ignorance larp as very serious individuals following an orthodox tradition (acting in a very strict opposition to all "counter"-inititaion, splitting into two factions)

[Anonymous No.21343795]

>>21343742
The stages of actual guenonian gnosis are simple:
Superimpose on yourself counter-initiation, and retract, then superimpose on yourself tradition, then retract, negate them and the primordial tradition will dawn,
You can do this however you want, like guenon you can associate yourself with a gnostic church, actually receive a "counter-initiation," then receieve an "initiation," or receieve an "initiation," then receive a "counter-initiation," if you want to be practical, and follow in Guenons actual footsteps,
But as I said, before there are other ways,
>>21343569
These days all it takes is
Superimposing on yourself Science, then superimposing on yourself Religion (you can follow guenons theoretical instructions to convince yourself you are following the actual and proper "Traditional," religion too) then negating these two. Science at its current level has manifested as a fully-fledged "anti-tradition" or "counter-initiation."
In fact many people these days start with a very scientistic experience of self, then they transition into a traditional one, but they dont also negate that, infact that one is far more difficult to negate, as you are opening yourself to more of reality, which can be too much to handle, and honestly this is a very unprecedented oppurtunity that the counter-initiation has materialized in this way.

[Anonymous No.21343806]

>>21343795
*more of reality/delusion

[Anonymous No.21343850]

the counter-initiation has penetrated the /trad/ circles...

[Anonymous No.21343875]

>>21343850

[Anonymous No.21343895]

>>21343795
>Superimpose on yourself counter-initiation, and retract, then superimpose on yourself tradition, then retract, negate them and the primordial tradition will dawn,
wtf are you trying to say nigger

[Anonymous No.21343915]

>>21343742
>LE SPHINX was a guilty and repentant archon who exposed the way the earth ensnares people,

[Anonymous No.21343926]

>>21343895
Exactly what I said, identify with the body like a hylic, then move onto however long it may take you, to the "supreme identity" like a true pneumatic in a traditional way, then negate both identities which are respectively representative of the two extreme poles of the human state they are not symmetrical as extremes, of course this sort of expression may seem redundant to you, but the guenonians conceive of there being some "supreme identity" to attain some universal manhood to attain, what better way is there to confirm this by completely exhausting yourself through years of exertion in a tradition, with all the superimposition that comes with that, be it meeting prophets in dreams, waking hallucinations, being overehelmed with a supposed "oneness" and transient unity, and then negating it.

[Anonymous No.21343937]

>>21343926
hylic-pneumatic sinister dialectic

[Anonymous No.21344001]

Maybe I missed it, but did the thread really get this far without OP explaining precisely what he means by "annihilationism" and why exactly it's bad?
OP could be misunderstanding the traditions in question and unknowingly saying his misunderstanding is bad or wrong, or he could understand correctly and his reasoning for it being bad is just not worth trying to arguing against. If the reason is that it's "satanic and the self/soul is sacred and there is some kind of after-life in an objective heaven realm" or some shit I won't try to stop anyone believing that, but if it is a reason like that and OP had simply said this in the second reply then the thread should have ended there.
At any rate, I don't trust Guenon. His mouth is too far away from his eyes.

[Anonymous No.21344018]

>>21337234

[Anonymous No.21344043]

>>21344001
The only rationalization is that annihilationism is actually good,
And cope like
>many know that a drop of water merges into the ocean, bt few know that the ocean merges with the drop

[Anonymous No.21344047]

>>21344043
Annihilation is actually transcendence bro *puffs opium pipe*

[Anonymous No.21344056]

>>21344047
can't believe OP got filtered this hard
did he even read Guenon?

[Anonymous No.21344091]

>>21344056
He did, his opinions are valid

[Anonymous No.21344206]

>>21337467
>>Make a fucking argument you god damn loser. Is it or is it not the case that religion attempts the deconditioning (aka "annihilationism") of human beings by encouraging them to divinise themselves and therefore abandon their normal human qualities
buddhism doesnt do this one bit lol

[Anonymous No.21344223]

The truth is that drugs and theistic cults like hinduism, mahayana, all the judaisms are all the same. What ever happens in a drug spree is a tiny version of the ''mediation'' the non druggies do, but they derive the same conclusion. This is true. And It's just he perrenialist view, ie muh all religions are the same. Perennials are right so far. What they get wrong is that whatever inside a meditation is not nirvana. IE, religious people, and all the atheist dimwits who ''love spirituality but hate religions'', say nirvana=meditation, muh connecting with the one, with pristine awareness, with god (and this sparkled a shitshow in judaisms with the chiasm of chrsitinaity and orthodoxy , muh jesus is half human half god), but buddhists say it's not.

Now the way buddhists do it is by using radicality. The historical analog is Descartes using radical doubt to get knowledge, and this generated all the science atheists love. This is why atheist midwits think buddhism is compatible with science. Buddhism doesnt give a shit about knowledge. Buddhism is about suffering.
So budda wants to end suffering, and he analyses every aspect of what he experiences and try to find sth which is not suffering and even sth not tainted by suffering. As soon as something is tainted by suffering, it is thrown way and must be avoided at all cost.
He does that over and over and over until he finds the condition for suffering to rise and for suffering to cease. At this point knowledge is introduced because it turns out it's crucial to end suffering. The special knowledge triggers dispassion from what is tainted by suffering and suffering ends forever:

>In this way, dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward.
https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html

[Anonymous No.21344224]

>>21344206
Deluded, so when they say you are dharmskaya or buddha-nature, what do they mean? You are no longer a normally conditioned base human, that is liberation and deliverence, you are disembodied

[Anonymous No.21344230]

>>21344223
Can you give a precise metaphysical description of suffering? Is it essentially equivalent it ignorance?

[Anonymous No.21344336]

>>21344001
So as far as I can tell OP or Guenon seem to think that traditions such as Advaita and Buddhism saying that consciousness/experience is essentially non-self and non-dual, that the sense of self or of separation is an illusion, is annihilationism. It isn't. Awakening doesn't mean nothingness or blankness, there is still ordinary perception, just no sense of being a perceiver back here nor of the perceived object over there. You cannot imagine what this is like, so the usual erroneous interpretation is that it's nothingness like deep sleep or atheistic death. They're also not suggesting annihilationism after death. What you actually are does not get annihilated; at death the body, mind, and world is relinquished just like you throw out old clothes you no longer wear.
Nothing I said here even necessarily precludes a typical God or heaven. But if you still think this is annihilationism, I'm still yet to hear why that's bad. Just really wanting your pearly gates in the clouds with God is fine but not an argument.

[Anonymous No.21344346]

>>21344336
To add something practical and direct:
People really overcomplicate this shit. It's not otherworldly or spooky, it's what you perceive around you now. For eg, there's already no separation between "you", the attention on this part of the screen while reading this, and the screen itself. "You", that attention, and the screen is the same "thing". The attention "on" the screen is the screen, this attention is not beaming out from "back here" in a head. Attention is focused or localized awareness/consciousness. All that happens is attention pays attention to attention itself, fails to find anything other than it, and is liberated. That's basically it.

[Anonymous No.21344422]

>>21340869
Free will is a mystery. It seems incomprehensible, but we all have immediate experience of it at every moment, as well as in the universal expereience of shame, guilt, pride for welldoing, etc. (and ofc, we all impute these things on others)

If we did not have direct experience of this strange mystery of human freedom, we wouldn't believe it. But we do have experience.

[Anonymous No.21344425]

>>21344422
another way to think about it...

I think that free choices are sort of "causeless," so our freedom is an image, in a way, of God being the uncaused cause. Our freedom is what causes the choice. Freedom is kind of a lacuna in the otherwise rigid mechanical chain of causation.

And lest you say this is absurd... again, look inward and you will realize that you really are free. This strong perception of freedom is primary to any philosophizing about it and valid... and it must be valid, as all morality hinges on it.

[Anonymous No.21344454]

>>21340051
You are in fact your body. You are even your hair until it is cut off (in a manner of speaking,) because it is a part of you.

You are not identical in the strict IFF "biconditional" sense with your body... this is because "is" is actually rather ambiguous word, able to connote absolute identity (two circles overlapping 100%) and partial identity (one smaller circle inside a bigger one).

Again, we say, without absurdity, "Bob is hairy." If Bob stops being hairy, he is not thereby deprived of his Bobness. He remains Bob, Hirsute or no.

This leads us into essence and accident. The essential and non-essential properties of a being. For the human being, the essence is the soul. That is what we really are at a minimum. But we are also our bodies, yet not in such a way that physical death necessarily leads to the destruction of the person.

I confess I am unable to prove the immortality of the soul through natural reason alone. Never grokked that one, but it's outside the scope of this discussion.

>>21340273
Again what you are imputing as some kind of natural thing is simply false. It's the denial of the existence of the soul, which is an absurd thing to claim. I am currently experiencing qualia. That is the "I" to whom things are happening now. You cannot directly perceive the underlying substrate (in the way that I can access the qualia of my own emotions/external perceptions/memories/etc.) because the soul, in its "inmost essence" (speaking loosely) is pure awareness. The eye cannot see itself except through a mirror (through representation, however genuine). Yet I know that there is seeing going on! And there can be no seeing without a seer. So you are led thereby into Hinduism (which leads to its own absurdities... I mean, for one thing, I am obviously not God in any meaningful sense, otherwise I'd be much happier), or back into common sense, which agrees that individual humans are their own distinct personal beings composed of soul and body.

You yourself use the term "I" in that very post. Now you slippery easterners (of soul if not of extraction), as I am well aware, are quite fond of claiming that you use language in a merely conventional sense, out of painful necessity. In which case, why not take it all the way to the end and say that you are engaging in this dialogue not to attain to some kind of transcendent external truth (which would seem to contradict the doctrine of anatta), but for some inexpressible inscrutable purpose, not touching at all on any stodgy notion of literalistic expressable or even gesture-to-able (forgive me Aethelred) truth?

[Anonymous No.21345020]

Perrenialists get hard filtered by buddhism because it destroys their fantasy.

[Anonymous No.21345199]

>"your" personal existence is an illusion!!!
Okay, this illusion will remain in the realm of illusion along with all of the other illusionary things it cares about.
>noooo "you" can't do that!!!

[Anonymous No.21346000]

Do you anons here in this thread visit the paranormal board?

[Anonymous No.21346085]

>>21337234
The guenon and evola threads on this board make me lose faith in humanity

[Anonymous No.21346330]

>>21343508
all patricians come to that conclusion eventually

[Anonymous No.21346370]

>>21346330
See the guenonian desperate to create the semblance that people think his crypto-buddhism is strong philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21346657]

>>21344454
>I am currently experiencing qualia. That is the "I" to whom things are happening now. You cannot directly perceive the underlying substrate (in the way that I can access the qualia of my own emotions/external perceptions/memories/etc.) because the soul, in its "inmost essence" (speaking loosely) is pure awareness.
Our disagreement seems to be a semantics issue. I tend to avoid positive statements, as concepts and thought obscure that which "Self", "soul", or "awareness" refers to.
This pure awareness or soul is not the sense of it. You can call this awareness or soul "I" but the sense or feeling or thought of "I" is by nature of being a sense or feeling or thought something that awareness can be aware of, and as such not it in itself. Any sense or conceptualization of self is not anything like Self/soul/awareness because Self/soul/awareness is not like anything at all, it has no qualities/properties. You even say it's not directly perceivable, if it was like something and therefore directly perceivable it would be just another object known by that subject.

All I'm saying is you're misidentified with the SENSE/FEELING/THOUGHT of self/I, and feel that you're confined to the body and mind (thought, emotion, qualia etc). You're identified with objects, overlooking the pure subject; overlooking the looker. When this is recognized clearly, there is unconditional peace, and the sense/experience of separation is no longer present. Don't misunderstand, everything still looks like it does now because there's already no real separation between perceiver, perceiving, and perceived.
>Yet I know that there is seeing going on! And there can be no seeing without a seer.
That knowing is itself the knower, and the seeing is itself the seer. You could say there is a pure seer, which I haven't really intended to deny. The point is that this pure seer is the seeing and the seen, there's no separation.

>I am obviously not God in any meaningful sense, otherwise I'd be much happier
You're not happier precisely because you don't yet realize you are God and not the unhappy mind. Or since I don't really intend to argue metaphysical claims like that, you don't realize you are that unconditionally peaceful subject/soul/awareness/consciousness. This still leaves room for heaven and God.

[Anonymous No.21346667]

>>21344454
>>21346657
>slippery easterners
The same and similar sentiments can be found throughout western history, such as Christian mysticism.
>why not take it all the way to the end and say that you are engaging in this dialogue not to attain to some kind of transcendent external truth (which would seem to contradict the doctrine of anatta), but for some inexpressible inscrutable purpose, not touching at all on any stodgy notion of literalistic expressable or even gesture-to-able (forgive me Aethelred) truth?
Not sure what you mean. I engage in these dialogues because they're enjoyable and the reminders to simply be "this" are good, and perhaps someone is helped in the process. I'm not speaking purely theoretically. I'm not permanently awake but I often have insight/glimpses, although intellectually I know they don't happen to the "me" I feel myself to be at the moment. The metaphysics is debatable but everything I've said about the nature of soul/awareness/consciousness/experience is an empirical fact and true regardless of what you believe.
Also a common misunderstanding is that anatta is a doctrine or a truth, but really it's a disposable tool for discerning what you are not.

[Anonymous No.21346690]

>>21345199
>>noooo "you" can't do that!!!
Actually, you can! If you're cool with suffering for no particularly good reason or don't care to learn the nature of your mind and consciousness then by all means enjoy the dream, it doesn't have to be a lucid dream. That might sound a little sardonic, but to not desire waking up is valid albeit arguably misguided.
But the illusion can't escape the illusion anyway, like how a dream character in your dream can't wake up from your dream. The illusory you has no choice in this whatsoever, the illusion "remains in the realm of illusion along with all of the other illusionary things it cares about" regardless.

[Anonymous No.21346708]

>>21337851
>The moment he dies he pronounces the "all that has to be done is done"
This line has a specific meaning, Jesus says it right after drinking vinegar, which stands for the last cup of wine of the Passover, which He did not finish days before.
The Last Supper is only properly finished at that moment, because Christ is the Passover lamb.