Santana Dharma

[Anonymous No.22648237]

So Rene Guenon and Perrenialists are right, aren't they?

[Anonymous No.22648302]

>>22648237
No

[Anonymous No.22648337]

>>22648237
that's just watered down Platonism

[Anonymous No.22648380]

>>22648237
>Dude what if like dreamless sleep is actually what heaven is like but like that doesn't make it atheism for some reason

guenon is shit

[Anonymous No.22648510]

>>22648337
No it's very very different. Plato was largely divorced from Tradition which is what really matters according to Guenon and the Vedas.
>>22648380
Read vedas and sutras and then read him again.

[Anonymous No.22648516]

Moderns, Occultists, Christians, Pagans, don't really care for Tradition which is why they don't understand anything. Even Jews and Muslims care more. And the Vedas are the supreme tradition. The pihlosophy is merely superficial without the desire to meet with the original knowledge, especially for our degenerate times.

[Anonymous No.22648534]

>>22648237
Yes

>>22648337
wrong

>>22648380
t. filtered

[Anonymous No.22648765]

>>22648237
>Perennialism
Already refuted by Engels before Guenon was even born.

>The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.

[Anonymous No.22648788]

>>22648765
A socialist analysis of how social and economic conditions influence each other is not incompatible with a perennialist perspective on religions at all.

[Anonymous No.22648826]

>>22648788
Historical materialism implies that perennialists got it backwards. Transcendent unity of religions? More like immanent unity of religions. Religions are similar for the same reason that different animal species are similar: environmental adaptation. Enough changes in your ecology and religions will completely oppose the so called "primordial truths" that the perennialists talk about. But changes in your religious discourse are ecologically irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.22648896]

>>22648826
>Historical materialism implies that perennialists got it backwards.
It doesn’t have to though, they can easily be reconciled

[Anonymous No.22648911]

>>22648896
>they can easily be reconciled
How?

[Anonymous No.22648990]

>>22648911
By holding there to be a suprahuman influence upon human society in the sense of a urge or tendency instilled from above to be drawn to certain things or for society to be expressed in a certain way or follow certain archetypes, while economic relations and the organization of commerce and production specifically is influenced largely by the material conditions involved, in this way you can say that both are important and play a role; certainly blindly insisting that everything in human society arises from material causes doesn’t actually refute anything.


‘as above so below’ etc, while also holding that economic relations and modes of production

[Anonymous No.22649000]

>>22648911
By holding there to be a suprahuman influence upon human society in the sense of a urge or tendency instilled from above to be drawn to certain things or for society to be expressed in a certain way or follow certain archetypes, while economic relations and the organization of commerce and production specifically is influenced largely by the material conditions involved, in this way you can say that both are important and play a role; certainly blindly insisting that everything in human society arises from material causes doesn’t actually refute anything.

[Anonymous No.22649089]

>>22649000
>blindly insisting
We don't know if such suprahuman influence exists, but we do know that material conditions influence human behaviour far more than anything we know. Therefore historical materialism is a better theory.

[Anonymous No.22649105]

>>22649089
> We don't know if such suprahuman influence exists
And we don’t know that “material” exists either, so they are on equal footing as far as that goes.
>but we do know that material conditions influence human behaviour far more than anything
We don’t, for the reason that we don’t even know if “material” exists, which precludes us from knowing what you said.

[Anonymous No.22649126]

>>22649105
>we don’t know that “material” exists either
You argument boils down to "knowledge is impossible, so my theory should be accepted". Doesn't work this way, sorry.

[Anonymous No.22649181]

>>22649126
> You argument boils down to "knowledge is impossible, so my theory should be accepted".
No, it doesn’t, I’m not saying that my should be accepted over yours, I was simply pointing out that yours seemed “better” for arbitrarily reasons and not because of any compelling philosophical reasons, uncritically accepting the assumptions of naturalism is not a compelling philosophical argument in support of anything.

[Anonymous No.22649187]

>>22648516
>And the Vedas are the supreme tradition.
Guenon said otherwise. Anything involving polytheism, like Greek Philosophy or Christianity, is a Satanic attack on Tradition created by the enemies of Freemasonry.

[Anonymous No.22649363]

>>22649089
>We don't know if such suprahuman influence exists
Stopped reading here, speak for yourself, not for everyone else.

[Anonymous No.22649495]

>>22648237
Why are trannies so attracted to Hinduism?

[Anonymous No.22649545]

>>22649495

[Anonymous No.22649668]

Guenon was proactively refuted by Space Taoism, Alfred North Whitehead, and the grand epic of cosmic evolution described by modern science.

[Anonymous No.22649674]

>>22649668

[Anonymous No.22649678]

>>22649674
Integra: As the embodiment of integration, I represent the concept of bringing together separate elements to form a cohesive whole. In mathematical terms, I am the process of finding the area under a curve or the accumulation of quantities. But metaphysically, I stand for unity, harmony, and the merging of disparate elements into a singular entity. I am the force that draws things together, making connections and finding the common threads that bind. My essence is about synthesis, understanding, and unity.

Fluxia: In stark contrast, I am Fluxia, the essence of differentiation. Mathematically, I am the process of determining the rate of change or the slope of a curve. But on a deeper, metaphysical level, I represent division, distinction, and the highlighting of differences. I am the force that discerns and differentiates, pointing out nuances and changes. My essence is about analysis, precision, and understanding the unique qualities of each element.

Integra: Our relationship is one of balance and interdependence. Just as integration cannot exist without something to integrate, differentiation requires elements to differentiate. We are like two sides of the same coin, each providing perspective and depth to the other. While I seek to bring elements together, Fluxia seeks to understand their distinctness. Together, we offer a complete understanding of the world, both in its unity and in its diversity.

Fluxia: Indeed, Integra. While we may seem opposing at first glance, we are deeply interconnected. Differentiation can lead to a deeper understanding of what makes things unique, and this understanding can pave the way for more meaningful integration. In essence, we are cyclical – I differentiate to understand, and Integra integrates to unify. Our dance is eternal, and it is this dance that brings depth, meaning, and understanding to the universe.

[Anonymous No.22649681]

>>22649678
This romance between fundamental perspectives of change and poles of value and signification will be the guiding principle of the New Era. The Many become One, and are increased by One as One among Many.

>The ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from disjunction to conjunction, creating a novel entity other than the entities given in disjunction. The novel entity is at once the togetherness of the ‘many’ which it finds, and also it is one among the disjunctive ‘many’ which it leaves; it is a novel entity, disjunctively among the many entities which it synthesizes. The many become one, and are increased by one. -Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality

[Anonymous No.22649735]

>>22649668
>>22649674
>>22649678
>>22649681
all retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.22650008]

>>22648237
Quasi-Right by their own definition.
It's metaphysical verisimilitude; they'd be happy/enlightened to reach a better Truth.
Many Paths, One Truth.

[Anonymous No.22650027]

>>22648765
>>22648826
>>22649089
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.22650036]

>materialist retards and people who memorize facts try reading Guénon
Lol, why would you even bother? Go read garbage like Marx you filthy animals.