/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14431554]

Why are Evola's writings bad?

[Anonymous No.14431561]

because your calcified pineal gland stifles your ability to comprehend them

[Anonymous No.14431631]

because he's not guenon

[Anonymous No.14431648]

>>14431631
That is why he is better, silly. You must have posted in the wrong thread, ya dum dum.

[Anonymous No.14431653]

>>14431554
Because he confused the castes, putting Kshatriyas above brahmins

[Anonymous No.14431665]

>>14431653
He corrected an error rooted in a cringe revenge of the nerds fantasy.

[Anonymous No.14431670]

>>14431554
Because the truth is harmful to people whose whole perception of the world is based on a lie. When those types can’t refute the content they attack the style.

[Anonymous No.14431671]

>>14431554
They're not 'bad' but they should all be taken with a lump of salt because he selectively cites from metaphysical/eastern texts to support his ideological prefernces and he also makes a amateur mistakes sometimes that suggest he hasn't even read the thing he is talking about. He didn't understand Vedanta very well for example and most of what he writes on it doesn't correspond to the real thing but just his superficial grasp of it. If you'd like I can post examples

[Anonymous No.14431746]

>>14431554
I never got further than two paragraphs of any of his works. It's just bad.

>>14431631
correct answer >>14431670 might disagree but compare Guenon's extremely rigorous style to Evola's and you can come to your own conclusion. Diligence is primordial when studying principles and Evola couldn't do it, his lack of 'conscientiousness' explains his misunderstanding of tradition and inversion of caste. In reality it is the opposite; his lack of understanding leads to a lax style, not rigorous. This principle is applied everywhere in sacred art.

[Anonymous No.14431810]

>>14431671
>If you'd like I can post examples
Sure anon, do it.

[Anonymous No.14431967]

>>14431810
Here is a typical example, which I am reposting from another thread that I posted this in (from Evola's book 'Shakti: World as Power' pages 26-27)

>If we uphold Vedanta's Advaita monism, we are thereby forced to conclude that maya, in its irrational and miragelike nature, could mysteriously arise within brahman itself (since nothing exists other than it). This, in turn, would lead us to conclude that brahman itself is subject, in some way, to "ignorance."
As Evola should have known, Shankara comments on and agrees with the Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada, which analyzes the Upanishads to conclude that Maya is a power of Brahman, which it is the very self-nature (svabhava) of Brahman to effortlessly wield or express like it is the nature of the sun to emit light, this same view of Maya is upheld throughout all of Shankara's works. The notion that Brahman/Atma is subject to ignorance is similarly incorrect, as all the Upanishads state that the Self is unaffected and unattached, that It is not subject to ignorance. Anyone who has read Shankara would find that he affirms this repeatedly, such as in on his commentary on Katha Upanishad 2.2.11. for example.

>The following are some further Tantric criticisms. In a sense we may say that the world is not absolutely "real" and that maya, its source, is not totally unreal. A dream may be said to be unreal, but not the power that generates it. If maya is unreal, whence comes samsara, namely, the finite and ever-changing world? Somebody said: "If maya is unreal, samsara becomes real."
Evola seems unaware as mentioned that that maya is not independent in Advaita but is a power of Brahman, who is the source of maya. The very nature of maya is to project an illusory world as seemingly real, while Brahman alone remains absolutely real. So, the notion that if we deny that maya is ultimately real then we have no explanation for samsara is nonsensical because samsara is inseparable from maya, maya presents itself to us through samsara. Advaita denies the ultimate reality of both maya/samsara (which are different aspects or ways of considering the same thing, there is no bifurcation of them as Evola seems to imagine) while maintaining their cause (Brahman) alone as real. Advaita holds to the Vivartavada causation theory that the effect is an appearance of the cause, which alone is real. His criticism appears to be based on a total misunderstanding of what Maya is taught to be in Advaita. This misunderstanding is common in the criticism of Advaita by other Tantric/Vedantic schools, but if Evola had actually read Shankara then he would have realized that it's a strawman that's not actually representative of Advaita.

[Anonymous No.14431980]

>>14431554
bc he believed in all sorts of bs: Occultism, Masonic conspiracies, wizardry, magic... I can't take somebody like that seriously.