/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17343890]

Any other serious Traditionalists here who are embarrassed to talk about it because of Guenonfag and that Buddhism vs. Advaita spammer? Pic related completely changed my approach to religion and got me out of the fundamentalist, pseudo-schizophrenia of American Evangelicalism and helped me develop a sane, systematic approach to religion. I wish we could have comfy Traditionalism threads.

[Anonymous No.17344389]

>>17343890
There were decent Trad general threads for a bit. I'm with you on the embarrassment. I'm glad I found out about Guenon through this board but between the people you mentioned and the zoomer crowd I feel like I can't bring him up here. I've got a friend who's curious but who hasn't read anything by him yet. I've only read Intro. to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, East and West, and Reign of Quantity. I have a book by Coomaraswamy and another by Martin Lings though that I'm reading rn and they're good.

One person I feel like people on this board could benefit from if they've been memed out of Guenon is probably Mircea Eliade, who was more of an accepted name in religious scholarship. I tried his The Sacred and the Profane. It wasn't as deep or contentful after having read Guenon but I feel like it might be a good first for people interested in religion/metaphysics/symbolism who haven't looked at anything (or worse, have only looked at Alan Watts, Jung/Campbell, RAW, U.G. Krishnamurti, or JBP).

[Anonymous No.17344508]

>>17344389
>or worse, have only looked at Alan Watts
Threadly reminder that 'The Supreme Identity' was written by Watts shortly after he became acquainted with Guénon and Coomaraswamy in the 40s and is actually a good book to read as appendant to the traditionalists, far better than his latter output after he gave up on Christianity.

[Anonymous No.17344597]

>Any other serious Traditionalists here who are embarrassed to talk about it because of Guenonfag and that Buddhism vs. Advaita spammer?
100%, mainly just lurk these days because of it, not there arnt good threads

[Anonymous No.17344623]

>>17344389
>One person I feel like people on this board could benefit from if they've been memed out of Guenon is probably Mircea Eliade, who was more of an accepted name in religious scholarship
His books 'from primitives to zen' is an excellent sourcebook, shame it doesn't look at Christian and Jewish traditions

[Anonymous No.17344644]

>>17344508
I didn't know this, I knew he went to seminary but I assumed he was never even a theist.

>>17344623
I've heard good things about it, I have it wishlisted.

[Anonymous No.17344721]

>>17343890
There are the occasional Evola threads, but they often devolve into shit flinging

[Anonymous No.17344728]

>>17344721
It's because he's too political, so leftists who haven't read him spam the thread; then rightists who haven't read Evola either start arguing with those leftists.

[Anonymous No.17344773]

>>17343890
memes and zoomers are inseperable because internet and zoomers are inseperable. it is their language, despite the apparent shallowness of it all, i think that the exposure these memes give to zoomers of the writings of Guenon will surely influence a new generations of reactionaries.

[Anonymous No.17344791]

>>17344728
>It's because he's too political
This

>I think that the exposure these memes give to zoomers of the writings of Guenon will surely influence a new generations of reactionaries
Hopefully, but I have great doubts most of them will actually read the works themselves

[Anonymous No.17344826]

>>17344773
I used to think whether something like this was possible, whether memes could bear enough information in a way that could help people learn more about the content in a non-trivial way. But like >>17344791 says I think if people don't take the next step and read it won't do much. The kind of serious engagement with ideas that comes from reading, even if it *could* be done with memes, never does.

[Anonymous No.17346093]

>>17344791
>I have great doubts most of them will actually read the works themselves
Look at /lit/. People just use authors and philosophers as puppets to joke about. It's even worse than, say, celebrity culture.

[Anonymous No.17346498]

>>17343890
>Any other serious Traditionalists here who are embarrassed to talk about it because of Guenonfag and that Buddhism vs. Advaita spammer?
I would assume being a "serious Traditionalist" is embarrassing enough?

[Anonymous No.17346668]

>>17346498
I was expecting someone to post this earlier and more frequently desu. I guess people had work today.

[Anonymous No.17346707]

>tfw all the traditionalists fell into cringe tasawuff or cringe ethno vedanta

[Anonymous No.17346732]

>>17343890
Yes but see part of the problem is that René Guenon himself was also a very confused author and so it’s very difficult to get everyone to agree on all interpretations. Then there’s Evola who I’ve personally gotten more out of Guenon but there’s a huge problem of people either not reading his books and talking about them, reading them for the wrong reasons and missing the point but talking about them, or simply not understanding and talking about them. And this is fundamentally the problem with all of these sort of things whether it’s hermeticism, esotericism, perennialist, Traditionalism, or Evolianism, is they’re all still -isms and as such open to interpretation as that’s exactly what they were doing. There is no central body to deliver clear and concise thinking on matters and as such it’s a democratic hodge podge of receptions ironically.

[Anonymous No.17346786]

>>17346707
Tasawwuf is the most cringe because I bet not one of those Sufi LARPers (Guénon, Schuon, Burckhardt, Lings etc) actually held to Sharia. I'll give Nasr a pass, but I don't think he's even Sufi, he's just Muslim.

Likewise I think Coomaraswamy gets a pass given he was Sri Lankan and an incredible scholar. The direction Watts went in is unjustifiable though. He really ought to have realised the value of Eastern Orthodoxy, but he did. Thankfully, Seraphim Rose succeeded in this regard where Watts failed.

[Anonymous No.17346798]

>>17346786
*but he didn't

[Anonymous No.17346802]

>>17346786
I’m pretty sure Rose was adamantly against all flavors of perennialism, traditionalism, and the like though, was he not? I’ve seen many of his adherents distance themselves from Sherrard and Ware too.

[Anonymous No.17346815]

>>17343890
Traditionalists such as Guenon, Evola and Schuon completely changed my view of the world, so I hear you, but I'd never be embarrased to talk about them. It's not my problem most people here are too retarded or lazy to actually read them and therefore misinterpret them. Their loss.
>>17344389
Eliade is excellent as well, although he's not a Traditionalist per se.

[Anonymous No.17346862]

>>17346802
As a monk he likely realised that monastic life in Orthodoxy lacks nothing. The traditionalists are an odd bunch in that, whilst they heavily criticised occult streams they saw as countertraditional, they spoke on matters in very similar terms.

Interesting to hear that his adherents distanced themselves even from Ware. I've been tentatively looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, and I've met several people who are quite fond of him.

[Anonymous No.17346901]

>>17346862
No, I’m pretty sure he wrote pretty clear cut polemics on why perennialism was wrong but I can’t recall where exactly right now and of course there’s a chance I’m mistaken. I don’t think I am though.

As for Ware, yeah. I’ve seen quite a lot of devotees of Fr. Seraphim Rose distance themselves from the whole perennialist/traditionalist crowd including Kallistos Ware and Phillip Sherrard. I can’t remember which they were speaking about but one of them was claiming that they have been writing positive things about homosexuality and ecumenism recently too and claimed it was basically a result of their perennialist tendencies. I can’t confirm if that actually happened.

[Anonymous No.17346961]

>>17346901
In many respects I'm speaking out my arse since I am yet to read Rose (I have 'Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future' sitting in my book pile).
As for Sherrard & Ware
>they have been writing positive things about... ecumenism
It really ought be stressed to any Christian who bandies about the term ecumenism or ecumenical, that it in no ways means the same as universalism. Ecumenism is entirely desirable, that is, the coming together of branches of the Church to discuss theological matters and reach a consensus on that which all should adhere to. Ecumenism does NOT mean an acceptance of the differences in practice between denominations, nor an unwillingness to actually redress the reasons for schism.
I am keen to see the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches reach such an ecumenical consensus. Unfortunately, nobody seems mature enough in order to do so. Each time a member of one church opens his mouth to denounce the theology of the other church, he does the inverse in my opinion and denounces his own. I've heard EO and OO members saying some of the dumbest shit and getting dangerously close to invoking established heresies. An unwillingness in either church to accept that people either sanctified post-schism could possibly have been wrong, or at best unhelpful in their contributions, doesn't help either. I think OO concerns over language used in Leo's Tome coming dangerously close to Nestorianism, for example, is justified.

[Anonymous No.17347006]

>>17346786
This is the biggie, and the same goes for most other contemporaries even amongst the orthodox and vedantists, is the complete abandonment of the actual traditional aspects of their traditions in search of ways to pull them into modernity.

The only preserved religion capable of this is Islam, as it was practiced in the first three righteous generations.

[Anonymous No.17347018]

>>17346961
Perhaps your objective ecumenism and the sort of ecumenism being advocated here just aren’t actually the same thing. The critique was that they had taken on a universalist bend.

[Anonymous No.17347025]

>>17343890
I came to /lit/ for Guenon after I saw old threads on warosu. It seems that we have a decent amount of people interested in perennialism on this board, I think someone should make a discord server dedicated for this subject so we can talk there.

[Anonymous No.17347026]

>>17346961
Also, you’ll have to justify to me why ecumenism in your definition is a good thing. “It just is” isn’t a good reason. That’s atheist logic when they argue about common well-being or whatever.

[Anonymous No.17347033]

Jannies have banned me numerous time for trying to engage with Guénonfag, by actually quoting and writing lengthy analysis of traditionalist works. They have done so on the behalf of guénonfag who reported my posts as spam, while the jannies left his ten threads up simultaneously. so jannies are actively undermining actual conversation and leaving the spam up.

So no, I don't discuss it here. I quit doing it.

[Anonymous No.17347088]

>>17347033
Thats unfortunate, I went though a guenon phase where I bought a bunch of those cheap Amazon editions of his works and the guy is unreadable, I remember being mad I fell for the meme.
His style is so self masturbatory and occulted that you can't really gain much except deluding yourself you understand his gleanings. The kind if writer you can grasp anything without the key to his thought and with him its the damnable sufism so I literally through it all in the garbage in disgust.

He's basically a dictionary for occutism hiding behind orientalism and tasawuff

Imho

[Anonymous No.17347090]

>>17347026
The First Council of Constantinople established a belief in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It is clear today that this Church has been torn apart by schism, from which one can conclude no more than one of its branches can actually be adhering to the true faith. Do you not find this at all concerning?
The last of the ecumenical councils took place in 787, although respective branches continued to hold councils up to modern times. This is how the Church is meant to settle disagreements, and nothing does quite the same job at focusing one's attention on such important theological issues.
I would like to see the EO and OO Churches in communion with one another, not through simply hand-waving their differences away, but through actual serious consideration of their differences and why they arose, and how to correct those differences, because those differences are proof of error.

[Anonymous No.17347159]

What's so bad about sufism?

[Anonymous No.17347176]

>>17347159
The fact that it is necessarily a path within Islam, and unlike what >>17347006 asserts, Islam is riddled with problems and inconsistencies. Anon probably thinks because they have a penchant for throwing gays off tall buildings that this somehow makes them more traditional, when they're a bunch of rabid low IQ cousin fuckers who follow a fictional prophet.

[Anonymous No.17347260]

>>17347176
Die in your rage

[Anonymous No.17347293]

>>17347159
They allow singing, dancing, intoxication, and have a penchant for kids and the biggie they claim Allah یبحن ه و ت علا takes part in the creation and is beneath His mighty throne.

They also promote grave worshipping if their dead sheikhs and basically do darshan of their living ones like Hindus. They practice magic as well and have a laundry list of other innovations

The biggies are calling on other than Allah i.e. their sheikhs living and dead and the claim that Allah is beneath His throne, mighty and majestic, and here within the creation, and I seek refuge from such evil.

[Anonymous No.17347467]

>>17347090
Hm. Okay that’s an interesting point that I hadn’t considered. I’m still not convinced but I’ll admit that I haven’t considered everything here so thank you.

[Anonymous No.17347471]

>thread ruined by /his/ autists and an anthropomorphist mushrik

[Anonymous No.17347476]

>>17347293
A decent amount of the elite people of the Islamic Golden Age were sufis. If you are against sufis you are insulting the whole islamic civilization.

[Anonymous No.17347501]

>>17347476
HAHAHAHHA

Pls be bait

God these orientalists are so tiresome.
Based empire of dust cap.

>the entirety of islamic civilization.

Like, are you even trying?

>a decent amount
>the elite people

What does this even mean? What wiki are you pulling from your addled memory to support this?

[Anonymous No.17347796]

Does anyone versed in Guenons works know where Islamic Esotericism or Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles might fit into this chart?

[Anonymous No.17348269]

>>17347033
I've noticed that all the namefags, avatarfags, and other identifiable people are almost inevitably in bed with the mods somehow. Take trannyfly for instance.

[Anonymous No.17348301]

>>17346862
>The traditionalists are an odd bunch in that, whilst they heavily criticised occult streams they saw as countertraditional, they spoke on matters in very similar terms
That's the irony, especially when Evola himself had his own little occult society.

I see modern Traditionalists try to dismiss occultism, Anthroposophy, Theosophy, etc. by default when it's clear none of them have even made the basic effort to make occult attainment for themselves, or otherwise they would be able to grasp the easy bridging points, and wouldn't be so quick to limit themselves in terms of knowledge. They're just following what Evola or Guenon said from so many decades ago without actually thinking about it or putting in any real work. They're more interested in ethnonationalist memes like the crypto-hylics they are..

[Anonymous No.17348351]

>>17347033
Are you the one who was really asking guenonfag earnestly to engage you about it, about a year back? Didn't he respond by going "lmao memes are more influential I am converting millions to guenon fuck you" or some shit

[Anonymous No.17348355]

>>17348269
If I had to guess it has to do with the (esp post-Moot) shift on 4chan and on 8ch through their respective owners/admins (who I'm pretty sure were demonstrated to be business colleagues by Metokur or someone like that) to making revenue via data mining as opposed to ads or whatever.

I think this is why things have been done to keep the same shitty phone poster traffic that came in from the previous election in place along with what you've mentioned. It's all good for site traffic, and traffic is money.

[Anonymous No.17348360]

>>17348301
They might be overly dismissive sometimes, but I think the premise of being grounded in Traditional thought is far better than trying to build some sort of field of study like Anthroposophy and Theosophy did. The fin de siecle occult, spiritualist, and parapsychological movements all deteriorated into New Age nonsense; meanwhile, Traditionalism's worst product has been a single person named Guenonfag. I should also point out that they were perfectly willing to admit that there was truth in many of the ideas of those movements, and their critique laid primarily in the fact that their approach was faulty for being non-Traditional.

[Anonymous No.17348435]

>>17347088
This 100% I found his lack of sources and disregard for historical accuracy very
annoying. In particular his insistence that oriental societies don't change or that Hindu caste are firm, both things that are provably false. At all most every sentence i could come up with a fact of history which disproved his unsourced assertions, it was a massive let down after all the hype that this board blew up his ass.

[Anonymous No.17348468]

>>17348360
>I think the premise of being grounded in Traditional thought is far better
I do agree with this, but by and large there's hardly any real difference in practice between say the works of Rudolph Steiner and the magical texts of Evola. Both draw from various traditions to build up their points and prepare the reader to access the higher worlds for themselves (Traditionalism also makes a dire mistake in dismissing the importance of Christianity, probably because they still adhere to their pagan roots, which isn't bad in itself).

Ultimately the Traditionalists drive a pointless wedge between themselves and the wider occult community, and don't expand their knowledge as a result. It keeps them buoyant, but also limits them to being a stepping stone at best.

[Anonymous No.17348904]

>>17343890
Guenonfag is part of the culture of this board at this point. I love him even if he automatically turns every eastern religion thread into a shitfest.

[Anonymous No.17348936]

>>17348904
lol

[Anonymous No.17349603]

>>17348904
i wouldn't mind if he was just dogged, it's that he's an autistic psychopath who samefags to a degree that it's not just funposting

[Anonymous No.17349964]

>>17347796
Probably in the 'More Symbolism' area.
>>17348355
Really, Mister Metokur of all people, knows 8ch admins and have a financial stake it the site? I stopped watching his videos a couple years ago since all he talked about was petty youtuber drama.
>>17347293
Doesn't sound any worse than being a Salafist.
>>17348435
>This 100% I found his lack of sources and disregard for historical accuracy very
annoying.
Then you'll like A.K. Coomaraswamy. He is by far the most scholarly out of the big 3 and sites an abundance of sources for his essays.

[Anonymous No.17351506]

>>17344389
Watts isn't that bad

[Anonymous No.17351669]

>>17343890
guenonfag is right almost all of the time, we should support him instead of attacking him

[Anonymous No.17351676]

>>17344389
imagine being filtered by jung

[Anonymous No.17351830]

>>17347033
The mods have been especially bad this past year. I'm constantly seeing them delete threads about books and they'll delete just about any Christian thread that isn't asking about asking bible translations. There is no place on the internet to just talk anymore, not unless you're in line with the managerial class.

[Anonymous No.17352072]

>>17347033
This, unfortunately

[Anonymous No.17352543]

>>17346786
Guenon held to sharia afaik. Nasr is a sufi but Shia, so I don't think he spins around in circles like a sperg but he essentially believes Islam = Hindu monism.

[Anonymous No.17352549]

>>17347260
seething

[Anonymous No.17352556]

>>17349964
>Then you'll like A.K. Coomaraswamy. He is by far the most scholarly out of the big 3 and sites an abundance of sources for his essays.

Coomaraswamy was a pseud, and a westernized oriental at that.

[Anonymous No.17352559]

>>17352543
>I don't think he spins around in circles like a sperg
Rumi and his order are actually pretty orthodox as far as Sufi orders go. He was famously a proponent of very traditional views of Iblis, in opposition to some more esoteric interpretations of Iblis and jahannam that other orders profess.
>he essentially believes Islam = Hindu monism
I would say he's more aligned with Ibn Arabi's wahdat al wujud.

[Anonymous No.17352570]

>>17351676
Name a Jungian psych who isn't an unhinged psychopath.

[Anonymous No.17352574]

>>17347476
They were astray

[Anonymous No.17352590]

>>17352570
I said Jung, not "Jungians". But sure, Marie-Louise von Franz is based.

[Anonymous No.17352610]

>>17348360
>Traditionalism's worst product has been a single person named Guenonfag.
But seriously though, imagine an entire nation of guenonfags, I mean, just picture it, you basically get any modern Islamic nation, but even more autistic. Enough reason to destroy traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.17352617]

>>17343890
Who is gueonfag?

[Anonymous No.17352623]

>>17352610
>nations that are largely the result of modernity would be the result of traditionalism
These types make me wonder if they believe people who live in the Muslim world like living there.

[Anonymous No.17352646]

>>17344389
For what it's worth, Guenonfag apparently despises Eliade.

>>17348301
It's Americans. Occultism = BAD because JESUS, Traditionalism = MEGA JESUS. The fact that Guenon plagiarized fucking Blavatsky and that all of these Traditionalists were neck deep in magic and mysticism (many quote the "Evola was a sorcerer and scared Mussolini" story without actually getting that it happened because Evola practiced fucking hermeticism and black magic) and were constantly bumping elbows with absolute whackadoo crowleyites just slips off of them like rain off a coat because WOWEE ZOWEE KALI YUGA DEGENERACY HECKIN BASED.

[Anonymous No.17352692]

>>17352559
>I would say he's more aligned with Ibn Arabi's wahdat al wujud.

That's Hindu monism, you fucking retard. Rumi wasn't much different.

[Anonymous No.17352717]

>>17352692
>That's Hindu monism, you fucking retard
No? I mean it affirms God's transcendental nature.
>Rumi wasn't much different
I was saying the practice of whirling is not sperg shit, as the most famous order that does it is Rumi's. I don't know much about Rumi's philosophy so I can't comment on that.

[Anonymous No.17352738]

>>17352717
Ibn Arabi is exactly Shankara but placed into the context of Islam. The conclusions they arrive at are the same, Ibn Arabi just uses the Quran and hadith to get there.

[Anonymous No.17352755]

>>17352646
>Evola was a sorcerer and scared Mussolini
What's the origin of this story anyways?

[Anonymous No.17352781]

>>17352738
Firstly, the degree to which perirenalfags disregard the importance of the context of a tradition is disgusting, you may not be one but the same applies here either way. Secondly, you are incorrect nonetheless as no framework that incorporates karma can be reconciled with a framework that incorporates sin, the differences are important in considering a mystical conception of the state of the soul in regards to the Absolute.

[Anonymous No.17352813]

>>17352781
Nah, you're just an idiot. Shankara doesn't believe in karma in the way you think he would.

They're extremely compatible and didn't say anything different about the nature of the Godhead, the self, and the role of exoteric ritual (shariah for Ibn Arabi). Your buddy Nasr will admit this.

[Anonymous No.17352818]

>>17348435
>>17349964
the problem with "historical accuracy" is the same problem with scientific accuracy. What's historical accurate today won't be so tomorrow since A. New facts emerge B. Old Facts are forgotten C. Perceptions change a great deal. You shouldn't put stock in a philosophy or ideology being historically "accurate" for this reason. Instead, Guenon tries to articulate the substance of Oriental religion as opposed to it's accident. Oriental religions are not so focused on a dialect or anticipation of final judgement. Instead, they focus on steady manifestations of an eternal source.

[Anonymous No.17352824]

>>17352781
>Secondly, you are incorrect nonetheless as no framework that incorporates karma can be reconciled with a framework that incorporates sin
how do you figure? lmao some bold claims spoken with confidence.

[Anonymous No.17352863]

>>17352813
>Your buddy Nasr will admit this
Making assumptions as to what I believe in? I think Nasr is useful as an introduction to Islam for westerners but not much more.
>Nah, you're just an idiot. Shankara doesn't believe in karma in the way you think he would.
He does though? The amassing of merit and demerits and all that.
>>17352813
>didn't say anything different about the nature of the Godhead, the self, and the role of exoteric ritual (shariah for Ibn Arabi)
Considering the fact that the points of their arguments are entirely different and their views of God differ in his transcendental nature, this is an untenable position to take.
>>17352824
The difference is mainly due to the Dharmic concept of rebirth, even traditions that believe in original sin do not take a wholly naturalistic view of the nature of the relation of the soul and the Absolute. In regards to this, Islam takes the nature of the soul and sin as a purely finite condition special to the individual, and in opposition to the Absolute permeation of reality.

[Anonymous No.17353034]

>>17352617
Thinskinned tripless tripfag who is known for making threads pretending to ask questions about traditionalism and advaita vedanta so he can answer the questions himself, thank himself for answering, and then carry on conversations with himself. Also a spammer, goes through periods of spamming same couple of threads multiple times a day, sometimes the whole board.

Known for hostility and over defensiveness but very sensitive to criticism and will fly off the handle. Also monomanic obsession with having the same 2 arguments again and again and again for literally years. In short /lit/'s resident schizoposter.

[Anonymous No.17353040]

>>17353034
Pic related just one small example of what he does. For a few years now.

[Anonymous No.17353193]

>>17352863
>>Your buddy Nasr will admit this
>Making assumptions as to what I believe in? I think Nasr is useful as an introduction to Islam for westerners but not much more.
>>Nah, you're just an idiot. Shankara doesn't believe in karma in the way you think he would.
>He does though? The amassing of merit and demerits and all that.
>>>17352813 (You)
>>didn't say anything different about the nature of the Godhead, the self, and the role of exoteric ritual (shariah for Ibn Arabi)
>Considering the fact that the points of their arguments are entirely different and their views of God differ in his transcendental nature, this is an untenable position to take.

You're an idiot talking out of your ass. You've never read Ibn Arabi. You're explaining some bullshit that is real only in your mind, and that only makes sense to you.

[Anonymous No.17353221]

>>17353040
I didn't realise guenonfag was the Shankara guy as well, what a cunt

[Anonymous No.17353235]

>>17353221
People say it went extinct there but Buddhism lives rent free in India if guenonfag is to be believed

[Anonymous No.17353244]

>>17353193
Then it should be easy to refute what I'm saying rather than just saying "ur dum haha" over and over again.