Is Traditionalism or Perennialism mostly a Muslim/Eastern school of Philosophy?

Is Traditionalism or Perennialism mostly a Muslim/Eastern school of Philosophy? Almost all traditionalists are Muslim, Muslim converts or Hindus.

Terry Davis: They Glow, You Shine Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Terry Davis: They Glow, You Shine Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, you can also be a Neoplatonist, Orthodox (Hesychasm), Catholic (Merton), Protestant (Bohme), or even Kabbalist and many more and still appreciate the Traditionalists.

    It's mostly Guenon's requirements, that you embrace a specific tradition, but I think people get confused about this because of Guenon's residence in Cairo. The latter was due to contingent circumstance. He was never a very good "Muslim." He certainly didn't believe Muhammad was the only prophet of God. But he was a Sufi and he did a lot to start European Sufi studies and convert a lot of people to Islam who also wanted to be Sufis, and there are a lot of Muslim immigrants in France who see him as a kind of license to convert France to Islam to soothe any inferiority complex they may have. Evola is a good corrective to this unfortunate trend.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      So what Guenon's conversion genuine or not? I'm confused.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        was*

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        No. He just joined for he esotericism which he thought was universal.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        No. The word conversion implies some sort of change of mind or adoption of new beliefs. Guenon didn’t “convert” to Islam, he just “joined.”

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's crypto-Buddhist supremacy. First step is to accept that Advaita Vedanta (crypto-Buddhist school of Hinduism) is the universal (ie perennial) truth and then you see everything as leading up to crypto-Buddhism in some way, and if a tradition is explicitly against it you wave it away as being exoteric.

        No, but Guenon would say that's a good thing. Genuineness goes back to assuming personality and humanity is real/important, and Guenon is against this. He is an annihilationist so sincerity and genuineness is degeneracy to him. His conversion to Islam is just a LARP, and he says so himself. Guenon claimed that if you've understood crypto-Buddhism you see that everything is crypto-Buddhism, so you're not really converting in the sense that people would understand. You're just LARPing into a traditional order for the sake of expediency because it will be the best path for you to achieve annihilationism.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Would you say all monisms are crypto-buddhist then?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, Buddhism is just another offspring of the Crypto-Monists.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm partial to monism/nondualism. Do you find these are illegitimate perspectives or are you just pointing out that guenonians are being intellectually dishonest and begging the question in regard to nondualism being the basis for all religion?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Evola is a good corrective to this unfortunate trend.
      Evola was a big Islamophile, so no, he is not a good corrective.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Evola only liked Islam insofar as it upheld a warrior-aristocrat and spiritial lineage from the Aryan-Persians. He wouldn't be a fan of the hordes of brainless peasant morons with their plebian religion coming into Europe.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Most likely not, but he wouldn't be against it either. Its just eroding decadent modern society. In Revolt he writes how mass migrations don't really matter, and if the civilization fails to integrate them the civilization has failed.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          What Evola failed to understand, like Nietzsche quite frankly, is that all of his ethical desires were the result of medieval Christianity and so to flee anywhere other than the medieval West European cult Christ, necessarily had to end in failure. Guenon himself said it best. He said you can flee to the East or flee into history. But if you flee into the East, you can’t keep your old ethics. Evola mistakenly believed his ethics derived from Rome and not Holy Rome and so in the end he never got it.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Daily reminder that "Sufi of Rome" is a weird fanfic by a Catholic schizo!

        Guenon isn't even "anti-greek". He merely states that the Greeks wrongfully interpreted eastern teachings. Plato himself talked about how the eastern philosophers looked at them like children and how they said western philosophy was "fit for the mind of an 8 year old."

        I can somewhat agree that Guenon was perhaps overly critical of the west in his early works but he wasn't wrong.

        Frick off moron.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Daily reminder that "Sufi of Rome" is a weird fanfic by a Catholic schizo!
          From Revolt:
          >"As in the case of priestly Judaism, the center in Islam also consisted of the Law and Tradition, regarded as a formative force, to which the Arab stocks of the origins provided a purer and nobler human material that was shaped by a warrior spirit... In these organizations, and in general in the shia, the recurrent notions of the masum, of the double prerogative of the isma (doctrinal infallibility), and of the impossibility of being stained by any sin (which is the prerogative of the leaders, the visible and invisible Imams and, the mujtahid), lead back to the line of an unbroken race shaped by a tradition at a higher level than both Judaism and the religious beliefs that conquered the West." (244, Revolt).

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s not an argument, you imbecile. What’s so funny about the way you people quote mine is that it shows you don’t actually understand any of this. You just latch on to this or that writer and take everything they say as unquestioned gospel. It’s so ironic that Julius Evola recommends people read de Maistre, because de Maistre obliterated Evola’s nobility-as-justification. If Catholicism merely said “based and red-pilled” stuff about killing non-believers, Evola would be all over it like white on rice precisely because it’s “based and red-pilled” and not because it’s literally true. Nietzsche’s atheism blew this guy’s brains to mush.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't like Evola that much. I just like to troll his insipid cult followers on here by pointing out how Evola was a big Islamophile. I don't like Islam either.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, ironically, I’ve found Evola to be the most questioning and honest of them all even if in both cases he was ultimately inadequate.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >He certainly didn't believe Muhammad was the only prophet of God.
      neither do muslims, from adam to muhammad, dafuq?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Tell me more about the Catholics of the Traditionalist School.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        The big traditionalist Christians (catholics) end up rejecting guenonian traditionalism. Borella and Rose are good examples, not sure about Wolfgang-Smith. They basically find that guenon is useful for doing away with modernist perversions of thought and understanding but that Christianity/Catholicism is the one true religion. So nondualism is rejected, the trinity is affirmed. Borella's book on Christian Mystery is a great critical engagement with guenon, so I would recommend it just for that. Along with this the rejection of nondualism is the affirmation of the individual past death. Another example of this is the neoplatonist Robert Bolton who engages seriously with guenon but comes to a theistic conclusion and even makes the case that hinduism is trending in that direction as well.

        Traditionalists find support for nondualism in Eckhart, Boheme, and Swedenborg, among others.

        All this reveals an inherent tension in traditionalist/perrennialist thought: all the greats in the different traditions to whom they grant deference as true knowers would reject guenonian thought as counter to the one true religion. This is the case at least with abrahamic religions. Hinduism has great saints who are very ecumenical (Ramakrishna) and popular books on hinduism seem to say hindus want people to follow their culture's religion, not convert.

        Jean Borella
        Jean Hani
        Seraphim Rose
        Wolfgang Smith

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          very interesting thought, thank you anon. What about Taoists, Buddhists or hell even Zoroastrians or Parsis. Are any of them present in Traditionalism?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Guenon wrote quite a bit on toaism including his final book, he initially was against buddhism but his students brought him around. There are quite a few trad books on buddhism. They are generally against zoroastrianism because its dualist. Schuon was a bit more forgiving of zoroastrianism because he felt it provided a satisfying answer to the problem of evil but he was ultimately nondualist.

            [...]
            [...]

            amazing how you guys can speak so much about guenon without talking about any of his ideas from any of the 20+ books he's written.

            I can discuss his ideas well enough, its just not what was asked. I gave some detail on where Christians trads end up with regards to guenon.
            What ideas of his do you want to discuss?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do dualist perennialists exist or am the only one?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you mean an ontological split between a good and evil absolute principle, then probably.
            Occultists are perennialists often, and many of them engage seriously with gnosticism. But they are usually monist essentially.

            If you mean an eternal difference between God and man, then many of the guenonian catholics would be that, but aren't strict perennialists, and you could also look into Robert Bolton's neoplatonism.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Trads usually interpret true Buddhism as some form of nondualism. Sometimes this is done "violently" and crudely, usually by Advaitins, who have ethnic/historical reasons for hating Buddhists or whatever, and who take pleasure in proclaiming Buddhism as a subordinate or defective version of the Vedas and Upanishads. But true Trads are just as aggressive about subordinating the schools of Hinduism to the true Traditionalist metaphysics. They do this most aggressively to Samkhya for obvious reasons but they would see a lot of Advaitins as little better than how Advaitins see Buddhists, as basically nihilists, since they sometimes don't admit the mediate reality of maya/samsara.

            Trads also typically see Taoism as the Chinese subvariant of metaphysics but they have mixed writings on it because it's the hardest to study for obvious reasons (language barrier, texts require insane specialized knowledge to study well). Evola was really into Taoism to the extent that he could penetrate it without knowing Chinese.

            They do the same thing with Tantrism usually. How they see "practical" traditions like that depends on their orientation. Evola saw Tantrism as the magical/alchemical "side" of traditional metaphysics.

            >Zoroastrians
            Check out Corbin, Man of Light in Iranian Sufism.

            What's the best works to start with Boehme? Was Baptized Lutheran as a kid and kind of want to find a jumping off point

            I don't know the best, I only really understood him after reading some Corbin on creative imagination, and learning about the fusion of hermeticism and alchemy from Pico della Mirandola through Ficino, Reuchlin, Paracelsus, Agrippa etc., partly via Frances Yates' books. Then I read Versluis' Wisdom's Children, which has both a historical section on the Bohme "movement" and a thematic section, which I think you can read out of order if you just want to jump in. But again, stressing that it's easiest to understand when you understand the creative imagination concept (doesn't have to be via Corbin but might be handy).

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also can any bros help me remember that distinction in Mahayana Buddhism for interpreting nirvana/sunyata as either logical/phenomenological or metaphysical?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Zoroastrians
            >Check out Corbin
            Corbin was obsessed with twelver shi'ism.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      The big traditionalist Christians (catholics) end up rejecting guenonian traditionalism. Borella and Rose are good examples, not sure about Wolfgang-Smith. They basically find that guenon is useful for doing away with modernist perversions of thought and understanding but that Christianity/Catholicism is the one true religion. So nondualism is rejected, the trinity is affirmed. Borella's book on Christian Mystery is a great critical engagement with guenon, so I would recommend it just for that. Along with this the rejection of nondualism is the affirmation of the individual past death. Another example of this is the neoplatonist Robert Bolton who engages seriously with guenon but comes to a theistic conclusion and even makes the case that hinduism is trending in that direction as well.

      Traditionalists find support for nondualism in Eckhart, Boheme, and Swedenborg, among others.

      All this reveals an inherent tension in traditionalist/perrennialist thought: all the greats in the different traditions to whom they grant deference as true knowers would reject guenonian thought as counter to the one true religion. This is the case at least with abrahamic religions. Hinduism has great saints who are very ecumenical (Ramakrishna) and popular books on hinduism seem to say hindus want people to follow their culture's religion, not convert.

      Jean Borella
      Jean Hani
      Seraphim Rose
      Wolfgang Smith

      It's crypto-Buddhist supremacy. First step is to accept that Advaita Vedanta (crypto-Buddhist school of Hinduism) is the universal (ie perennial) truth and then you see everything as leading up to crypto-Buddhism in some way, and if a tradition is explicitly against it you wave it away as being exoteric.

      No, but Guenon would say that's a good thing. Genuineness goes back to assuming personality and humanity is real/important, and Guenon is against this. He is an annihilationist so sincerity and genuineness is degeneracy to him. His conversion to Islam is just a LARP, and he says so himself. Guenon claimed that if you've understood crypto-Buddhism you see that everything is crypto-Buddhism, so you're not really converting in the sense that people would understand. You're just LARPing into a traditional order for the sake of expediency because it will be the best path for you to achieve annihilationism.

      amazing how you guys can speak so much about guenon without talking about any of his ideas from any of the 20+ books he's written.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        His actual symbolic exegeses aren't really relevant to the OP's question except insofar as they don't involve historic revelations, like the covenants of Judaism, Christ's advent, the finality of Muhammad's prophethood of in Islam, or the Hindu interpretations of the Vedas in which they were uniquely and unrepeatably revealed by the rshis. To someone who doesn't know much about him, this can be confusing, so it's worthwhile answering it as a preliminary question.

        >He certainly didn't believe Muhammad was the only prophet of God.
        neither do muslims, from adam to muhammad, dafuq?

        You're right, sorry, I misspoke. I meant the final prophet.

        So what Guenon's conversion genuine or not? I'm confused.

        Not from the most common Muslim perspective, although Sufis get kind of a pass sometimes depending on which tradition and where in the Muslim world you live. A lot of the most interesting Sufis throughout history were, let's face it, hardly orthodox Muslim, more like an Islamic version of hermeticism fusing Persian, Gnostic, and Neoplatonic influences among others. I'm thinking of the Brethren of Purity for example, or look at Akbar's court Dara Shukoh. So Guenon is "genuine" if you consider the more radical versions of those guys genuine, since their interest in or commitment to Muhammad's unique prophethood could sometimes be a bit hazy or perfunctory as well.

        Tell me more about the Catholics of the Traditionalist School.

        The ones I've known typically take, as with the weirder Sufis above, a very "open" approach to Catholicism, in which the church is the historical embodiment of Christianity and Christianity is identified with some blend of Christianity reminiscent of The Cloud of Unknowing, Eckhart, Aquinas, and Pseudo-Dionysius, moreso than hermetic and alchemical Christians like Paracelsus and Bohme, which I think is a little too weird for them. But their conception of the church is still a bit more like Evola's idea of the Holy Roman Empire, but shifted to the "priesthood" in an almost Guenonian way (with his preference for the Brahmans), becoming a kind of metaphysical upgrade of "lowercase-t" traditionalist Catholics' fondness for the 13th century as the high point of western civilization. I don't know any good names, but I do know from Sedgwick's book that Merton read Guenon.

        I think, like in the Guenon/Muslim situation, Catholics like this who really heavily emphasize the metaphysical and mystical traditions of the 12th-13th centuries (Victorines) around Thomism as basically a propaedeutic to the heavily neoplatonizing aspects would raise serious eyebrows with the church if they were totally open about what they think. Especially with Maritain types who had the same temptations and flirtations and understand how much "danger" (from their perspective) there is in turning Catholicism into a vehicle for platonic mysticism. Just look at how Teilhard de Chardin's philosophy caused discomfort, and he also suppressed most of it until his death I think.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You're right, sorry, I misspoke. I meant the final prophet.
          well ur still wrong. guenon (outwardly at least) viewed muhammad as the last prophet. if he didnt the egyptians would have torn down his legacy, and his daughter would have either rejected him or did limp apologetic.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          since you seem to know a lot about Guenon I want to ask you something I've been wondering for a while.

          Why was Guenon so opposed to pantheism? Isn't it most alligned with his metaphysics?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        We know. We know. Guenonians are just like the Nietzscheans. Any time someone has a negative or contrary impression of the opium addicted kaffir, it’s simply because they didn’t actually read him, right? Only you have read his books. Of course.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          might have something to do with the fact that any criticism only goes as far as calling the man things like an "opium addicted kaffir" or insulting the people who support him instead of discussing the works themselves.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            He smoked opium and endorses views that would make him a kaffir as a matter of fact.

            We know you haven't read his books because someone this smug would never spend time reading something he doesn't agree with, let alone 20+ books. You chose to attack the man himself because you have no clue what his ideas even were.

            Guenon never claims to talk about truth, he's simply trying to point in its direction as best as he can. You, like many westerners who attempt to read his work, mistake his finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. Even if you did read some of his works, it's clear you didn't understand them. Not because you're stupid or because his works are that high above you intellectually, but because you weren't able to remove yourself from the western viewpoint. His works and eastern doctrines themselves cannot be understood from the western viewpoint.

            moronic logic. Are former Evangelicals not among the most vicious opponents evangelicalism? Why could the same dynamic not also be at work among former Traditionalists?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          We know you haven't read his books because someone this smug would never spend time reading something he doesn't agree with, let alone 20+ books. You chose to attack the man himself because you have no clue what his ideas even were.

          Guenon never claims to talk about truth, he's simply trying to point in its direction as best as he can. You, like many westerners who attempt to read his work, mistake his finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. Even if you did read some of his works, it's clear you didn't understand them. Not because you're stupid or because his works are that high above you intellectually, but because you weren't able to remove yourself from the western viewpoint. His works and eastern doctrines themselves cannot be understood from the western viewpoint.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          kind of implies he contains secret knowledge that only elect people can decipher which steers close to gnosticism.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Actually, it implies that Traditionalists have no arguments and so have to resort to strawmen and ad hominem attacks.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            How?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because that’s how Traditionalism works. If you point out how and where it’s incoherent, contradictory, nonsensical, or just outright unjustified, Traditionalists will just cope by saying “it’s esoteric knowledge you have to be the elect to get it”. It’s their attempt at a get out of jail free card. If someone demonstrates that you’re a moron you just go “nuh uh, I’m the elect” and go back to trolling on Oyish.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not a Traditionalist but I think the idea is that the Primordial Tradition, which is the Absolute itself, is literally unconditioned and so each manifestation of it takes on the outer form of it's time and place and people, etc.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know that. The question being asked is not “what do Traditionalists know” it’s “how do Traditionalists know what they know”. When Traditionalist orthodoxy contradicts every other orthodoxy, they claim for themselves some sort of esoteric orthodoxy that hides beneath outward orthodoxy. Okay, fine. We all get that. But how do they know this orthodoxy is right? It contains contradictions. So how do they know it’s right. At bottom, the best Traditionalists can muster is “I’m just the elect so I know” and/or “I just experienced it so I know”. Both of these contain fallacies and beg the question. Why even should I even accept that experienced knowing contradicts rational knowing? And if it does contradict rational knowing why should I trust experience over reason? Their answer: “I experienced it so I know”. That’s a circular argument. What Traditionalists literally call you to is to defy reason, logic, and rationality in favor of an experienced “knowing” that specifically contradicts all other forms of “knowing” and which can’t actually be said to be “known” at all. That’s why they sometimes resort to “I’m just the elect”, which is also a fallacy and so doesn’t actually overcome the other problems, but people are so desperate for a sense of re-enchantment that they fall for it. Sometimes it’s even worse than all this. Some Traditionalists will tell you that Traditionalism is true because it (incorrectly) claims all of these common truths among the world religions. I’ve already made clear that this is incorrect, but worse, it’s another fallacy. Just because something is consensus doesn’t mean it’s true. So Traditionalists can never satisfy the question about how they know what they know. That they believe they know via an inner form is irrelevant.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Damn you got me there. And since its all based off of mystical "initiatory" personal experience I can't refute it because I just haven't had the right experiences yet. Damn. Im a fool.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            You wouldn’t be able to refute it even if you were initiated.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            If I was initiated I would have nothing to refute. Thats the convenience of it.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            You would and you can understand why by reading this

            I know that. The question being asked is not “what do Traditionalists know” it’s “how do Traditionalists know what they know”. When Traditionalist orthodoxy contradicts every other orthodoxy, they claim for themselves some sort of esoteric orthodoxy that hides beneath outward orthodoxy. Okay, fine. We all get that. But how do they know this orthodoxy is right? It contains contradictions. So how do they know it’s right. At bottom, the best Traditionalists can muster is “I’m just the elect so I know” and/or “I just experienced it so I know”. Both of these contain fallacies and beg the question. Why even should I even accept that experienced knowing contradicts rational knowing? And if it does contradict rational knowing why should I trust experience over reason? Their answer: “I experienced it so I know”. That’s a circular argument. What Traditionalists literally call you to is to defy reason, logic, and rationality in favor of an experienced “knowing” that specifically contradicts all other forms of “knowing” and which can’t actually be said to be “known” at all. That’s why they sometimes resort to “I’m just the elect”, which is also a fallacy and so doesn’t actually overcome the other problems, but people are so desperate for a sense of re-enchantment that they fall for it. Sometimes it’s even worse than all this. Some Traditionalists will tell you that Traditionalism is true because it (incorrectly) claims all of these common truths among the world religions. I’ve already made clear that this is incorrect, but worse, it’s another fallacy. Just because something is consensus doesn’t mean it’s true. So Traditionalists can never satisfy the question about how they know what they know. That they believe they know via an inner form is irrelevant.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you can be initiated into it via experience then there is something to experience and it is thus real and can not be refuted. Too bad I will never be initiated T_T

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Delusion can be experienced

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            And? Are you saying that delusions are not real. If so no one could be delusional.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Right but I think a distinction needs to made between lowercase t traditionalism and uppercase T Traditionalism that Schuon and others peddle.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      What's the best works to start with Boehme? Was Baptized Lutheran as a kid and kind of want to find a jumping off point

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Traditionalism is 100% incompatible with all Christianity but especially Orthodoxy. It’s a total heresy, and one that was systematically handled and refuted by the church anyway.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        proof?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          he said so, do you need any more proof than that?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            yeah I need sources and citations. he provided none, so yeah that's kind of a big deal.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Evola is a good corrective to this unfortunate trend.
      Sorry Evola converted to Islam too. Source picrel.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      > Merton
      Another orientalist smuggling eastern philosophy into Western theology. This is no different at all from the Cathar and Rosicrucian heresies, or the Enlightenment for that matter.

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Perennialism is gay, Traditionalism is based. Guénon is great, but the amount of limp-wristed hippies who convert to Islam and write poetry instigated by him is unfortunate. It would be better if they followed Evola's way. Guénon is just for theory.

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I belive it's because Islam is, contrary to what many believe, is the religion that is most compatible with Perennialism. It supposes that a prophet has been sent to every single nation (16:36 "And no doubt, We sent a messenger in every nation that, worship Allah"). This is made clear because it's meant to be the final religion of the cycle. Also, the esoteric interpretations of the central notion of tawhid are basically non-dualism.

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's because the "traditionalists" all got filtered by Christianity.

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's bastard theosophy.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Eastern doctrines are the father of all western philosophy. The father cannot be the bastard of the son.

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Guenon's anti-greek position is cringe af

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Guenon isn't even "anti-greek". He merely states that the Greeks wrongfully interpreted eastern teachings. Plato himself talked about how the eastern philosophers looked at them like children and how they said western philosophy was "fit for the mind of an 8 year old."

      I can somewhat agree that Guenon was perhaps overly critical of the west in his early works but he wasn't wrong.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ironic from the guy that endorsed religious views that aren’t the orthodoxy of any religion anywhere nevermind the East. Guenonian Traditionalism is the modernist religion par excellence.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I dehumanize anybody who finds the least appeal in conversion to Islam.

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, it’s because Traditionalism/Perennialism is just run-of-the-mill orientalism. It’s a smuggling of Eastern philosophy into the language of Western philosophy and religion. As for why there are so many Muslims in particular, it’s purely practical. Hinduism and Buddhism are, for Westerners, a joke and not tenable, while Islam allows any heretical cult to simmer beneath the purpose as long as it promotes Islam and the Sharia outwardly and that’s because Islam is a political doctrine and not a dogmatic one. But consider for a second how moronic it would be if you really accepted the dogmas of Islam and then still said that ultimately it’s the same religion as Hinduism and Buddhism. How? “it’s esoteric bro you wouldn’t get it”. What a joke.

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Has anyone bothered to actually rebuke the works of traditionalists/anti-modernists like Guenon and Spengler on purely intellectual grounds rather than attacking their character?
    Yes.

    People within the traditionalist millieu itself have brought attention to some problems of Guénon's views regarding christianity, science and also Schuon's notion of 'Transcendental unity of religions' (Jean Borella, Wolfgang Smith).
    http://jeanborella.blogspot.com/
    https://philos-sophia.org/category/articles/

    Some have demonstrated their problematic exposition of Vedanta and Tasawwuf and the flaws of Guénonian metaphysics. (Gian Giuseppe Filippi, Carlo Rocchi, Enzo Cosma)
    https://www.ekatosedizioni.it/blog/
    https://vedavyasamandala.com/
    https://scienzasacra.blogspot.com/

    Others have demonstrated the traditionalist's departure from the real orthodox views on dharma, rebirth and also have denounced Guénon's far-fetched symbolical interpretations, apocalyptic approach and extreme formalism as foreign to hindu thought.
    https://intellectualkshatriya.com/giuliano-morais/
    https://devaarcana.blogspot.com/
    Renaud Fabbri's books on Guénon and Hinduism

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      guenonians/traditionalists, whatever. and their pseudo-metaphysics fruit of arbitrary symbolical research mixing up completely different doctrines have already been completely obliterated (picrel)

      get a taste:

      mistaken presentation of Vedanta:
      https://www.ekatosedizioni.it/advitiya-caitanyavada/
      https://www.ekatosedizioni.it/lucciole-per-lanterne-ancora-gli-incompetenti-di-vedanta/
      https://www.ekatosedizioni.it/lucciole/
      https://scienzasacra.blogspot.com/2020/09/gian-giuseppe-filippi-proposito-di.html

      "Metaphysics" built upon fundamental errors:
      https://vedavyasamandala.com/essere-o-non-essere/

      Their critique of the modern world is useful (althought mistaken sometimes, as already showed by Wolfgang Smith) for our times, but that's just it.

      >Their critique of the modern world is useful (althought mistaken sometimes, as already showed by Wolfgang Smith) for our times, but that's just it.
      Thats what I'm thinking.

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    guenonians/traditionalists, whatever. and their pseudo-metaphysics fruit of arbitrary symbolical research mixing up completely different doctrines have already been completely obliterated (picrel)

    get a taste:

    mistaken presentation of Vedanta:
    https://www.ekatosedizioni.it/advitiya-caitanyavada/
    https://www.ekatosedizioni.it/lucciole-per-lanterne-ancora-gli-incompetenti-di-vedanta/
    https://www.ekatosedizioni.it/lucciole/
    https://scienzasacra.blogspot.com/2020/09/gian-giuseppe-filippi-proposito-di.html

    "Metaphysics" built upon fundamental errors:
    https://vedavyasamandala.com/essere-o-non-essere/

    Their critique of the modern world is useful (althought mistaken sometimes, as already showed by Wolfgang Smith) for our times, but that's just it.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >get a taste
      I don't speak whatever language that is so I guess I won't

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        googletranslate, deepl, chatgpt,
        you're just lazy

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          yes I'm sure those translations will be accurate and representative of the original work.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            but they convey pretty well the general idea, this is not poetry

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      That website follows the 20th century modernist Neovedanta interpretation of Advaita by SSS that was already refuted by Shankara and others

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >modernist
        always work huh

        choosing what fits in, then labelling what doesn't as "profane" or "exoteric" or "modernist"

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        How do the two, neovedanta and advaita differ?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          this moron

          That website follows the 20th century modernist Neovedanta interpretation of Advaita by SSS that was already refuted by Shankara and others

          thinks that the presentation of vedanta by SSS(swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati) is a "modernist" one because it uproots his perennialist worldview, by showing how vedanta has nothing to do with any religions in both their exoteric and esoteric aspects

          He also confounds the use of the term anubhava (used by Shankara) translated sometimes as experience, intuition or intuitive experience by SSS with the use of this term by the real vedanta modernists like Vivekananda, etc

          Vivekananda and modern vedantins use this term to refer to experiences such as SAMADHI, while Shankara and SSS are the complete opposite

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >by showing how vedanta has nothing to do with any religions in both their exoteric and esoteric aspects
            plenty of other religions have writings talking about non-dualism too
            > is a "modernist" one
            The ideas of SSS are modernist because they come from a secular academic educated in the western style, both the academic and SSS that he got it from display an obvious concern with showing that Vedanta is 'empirical' and 'scientific', this isn't a concern of the original Vedantic writings themselves and this tendency shows up in 18th/19th-century and later literature as part of an increasingly westernized Indian educated class responding to western thought and trying to define Indian philosophy and their own identity in ways that were influenced by their westernization.

            Under the traditional interpretation of Shankara's writings he doesn't ever argue against his own positions but in the view of SSS and KA Iyer there are dozens of passages where Shankara provides a combination of multiple logical and scriptural arguments against what SSS claims is his real position on the issue; and answers given to explain these inconsistencies usually don't make sense or don't fit the context of the text. Also SSS is conspicuously silent on a lot of areas where Shankara contradicts him like when the latter identifies maya and ignorance with each other repeatedly and speaks of them as both having a veiling and projecting aspect.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >plenty of other religions have writings talking about non-dualism too
            You should know very well that Shankara's non-dualism is very different from all those so-called non-dualist doctrines from other traditions (forgot that Shankara called EVERY other darsána - and you could include religions here -: dualists?). But of course, you're a perennialist who cherrypicks what you want to fit in and makes everything "look the same" in the end.

            And no, I'm not gonna discuss those vedantic topics with you, it's not worth it, you're the personification of this guy's description here

            My advice to anyone lurking in this thread and doesn't know what to make of it:

            As you can see, everyone always has "evidence" and/or "proof" that the other side is wrong. There is not a single person in this thread who believes they are on the wrong side, which is quite a normal thing, yet they all equally and firmly believe that the other side is moronic.

            Read as much as you can in life, and on any given subject approach both sides in equal good faith, only then can you decide what makes more sense to you and live your life by it.

            There will always be people who believe that you are wrong with a conviction equal to the degree in which you think you are right.

            Whether there really is an "absolute truth" to uncover or not, we should all live our lives in a way that makes the most sense to us.

            >As you can see, everyone always has "evidence" and/or "proof" that the other side is wrong.
            After many discussions here, I have absolute certainty that you haven't even read a single book by SSS, just by the fact that you always (1) say things that he never said it or (2) you're just misunderstanding what he has said it. And like the other anon said it: you're unable to recognize it, it appears to be almost something pathological. It's just a pity if anyone takes what you say for granted, instead of looking into the actual sources.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You should know very well that Shankara's non-dualism is very different from all those so-called non-dualist doctrines from other traditions
            So? They are still pointing/leading to the same end-conclusion of liberation and similarly point to the pure luminous awareness-presence experientially.
            >Nooooo b-but they don't talk about illusion/non-existence the same wa-
            It doesn't really matter, many of them have sub-schools, texts, poets and philosophers that still talk about the world/plurality being an illusion or appearance in some way, if they get you to reject belief in independence or true existence of the phenomena and also reject attachment to phenomena then it doesn't really matter if the metaphysics are explained slightly differently since the purpose has become accomplished regardless.
            > I have absolute certainty that you haven't even read a single book by SSS
            Kek, I have read large portions of them before and posted quotes on Oyish where I pointed out mistakes from them or noted how Shankara often contradicted it.

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bizarre to lump Spengler in with Guenon. For Spengler, Traditionalism is nothing more than a delusion driven by desperation.

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Guenon converted to Islam not to Hindu NOT because Hindu was inaccessible he actually thought Islam was superior later in life.

    yeah

    because he thought that islam worked as the Seal of prophecy, better yet, the seal of all TRadition
    its in his article on the letter NA and NUN, supposed to prove the joining of the two traditions, which has been completely BTFO here
    https://scienzasacra.blogspot.com/2020/07/enzo-cosma-na-e-nun-i.html
    https://scienzasacra.blogspot.com/2020/07/enzo-cosma-na-e-nun-ii.html
    https://scienzasacra.blogspot.com/2020/07/enzo-cosma-na-e-nun-iii.html

    in truth the letter NA was taken from the archeomètre of saint-yves Alveydre, a product of his own imagination that was even patented, kek
    its not even the NA found in the Devanagari

    unfortunately it seems that Guénon never abandoned those filthy occultists and their distorted views

    Islam is nothing more than a product of the Kali yuga, that will be long forgotten , like the variety of semitic sects, the romans, greeks, celts, egyptians, sumerians,etc etc

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Guenon never even investigated let alone understood orthodox theology. What a failure! Imagine being the “crisis of the modern world/west” and the “return to tradition” guy, but failing to even study the the orthodoxy of your very own tradition. How can Traditionalists possibly defend this? This is exactly what new age Californians do. “Oh, Pentecostalism is nuts? Better skip right over questioning if this is even really orthodox Christology or if this is simply delusion and go right to the Buddhist new age yoga-mushroom cult.” I mean, it’s laughable honestly.

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is the epistemological framework Traditionalists use to bring so many seemingly different doctrines in to harmony with the Traditionalist position?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      choosing what fits in, then labelling what doesn't as "profane" or "exoteric" or "modernist"

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Some traditions are obviously superior to others. For example, there isn't a single beautiful thing in the entirety of either Christcuck or Mudslime traditions. In fact, the world would benefit with every single Christcuck, Mudslime, and J*w massacred, their holy sites and scriptures burned. Dharmic and Daoist traditions are obviously superior to these trash Abrahamic traditions.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      According to Hindu authorities, illustrated in the Purāṇas, different spiritual traditions may have different levels of errors and correctness in their claims of connection with the Unity and may play different roles in the total order, including roles of asuric/demonic order or contingent roles, diverse 'līlās,' and do not need to follow a geometric expansion or unfolding of necessity as Guénon's work indicates.

  15. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    My favorite part about Guenon discussions is that he dedicates 10+ chapters to explain how the Western viewpoint differs from the Eastern and how Eastern doctrines can never be understood by someone with a Western viewpoint. He goes into detail about all of this in his first book, only for pseud Westerners to come barging in the conversation talking about his work from a Western viewpoint.

    It doesn't make sense to you because the doctrines weren't built for someone with your viewpoint and you refuse to change your perspective or at least try to.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      are the Puranas a "western viewpoint" ?

      According to Hindu authorities, illustrated in the Purāṇas, different spiritual traditions may have different levels of errors and correctness in their claims of connection with the Unity and may play different roles in the total order, including roles of asuric/demonic order or contingent roles, diverse 'līlās,' and do not need to follow a geometric expansion or unfolding of necessity as Guénon's work indicates.

      it's amazing how in the end, the traditionalists' rebuke always boils down to mere labelling: "modernist", "profane", you just brought another one to light : "western viewpoint"

      okay,
      the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't accept any "joining of traditions" (hindu-islamic) at the cycle's end
      the "eastern viewpoint" accepts rebirth (NOT as a mere 'exoteric" doctrine)
      the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't have a demonic or apocalyptic view of the world like Guénon does
      the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't confer symbolism the high status attributed to it by Guénon (it doesn't even constitute a proper means-of-knowledge)
      the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't accept claims from the imagination of occultists like Alveydre or Ossendowski about centers of the world, towers of the devil or lost alphabets

      Of course, you're just gonna say that all those are "exoteric viewpoints/doctrines", but no, they are not. So either Guénon is above everyone else (including the real traditional authorities) and received those "secret teachings" from completely unknown sources (unknown even to traditional authorities) or he is simply WRONG.

      My advice to anyone lurking in this thread and doesn't know what to make of it:

      As you can see, everyone always has "evidence" and/or "proof" that the other side is wrong. There is not a single person in this thread who believes they are on the wrong side, which is quite a normal thing, yet they all equally and firmly believe that the other side is moronic.

      Read as much as you can in life, and on any given subject approach both sides in equal good faith, only then can you decide what makes more sense to you and live your life by it.

      There will always be people who believe that you are wrong with a conviction equal to the degree in which you think you are right.

      Whether there really is an "absolute truth" to uncover or not, we should all live our lives in a way that makes the most sense to us.

      I'VE BEEN on the "other side" (guenonian, traditionalist), that's why i'm criticizing it

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >okay,
        >the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't accept any "joining of traditions" (hindu-islamic) at the cycle's end
        Sikhism is/was basically this 'joining' in practice, also I thought that some texts that mention the Yugas talk about how in the most pure Yuga there is a near-total return to pre-sectarian unity of religion/worship before later division
        >the "eastern viewpoint" accepts rebirth (NOT as a mere 'exoteric" doctrine)
        Guenon fully accepted transmigration as taught by Vedanta, there are multiple reviews where he talks about this, he is basically just saying the metaphysical essence (Vedanta) of Hinduism doesn't teach that the individual's pattern/form isn't repeated or preserved besides the subtle body (which doesn't retain these patterns) which does transmigrate.
        >the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't have a demonic or apocalyptic view of the world like Guénon does
        There is one in a Hindu context in the Puranas speaking about Kalki returning, also in the Kalachakra Tantra is speaks of a dharmic holy war at the end of time or this age against barbaric forces. The Quran speaks about the wall holding back demonic/unknown forces.
        >the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't confer symbolism the high status attributed to it by Guénon (it doesn't even constitute a proper means-of-knowledge)
        Symbolism is actually a necessary component of how the Sruti-pramana functions since numerous lessons that it convey which eliminate false beliefs and convey true information are explained via metaphors, parables and discourses that convey ideas and/or their negation through implication, and this is fully grasped intuitively and not through a series of logical steps.
        >the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't accept claims from the imagination of occultists like Alveydre or Ossendowski about centers of the world, towers of the devil or lost alphabets
        Guenon never said that the eastern tradition taught the exact same details as western occultists, there is really no shortage of superstitious beliefs about demonic/ghostly and malevolent forces in eastern cultures though.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You should know very well that Shankara's non-dualism is very different from all those so-called non-dualist doctrines from other traditions
          So? They are still pointing/leading to the same end-conclusion of liberation and similarly point to the pure luminous awareness-presence experientially.
          >Nooooo b-but they don't talk about illusion/non-existence the same wa-
          It doesn't really matter, many of them have sub-schools, texts, poets and philosophers that still talk about the world/plurality being an illusion or appearance in some way, if they get you to reject belief in independence or true existence of the phenomena and also reject attachment to phenomena then it doesn't really matter if the metaphysics are explained slightly differently since the purpose has become accomplished regardless.
          > I have absolute certainty that you haven't even read a single book by SSS
          Kek, I have read large portions of them before and posted quotes on Oyish where I pointed out mistakes from them or noted how Shankara often contradicted it.

          As someone very new to Guenon I'm very curious how you gain this much knowledge on the subject. Have you just read all of his works or did you read a lot of complementary works as well?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I'VE BEEN on the "other side" (guenonian, traditionalist), that's why i'm criticizing it

        and someone on the other side (outside of Guenonian teachings and the views you currently hold) will tell you that both are wrong and his views are right, this will keep going until we reach back to the Guenonians preaching their form of traditionalism. And of course all these sides will have "proof" for their claims.

        You having been on the other side means nothing because they will just reply with "well you didn't understand it and I do".

        It's a battle where everyone loses and wins at the same time.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >okay,
        >the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't accept any "joining of traditions" (hindu-islamic) at the cycle's end
        Sikhism is/was basically this 'joining' in practice, also I thought that some texts that mention the Yugas talk about how in the most pure Yuga there is a near-total return to pre-sectarian unity of religion/worship before later division
        >the "eastern viewpoint" accepts rebirth (NOT as a mere 'exoteric" doctrine)
        Guenon fully accepted transmigration as taught by Vedanta, there are multiple reviews where he talks about this, he is basically just saying the metaphysical essence (Vedanta) of Hinduism doesn't teach that the individual's pattern/form isn't repeated or preserved besides the subtle body (which doesn't retain these patterns) which does transmigrate.
        >the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't have a demonic or apocalyptic view of the world like Guénon does
        There is one in a Hindu context in the Puranas speaking about Kalki returning, also in the Kalachakra Tantra is speaks of a dharmic holy war at the end of time or this age against barbaric forces. The Quran speaks about the wall holding back demonic/unknown forces.
        >the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't confer symbolism the high status attributed to it by Guénon (it doesn't even constitute a proper means-of-knowledge)
        Symbolism is actually a necessary component of how the Sruti-pramana functions since numerous lessons that it convey which eliminate false beliefs and convey true information are explained via metaphors, parables and discourses that convey ideas and/or their negation through implication, and this is fully grasped intuitively and not through a series of logical steps.
        >the "eastern viewpoint" doesn't accept claims from the imagination of occultists like Alveydre or Ossendowski about centers of the world, towers of the devil or lost alphabets
        Guenon never said that the eastern tradition taught the exact same details as western occultists, there is really no shortage of superstitious beliefs about demonic/ghostly and malevolent forces in eastern cultures though.

        my favorite magic trick where you make an anti-Guenonian completely disappear by engaging with his criticisms

  16. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    My advice to anyone lurking in this thread and doesn't know what to make of it:

    As you can see, everyone always has "evidence" and/or "proof" that the other side is wrong. There is not a single person in this thread who believes they are on the wrong side, which is quite a normal thing, yet they all equally and firmly believe that the other side is moronic.

    Read as much as you can in life, and on any given subject approach both sides in equal good faith, only then can you decide what makes more sense to you and live your life by it.

    There will always be people who believe that you are wrong with a conviction equal to the degree in which you think you are right.

    Whether there really is an "absolute truth" to uncover or not, we should all live our lives in a way that makes the most sense to us.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *