Don’t mind me, the greatest spiritual teacher and writer on metaphysics of the last 500 years, I’m just passing through.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Dont mind me, the greatest spiritual teacher and writer on metaphysics of the last 500 years, Im just passing through.
pbuh
*blocks your path*
wew, not even close
nein...!!!
Guenon=Rei
Evola=Asuka
Schuon=Misato
I think Evola should be Rei and Guenon should be Asuka, because Guenon's polemics always have an emotional overtone whereas Evola is more icy and stoic.
I don't know enough about Misato and Schuon in order to confirm or deny the connection though.
Does this make Aleister Crowley Shiji?
I don't think that Crowley makes for a good Shinji. He wasn't depressed.
moron. Guenon speaks of contemplation and Evola is about action.
They both talk about both topics.
Crypto-theosophist perennialist cucks were refuted by Klages.
Le ebin nicotine inhaled into my delicate lungs makes me more VITAL
Spergtastic post.
>gets filtered by Christianity
Lmao
He was raised catholic Lol
Many such cases
looks like H.P Lovecraft with a moustache
Why the long face?
Jej
Not so fast Frenchie
>ego death huckster
NGMI
Ego death is a prequisite to all Trad initiation you moron
>he fell for the meme
NGMI
Traditionalists like Guenon believed that you can straight up go and talk to God directly and hear his "word" directly from him, without the need for any books. You get it now?
>no argument
Ego death is a pre-requisite for initiation understood in the normal/Traditional sense. Evola is lhp and still says this too.
Wrong. In fact, Evola specifically cautions against this - he makes mention that there are two kinds of transcendence, going above something and going beneath something, a "downward transcendence". Ego death implies the latter, a slipping into sub-egoic forms of existence, the spiritual dissolution of drug addicted hippies who constantly feel "at one with the universe".
Cool, glad you understand.
>Ego death implies the latter
No, it doesn't imply either. It just implies a negating of the ordinary personality and from there one could go up or down.
Genuinely NGMI.
Why am i supposed to care about your opinion when you can't even support your own argument? I can find Hermeticists or myriad other initiates of other Traditions who will write about the importance of surpassing the ordinary self, and talk about the dangers of imperfect ego destruction.
Overcoming the self isn't the same as destroying it moron. Want to know what beings do not have an ego? Babies. Their lives are not governed by an ego structure, they simply obey the flow of forces, be they biological or what have you. That's what "ego death" would look like, and that's if we're being charitable. A stream of unstructured consciousness. True esotericism is concerned with transforming, overcoming, mastering and ennobling the ego, putting the ego at the service of spirit - not with destroying it. Destroying the ego would be immensely, incalculably stupid.
>you're not destroying it you're overcoming it or transforming it
Same thing. "Ego death" is a pre-requisite for obtaining higher states. I'm not saying it's without dangers, or that you should just lose your sense of self. But the regular sense of self has to go, I don't know how that's at all controversial.
>destroying your car and using it in a way that is useful for you is one and the same thing
Based moron.
The human ego does NOT pass on until you die, anon. Incidentally this is also why the Parinirvana is called "Nirvana without residue". In the process of awakening, the ego is overcome, but it is not rendered defunct.
It's not a good shorthand. But if we agree on the essentials, then that's good news for, I suppose, both of us.
>Realizing the supra-individual Absolute as your true self does entail the understanding that the ego is not you and has never been you in fact.
This posits a bizarre and irreconcilable dualism between the Absolute Self and the little self. Yes, the ego has been and is you. That doesn't prevent you from also being the Absolute. If it does, then that would imply that the ego lies outside the Absolute, which implies that, first of all, the Absolute is not actually absolute, and second of all, that there is no way (!) for you to cross over to the Absolute because the ego and the Absolute are separated by an unbridgeable chasm.
>the illusion that your ego is your true identity anymore
It is your true identity. It is just a small sliver of it, but it is still your true identity. The ego is also a part of the Absolute. If the Absolute is your identity, then the ego is also a part of your identity.
I agree with the other stuff you say.
>destroying your car and using it in a way that is useful for you is one and the same thing
Not at all what I'm saying, you're acting like a petulent child. That's also what happens when you strengthen the bonds of your ego instead of letting it putrify. You admit that the vulgar ego dies at death, and initiation is a voluntary death. I don't see why you would hold on to it. I asked you to name the authors you're getting this from but you didn't say. Is it because they're occultist homos? Because Evola doesn't even argue this as far as I'm aware. He warns against strengthening of the ego and espouses the necessity for the death of the compound.
>This posits a bizarre and irreconcilable dualism between the Absolute Self and the little self
No, it doesn’t
>Yes, the ego has been and is you. That doesn't prevent you from also being the Absolute.
It does, because there can only be one true identity, which necessarily makes other ones into that which is other than the true identity. Otherwise you are saying that one and the same entity has mutually exclusive and contradictory attributes/qualities (individuality + supra-individuality being one of these contradictions) as its essential nature which violates classical logic, and positing some 3rd entity as having both the individual and the supra-individual as its properties in order to unite them in a single thing also involves the logical contradiction of predicating contradictory things about the same entity.
>If it does, then that would imply that the ego lies outside the Absolute
And this is implying that the Absolute can even be spoken of as a space or location that other things can be spoken of as being located in or out of, this is of course true only in an extremely loose metaphorical sense and if you understand this, than the objection that anything “outside” the absolute becomes a “dualism” is reduced to a philosophical pseudoproblem that has been obviated by the correct understanding.
> and second of all, that there is no way (!) for you to cross over to the Absolute because the ego and the Absolute are separated by an unbridgeable chasm.
Another philosophical pseudoproblem. If you were never the ego to begin with then there is no need to “cross over” from one to the other. Correcting the misconceptions that made the mind think that your self was the ego is just removing the curtain from the already present and actual fact, there is no “crossing over”; such an experience may subjectively seem like a kind of “crossing over” but no crossing over is actually occurring except figuratively.
>the illusion that your ego is your true identity anymore
>>It is your true identity. It is just a small sliver of it, but it is still your true identity.
B is just a small sliver of A, but it is still A
1 is just a small sliver of 2, but it is still 2
heat is just a small sliver of cold, but it is still cold
sin is just a small sliver of virtue, but it is still virtue
Look man, I don't want to get condescending so I am just gonna stick to the facts and then I am gonna bail. It's obvious that you don't know much about nondualism, and that you haven't read the Gita or really any foundational text or commentary that would illuminate this issue for you. Seems like you're getting filtered by panentheism which is pretty absurd because it's a really basic theological concept that even Christians use. You also fail to understand that on some of these points you are arguing with yourself and refuting yourself - you do not understand the logical consequences of the statements you make, so when I point out that they are nonsensical, you argue with me, accusing me of being nonsensical for referring to your contradictions. You also don't understand that if the ego has no real basis in anything and no real existence or connection to you, its existence in your life becomes really inexplicable and it is unclear how or why it could possibly exist in the first place, or how it could deceive you at all. Probably the biggest problem is that you don't seem to understand that out of the four statements you give at the end of your reply, three are inapplicable analogies and, what is worse, one of them is actually an applicable analogy and also a valid and correct one. The fact that you couldn't distinguish it from the incorrect and invalid ones, and listed it alongside them, suggests that you are a lazy thinker. To wrap things up, I will offer my own analogy: the river flowing in the riverbed is water, and the water that you scoop up from the river with your hands is also water. Whether the water is in your hands or in the great river, it does not stop being water, and belonging to water.
>It's obvious that you don't know much about nondualism, and that you haven't read the Gita or really any foundational text or commentary that would illuminate this issue for you
I have already read the Gita as well as the foundational texts of non-dualism, so I guess that you dont know what you’re talking about if you think that’s “obvious”
>Seems like you're getting filtered by panentheism
Non-dualism isn’t panentheism except in an extremely loose sense that differs metaphysically from all other types of it.
>for referring to your contradictions
There are no contradictions in what I said, you are rejecting what I said and citing as your basis contrived reasons that are pseudoproblems and not genuine contradictions, you never identified how anything said violated any logical law like LNC or anything; whereas I in fact pointed out how what you are saying violates the LNC.
>You also don't understand that if the ego has no real basis in anything and no real existence or connection to you, its existence in your life becomes really inexplicable and it is unclear how or why it could possibly exist in the first place
This is already answered and refuted in the foundational texts of non-dualism. The ego does not have real existence but it appears as a part of manifestation like all phenomena because the Absolute projects or makes it appear as such through Its inherent power, so the matter of its appearance at all is not “inexplicable” but it can be explained.
>or how it could deceive you at all.
The real you is not deceived by it, only the mind or intellect (which are not you) are fooled by it
>Probably the biggest problem is that you don't seem to understand that out of the four statements you give at the end of your reply, three are inapplicable analogies and, what is worse, one of them is actually an applicable analogy and also a valid and correct one.
Incorrect, because 1 isn’t 2, B isn’t A, heat isn’t cold, and sin isn’t virtue.
> I will offer my own analogy: the river flowing in the riverbed is water, and the water that you scoop up from the river with your hands is also water. Whether the water is in your hands or in the great river, it does not stop being water, and belonging to water.
The Absolute doesn’t have parts that can be picked up and “scooped out”, so it’s an invalid analogy
>>You also don't understand that if the ego has no real basis in anything and no real existence or connection to you, its existence in your life becomes really inexplicable and it is unclear how or why it could possibly exist in the first place
To add to what was said, the Absolute is and has always been present in all moments as well as in-between them, for all of one's human experience and prior to that as well. It is present 'in' the ignorant person already without them understanding it. Realizing the Absolute as one's true self is not realizing something that is totally foreign to one's experience and it's not putting lie to all that one had encountered or known before, because the 'real' component of all experiences present, past, or future is that the Absolute was already there as one's self-evident and self-aware self of partless numinous awareness that was fully present in It's own being and reality; consequently, realizing the Absolute is one's sole and only true self in the very present moment entails realizing what has been one's true self that was present in every experience that has ever been known in this and all lives.
When we examine the components of the ego in each moment we find in fact that that everything that comprises the ego is insentient and therefore is other than ourselves and are rather more like insentient images on a screen being flashed before our awareness or are like insentient shapes appearing and vanishing in an expanse of a self-aware space that is in itself partless and homogenous, the space is what the real self is and not anything insentient that appears, we don't have sentient and insentient parts of ourselves but the sole real and true self is wholly sentient. That this space even seems to be "witnessing" or "observing things" instead of just abiding in the freedom of it's own eternal non-dual reality is just an illusion that is experienced by the intellect and is not even experienced by that partless self-awareness. The subjecthood of this intellect and the objectivity of the witnessed objects are both just appearances that are projected by the solely-existing Absolute that is in Itself free of subject and object. The self-awareness of oneself in each moment as immediate self-evident awareness is not even "witnessing" or "doing" anything but that is only a habitual misunderstanding of the mind/intellect where a characteristic of the intellect is unconsciously assumed to be characterizing awareness itself, due to the effect of the illusion being projected.
Therefore, objections like "if the Absolute isn't the same partly or fully as the ego then the Absolute can never be attained or realized" or "if the ego isn't real then attaining/reaching the Absolute is impossible" more or less all stem from not even understanding the issue at hand.
>or that you should just lose your sense of self. But the regular sense of self has to go
Define the difference between sense of self and regular sense of self, and why the distinction is substantially relevant to the discussion. In fact I think I can answer this question for you. First of all, there is no occult or ancient writer who speaks of "ego-death" in these terms. "Ego-death" is a modern phrase coined by drug users and western adaptations of Buddhism and Advaita (neither of these traditions ever actually use the term "ego-death" or anything similar historically). The ego, which is Latin for I, has always meant the standard awareness of self in the most ordinary sense, and as you've just said that one is not meant to destroy the sense of self, clearly you are not suggesting that ego-death is necessary in strict terms. What you're suggesting is that the ego has to be maintained and transformed into its best form, and this is what you mean by "regular sense of self", the attributes of the regular personality, which are not even the "ego" ("I) to begin with, they are merely things the ego associates with in its life. These are what are to be destroyed, which does not constitute real ego death, only analogical ego death (in the same way that human consciousness can be seen as "dying" every moment, which is the same as changing; there is still a real difference between actual death and the "death" between moments).
However, in most non-occult traditions like Buddhism, Advaita, Sufism, the goal really is to transcend even this "best" form of the ego, unless it is seen as something no longer ego like in the ordinary sense, and closer to God or the Absolute. And that would be what is actually meant by a "transcending" "ego-death" (not that anyone actually uses these terms). The "descending" "ego-death", which is the real death, is the dissolution of the ego, the human being, into the germ or fully dissolute state where nothing spiritually substantial is accomplished, and there is no trace of the superior aspects of the human ego or being left, only the gross elements. As the other anon said, it's like regression to infancy, only even more extreme where there aren't even the basic vegetative or sensory functions of the soul.
Yes, that pretty much clears things up. Good post, thanks.
>Ego death implies the latter, a slipping into sub-egoic forms of existence
Only if there is no corresponding realize of the Absolute within oneself as the supra-individual Absolute (the Atman-Brahman), if you have this realization of the Absolute then it’s reaching supra-egoic spiritual perfection, the highest spiritual attainment that is possible.
Yeah except nothing about supra-egoic spiritual perfection implies that the ego is DESTROYED.
It's negated, it passes on. What occultist lhp shit are you reading? It's not just Evola.
>Yeah except nothing about supra-egoic spiritual perfection implies that the ego is DESTROYED.
There are a wide range of explanations of "ego death", I agree that in most cases when you actually read the details of whatever tradition is being talked about (Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism etc) that they are not talking about it being ""destroyed"" but overcome to the point where it no longer obscures the truth of things with its mistaken habits, assumptions, tendencies. I accept "ego death" as an acceptable shorthand phrase for this.
Realizing the supra-individual Absolute as your true self does entail the understanding that the ego is not you and has never been you in fact. With this, "egoism" ends in the sense that you don't labor under the illusion that your ego is your true identity anymore, but your "ego" continues in the sense of it being the transactional "avatar" that the spiritually-wise person uses to still move about and do things in the world but without being fooled by that ego, whether as a monk or householder, while never failing to sense the immediate presence of the supra-individual Absolute as the reality which the ego derives it's contingent manifestation from at all times.
>the spiritual dissolution of drug addicted hippies who constantly feel "at one with the universe".
This isn't even real ego-death. It's just a subtle displacement of the ego. Same applies to those who use psychadelics.
that's all Guenon and the traditionalists really teach
Tellurian gnome physiognomy
Looks more like a flopped lunar physiognomy to me?
Gnomes are very wise yes
>just breathe like an old man
The absolute state of our book sales
We have to unpack the deepak chopra quantum ass blast from oprah winfrey's quantum dickyflaps
Is there any biography about this dude ? I want to know what his life was like
The Simple Life of Rene Guenon by Paul Chacornac
Rene Guenon and the Future of the West: The Life and Writings of a 20th-Century Metaphysician by Robin Waterfield
Guenon Renversement Clartes Influence by Xavier Accart
Guénon ou le renversement des clartés. Influence d'un métaphysicien sur la vie littéraire et intellectuelle française (1920-1970)
>ahem
Yes, and he was actually initiated by real Sufis, unlike Guénon.
>Yes, and he was actually initiated by real Sufis, unlike Guénon.
Guenon (pbuh) was initiated by real Sufis since he was initiated again by Sufis in Egypt over a decade after first one by Ivan Agueli
>Dude, join a secret club of esoteric Buddhism!
wow what a genius
>quits it immediately and makes it Muslim
. . .
Based Ramakrishna appreciator
Read Kripal's essay?
Who?
>"spiritual"
lmao
>can't into metaphysics
>can't into theology
>"you don't understand, he's beyond all that !"
>mfw guy is beyond anything that can be expressed by words, but still writes books and we should still read them
>"you haven't even read all of his books !"
>half assed blend of random assertion, historical speculation, and turn-of-the-century orientalism (aka pajeet worship)
so deep. one homosexual sent me a caption to prove me wrong, it was about numerology. lmao.
>"you're just mad you got filtered !"
now the guénon gays will explain to me how "guénon himself said he was against new age nonsense". well if he said it himself. how reassuring. also no doubt something is coming about how I have him confused with "theosophists". Of course I have no idea what this means and I don't care.
Frick off right back to /x/, homosexuals. I hope someday you graduate to reading details off of yu-gi-oh trading cards, which is one step closer to meaningful thought than whatever you are doing now.
>>can't into metaphysics
>can't into theology
Guenon was the preeminent metaphysician of the 20th century
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
says who ? literally no one takes him seriously outside of morons on the internet who read new age shit lmao
even in his time, he was simply considered a harmless moron by his thomist acquaintances. oh yeah also sandBlack folk for some reason want to make him out to be some great philosopher, because they are proud to have won over one white man to their abrahamic desert cult.
metaphysics is not rambling about kali yuga or kama sutra or whatever the hell it is lmao
I'd file Guénon in historical fiction at best, maybe esotericism
“Bro what if Hitler was secretly a hyperborean vril master bodhisattava and is fighting a perpetual time war against the demiurge from a base in Antarctica?”
What if he was?
I like how that last sentence could've been a genuine critique but he just can't resist adding "haughtiness that is so unwarranted". Of course, his own haughtiness is perfectly valid.
>"My opinion? Based. Your opinion? Cringe."
>t. Rene Guenon (and also apparently Georges Bataille, except like, he's really right this time!)
>guenon is too simple and thinks hes smarter than everyone
Great argument
guénongays absolutely SEETHING right now
is that one anon here who was talking about Crowley and the counter-initiation a few weeks ago?
Crowley anon is consistently here but idk if he's camping every thread
different guy I think
im talking about the crowley-bashing anon
Traditionalism is inherently self contradictory. It claims that every (major) religion leads to salvation. Thus traditionalists believe in every religion, although they only practice one. The problem comes in with Islam, It is the most recent revelation from God, and with the unique trait of the Quran being perfectly preserved. The Quran also has no contradictions in it.
Now, it's stated in the Quran that Islam abrogates every religion, this would also include Initiation. Therefore every traditionalist would have to become Muslim. As well you can't say a esoteric meaning of the Islam says otherwise, for that would be a contradiction within the Quran.
Islam is just a moronic personality cult that itself devolved into countless fractions and endless civil wars in the spawn of 50 years. It's just as filled with contradictions as every other religion and even children would be able to notice them in the Quran. Islam failed in every respect, it's not unified, nor is its transcendental monism held as ultimate (pretty much every sect believed that contact and communication with Allah is possible), nor has it had any original advances and developments since the fricking middle ages. One of the most celebrated branches of Islam is literally agaunst any innovation whatsoever. Idiotic. Exceptions here are Iranian shiism and the Ismailis, who are extreme minorities in the wider islamic world.
That's not going contra to traditionalism being moronic, I just wanted to bash at Islam, because eventually the fricktard Guenon in question will convert to it as well. The entire idea of theosophy and such dumb doctrines about "one eternal global tradition" is so stupid I've never actually taken it seriously. The barest minimum of research into any two religions will immediately show you that they're not some unified cabal of tradlarpers.
>As well you can't say a esoteric meaning of the Islam says otherwise, for that would be a contradiction within the Quran.
Literally no Traditionalist gives a frick about something like this btw, "this supplementary manual makes no mention of xyz". That would be irrelevant because Traditionalists posit that the highest authority behind every religion is Tradition, not any old book.
The Quran is the word of God. So your telling me that traditionalists will ignore the literal world of God. The only one who created everything, for an ambiguous concept known as tradition?
Do not concern yourself with such things, dark-skinned shudra.
>Now, it's stated in the Quran that Islam abrogates every religion
Saying that every religion is a direct or indirect road to God/the Absolute doesn’t mean accepting that everything which that religion or its scripture says is true, therefore it’s not a real contradiction with perennialism or ‘traditionalism’.
Why did Eliade snub him?
Probably too little emphasis on Australian aboriginals for his taste.
>read chudlit
>agree with it
>permanently completely alienated by modernity
>also fully aware it probably wont self correct in my lifetime
Just stick to liberalism and enjoying the cool refreshing taste of coca-cola guys
We riding the tiger here, homeboy. We're drinking all the coca-cola and doing all the cocaine. Then, when the tiger gets tired, it's party time.
>allah cocaine
>that smile. that damned smile.
>Dude Catholicism is based because it makes you cry a lot lmao
>last 500 years
>it hasn't even been 100 years since he started teaching
whut