/lit/ - Literature

>>20332053
>stop being such a fanboy of guenonfag
hell no, guenonfag got me into guenon and I will be eternally thankful. if it weren't for his spicy memes I would likely be shilling cringe shit on this board.
now after some years of /trad/ studies, I have finally come around to studying Shankara and guenonfag is the most knowledgeable man on the subject. naturally im going to pay attention to his Shankara related threads.

Guenonfag I know you're lurking
spent the entire day yesterday watching advaita/shankara vids
finished Isa Upanishad yesterday
started Katha Upanishad this morning

my gut reaction?
Why the fuck didn't I start Shankara/core/ earlier?
I can already feel my power levels increasing
I purposefully held off for a long time because I felt it was a saturated market on /lit/ and wanted to explore other Guenonian areas

anyways, im gonna lay low on 4chinz for the next month while I get through all his commentaries
I will have many questions when I get back
o7

>>19590839
Shutup tranny!
/lit/ is Guenon and Guenon is /lit/!!

>>17965427
>How does one study the vedas exactly?
You get an indian master to teach you

That's the ONLY way to learn, there's no shortcut

>>17594038
>Should the supreme, total and universal Principle, which the religious doctrines of the West call "God", be conceived as impersonal or personal? This question can give rise to interminable discussions, and moreover without object, because it proceeds only from partial and incomplete conceptions, which it would be vain to try to reconcile without rising above the special domain, theological or philosophical, which is properly theirs. From the metaphysical point of view, it must be said that this Principle is both impersonal and personal, depending on the aspect under which it is considered: impersonal or, if you like, "supra-personal" in itself; personal in relation to the universal manifestation, but, of course, without this "divine personality" presenting the slightest anthropomorphic character, because one must be careful not to confuse "personality" and "individuality". The fundamental distinction that we have just formulated, and by which the apparent contradictions of the secondary and multiple points of view are resolved in the unity of a superior synthesis, is expressed by Far Eastern metaphysics as the distinction between "Non-Being" and "Being"; it is no less clear in Hindu doctrine, as is the essential identity of pure metaphysics.
in the diversity of the forms it can take. The impersonal Principle, therefore absolutely universal, is designated as Brahma; the "divine personality" which is a determination or a specification of it, implying a lesser degree of universality, has as its most general appellation that of Îshwara. Brahma, in his Infinity, cannot be characterized by any positive attribution, which is expressed by saying that he is nirguna or "beyond all qualification", and again nirvishesha or "beyond all distinction"; on the other hand, Îshwara is said to be saguna or "qualified", and savishêsha or "directly conceived" because he can receive such attributions, which are obtained by an analogical transposition into the universal, of the various qualities or properties of the beings of which he is the principle.

>Introduction to the Study of the Hindu doctrines, VII. Shivaism and Vishnuism