/lit/ - Literature

>>17640072
Yes it's true, yes you should read it. And even if it weren't true you should read it so you know why it isn't true.

>>17640080
fpbp

>>17640072
Well if you are genuinely interested in knowing, you might want to read what these authors have to say and see if it sounds convincing to you. ATM you are just asking to be spoonfed an objective analysis on the conclusions of the Traditionalists without reading anything written by them. This is a bad idea because it makes it easy for retards on the internet to manipulate you however they like. "Is the perennial philosophy true?" Yes, I guess? That's about the level of answer you can expect online. What I can tell you is that from my perspective the perennial philosophy is the only way to explain the variety of religions and acknowledge their ultimate origin as valid at the same time.
Pic unrelated.

>>17640072
No it's silly and no you should not. There are more books than you could ever read so if you want to read more good books you have to read less crap. I.e. this copout for cuckservatives.

>>17640072
Its a waste of time, occultism is a corruption of philosophy and science, stick to the great books.

>>17640080
this

>>17640108
>occultism = perennial philosophy
ngmi

>>17640106
>copout for cuckservatives
>occultism
Don't listen to these people who have obviously not read it but based their opinion on him from memes

>>17640106
>this is what a cuckservative looks like

>>17640108
The true redpill is that philosophy and science are corruptions of occultism. This is even admitted by scientists, who claim modern chemistry developed out of alchemy.

>>17640072
Btw, why not waste your time on the occult, I did for years, discovered the key to the truth is closer to a great books approach. Just study literature, philosophy, history, science. You will get more out of it.

>>17640126
Evoma was not a traditionalist and

>>17640124
Guenon was not an occultist. Or at least his writings do not engage with the occult.

>>17640130
This

>>17640130
By the logic of alchemy, modern chemistry and psychology are the purifications of base alchemy.

Its just that both modern disciplines are hard, while a 300 page book by the Rosicrician society is easy.

>>17640133
>Evola was not a traditionalist
what? anon, I...

>>17640133
>Guenon was not an occultist. Or at least his writings do not engage with the occult.
Yes, that was my point.
>Evoma was not a traditionalist
He was to some extent, I think he is commonly referred to as radical traditionalist. But yes he differs somewhat from prople like Guenon, Schuon, Coomaraswamy.

>>17640106
>>17640133

>>17640142
>modern chemistry and psychology are the purifications of base alchemy.
No, corruptions. Alchemists called profane chemists "coalburners." Yes, that was a real term they used to refer to profane scientists who experimented with metals like modern scientists. Alchemists considered it to be a corruption.

Also, daily reminder that mathematics and writing were considered magical arts by the Egyptians (and all traditional cultures), which have been profaned by contemporary society (just another example of corruption).

>>17640150
Modern chemistry and psychology work, alchemy does not, therefor modern science is a purification.

>>17640163
Alchemy does work, you're thinking of profane alchemy (the idea you got from films), mixing materials with spells, not of actual alchemy.

>>17640163
>Modern chemistry and psychology work, alchemy does not, therefor modern science is a purification.
Speak for yourself, hylic.

>>17640163
Modern chemistry has destroyed the planet through rampant pollution and industrial processes.

Alchemy was a path of spiritual enlightenment, which was able to accomplish its goal in its specific domain.

Yeah, I think we both see which one is the corruption.

>>17640143
Evola put the warrior caste over the priest cast among other things. Also stop writing like you have a stick up your ass

>>17640177
>Evola put the warrior caste over the priest cast among other things
No he didn't, please refrain from further posting. Also even if he did that wouldn't not make him a traditionalist, just a traditionalist with a wrong take.

>nazi catholic crusader larp is so 2017
>we are self-deifying alchemist chaos-magicians now
Why can't you just get a job and visit your grandparents?

>>17640181
>just a traditionalist who disagreed with traditionalism
Okay faggot whatever

>>17640170
>>17640174
>>17640175
Lol modern science works, both for the physical and the mental, occultism does not. You are all into the occult, because you arent smart enough for science.

> hur dur it works in da spiritual

Meanwhile you people look and talk just as debased as the average man on the street.

>>17640193
Nigger he didn't put the warrior caste above the priest caste, he just focused on the warrior caste because that was his own
>>17640196
Retard

the absolute state of this board

>>17640196
I have a degree in computer science, you mongrel. Judging by your total lack of tact and reading comprehension, I'm guessing your education comes from a mixture of wikipedia and youtube.

>>17640202
>I work in generic pleb tier field which is all about creating imaginary worlds.

I can see why you like the idea of the occult.

>Judging by your total lack of tact and reading comprehension, I'm guessing your education comes from a mixture of wikipedia and youtube.

>>17640196
>>17640206
Thanks for informing us you dont know what alchemy is

>>17640209
>>17640175
>>17640174
This is what happens when you let your kids play Morrowind

>>17640177
>Evola put the warrior caste over the priest cast among other things.
This is a popular myth, in fact he did no such thing. He believed that at the peak of Traditional hierarchy stood the sacred sovereign, a holder of sacred and divine imperium. Beneath this sacred sovereign you can find the priestly caste in its purely priestly aspect and below that is the warrior caste.
>Also stop writing like you have a stick up your ass
Same to you I guess, pay attention to where you are.
>>17640187
Dilate.
>>17640196
>"lol occultism is for obscurantist pseuds who don't understand science"
>"the world is made of strings btw"
Bravo.
>>17640202
Based STEMtard.

>>17640209
>I will be snarky and passive agressive.

Btw most of the occult meaning behind alchemy is literally an invention of 19th century occultists.

Your fantasy world is an invention of a bunch of French and English literati. The same with the Tarot and lots of kabbalistic and astrological stuff.

Literal 19th century inventions

>>17640072
perenial philosophy is peak humanism. their biggest dream is that we should have orgies together

>>17640217
>>"the world is made of strings btw"
Good lie!

>>17640217
>This is a popular myth, in fact he did no such thing. He believed that at the peak of Traditional hierarchy stood the sacred sovereign, a holder of sacred and divine imperium. Beneath this sacred sovereign you can find the priestly caste in its purely priestly aspect and below that is the warrior caste.
Correct
>>17640214
Please stop posting

At least the hylics are letting us know what they are instead of pretending they know what they're talking about.

>>17640217
You tell em buddy. They will look so stupid once you find the secret to turn things into gold and become a qusbdksknallsillionaire

>>17640220
>astrology is 19th century
Truly flexing your knowledge in this thread, aren't you anon?
>>17640226
You are confusing this with Theosophy and New Age larp shit.

>>17640220
>I will show that I have no idea what I'm talking about

>>17640228
>string theory
>>17640233
the point isn't to turn things into gold anon, the point is to turn yourself into gold.

>>17640233
That's not what alchemy is, genius

>>17640220
Retard-sama...I kneel....

>>17640238
I love how you think acting all smug will make your pursuit of alchemy via pdfs from your mom's basement look any more serious.

>>17640234
>>17640238
>>17640239
Yeah, being bitchy and snarky sure proves a lot, good luck with you 19th century romanticism. Which is all that occultism is.

>hylic

Lol. Occultism is just an excuse for the inferior man to feel he is in the know.

>>17640251
Yes yes, we know you have no idea what alchemy is by now. And no, I don't pursue alchemy.

>>17640239
>>17640244
It was though. The chemical aspect was in fact the largest one. You just want to look in the know to feel heckin valid.

>>17640255
Please stop posting, you're no different from the Dawkins atheist types. Also pot something something kettle.

>>17640258
>I don't understand spagyrics
just leave the thread desu

>>17640257
>Yes yes, we know you have no idea what alchemy is by now.
lol as I said. You desperately have to claim others don't know what alchemy is to feel more valid in your larp. But sure. Yiu obviously need it so go ahead.

>>17640258
The spiritual aspect of alchemy is like a sufi or rosicrucian reading mysticism into a holy book that isnt there, jews do the same with the talmud via mysticism.

Most occult stuff is a 19th century invention.

>>17640258
> The chemical aspect was in fact the largest one
No, it was just the most known in recent times. That doesn't make it actual alchemy.

>>17640264
Please stop now, it's getting sad. Wikipedia is not a good source.

>>17640263
The thread isn't about alchemy you pathetic loser. Just look at what your doing here.
>pssh kiddo if only you'd knew the REAL alchemy you'd bow before my superior knowledge

>>17640262
The only reason you call me a Dawkins atheist, is because I am not.

>>17640267
>That doesn't make it actual alchemy.
It literally is what alchemy is named after. Holy shit are you sad.

>>17640274
No, it's because you use the same smug simplistic arguments that merely prove you have no idea what you're actually talking about and refuse to understand the subject.

>>17640277
You're confusing alchemy with chemistry, retard.

>>17640273
>>pssh kiddo if only you'd knew the REAL alchemy you'd bow before my superior knowledge

>>17640278
You have to say I dont know what I am talking about, because if you where to ever take me serious, you would have to admit you are wasting your life.

>>17640293
Please stop projecting and assuming. I already told you I don't pursue alchemy, I'm just not a retard who talks about things I have not tried to understand. Historical alchemy goes back to at least the high middle ages (but was based on older traditions) and was about inner transformation, not material transformation. Now kindly fuck off.

>>17640309
Sigh. The only reason you would claim I dont know what I am talking about, is because I do.

If I where wrong. You would give me arguments why I am wrong. You dont. No, your ramblings are not arguments.

Occultism is 19th century romanticism informed by the past. Most of it is either a 19th century creation or a 19th century interpretation.

Occultism is a fraud. Like all mystical traditions.

>>17640335
>If I where wrong. You would give me arguments why I am wrong. You dont. No, your ramblings are not arguments.
Funny how that works huh. You just claim it's a 19th century invention without providing proof.
>Occultism is 19th century romanticism informed by the past. Most of it is either a 19th century creation or a 19th century interpretation.
Yes. Good thing actual alchemy isn't occultism (although I'd agree the later materialistic alchemy is, yes. but that's not actual alchemy)
If it's a 19th century invention, how do you explain the alchemical texts from the middle ages and its precursors from even earlier?

>>17640348
>how do you explain the alchemical texts from the middle ages and its precursors from even earlier?

Reread my reply until you understand:

Occultism is 19th century romanticism informed by the past. Most of it is either a 19th century creation or a 19th century interpretation.

>>17640370
>No, your ramblings are not arguments.

>>17640370
You may want to read this book by the way, you might learn something
And no the definition of occultism is not "anything I don't like"

>>17640375
I did. Why should it change my mind?

>>17640375
Probably better off reading Schelling's critical history of mythology. I haven't read that book, but if it asserts that Hegel was somehow meaningfully involved in the Hermetic art, I'd say that is a great stretch

>>17640388
No you didn't
It would change your mind that these ideas and interpretations go much furter back than the 19th century.

>>17640391
> if it asserts that Hegel was somehow meaningfully involved in the Hermetic art, I'd say that is a great stretch
Then read the book and find out it's not a stretch at all, even though it's more nuanced than that (it's a really enjoyable read too)

>>17640393
Sigh reread again and again until you understand.

Occultism is 19th century romanticism informed by the past. Most of it is either a 19th century creation or a 19th century interpretation.

>>17640400
based NPC

>>17640400
>Occultism is 19th century romanticism informed by the past.
Correct.
>Most of it is either a 19th century creation or a 19th century interpretation.
Correct.
However, alchemy is not occultism. It's a genuine tradition that evolved from other classical and medieval traditions. Are some of its more known interpretations occultism? Sure, but that doesn't make it occultism by itself. Once again, you claiming alchemy is occultism doesn't make it so.

>>17640398
>find out it's not a stretch at all,
I've read Hegel, I just haven't read that book. There's no way you can equate his philosophy with Hermetic philosophy in any way that is meaningful. The only way I'll accept that assertion is if Hegel had some sort of secret life he lived outside of his professional writing (which is kind of hard to believe).

>>17640407
>The only way I'll accept that assertion is if Hegel had some sort of secret life he lived outside of his professional writing (which is kind of hard to believe).
Which is exactly what the book is about. Just read it, it's really enjoyable.

>>17640404
>>Occultism is 19th century romanticism informed by the past.
>Correct.
Are you niggers even trying

>>17640404
Alchemy is not occultisme, but there is a modern mystical interpretation which is.

Thats my point. People here vaguely point towards hermeticism or boehme, vaguely because most of them barely read occult lit. But thats not occultism either. Its just the waste basket of history occultism uses.

>>17640423
WIth occultism, that thick anon probably means the likes of Crowley and Blavatsky. He's not wrong there, but that's not what alchemy was or was informed by.

>>17640430
>Alchemy is not occultisme, but there is a modern mystical interpretation which is.
And there also is a medieval "mystical" interpretation which isn't occultism in the way you mean it. Profane alchemy is not actual alchemy.

>>17640072
It’s truly enlightening but it attracts a lot of pseuds and LARPers.

People who get all their occult knowledge from Frater Asemlen posts shouldn't speaking.

>>17640440
Mate, you turn things around, its all the mystical stuff which is profane, its empty mysticsm or just mysticism, suited to woman, homosexuals and the lower classes.

The higher life is rational and it is the life that creates results. The seperation between material and spiritual is just a bad conscious. The person being unable to accept his own inferiority so he creates a fantasy world.

>12 posters
>85 posts
This is maybe the worst thread on /lit/ right now. Thanks for making such a low effort, stupid question OP.

Well, this thread turned south pretty fucking fast. I just wanted to know if different traditions share a common root and have compatible metaphysical interpretations or not.

>>17640459
Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I say or what?
>mystical stuff which is profane, its empty mysticsm or just mysticism, suited to woman, homosexuals and the lower classes.
Yes, we agree, but that's the 19th century stuff you keep blabbering on about. I was talking about the medieval interpretation of alchemy, which was barbarised into profane alchemy of literally transforming lead into gold, which was then wrongly interpreted by 19th century occultism. It's not hard to understand. We have contemporary assertions that tell us very clearly.
>The higher life is rational and it is the life that creates results.
Redddit tier take. Go back.
>The seperation between material and spiritual is just a bad conscious.
That depends on what you mean and since you keep changing definitions of words I'm not even going to try and guess.
>The person being unable to accept his own inferiority so he creates a fantasy world.
Stop projecting.

>Matthew 7:8 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

We always have the opportunity to remember this in the modern world.

Not saying I don't enjoy these threads though.

>>17640463
Say something about occultism.

5 people reply with.

>nooo! You dont teally understan!!

But they give no arguments.

>>17640072
Currently reading through some of Guenon's works myself I am not finding the philosophy very convincing. I personally find some fallacies and whatever, but it is interesting for some mental exercise anyways. You should read him.

>>17640470
The only way to truly find out OP is to adopt a legitimate practice and train your perceptions. All these "rational" "academic" types who fumble through books and theories will just waste their time since they never directly encounter the forces in question.

>>17640470
Read the Trads anon. I think you'd like them. If you have any questions about specific traditions, I will try to address those as well.

>>17640470
The two posters who replied to you are right anon. Read them for yourself, and if you seem convinced, begin practice. There is no other purpose to reading them otherwise

>>17640234
Too bad new age is such garbage, I like the aesthetic. It could've been a legit 21st century revival of spirituality if it weren't based on theosophy shit

>>17640400
>Occultism is 19th century romanticism informed by the past. Most of it is either a 19th century creation or a 19th century interpretation.

Based retard. I'm saving this post under a screencap called "Most retarded post on lit Ive ever seen". Might even frame it, as a warning to future generations of my household that this level of retardation exists in the world that they have inherited.

>>17640266
> isn't there
How do you even go about proving that?

>>17640564
He can't prove that, the thing is that he is huffing some immense amounts of copium, when confronted with the fact that modern Chemistry is merely a decadent form of Alchemy. This, he cannot wrap his modern onions-powered mind around, so he invents giga-retarded cope "arguments" ITT.

Honest question to alchemists: Have you actually achieved anything practical from these pursuits, and what was it like?

I've read the Hermetic Tradition, Corpus Hermeticum, quite a few others of Evola's work as well as various traditional texts (alchemical and non-alchemical) from the East and West. I came to a reasonable understanding of what was being spoken about in each case, and I also understood that I probably wasn't able to fully comprehend everything being said, and thus not to immediately dismiss all of it as rubbish. I really wasn't sure what "practice" actually meant in most cases. I already meditate to begin with, and I tried to incorporate meditation upon certain "concepts" given in these texts, but without any real progression that wasn't simply intellectual/conceptual in nature (which I already know is sort of a bane, I've tried to get clear of it as much as I can). I've tried a general reorientation of my thought, so as to treat the things discussed with a level of seriousness. But so far I have not accomplished anything of note. I still seem to be roughly the same as before I started reading this stuff.

>>17640591
I cannot answer your question without sounding like a schizo, so I'm going to recommend you keep reading the legitimate texts on Alchemy, there are a lot of very good books on the subject.

>>17640602
Schizoposting on 4chan is par for the course, so you might as well answer the question.

>>17640615
I don't know Anon, I'm just not in the zone right now, suffice it to say that if you had progressed along one of the steps in the alchemical process, corresponding to one of the colors commonly described, you would know if there are any "practical" results, and you wouldn't need to ask.

>>17640072
Start with culturally significant holy texts, before going into these theorists.

And Yes it's true Evola was not a "Traditionalist". He's been called that by other people and he never called himself that. It's one of the many ways we can tell someone was filtered / didn't even read Evola, if they believe he was a Traditionalist.

>>17640072
Advaita is sloppy metaphysics and Guenon is loaded with tons of value judgments that he just expects you to believe are self-evident.

The nirguna brahman is a lower state of hell, not the Godhead.

>>17640641
Are you the guy who often posts the copypasta about Shankaracharya being a crypto-buddhist?

>>17640641
>Advaita is sloppy metaphysics
No, it’s not
> Guenon is loaded with tons of value judgments that he just expects you to believe are self-evident.
It’s more like he is indifferent to whether his readers agree with him
> The nirguna brahman is a lower state of hell
No, it’s not, because none of the states of hell are bliss like Brahman is

>>17640489
>>17640491
>>17640523
Thank you, blessed anons.
I'm wondering why the people that support this theory of the common endpoint in many religions subject themselves to one in particular, like Guenon with Islam, when there are certain aseverations that are impossible to believe without a strong faith.
So why don't they just focus on the mystical, metaphysical qualities common to many religions and instead adhere to one in particular?

>>17640650
No, that guy is a Pyrrho-posting nihilist who rejects the possibility of metaphysics. He is basically a Dawkins-tier fedora who projects his Theisim vs Atheism autism onto eastern philosophy. He got into Buddhism to give a pretense of intellectual sophistication to his atheist nihilism and he hates Shankara for BTFOing Buddhism as an alternative explanation for the universe instead of God.

>>17640072
It's not true, but esotericism is STILL worthy of study. Historical development shows that consciousness began with the Greeks and our way of thinking differed radically before then

>>17640701
Thank you for that excellent explanation of the man in question, his antics have been putting a frown on my face quite a few times in the past. But I reckon that will stop now that I know his motives.

>>17640688
>So why don't they just focus on the mystical, metaphysical qualities common to many religions and instead adhere to one in particular?
Well they join the esoteric aspects of that Tradition. Think about it, in this day and age, information is easy to access from many different people. This is information overload. It is far easier (and more reliable) to join an existing tradition, with dedicated teachers who have been in your place.

>consciousness began with the Greeks

Bro we saw that before you deleted the post. Step up here so that we can adminster the proper punishment for such a retarded statement.

Read Meditations on the Tarot

>>17640726

>>17640688
I believe it's because something other than things that can be expressed discursively is being transmitted by those who possess supra-rational knowledge, as Guenon would call it. So reading and practicing by yourself is not enough, only someone that has attainments themself could figure out what it takes for you in particular to reach these states, given that everyone is different.

>>17640072
It's not true. Historical development shows that consciousness began with the Greeks and our way of thinking differed radically before then. ,


However, esotericism is STILL worthy of study. The discovery of mind is not a consequence of divine action. It is a result of the use of language. It is the communal facility in language which provokes a recognition of something which is ‘there’ but not before it is named and connected to other names within the language. There is a book titled 'The Discovery of the Mind: In Greek Philosophy and Literature' that argues that the structure of Greek language was instrumental in developing scientific understanding of the world. Both developments involve language and profoundly affected later culture.

>>17640726

>>17640741
>>17640726
This is literally what Nietzsche talked about when he was so desperate to uncover the origins of our morality through his genealogy, which you would find to be profound and something worth taking into consideration if you READ books you utter uncultured retard

>>17640688
I believe Guenon specifically addressed this point and specified that he has not "converted" to Islam, since it is impossible for a perennialist to be converted - he was simply initiated into an Islamic tradition.

>>17640723
>>17640729
>>17640759
This is actually really interesting.
Do you think Christianity is too corrupted by modernity and devoid of it's deeper traditional roots?
I come from a Christian background, so being familiar with it's symbols and theology I believe it's what would sit better with me. At the same time, I find Sunday masses to be so devoid of meaning that it's hard to think someone can initiate a spiritual journey in the Catholic Chruch as it's today (at least in my personal context).

>>17640783
Many people have different opinions on this. For me most of Christianity is devoid of its tradition, particularly in the West. However, I do think there is nothing of value there. If you have an attachment to Christianity I would look at the Orthodox Church with a strong focus on its mystical elements. I am not a Christian by the way, and this is my own personal opinion.

>>17640798
*don't think there is nothing of value there.

>>17640783
The only christian path to initiation is becoming a monk, either catholic or orthodox.

>>17640798
Or go with the times and join the Vatican II, also known as the Antichrist I from the Book of Daniel.

>>17640835
I dont know much about sedevacantism, but from what iv seen of it its very disorganised and more idealogical in nature

>>17640783
I am basically of the same opinion as this anon >>17640805, except I am not aware of any initiatic elements to Catholic monastic life. With that said, I started off like you, but my "familiarity" with Christianity was actually a false one. After a long time of contemplating Traditionalism, I came to realise that virtually all of my previous beliefs about Christianity were wrong. In some areas Christianity seemed a lot more appealing, in others the opposite. In the end, I don't think it appeals to me.

>>17640717
no problem brotha

>>17640868
> initiatic elements to Catholic monastic life.

It demands total submission to your spiritual father in the order, which if successful, could lead to obliteration of the false self. Also, if someone like the late Father Thomas Keating can exist in Catholicism, it suggests there is something there.

>>17640902
To my knowledge, that's not what initiation is. Theoretically you could enforce absolute submission to a religious creed upon yourself on your own. Initiation carries the implication of specific realisations of knowledge, which is a different, if related matter.

>>17640865
I don't know what sedevacantism is, but I'll just put this here: "little horn." Reference that with Daniel if you care to.

>>17640930
You are correct, but the enviroment is much better for spirtual focus than daily life, and I imagine there are monastic catholic order that focus more on study. Its the best you hope for within catholicism (at least to my knowledge)

>>17640938
sedevacants regard the chair of peter as vacant and refuse to recognise the current papacy
sedevacantism

>>17640961
>not posting the full chart

>>17640982
Only the relevant bit

>>17640987
but then you're depriving the world from the joke entry, anon

>>17640999
trips confirm I should of provide the retroactive refutation, I am sorry

>>17641002
Amen. Never forget to pay your respects to the crowning achievement of Guru Guenon (pbuh).

>>17641027
pbuh

>>17640701
>he hates Shankara for BTFOing Buddhism as an alternative explanation for the universe instead of God.
hope I don't open a bad clam but can you show me how Shankara does this?

>>17640868
I'm curious, do you ascribe to any other tradition, anon?
I feel like Christianity has some hard to swallow pills if you are familiar with other traditions of thought, but it's better than irreligiosity or many of the alternatives.
I don't think I would be willing to become initiated in Islam when apostasy is punished by death and iconoclasm is so rampant. At least in Hinduism you could be open to the teachings of other prophets if you regard them as avatars of Vishnu.

>>17640072
Yes. Even people who disagree with perennialism, still find Guenon's and Schuon's writings to be very interesting. Probably because they were smart and had a lot of knowledge.

>>17641169

>"No one, they (Buddhists) claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation (Pratītyasamutpāda) beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible. But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied.

>To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain could ever be the cause of aggregation when it depends on aggregation for its own existence?

- Shankaracharya, Brahma Sutra Bhasya

>>17641244
Buddhists on suicide watch

>>17641244
Dont summon them

>>17641244
I don't really understand this ;____;
I thought that Buddhists didn't believe in firm aggregations to begin with, that they were illusions which eventually decay?

>>17640170
What is actual alchemy and where can I read about it?

>>17641361

>>17641395
ty anon

>>17641192
>I'm curious, do you ascribe to any other tradition, anon?
I am looking for initiation, so I have still not settled on any specific tradition. I will go with whatever seems most suitable.
>I feel like Christianity has some hard to swallow pills if you are familiar with other traditions of thought, but it's better than irreligiosity or many of the alternatives.
You are probably correct here, although IMO it depends on how Christianity is experienced as well. Some people certainly draw on a lot more of its spiritual potential than most do.
>I don't think I would be willing to become initiated in Islam when apostasy is punished by death and iconoclasm is so rampant. At least in Hinduism you could be open to the teachings of other prophets if you regard them as avatars of Vishnu.
I have a preference for Indian teachings, but Sufis aren't hardcore Salafis. You shouldn't feel that concerned, I think.

>>17640072
Load of crap for sure, Guenon believed in literal fairy tales like Atlantis, World tree, Cryptids roaming the earth, etc.

>>17641780
>Implying those things aren't 100% true in the Earth's past

>>17641960
Go back to /x/

>>17641968
No.

>>17641780
whats a cryptid?

>>17642049
Genetic experiments my Melkor / Satan from the 1st age of Middle Earth. Inb4 Tolkien deniers ITT claim that Tolkien's Legendarium isn't real history. Don't worry though, all the cryptids were slain by Eärendeil in the War of Wrath. Or were they?

>>17642049
Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. Guenon is embarrassing.

>>17641325
>I thought that Buddhists didn't believe in firm aggregations to begin with
In that passage when he says aggregate he is not talking about individual skandhas but the aggregation he is referring to is the 12 links of pratityasamutpada as existing as a collective aggregate. The point he is making there is that to admit the 12 links as bound together in the specific ordered relationship that they have is to introduce an effect which must have a cause, but the individual links of the chain of pratityasamutpada as constituted by nescience etc are incapable of causing the aggregation of the 12 links together into pratityasamutpada because the links depend on pratityasamutpada existing as an aggregated chain already in order to produce those specific links into existence since they are individually continually co-arising and temporary and are not individually eternal/uncaused, nor could they be uncaused because to admit uncaused entities would be to violate the Buddhist claim that all things are co-dependent. The only way to account for the existence of pratityasamutpada is to admit something outside of and unaffected by pratityasamutpada which causes it (i.e. God or Brahman) but this is precisely what Buddhists cannot do.

>>17640072
>Is perenial philosophy true or just a load of crap?
Yes, perennial philosophy is the last vestige of counter-tradition before genuine spirituality/religiosity. Just as coming to any religion out of a search for the Truth is climaxed by genuine faith, so to is the knowledge that Truth exists by Christ.
>Is guenon worth my time?
Yes, but there are more important things. If you have faith and spiritual knowledge beforehand, the conclusions that he comes to are really obvious. If you're secular and need esoteric and apocalyptic jargon to spur and interest in cultivating faith (which is what I did) you end up at the same place but took the hard route.
tl;dr - read spiritual texts and theology instead