I recently learned a little bit about this guy and thought it very interesting how deep his traditionalis/conservatisim...

Wut? I just complimented him, saying his philosophy is better than the religions he claims (falsely) to speak for.

why do you think you understand those "religions" (poor word choice) better than he does? give his ideas some serious consideration and read some source texys before you dismiss those ideas

texts*

I own one of his books, it is interesting, sure. But you can't take someone who literally went native native too seriously.

Moving to Cairo = going native? You ought to consider what the actual nature of his decision was, what his motives were, and what it meant to him instead of interpreting the decision according to ready made concepts like "going native" that you picked up from God knows where. As though you could ever learn anything useful about an author or his ideas merely by applying labels willy-nilly.

Wow top notch criticism.
Only flaw is that he followed Ibn Arabi who was not an orthodox Muslim and believed very bizarre things.

Once a man was arguing with another man if Ibn Arabi was a scholar that was led astray or not, and they invoked the curse of Allah upon themselves on the one who was incorrect. So the man that followed Ibn Arabi invoked the curse of Allah on him if Ibn Arabi was a false scholar and the one who disliked Ibn Arabi invoked the curse of Allah upon him self if Ibn Arabi was a good scholar. The man that followed Ibn Arabi was trampled and killed by a stampeding mule and people said it was as though the mule was hunting him down.

>Guenon

>Only flaw is that he followed Ibn Arabi who was not an orthodox Muslim and believed very bizarre things.
Don't exaggerate that "flaw", though, because a lot of perfectly orthodox muslims hold ibn Arabi in high regard. And "bizarre" is a poor word choice, though some would say that he has at least a few views that are heterodox. Still he is very highly respected by many scholars.

Many of his ideas are questionable too. Such as that the priest caste was the highest caste or that Western civilization never truly had Tradition.

His beliefs are bizarre.

Among the things that he says in this book are: Adam was called insaan because in relation to the truth (Al-Haqq), he was like the pupil [insaan] of the eye, the part that can see.

Elsewhere he said: Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.

Concerning the people of Nooh he said: if they had turned away from their worship of [their idols] Wudd, Siwaa’, Yaghooth and Ya’ooq, they would have lost more of Al-Haqq.

Then he said: Every object of worship is a manifestation of Al-Haqq. Those who know it, know it, and those who do not know it, do not know it. The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied manifestations are like the limbs of a physical image.

Then he said concerning the people of Hood: They reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) and were no longer remote. The heat of Hell no longer affected them and they gained the blessing of closeness to Allaah because they deserved it. They were not given this delicious experience as a favour, but because they deserved it as a result of the essence of their deeds, for they were on a straight path.

source

islamqa.info/en/7691

I don't know any respected scholar that accepts Ibn Arabis blatant pantheism.

He is respected for many reasons that have nothing to do with those particular ideas.
He did not mean what you think he meant by either of those statements. I can't give a full explanation here (read his books), but, for example, the distinction of East/West traditions is merely a conventional way of speaking that he adopts with many reservations and he says that there isn't such a thing as either strictly speaking. As for the caste comment, think about what might be meant by "highest" caste as there are many senses in which that word could be used.

Yeah, I've read them. Thing is he claims to objectively expound the "orthodox" doctrines of eastern traditions with no input of his own, and that worked while he was the sole middle man between western readers and said traditions, but now we have actual orthodox, authoritative practitioners of Hinduism, Islam, speaking and writing directly in English without middlemen, and you would be hard pressed to find one that subscribes to Guenon's perennialism, except perennialist converts. Actually there is one and that is Hossein Nasr and that completes the list?
>but muh secret doctrines
He also has a very naive and unscholarly view of traditional religions. He claims that the doctrine of the Upanishads was always the "esoteric" side of the Indian well in the Vedic period, but modern scholarship and textual criticism has showed that the Upanishads are late developments and that the Vedic religion was a crude and polytheistic one, with the metaphysical speculations came very late in the Vedic period. Don't get me started on the Puranas.
Funny how he criticized Blavatsky so much but in the end he himself was nothing more than an upgraded, more intellectualized version of Blavatsky. A fin de siecle occultist to the end.

I mean take Prabhupada. He is as initiated as it gets, a true Brahmin, twice-born. He really thinks that the supreme being is a blue guy playing flute in another "planet"/spiritual plane somewhere and would think that Guenon is a bunch of intellectualized bs. He would call him a mayavadin at best.

Evola has little to do with Fascism beyond being an Italian...

>Hossein Nasr
he's FAR from the only perennialist today―hint: there's a ton of them in academic positions alone.
>Upanishads = "esoteric"
Wrong, he doesn't even believe that the esoteric/exoteric distinction applies in the case of Hinduism.
>modern scholarship and textual criticism has showed that the Upanishads are late developments and that the Vedic religion
and he disagrees with those claims as would orthodox Hindus like Adi Shankaracharya and Ramanuja to name to "classical" authorities. Your cherished academics can yell until they are blue in the face, no orthodox Hindu would agree with such an assessment
>nothing more than an upgraded, more intellectualized version of Blavatsky.
Care to substantiate those claims? He wasn't a syncretist in any way, and I just can't see any points of comparison between the two, but feel free to point out these similarities.

>Prabhupada
You think he doesn't distinguish between the incarnation and the "Supreme Personality of the Godhead"?

>there are a lot of Western perennialist converts in academia
That's exactly what I'm saying. Now find me an Muslim Imam that subscribes to perennialism.
>he disagrees with those claims
Uh, ok?
>Shankara and Ramanuja
Literally lived in an era where textual criticism was non existent. Besides, yeah orthodox practitioners of a religion believe in the claims of said religion. They probably believed that there were anatomically modern humans living on earth (and in India mind you) 3,000,000+ years ago in the Satya Yuga, but we know that is false.
>Blavatsky
The similarities between him and Blavatsky is that he tries to sell his own occult philosophy as "orthodox" doctrine by "eastern" masters, which we know is bs. The only difference is that he was more sophisticated and less creative than her. We know from his biography that he was knee-deep into the French occult circles and he never truly left them.

I know for a fact that his and iskcon doctrine is that the ultimate form of the godhead is personal and is Krishna in his youthful form playing the flute and herding cows.

He was very influential on Mussolini for a while, and the two were close. His essays on race, which contrasted the Nazi view of race, influenced the Italians in their racial policies. The Nazis believed in a purely physical race, whereas Evola believed that in addition to that race people also had a race of the soul and spirit that needed to be weighed. He even made the (controversial at the time) assertion that a Jewish body could have the soul of an aristocrat whereas an Aryan body could have the soul of a subhuman. For statements like these and others Evola was actually disliked a lot by the Nazis, who kept a close eye on him whenever he was in Germany.

You are right in a sense though. If you actually read Evola's work he criticized fascism more than he ever praised it. He was especially disappointed at the direction Italian fascism ended up going. For Evola the only thing that mattered was transcendence and spirituality, and if you look at his more magic-oriented writings this becomes clear. He thought fascism was essentially too materialist and plebeian, but that it started out with so much potential to usher in a genuine spiritual awakening. He has influenced modern "fascism" more than he influenced the fascism of his day.

t. someone who has read way too much Evola.

>find me an Muslim Imam
you'd be very hard pressed to find an Imam who agrees with Guenon's view totally, and the reasons should be rather obvious why. You'd also be very hard pressed to find one who disagrees with them totally.
>but we know that is false.
Nah, we don't know that. lol the things modern academics claim to "know" is a neverending source of amusement.
>his own occult philosophy
Which "occult philosophy" would that be―the one where you encourage people to participate in an orthodox tradition? He didn't have an "occult philosophy", but feel free to define what you mean by this nebulous term and how it applies to Guenon.

I'm a fan, I've just read his Intro to the Hindu Doctrines but it was excellent.

I think he at times was a little too dismissive of some of the merits of western/classical civilization but in almost all other regards he was frequently spot on in his observations.

He did not 'larp as an oriental', that's an incredibly superficial way of describing his life.

1) Many Indians take the view that the legends and figures in them are meant to represent principles and not be taken seriously. Not all Indians take it literally.

2) Even when people do that's hardly a fault and it's not like it's heterodox to believe so. Furthermore, pretty much all Hindus are fully aware that according to Hinduism the avatars and dieties etc are just components of Brahman and that there is just one ultimate reality and all else is secondary. Believing that Rama or Krishna actually were avatars that walked the earth does not really lessen in any way the importance or metaphysical impact of the associated teachings.

He does not "falsely speak for those religions", he just described their teachings. Most of what he was saying was vastly closer to the actual doctrines of the eastern traditions compared to what anyone else in the west was saying or publishing at the time. He was widely respected among the easterners he interacted with. Ramana Maharshi spoke approvingly of him. Just the other day I was talking with a Hindu Indian on /pol/ who said Guenon nailed it.

>Try to lecture westerners on the "true meaning" of eastern doctrines
>Muslim imam: nope
>Hindu guru: nope
>try to co-opt traditionalist Catholics
>specially nope

>personal
I'm assuming you have no idea what "personal" and "personality" mean in this context. Define them so I can tell you how wrong you are.

>now we have actual orthodox, authoritative practitioners of Hinduism, Islam, speaking and writing directly in English without middlemen, and you would be hard pressed to find one that subscribes to Guenon's perennialism, except perennialist converts.

Hinduism is an essentially perennialist religion. Pretty much all of the major perennialist ideas can be found expounded somewhere in various Hindu texts, for example the Bhagavad-Gita is replete with perennial themes.

Personal as against the impersonalists that contend that the absolute principle is the formless, impersonal Brahman. That Krishna is only one of his many aspects/incarnations.

Please go ahead and "refute" what Prabhupada believed and taught.

Except you're reading into it. These things don't actually mean to a Hindu Vaishnava what you think they mean.

It's amusing how westerners that have learned everything they know about Eastern religions by reading Guenon think that they can teach easterners what they really believe. In that you are truly followers of Guenon.

Advaita Vedanta is the only philosophical school of Hinduism that can be made to agree with Guenon, but then again it can be made to fit with anything. But the traditional catholic will run away from it. The orthodox muslim will have nothing to do with it. And the Vaishnava and Hare Krishna will (and do) call it ashuric and tapasic. Ouch.

>Literally says in a dozen different iterations 'all roads lead to me', ' I am the end result of the spiritual life' etc etc
>nah bro he doesn't actually mean what he restates repeatedly

get out of here with that bullshit

>It's amusing how westerners that have learned everything they know about Eastern religions by reading Guenon think that they can teach easterners what they really believe

Nice projection there. The truth, which most fans of Guenon seem to be aware of in my experience; is that redaing Guenon and the other traditionalists/perennialists complement the reading of the actual texts.

Tamasic*
That is relating to tamas or the mode of ignorance.

The idea that there is a common metaphysical tradition underlying the worlds religions does not need to have every denomination of every religion agree with it in order for the idea to be validated.

Again you're reading into it. What it's actually saying in context is that whenever Hindus sacrifice to other demigods they are sacrificing to him. Because he's the source of them all. Its not referring to other religions. It's not saying that the demigods are all equally valid forms of the godhead, and that sacrificing to them is equally valid as paying devotional service directly to Krishna (it clearly states later that it is so). It's certainly not saying that all religions stem from the same hyperborean tradition and this one is another, equally valid form of that same tradition. in other words he's not spouting Guenonism. Too bad you can't read a text in context.

>The idea that there is a common metaphysical tradition underlying the worlds religions
Is false. Ask true representatives of said world religions and they will tell you. You don't have to learn about them through the medium of Guenon. Just ask them and they will tell you.
>but muh merely exoteric form
Yeah... I know you love Guenon too much. I used to too. That's why I said his philosophy is better than the religions and the non-existent secret tradition.

It clearly states later that it is not* so, that is, that those who worship other gods than Krishna do so in the mode of ignorance.

>It's certainly not saying that all religions stem from the same hyperborean tradition and this one is another, equally valid form of that same tradition. in other words he's not spouting Guenonism.

That's not what I was saying and that is a misrepresentation of Guenon's views. That's more along the lines of what Evola thought. Guenon was aware of the Arctic home described in the Vedas and spoke about the the Aryans being early carriers of the tradition as the same way Evola did although Guenon did not claim that the Aryan/Hyperboreans started the worlds metaphysical tradition, but rather that it was something that had always existed and was true on it's own and that it was something that humanity picked up on in the same way the Vedas are considered Śruti.

The idea that the end-goal in Hinduism of the ending of reincarnation or uniting with Brahman etc is the ultimate reality that all religions lead to is a basic idea common throughout Hinduism and has been since long before Guenon was born.

The idea that the perennial themes of Hinduism only apply to Hinduism and to people trying to pick between the various Hindu deities is retarded. Throughout history India has been filled with people such as sramanics, buddists, jains, sihks etc traveled across it espousing non-hindu teachings and interacting with representatives of the Vedic religion and later Hinduism. Hinduism was shaped by it's continual interaction with other religions and so it's stupid to assume that Hindu texts stating perennial teachings are only meant to apply within Hinduism.

>that secret tradition that no one save perennialist are part of
Lol let's assume for one second that the view that you are taking here, namely that "perennialist teachings" contained in Hinduism, applies to the whole of Hinduism. In order for Guenon to be right, this would have to be recognized by orthodox leaders of all traditionalist religions of the world. Try asking an Muslim imam whether he thinks that the Koran is merely an exoteric expression of the perennial tradition, on par with pagan religions. You will find yourself in an uncomfortable and skewed position of trying to explain to him that you, a westerner with a passing interest in the subject, who doesn't even know Arabic, is going to teach him what Islam is "really all about", because you have learned about it in a book by some French guy. It ain't gonna happen kiddo.

I'm going to leave y'all now with one advice. If you truly love this, convert, get "initiated" if you will, to one "path" that you really like and leave Guenon behind. Treat him as an old pal, one that taught about really interesting stuff but you ultimately parted ways with.

>skewed
Awkward*
Damned modern Kali Yuga phone.

>tho the whole of Hinduism
And not just possibly, maybe, Advaita Vedanta, a very minor sect mostly popular with westerners.

>that secret tradition that no one save perennialist are part of

That's a generalization and misrepresentation of Guenon. He largely seems to have believed that the metaphysical tradition was not very esoteric or secret and that the only thing preventing their widespread understanding in the west was the western mentality itself and not the fact that the teachings themselves were hidden away and made inaccessible.

>Try asking an Muslim imam whether he thinks that the Koran is merely an exoteric expression of the perennial tradition, on par with pagan religions.

Guenon did not claim that. While he certainly would probably say that many sufi groups were esoteric he did not claim that the metaphysical truth of Islam was hidden by exoteric doctrines. Perennialism is not about there being only one truth that the eastern religions hide through coded messages, it's about how most of the religions speak to a common metaphysical truth, which is something that is usually affirmed at most international interfaith events and congresses, if not in those exact terms.

>I'm going to leave y'all now with one advice. If you truly love this, convert, get "initiated" if you will, to one "path" that you really like and leave Guenon behind. Treat him as an old pal, one that taught about really interesting stuff but you ultimately parted ways with.

I get the sense that this advice would only come from someone who was overly attached to Guenon. I'm not and so I have no need of it but I'm glad that you seem to have worked out your own problem.

Why does Guenon cause so much salt? It's kind of unexpected. Same thing happened the other thread. He doesn't strike me as that kind of author, but people seem to get really salty over him. What gives?

Westerners who have sentimental attachments to Christianity often react angrily and emotionally when they hear of someone criticizing it and saying that it is inferior or lacking in some aspects compared to the eastern teachings. You also have people who identify with western culture who aren't even Christians or very religious but who draw ignorant conclusions about Hinduism/Buddhism/Islam etc and when they hear a westerner praising them they assume he is stupid because they have not bothered to educate themselves about the subjects he talks about.

I like /pol/ and browse it often but a toxic attitude people seem to sometimes pick up from it is to take the attitude that anytime someone takes the view that the west isn't automatically superior in something to the east that they are being a 'cuck' etc. This causes a knee-jerk reaction where people discount views without taking the time to fully consider them.

Of course this doesn't explain everyone's reaction but I think this is a large part of it.

I think there's another group of people who just can't fathom that someone would promote a view that falls outside of the "scholarly academic consensus".

bump

>: if they had turned away from their worship of [their idols] Wudd, Siwaa’, Yaghooth and Ya’ooq,
sounds like the Cthulhu mythos

>A fin de siecle occultist to the end.
exactly. see the previous thread for further details.

you guys need to give it a rest. Guenon is not an "occultist". Well, define "occultist" so we can see what vague notion you associate with the term and then we'll see.

>give it a rest
>extremely fringeg subject almost nobody knows/cares about
Wow. Relentless campaign againt the mullah-guru-saint of NEETs.

>extremely fringeg subject almost nobody knows/cares about
That's the weird part. He's such a fringe subject it's bizarre that he elicits this kind of reaction on this board consistently. Same thing happened in the other thread. I genuinely don't get it.

Anyway, here's an essay about him written by Evola:
juliusevola.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/28-ren-gunon-a-teacher-for-modern-times.pdf

obscure swedish sufi artist bump

obscure armenian dance teacher bump

obscure german cathar-larper bump

you mean Rene's bumchum and "master"?

yeah, problem?

obscure french esotericist bump

bump

obscure french shaivist musicologist bump

obscure romanian trickster turned orthodox priest bump

obscure pseudo-gnostic jewess bump

obscure italian parmenidean-existentialist jew bump

obscure german banker bump

Why do fascists always look so weird?

But didn't Himmler like Evola?

pretty sure he had him banned from lecturing in germany

>guenon
>fascist
is this bait?

hardly that obscure, and don't forget pedophile.

double check the source documents, m8...

really? source?

wat

I don't like the orientalist slant of Guenon and Evola because it gave birth to full blown mentally ill retards like Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano.

>Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano.
i was not aware of the fact that evola and guenon were direct influences on those two. source? anyway you cant really blame guenon and evola for autists being autists

>Miguel Serrano.
he actually wrote a couple good books.
>The Serpent of Paradise
>El/Ella
>A Record of Two Friendships

There are a number of different SS reports, and they don't necessarily agree on Evola, and they don;'t necessarily indicate what "measure" were eventually taken in his case. In any case, it would seem that he did enjoy some high level support in that organisation. Read the introduction here carefully: evolaasheis.wordpress.com/
Search for Himmler if you suffer from ADD.
Also see this report: web.archive.org/web/20150324012149/http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id6.html

ok then, but that post was asking about danielou not evola. i googled "alain danielou pedophilia" and nothing came up

Miguel Serrano is one of the worst writers I managed to stumble upon.
>read Hitler and the Last Avatar
>YOU SEE I MAY LIVE IN CHILE BUT BELIEVE ME I'M ACTUALLY A PURE ARYAN, MY GREAT-GRANDMOTHER'S DOG EVEN HAD A GERMANIC NAME
Veeky Forums /int/ tier insecurity right off the bat. I should've ended there, but then the real crazy starts:
>Hitler was a penultimate incarnation of some streetshitter deity
>Gnostic ramblings about the world being ruled by the Demiurge who created niggers and kikes and all the other subhumans
>Aryans were originally Hyperboreans who reproduced telepathically but then they racemixed with the niggers somehow
>on the final day of the Kali Yuga, Adolf Hitler will fly an UFO flying saucer out of his Antarctic base covering up the access to hollow Earth
I'm actually very sympathethic to real national socialism and if Hitler lived long enough to read the ramblings of this monumental Sudaca faggot he would''ve had him caned publicly in a second.

i know last avatar is a totally other category of book. trust me those books i mentioned are surprisingly good. you would think it's a totally different author.

you don't know a lot about the man in that case. he was a notorious pederast and apologist for all manner of degeneracy.

i never claimed to know a lot about him. sources for your claims?

what's the point of all these allegations if you can't substantiate them? I would really be interested to see more info but if you just made all that up then pic related...idgi man

Serrano is legally retarded

Wtf are you on?

>Sudaca
CHI

like i said, those books are completely different. you wouldnt believe it's the same author. there have been a lot of nutty artists, novelists, and poets in history but the fact that they were nutty doesnt diminish the quality of their work

you can google around in French, don't be a gimp. otherwise there's some glimpses in these obits and articles:
independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-alain-danielou-1391815.html
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350992bdc4.html?eng=y

sorry i don't see any "glimpses" in either article.

let's see:
>revisionist view of homosexuality
>flamboyant homosexual/pederast himself
>legitimisation of transgression, both in theory and practice
but whatever floats your boat. I don't min his writings, certainly they're thought-provoking, but one needs to know the man as well as the writings...

>revisionist view of homosexuality
why is this relevant? im asking for sources on him being a pedophile
>flamboyant pederast himself
sources please
>legitimisation of transgression
irrelevant

stop making unsubstantiated claims

obscure russian autist bump

obscur gnostic clergyman bump

>that one autist who has been trying to derail the thread from the beginning and keeps getting BTFO

get a life

same thing happened last thread

obscure italian guenonian and sufi bump