>>25062551
When it becomes world-denying, arguably.

>>25062551
No, it’s not mysticism to begin with, which Guenon explicitly distinguishes from metaphysical realization (the latter is active vs the former is passive). Its not solipsism either as it doesn’t affirm that there is only one mind and that other living beings are just the creation or imagination of your own mind, it’s also not navel-gazing in a literal sense because they don’t literally focus on the navel, it’s not navel-gazing in the pejorative sense either as its not narcissistic or self-indulgent but revolves around following time-honed traditional methods or spiritual realization that efface the ego and lead to wholesome spiritual transformations rather than re-enforcing the ego or chasing fleeting pleasurable states.

Next time think twice before asking such a foolish question about the patron saint of /lit/.

In short, yes, but I wouldn't wouldn't call picrel traditionalist. He was more theosophical.
The Oracle of Delphi was kind of cool. John of the Cross was peak Catholic Mysticism. Men like Rene Guenon are just theosophists appealing to shallow modern man who seeks novelty, pleasure, and excuses.

File: IMG_1537.jpg (22 KB)

22 KB JPG

>>25062570
> When it becomes world-denying, arguably.

“One encounters with weary regularity a species of modern anxiety that trembles at the mere suspicion of a doctrine being labeled “world denying”, as though the value of truth were to be adjudicated by its compliance with the sentimental demands of an age devoted to comfort and affirmation. Such minds, having confused metaphysical transcendence with a morbid hatred of existence, recoil from any teaching that refuses to flatter the instincts or sanctify the contingent order, and they imagine they have refuted it by declaring that it does not sufficiently celebrate life. This accusation, endlessly repeated, only reveals their inability to conceive of a standpoint superior to the empirical plane, for they mistake attachment for affirmation and agitation for vitality. That a doctrine should deny the world only insofar as it denies the illusion of its ultimacy is a distinction entirely lost on them, since they have already elevated the accidental to the rank of principle. In this way, their indignation serves merely as a confession of intellectual captivity, for what they truly fear is not world denial, but the possibility that the world they cling to might not deserve the seriousness with which they endow it.”

It's just sad that we figured everything out and we don't have culturally held stories about Apollo and shit like everyone did until the scientific revolution. The longstanding philosophical traditions of the world have something to offer us as moderns, no doubt, and Guenon was right to try to harmonize philosophical traditions, but to imagine that they transcend modern le science is not only navel-gazing but actively reality-denying
/thread

>>25062587
> Men like Rene Guenon are just theosophist
He wrote an entire book refuting Theosophy dumbass

>>25062612
No. He distinguished the Theosophical Society as an institution from theosophy as a practice, dumbass.

Guénon's claims can neither be tested nor falsified, which for many of us is a bad thing but for him modernity is trapped in the lowest level of reality (note that it doesn't mean that science is wrong but that he believes that the Truth he is after cannot be accessed through it).

It isn't sollipsism, as >>25062583 rightfully reminds that Guenon (pbuh) believes in a personal realization that necessitates ancient methods - he isn't just saying "it came to me in a dream".

I used to think of him as some charlatan forced into a meme but he was taken seriously by people like Andre Breton, which is surprising considering how opposite they are to each other when it comes to worldview. I don't think a fake would've endured contact with so many great figures. A.Breton only criticized him lightly after his death, maybe he was afraid of him.

>>25062551
Yes. Anyone who says otherwise is in denial.

>>25062639
> theosophy as a practice
In that wider sense Plato and all the Neoplatonists and various Christian theologians were all theosophists too

>>25062657
>Plato
No
>Neoplatonists
Yes
>Christian theologians
Not Catholics ones, which practically ended with Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange.
Theosophy is just another rebranding of gnosticism.

>>25062649
>note that it doesn't mean that science is wrong
yes it is. the fact that you NEED to remark that only talk about what you deep down consider sacred and untouchable.
if scientists suddenly realize there is another paradigm of thought that explain things better, what will they do?. or better, what you will do?. dont be naive.

>>25062669
> >Plato
>No

Incorrect, he situates himself as being in the same lineage of inherited wisdom from Egypt and sages like Pythagoras and Orpheus.

If Theosophy in the wider, informal, pre-Blavatskyian sense is defined as “knowledge of divine principles grounded in intellection and tradition” then that fits Plato exactly.

> Not Catholics ones
Catholic theology accepts Pseudo-Dionysus’ metaphysics as being orthodox though and he also clearly fits the pre-Blavatsky wider informal meaning of Theosophy.

In any, the wider pre-modern sense of the term is not a bad thing at all, it raises the question of what you were even trying to accomplish by bringing it up except to tarnish by a misleading supposed association with Blavatsky.

File: 1723546330430291.jpg (159.3 KB)

159.3 KB JPG

>>25062551
PBUH!

>>25062690
Pythagoras (gnostic) and Plato (Socrates' disciple) are oil and water.
Guneon was all about "spiritual expediency," and considered true conversion to any religion, "meaningless and truly inconceivable." I brought up theosophy because it is gnostic, and inherently holds a belief in “the essential unity of all traditions.” Blavatsky and Guenon share is this doctrine. They think at the heart of all religious traditions lies the same primordial, esoteric truth.
So Guenon didn't like Blavatsky hogging all the gnostic turf? Doesn't make either one any less of a theosophist in practice. It's like Protestants with all their varying forms of heresy. They share enough in common to be lumped together as Protestants, just as theosophists have enough in common with each other to share in their same brand of gnosticism.

>>25062723
> Pythagoras (gnostic) and Plato (Socrates' disciple) are oil and water.
So? If that’s supposed to be some kind of rebuttal that’s just a non-sequitur which doesn’t contradict or refute any claim made about Plato also fitting classic theosophy patterns.

>Guenon was all about "spiritual expediency," and considered true conversion to any religion, "meaningless and truly inconceivable.
That quote is specifically said only in relation to the person who already intellectually comprehends the essential unity of Tradition, he never denies that conversion is meaningful or conceivable for your average person or pleb (or has an average-quality intellect) who is clueless about such matters.

>So Guenon didn't like Blavatsky hogging all the gnostic turf?
No, he critiqued her specifically for making up her own pseudo-metaphysical ideas which are not actually taught by eastern doctrines, for not being rooted in any authentic initiation, and for whenever she did mention authentic eastern ideas she often distorted them though a western moralist evolutionist lenses.

>Doesn't make either one any less of a theosophist in practice.
So? in the pre-blavatsky sense of the term Guenon, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Pseudo-Dionysis and others are all theosophist which is not even a bad thing. In the Blatavasky sense of the term Guenon completely rejects and even refutes that.

You are contradicting yourself by acknowledging that Guenon rejects the Blavatskyian sense of theosophy and only adheres to it in the wider informal sense shared by many earlier notable western philosophers and metaphysicians but then you revert back to trying to using it as a negative pejorative despite the earlier pre-Blavatsky sense having zero negative connotations.

>>25062690
Acts 17:16, 23, 34
>Now whilst Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred within him, seeing the city wholly given to idolatry.
>For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:
>But certain men adhering to him, did believe; among whom was also DIONYSIUS, THE AREOPAGITE, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
Pseudo-Dionysus is trying to relate his writings with the Dionysus mentioned in Acts. It is no coincidence he appears in the same chapter on St. Paul referring to the Unknown God. Pseudo-Dionysus, regardless of his belief in the humanity, divinity, life, death and resurrection of Christ, wrote on God through negation, in the spirit of the unknowable, the esoteric...There is something much more akin in such gnosticism as with Manichaeism or the Kabbalah, than with theosophy, although they both deal in the esoteric.
Pseudo-Dionysus may have been genuine, he may have been a fraud, but never had any effect on changing the Church's doctrines and dogmas, those especially dealing with Christology or concerning the last things: death, judgement, heaven and hell.

>>25062657
Saying Plato was a theosophist is like saying Newton was an alchemist. Sure, it's true, but that doesn't lend any more credibility to theosophy or alchemy.

>>25062782
You're following in the tradition of these spin-doctors and sophists. I've made all the points worth making on the topic. I'll let the lurkers decide now for themselves what is clear, comprehensible, and true.

>>25062796
> but that doesn't lend any more credibility to theosophy or alchemy.
If you aren’t intelligent enough to regard Guenon’s position as credible than your opinion isn't worth anything to begin with my man

>>25062800
> You're following in the tradition of these spin-doctors and sophists.
not an argument
> I've made all the points
which were refuted

>>25062551
>solipsistic navel-gazing?
How do you define that? Because I certainly wouldn't accuse the ancients whom Guenon fawns over of being either of those.

>>25062551
Yes, 50% of it Is just excuses to not engage with the counter-arguments modern philosophy established against that type of worldview,people like Heidegger for example, created a More robust and deep critic of the modern world using the philosophical tools of the modern world

>>25062551
mysticism is partly racial/ethnic and people who larp and go to indian or islamic shit are literally brain damaged freaks and just bad people.
There's a just hatred of your inherited culture, it's folk traditions and culture and mystical quality and attempt to escape from it, you create these distant foreign mystical larp-structures as a means of seperating yourself from your history so you feel self-soverign and never have to come to terms with your self.

>hello europeans we need to learn from the spiritually superior browns
wow so profound

>>25062570
Didn't these people condemn gnosticism?

>>25063554
Not exactly. Plenty of gnostics have thought the material world is totally evil and denied its goodness, as though family, food, and friends mean nothing. That’s the gnostic cope for evil: blame the world, ignorance, even God, anything besides fallen humanity for death and decay coming into the world.

>>25062551
Yep. These people always have the biggest external egos which is funny because per traditionalism their ego, or an individuality apart from God, doesn't exist

>>25063651
I'm talking about Traditionalists

>>25062551
It’s an excuse for neofascists to have theory of their own akin to enlightenment and Marxian theory since all they have is the Bible and Koran. They need more stuff written to give people the idea they have lots of theory behind them hence Demaistre and Guenon in a nutshell. It would be low hanging fruit to just write out “kill communists and foreigners LOL”

is this the Hylic therapy thread?

>>25063554
>>25063706
Nominally, yes. But there's a doomer strain within Traditionalism where it becomes superficially similar to Gnosticism and the Kali Yuga comes to occupy much the same role as the Demiurge.

I think there's great wisdom to be found in the work of the Traditionalists, for what it's worth, but falling into the world-denying trap as some did/do is an error.

>>25064503
Guenon took the name of Palingenius and became a Gnostic Bishop at the age of 23.
>but he left Masonry and became a Muslim! He critiqued (fill in the blank) therefore he's not (fill in the blank).
You lack the grace of discernment if you can't see through this charlatan. He was an apostate, and spent his whole life trying to make his mark on the West by squeezing gnostic thought into Christianity, and every other false religion he came into contact with. Some St. Cyprian, some St. Augustine that one! He's a bigger fraud then Jung. Guenon set himself up as a false shepherd for the sake of his own pride, and any of you buying his bullshit are lemmings.

>>25064719
I've heard similar criticisms of Guenon before. However, Traditionalism isn't exclusive to or the product of Guenon. The Interpretatio of Greece and Rome, the Neoplatonists and others all espoused a similar fundamental approach to religion.

File: guenon.jpg (12.7 KB)

12.7 KB JPG

>>25062583
Why the long face?

File: renée guénon.jpg (43.4 KB)

43.4 KB JPG

>>25065363

>>25062551
Why are his eyes so high up?

>>25065405
The higher up, the better to look down on hylics.