What are some other authors like Evola/Guenon/etc, but more like Evola than Guenon, if that makes sense? Most people here seem to prefer the more traditional traditionalists but I find Evola's views much more compelling than, say, Zolla's.
Also I was watching this today youtube.com/watch?v=rp_xQuz2A-Y and he mentions somewhere that Evola thinks warfare should ideally be individual champions fighting eachother, not even to the death, rather than anonymous mass warfare where death is totally meaningless and people have no chance to fight back. Does anyone know where Evola talks about this specifically? Or can anyone recommend similar sentiments in other thinkers?
Evola repeats the idea that war has become mechanical and soulless in several of his major works, although if you haven't read Metaphysics of War, you should. It's his 2nd best book imo. As for your first question: read Plato, Nietzsche, and Spengler. If you have too much free time check out Savitri Devi.
Camden Hill
what about evola over guenon? Guenon was sort of a general esotericist where as Evola sort of created his own canon through years of study
>Mussolini was afraid of Evola's magical powers Well, everyone also knows that it was Mussolini to put an end to Aleister Crowley's experiment in the Abbey of Thelema.
Jaxson Davis
Andras Lazslo
Julian Hall
Politically, FP Yockey's Imperium.
Oliver Jones
You may not be ready for this man, but hes even more extreme than Evola.
why do you keep saying Lazslo when it's Laszlo? the main problem with Laszlo is that there aren't many translations of his works out there
Benjamin Stewart
Evola deviated from the principles of the traditionalist school and destroyed the spirit of Guenon's ideas. There are not more intellectuals like Evola because the one's who have read and properly understood Guenon would never go the way that Evola did
No idea. Though, he was very much against the modern cult of the author, it that is the right way to phrase it. He hated any notion of tying in the biography of an individual to their thought.
Is it the collected writings of the Ur Group or just a selection?
Isaac Ward
It's volume 2 of 3 of Intro to Magic.
Levi Anderson
Yes, these are the volumes of the collected writings of UR.
Daniel Green
I recommend If You Give A Mouse A Cookie. It's probably about at your intellectual level if you take Julius Evola seriously as a thinker.
Logan Taylor
Epic ownage!!!
Caleb Murphy
I wouldn't call Serrano "extreme". He is way more esoteric than Evola tho. Very interesting and unique prose. NOS is a fun read but hard to decipher if you're not familiar with Serrano and his ideas.
Grayson Morales
Probably says that in “the metaphysics of war”
Other similar thinkers may be Mircea Eliade, Alain Danielou, Georges Dumezil, Vico, Donoso Cortes, Codreanu, de Maistre, Joseph Campbell
This is BS. Evola and Guénon were friends and correspondents but differed over differences in beliefs. Guenon believed tradition could be found I. Islam, while Evola saw this as an Abrahamic faith (all of which he rejected) and preferred things tied to paganism/European roots. Guénon believed you needed to find a master to initiate you while Ebola believed there were no good masters left and you needed to initiate yourself.
Jason Edwards
Pretty sure he said this in Revolt against the modern world
Charles Hall
>Islam, while Evola saw this as an Abrahamic faith (all of which he rejected) This is complete bullshit and is only repeated by people who haven't read much of his work (or who did not pay close attention if they did); in Revolt he literally calls Islam the continuation of the Indo-Aryan Tradition and writes that it is a complete metaphysical Tradition/doctrine which in his view is superior to Christianity, he also praises various Islamic thinkers through his works. His only objection to what Guenon did was that he didn't want to assimilate into an oriental culture.
if you bother to read Mutti's writings on Evola and Islam (and bear in mind Mutti is a convert) then you'll realise that Evola's views on Islam are not exactly accurate - by his own standards.
I never claimed Evola's views were accurate, to the contrary I see him as an interesting but sloppy scholar who gets a lot of basic stuff wrong despite his hot takes. My only point was that people who think Evola didn't like Islam either in itself or for being non-Aryan are completely mistaken as he both regarded it as a living example of a Traditional doctrine and as being of an Aryan spirit.
It seems you are the one with awful reading comprehension user, the part of the sentence which said "only objection to what Guenon" was qualified by the "did" which came immediately after it, obviously referencing Guenon's conversion to Islam which was already the topic of discussion.
Nolan Young
If you really want to understand Esotericism then its important to understand all the Platonists and Neoplatonists.
You might like A.E.Waite, since he is among the best for modern mystics. I'd also recommend Carl Jung and Édouard Schuré. Obviously, as always, avoid absolutely everything by Crowley, as he is a total degenerate and a faggot to boot.
Julian Jackson
>tfw when savitri devi is listed as "batshit insane" on that one infographic, but when you start reading one of her books, everything makes perfect sense
Jayden Lee
She makes much of the same well-reasoned critiques of modernity/tech/humanism etc that Guenon makes and in some areas goes further than him, and some of those writings of hers are very well-written, but in seeing Hitler as being some sort of divine embodiment or avatar is where she goes full-retard. Without even having to bring up the holocaust, you can't really say he was some sort of moral and just statesmen just trying to fight degeneracy and communism when he planned and approved the destruction of another white and traditional Christian people with a long history (the Poles); the Nazis were planning (and working on implementing as much as they could until they lost the war) to essentially abolish the Polish nation/ethnicity (of some 20+ million ethnic Poles) and make all Poles subservient basic laborers, not a very honorable thing and certainly not any sort of action a divine avatar fighting the forces of evil would do.
Evola's criticisms of Vedanta and him attempting to present Tantra as some sort of superior opposite to it seem really incoherent and strike me as almost stemming from some urge to "rebel against" Guenon's ideas despite him being willing to openly admit being heavily influenced by Guenon in other areas. In everything that I've ever seen him write about Advaita he seems to not understand it very well and I get the impression that he never read much of the primary literature on it (how could he make so many mistakes otherwise); but formed his impression solely based on Guenon's writings about it. The differences between Advaita and the Tantric schools Evola wrote about and was a fan of are really more a matter of minor emphasis than anything else.
His main point of contention is that he doesn't like that Advaita teaches that the universe is unreal, but this is a central point of virtually every single school of Buddhism ever and so it's hard to square this criticism with Evola's love of Buddhism, and also Advaita teaches that the world is unreal only to teach additionally that you are fundamentally the force and reality pervading throughout and making up the world, which is the same as what Tantra teaches; both of them lead to one identifying the world as a manifestation/derivative/part of the same Divine being which you yourself are, so this objection is kind of silly; Tantra teaches that it's unreal in a sense anyway in that it doesn't really exist as a separate material entity but is actually something else, i.e. the Divine being; Advaita just adds a minor point of disagreement on top of this about its ontological status which in practice and in its implications changes very little. I've also seen Evola write that Advaita led to nihilistic hedonism which is complete nonsense because as anyone who's ever read any Advaita literature knows, lust, attachment and nihilism are all strongly condemned and explicitly explained as bad and on even stronger terms than Tantra which carves out a semi-exception for them
He also seems to overstate the implications of the fact that Tantra advocates "action", while ignoring that Tantra only advocates these practices as means to an end to reach the same sort of transcendence of the ego and union with the Divine that Vedanta teaches; in doing this he implies that power and action are seen as the highest ends in the themselves by Tantra which is complete nonsense; and the absurdity of all this is heightened by the fact that he seems unaware that Vedanta explicitly advocates the path of action for those who are unable or unfit to pursue the path of knowledge as is demonstrated in Shankara's Bhagavad-Gita commentary.
>Advaita just adds a minor point of disagreement on top of this about its ontological status which in practice and in its implications changes very little
Are you the same poster who has recently advocated in numerous threads that Gautama himself was some sort of Crypto-Vedantist and Anatta was just some heresy or misunderstanding through translations? Just curious.
Dzogchen tantras, for example, reject the Advaita and explicitly reject the view of non-duality that Advaita Vedanta promulgates. The view of Advaita also breaks a Dzogchen samaya.
Have you noticed your extreme bias towards Advaita and how it has started to absorb all sorts of traditions under it's category and you present is as some sort of end-of-it-all system?
Stop mixing these different traditions, I am literally asking you to leave them alone. Advaita posits a single unified cosmic conscious that all of us are individual expressions of (albeit, unknowing). Mahamudra/Dzogchen and many other tantras say nothing of the sort.
Shankara, who you seem extremely biased towards, is one of the 60 teachers identified as promulgating wrong view in the Self-Arisen VIdyā Tantra,
Easton Hernandez
cringe
Hunter Moore
>Are you the same poster who has recently advocated in numerous threads that Gautama himself was some sort of Crypto-Vedantist and Anatta was just some heresy or misunderstanding through translations? Just curious. I've never claimed that which is a huge generalization, the truth is that there are a very wide range of teachings in Mahayana and Vajrayana concerning Anatta (and which all these sects and sub-schools each consider to be what Buddha actually meant), and that out of this multitude some of these teachings are undeniably very close to Advaita while others are very far from it.
>Dzogchen tantras, for example, reject the Advaita and explicitly reject the view of non-duality that Advaita Vedanta promulgates. Dzogchen of course rejects something which is a different school of thought, much less a non-Buddhist teaching; although there are still many, many parallels between the doctrines of Dzogchen and Advaita, most notably in their ontology, this is not to say that they are the same thing though or that Dzogchen is crypto-Advaita. Also, in that post I was specially addressing Evola's thoughts on the contrast between types of Hindu Tantra like Shaktism and Shaivism versus Advaita and not Buddhist Tantra, Evola mostly focused on Hindu Tantra and it is solely from the perspective of those schools from which he critiques Advaita. My post and the argument between Evola and Guenon that it was talking about regarding those subjects had absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism and was solely pointing out that Evola's contrasting of Hindu Tantra with Advaita was in some ways foolish and lacking important details.
>Have you noticed your extreme bias towards Advaita and how it has started to absorb all sorts of traditions under it's category and you present is as some sort of end-of-it-all system? Stop mixing these different traditions, I am literally asking you to leave them alone. lol, nobody is saying anything of the sort, that is a strawman. Because Advaita literally translates to "without duality" and is fairly well-known it often comes up in discussions about non-dual doctrines, of which there are many in multiple religions. It is inevitable that a doctrine named "without duality" will eventually be brought up as a point of comparison when talking about non-dual types of Buddhism or Sufism etc; that doesn't mean that all those are actually Advaita. It seems like it is you who are upset and reacting unreasonably to people merely talking about Advaita and how it compares to other things. I will continue studying these subjects and talking about them on Yea Forums because I find them interesting, I will not censor myself because some anonymous stranger on the internet has an irrational fear of his precious doctrine being tainted by association with Advaita.
Ryan Robinson
>Advaita posits a single unified cosmic conscious that all of us are individual expressions of. Mahamudra/Dzogchen and many other tantras say nothing of the sort. Certain areas of Hindu Tantra are extremely similar to Advaita (which was only what I was saying in that post), Dzogchen does not frame their model that way, but many other areas of Dzogchen thought are highly similar to Advaita, if you want to have that conversation in-depth (which was not my original intent) we can have it if you want.
>Shankara, who you seem extremely biased towards, is one of the 60 teachers identified as promulgating wrong view in the Self-Arisen VIdyā Tantra, Being identified as promulgating the wrong view is not the same thing as a comprehensive refutation or a detailed explanation of why Dzogchen is more correct or indeed even fundamentally different, if anything the fact that Advaita is similar in many aspects to Dzogchen presents more of an incentive for them to label Advaita as having the wrong views, because it is from other other non-dual teachings that Dzogchen would feel the most threatened by, and would feel the need to differentiate itself from the most; because other schools very far removed from non-dual thought would already be considered beyond the pale of refutation or serious consideration and there would be less of a chance for Dzogchen adherents/students to abandon it for them. The same phenomenon occurs in the writings of Kashmir Shaivism where they don't even consider dualism worth refuting but spend more time trying to explain why they are different from and better than various types of non-dual Vedanta.
Jason Reyes
I am that poster, can you elaborate on how Dzogchen rejects this view, every time I ask posters like you where it goes wrong all I get is crickets, I'm here to learn.
not that user, but you should not read about Dzogchen without having received the transmission. and now that ChNNR has passed, you're shit out of luck as far as online is concerned, so you'll just have to move your posterior and find a guru.
Liam Nelson
thanks, more crickets.
Gabriel Gonzalez
>missing the point this much
Jason Allen
He favored Islam out of the three but there is a reason he never wrote books on Islam, and later in his life his views on it were less favorable. In the early 20th century islam was seen like the west continues to see many eastern religions (though time has revealed it to be less valuable), but he was absolutely critical of the CONTEMPLATIVE and non-active nature of Islam, Christianity, and meditation/ascetic centered paths of Eastern religion, preferring the warrior tradition of action.
Caleb Campbell
Dzogchen doesn't actually 'reject' Advaita in the sense of explaining in detail why it's wrong and where Dzogchen disagrees with it, they just in one text briefly list Shankara as part of a list of a bunch of teachers who weren't right (wow Advaita btfo!), but it's unclear if the author of that text even really understood Shankara's ideas (if they had any good refutations rest assured it would have been posted long ago). The only schools who actually can really be said to fully reject Advaita are the ones who composed long writings explaining why, which was done only by some of the other Hindu Tantric schools (like Abhinavagupta's Trika) and other Hindu darshanas like late Mimansa and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, but you'd have to be conversant with both Advaita and those schools to even really understand their criticisms and to decide if they have any merit. I'm not claiming by any means that every school is under some sort of obligation to write long refutations of every other school, but absent these it makes it much more tenuous and amounts to posturing to say that two doctrines are without any serious convergences. I've encountered the same poster before and made a long post pointing out many convergences but got crickets in reply (only for them to come back and accuse me of the same strawman of an equivalency, and when I wasn't even talking about Dzogchen but Hindu Tantra at that!). I don't want to waste my time but if you are genuinely interested I can explain some of the areas where they align.
Liam Turner
>guenonfag enters thread and begins posting walls of text
This has always been my one problem with Hitler too.
It's almost as if he should have been the avatar but was corrupted somehow.
Cooper Scott
The event is prophesized, but victory is not guaranteed.
Jonathan Richardson
Your pic is a group of young Polish men celebrating the successful installation of a lightbulb
Samuel Stewart
>but he was absolutely critical of the CONTEMPLATIVE and non-active nature of Islam but he also praises Ibn Arabi and similar Sufis on occasion in his books who were really the paradigmatic Islamic contemplative mystics
Connor Bennett
>yfw even the westerner Dzogchen text translator par excellence agrees there are parallels between Dzogchen and Advaita
Guenonfag wins again!
quotes below from Malcolm:
What are the four seals?
All conditioned phenomena are impermanent. All afflicted phenomena are suffering All phenomena lack identity Nirvana is bliss.
You can find these four seals in Advaita Vedanta as well. Just substitute brahman for nirvana and you have a perfect match. It is very hard to differentiate brahman from nirvana. Really, go ahead and try. I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit (I have a witness, incidentally) that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view. His only response was a sectarian polemic "But there is no buddhahood in Vedanta!" Now, mind you, I am not saying that there is such a thing. But when you study these texts, you come to realize, even as Bhavaviveka and Shantaraksita both observed, that language of Advaita and the language of Madhyamaka are more or less identical. Shantaraksita complains in his Tattvasiddhi to the effect "If you accept the nature of things is non-arising, why do you not become Buddhist!?"
Now, again, I am not saying that if you practice Advaita you will become a buddha -- I honestly do not know. But I am saying that when you study these things, philosophically, at any rate, it is very hard to show the difference between Advaita and Madhyamaka. The main difference between them is that Hindus accept the Vedas as self-originated and Buddhists do not. But in Dzogchen we accept that Dzogchen tantras are self-originated, that they arise directly out of the sound of dharmatā. So, this is not really very different than what the Vedic scholars believe. For example, the Song of the Vajra is just the intrinsic sound of dharmatā, the state of realization of Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri in union. Though Dzogchen tantras do take pains to differentiate themselves from Upanishadic doctrines of the atman, these very same ideas get used in Dzogchen in a very similar way -- which is why there is a rebuttal in Dzogchen tantras of certain ideas we find in the Upanishads so we don't run out and say "The Upanishads teach the same thing as Dzogchen". So we can find a lot of parallels in Dzogchen and non-Buddhist teachings.
1) That was after Codreanu's assassination and the Guard's repression by the state (because they were going to win the elections and take over the country legally), and the state's partnership with the rump aspects of the Iron Guard that were just antisemites
2) Don't use smartphones, it's bad for you
Isaiah Hughes
>being this butthurt and insufferable That he openly said they were similar proves my point, I don't need anything else
what is insufferable about you is that you continuously mistake the most fundamental advice in any initiatory path - find a guru - with "crickets", this tells us all we need to know about your aptitude for any such path.
John Russell
I was originally talking about the relation between Hindu Tantra like Shaktism/Shaivism and Advaita. You made the mistake of thinking I was talking about Buddhist Tantra and came in out of nowhere and attacked me with a bunch of strawman arguments saying that I was claiming everything is crypto-Advaita which is patently untrue, I rightfully defended myself and pointed out that in all fairness there are parallels between Dzogchen and Advaita anyways (which I don't really care about and wasn't even talking about to begin with); and to support my case I cited one of the preeminent westerner translators of Dzogchen saying exactly that.
None of that had anything to do with initiation and now you are trying to fall back upon that to distract from the fact that you made a fool of yourself and got btfo. Maybe you shouldn't make such aggressive attacks on people to begin with and it might save you the embarrassment next time.
Is it true you were a student of Sheikh Al-Amin Wallafi?
Samuel Phillips
you are conflating 2 (or more) different people, I'm afraid. Let's not get bogged down. Back to the point: parallels, or similarity - even to a certain degree - in no way implies identity, as you ought to well know. Dzogchen is unique, even in terms of Buddhist paths, and much less comparable to non-Buddhist teachings. If you want to know more, you know what to do.
James Myers
>Guenon & Evola >traditionalists LOL they were just orientalists, just two stinky carpet dealers...
Adam Butler
>in no way implies identity, as you ought to well know. I never claimed that to begin with, that's the strawman argument that was being used against me, I only claimed to agree that they are "similar" or that there are areas of "parallels", which Malcolm himself and others have stated, and which does not mean identity. I have read translated Dzogchen texts already and am well aware of what it entails
No, that's a lie. I've actually never left Tunisia other than visiting Algeria or Libya to see friends and family, it's haram for Muslims to live amongst the kaafirs.
In the Qur’an, Allah (swt) says: Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves - [the angels] will say, "In what [condition] were you?" They will say, "We were oppressed in the land." The angels will say, "Was not the earth of Allah spacious [enough] for you to emigrate therein?" For those, their refuge is Hell - and evil it is as a destination. - [al-Nisa’ 4:97]
There is also the Hadith - "the Prophet (pbuh) said: “I disown every Muslim who settles among the mushrikeen.” Narrated by Abu Dawood, 2645; Sunan Abī Dāwūd
Sebastian Sanchez
What will happen to those kafir who, having witnessed the Prophet's message, spend their time studying Vedanta instead of reciting the Quran?
Nolan Jenkins
so if you are really a Maghreb muslim, why are you always shilling this silly Frenchman, instead of engaging fully with your own tradition? Isn't it kind of pointless?
Matthew Mitchell
Allah (swt) also said: And We have revealed to you, the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ. - [sūrat l-māidah' 5:48]
And there is also the hadith; "The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: ‘Seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim.’” (220; Sunan Ibn Mājah)
So learning about and studying other doctrines (especially those which teach tawḥīd) is itself not strictly haram as long one is still a good muslim and completely observes the arkān al-dīn. Indeed, how are we to judge between them by what Allah (swt) has revealed without knowing anything about them? For the people upon His earth He has revealed previous books, and I find it interesting to learn about them and that they sometimes complement and enrich my own studies in taṣawwuf and the sharia; while not taking the least precedence over them.
Anyone who has studied the works of Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn ʿArabi and Śaṅkarācārya in depth knows how much they align. This is not even an idiosyncratic viewpoint but is common among intelligent Muslims with personal knowledge with such matters. The great Vedāntic text the Yoga-Vāsiṣṭha was ordered to be translated from Sanskrit into Persian multiple times by the 3rd Mughal Emperor (Akbar), as well as the 4th (Jahangir) and the heir-apparent of the 5th (Dara Shukoh) and was commented on by the Safavid sage Mir Findiriski (the teacher of Mulla Sadra). The 4th Mughal Emperor Jahangir in his memoirs recounts many hours spent in conversation with the Brahmin ascetic Jadrup and Jahangir describes that Jadrup was learned in the science of the Vedānta, which Jahangir writes "is the science of Sufism"
Nathaniel Flores
well hoorah for the Indo-Pak lovefest.
Ryan Johnson
What about bacon? You can still eat bacon, right?
Ian Johnson
Sounds like autism desu. Why would god say that? The earth belong to its children they can go where they please and a moon god edict won't change that.
Owen Jones
If one cannot abide by simple dietary restrictions, then how will one ever overcome one's own mind? Allah (swt) knows best, and if anything the Harvard studies about cultural/racial diveristy causing unhappiness and other issues confirms that it is best for the harmony of society that people should generally stay in their own lands unless they are temporary visitors or are willing and able to completely assimilate.
Aiden Bennett
Kek pretty ironic when muslim spread through conquest.
Either way, Allah is but the feminine side of the divine Archetype. Jealous of women, furtive, in love with masculinity. Jehovah is the solar face of the Divine, strong, intelligent, orderly and a great admirator of womanhood.
They are but imperfect sides of a warped golden coin.
Liam Cook
Go away Jew.
Eli Reed
No. I am not a jew but you revealed yourself a dunce. Allah's want for a solar masulinity is why muslims will always be ackward retards.
