The problem with Guenon and Neo-Advaitans

The problem with Guenon and Neo-Advaitans is they explain a false conception of monism, one which is stagnant and reminiscent of a featureless blob. This because they treat the imagination and even processes as illusory. Let me begin explaining through the use of a powerful metaphor.

Let me begin with the true genuine kind of monism. This was experienced by a few like Heraclitus, Dharmakirti, Hui Neng, Joshu, some Daoists, Bergson, and J. Krishnamurti:

"The whole universe is one body that breathes in fractal complexity, which includes the unreal, the imaginative and fantastic since the total is all, and you cannot separate the motion of breathing from the body, since there is only the motion occurring. The imaginative in identity with Infinity is more real than the real."

As you can see, this is pointing to how real creativity, true novelty, has its source in the primordial Infinite. This monism has no "bottom turtle", underlying ground, and instead points to a kind of Heraclitean flux.

Now, let's see what Adi Shankara, Guenon, and other Neo-Advaitans argue.

"The whole universe is one body that excludes distinctions, the imaginative, and fantastic since they are illusory, and the Absolute is an aspatiotemporal oneness."

This is a kind of "lobotomized" vision of the Universe. One where novelty, MIND, and imagination are not important being seen as ultimately illusory in a world of One gray substance.

This fundamental distinction between monisms among the world's traditions has been ignored by the Traditionalists like Guenon, Evola, and more. I think this is because they did not spend time studying thoroughly or talking to enlightened figures, thereby losing all nuance. Even when the mind is pacified, contemplative, wise, and so forth, there is still a kind of singular flow of novelty, a moment-to-moment Oneness where the flower simultaneously flourishes and wilts. To claim there is no flower, no motion, and just a featureless blob is, quite frankly, retarded.

I, as the founder of Neo-Zurvanism, am already a better thinker of Guenon, but since I lack there connections he has, I will never gain the fame or recognition he did.

Attached: guenon.jpg (184x274, 7K)

lol pseud

Learn to actually give a proper response, faggot. What I am pointing to parallels Differential Ontology vs. Object-Oriented Ontology in many ways.

t. jay dyer

Bergson
>well dressed
>well mannered
>shits in toilet

Indians
>rapists
>eat off the floor
>shit in street

Go back to /pol/, retard. I'm discussing metaphysics, and you are bringing down the level of conversation with your retardation.
Fuck off. I didn't even know who that was.

You are correct sir. The empty, whole, perfect infinite witness is a stage along the way to enlightenment. The real thing is when that witness becomes indistinguishable from the witnessed and you have reality as it is.

J. Krishnamurti's notebooks explain it well from a phenomenological angle. When the witness becomes united with the witness, there is a well of Infinite Creativity, a kind of blossoming moment-to-moment. It is not a kind of featureless oneness where all motion and imagination dissipates.

In actually the world-view you describe is just someone who has a rough understanding of non-dualism but who is just too attached to human tendencies and cravings and desire for pleasure and amusements; as a result of which they try to bring their desires into the Absolute with them and then rationalize it as creativity, unsuccessfully. They deserve our pity and help though

Attached: krsna.jpg (214x256, 25K)

The way your gurus describe pure awareness is delusional and sapping of creativity, pragmatism, and much more. It is a projection of their utter vapidity.

This is the fundamental distinction between Mahayana Buddhism and Lobotomized Advaita. People tend to overemphasize and misinterpret Nagarjuna and ignore other important figures like Dharmakirti.

Dharmakirti's nominalistic mind-stream > Advaitan charlatan Adi Shankara

"Scholars" like Guenon spread the misconception all these traditions are united in common metaphysical monistic viewpoint, but even these monisms can have huge differences, which appear as minor to the uninitiated.

you did all these mental gymnastics because you couldn't get a girlfriend after highschool? that some white cracka shit deflecting reality baka

Immediately get your ass back to /pol/ and stay there, uncultured swine.

Yes, the witness is what dissolves the dream of mind essentially. As the dream dissolves all that's left is what is, no more need for a witness. Reality can't be witnessed because it is whole already, you can't be whole plus a witness. The advaitans are essentially talking about an aspect of reality and making that the be all end all when the unmanifest nature of existence is only a perspective but all perspectives are illusions and in the end all that's left is what's real.

have sex

>Dharmakirti'
lol this pseud gets BTFO repeatedly in Shankara's commentaries

The absolute is beyond nonduality. You have a limited understanding.

I have other things to attend to at the moment. I would like to debate further, in a civil manner of course, but I have important things to do, such as dance with my parrot.

Attached: Dharmakirti_Please Bitch.jpg (250x310, 51K)

>forcing meemes

nigger the Upanishads say so themselves and so does Advaita, all these cheap gotcha tactics and strawman arguments are meaningless

No, nonduality is a stage, the absolute is beyond stages. You have read enough now go see for yourself.

see

>This is a kind of "lobotomized" vision of the Universe. One where novelty, MIND, and imagination are not important being seen as ultimately illusory in a world of One gray substance.

That's not what Advaita and the Upanishads teach, they describe Brahman as bliss and the universe emanating from this bliss, you are getting hung up on exterior ontological categorization. Because they don't emphasize creativity you wrongfully assume that the corresponding absence of it is drab gray borningness when in actually the realization Advaita teaches is an all-encompassing bliss which is transcendent to all thought categories. You either get it or you don't.

Attached: Vishnu.png (433x623, 567K)

Where did you get that argument from? The Universe is the particular form of the manifested Being, which comprises in itself the ''totality of possibilities of all manifestation'', so not infinite because it doesn't coincide with all Possibility, only when actually manifested.
The Absolute is not only Being. All that lies outside it, (so in Non-Being) is another constitutive part of the Absolute, and it is here, in Non-Being or Outside of Being, that are all the rest, that is ''all the possibilities of non-manifestation, as well as the possibilities of manifestation themselves insofar as they are in the unmanifested state''.