I'm trying to put together a list of people, organizations...

Spiritists (Allan Kardec followers)

>Guenon supposedly
>supposedly
Post the syllogism instead of just throwing insults and vague accusations at him.

Did Guenon fuck your gf? You're anger towards him is simply irrational lmao

Would Scientology be compatible with traditionalism?

no, cults are not trad.

>I am the angry smarty rhetoric man! Somebubby accuse me of not having arguments so now I accuse everybody else else of not habing arguments!

Maybe now we can actually go ahead and talk about the real content of Guenon's work. The parts where he wasn't whinging. Or are we not initiated enough for that?

>C.G. Jung
where

Guenon's argument against Mormonism is fairly outdated. He adhered to the Spaudling-Rigdon theory.

No. There are some good aspects, but Hubbard had a very surface-level understanding of eastern philosophy and philosophy in general. Most of his understanding came from Durant's The Story of Philosophy. For example, he tries to critique Kant in one of his lectures - I forget which one - and it's terrible.

>please present some evidence
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem
>allegedly he might've said this or something to that effect...maybe
>where? can you give the context
>FUCKKKKKKKKKK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU PROVE ME WRONG
Oh it's all so tiresome. Non-trads are intellectually lazy.

Attached: Untitled2.jpg (770x449, 72K)

Would the initiation aspect of it be considered one of the good aspects?

>yeah no. Guenon's, like all "traditionalists'" critiques amount to just spewing rhetoric and disparaging something they clearly don't understand, and then concluding that they have refuted it.
You haven't read Guenon.

>lazy
I think you mean dishonest

Scientology is pure fucking Countertradition.

he was prophetic in that regard

where does he 'btfo' process philosophy?

He said that, if it were to happen, and he thought that was a real possibility, it would be especially bloody.

>supposedly BTFO all these things
>still nothing but a sickly horsefaced manlet that died in his 60's and didn't achieve anything
All religious retards are LARPers all the same. It doesn't matter if his castle in the sky BTFO some other castle in the sky, it's all intangible nonsense anyway.

lol the seething atheist cries as he tries to strike his enemies.

>if I can't eat it or fuck it it not real

Attached: nnnn.jpg (1366x768, 142K)

the onus is on you, halfwit

What did Guenon think of psychoanalysis?

Attached: The Greek Priest - François-André Vincent.jpg (1950x2385, 741K)

Litteral sorcery: You sign in to be analices and You get possessed instead. tldr.

How so?

the onus is on me to make your argument for you and then knock it down? lol

>/x/ has joined the chat

Thetans. By simple analogy to similar myths, Scientology takes the sides of the Titans, of the Fallen, of the Powers and Principalities in high places.
To make an allusion with the reign of quantity, with the dwarfs and giants.

not an expression of timeless truths
not from an authentic prophet
full of new-age spiritism/superstitions/deceptions
teachings come at a high $$cost and not disseminated freely like other traditions

I'm describing Guenon's point of view on Psychiatry and Psychoanalisis as I was asked to. Read Reign of Quantity for clarification. He explicitly likens Psychoanalisys in particular to witchcraft

no i mean, what did he think about the previous islamic invasions of europe by turks, arabs, etc?

He's too much of a cuck to mention them.

Lol what a faggot. Did he just mean that it takes advantage of the patient? I could understand that (though it doesn't mean it is correct as it is the opposite of what psychotherapy aims to do) but to say it's witchcraft just makes himself sound stupid.

Islam believes in witchcraft and magic.
Muhammad had a black magic spell cast on him if I remember correctly.
Guenon kept his address hidden and lived reclusively because he feared some nefarious people were after him using black magic. Which is understandable since he rejected and attacked occult/theosophical/freemason groups he used to belong to.

Arent thetans and man being a spiritual being something that is closer to tradition than house and garden atheism?

>not an expression of timeless truths
Isnt the idea of man being a spiritual being with whose greatest enemy being their own ignorance such a timeless truth?

>not from an authentic prophet
For the traditionalist what is the measure of a true prophet?

>full of new-age spiritism/superstitions/deceptions
I admit I dont know enough about traditionalism to be able to talk about new age spiritism and the like.

>teachings come at a high $$cost and not disseminated freely like other traditions
Could this not be a form of gate-keeping in the same way that requiring asceticism and renunciation of material pleasures is in other religions?

Not just that But in part.
He considers being a psychiatrist as a counter-initiation process in which all doors in your mind that go "up" are closed and all doors that go "down" are kept wide open. Psychiatry as a patient is a similar experience.

>spiritual being
To Guenon, Negative Spiritual beings exist, so you don't just have to believe in the Spirit World You have to be allies with the right Ones.

To clarify, countertradition to him isn't being atheist but being a Satanist

How did Guenon BTFO Kant? Doesn't sound like anyone ITT can form an argument

Being close to theism/atheism isn't the point, there are many cults that are theistic but not trad (mormonism/gnosticism/freemasonry/etc)

>Isnt the idea of man being a spiritual being with whose greatest enemy being their own ignorance such a timeless truth?
Scientology is ignorance that keeps it's real teachings behind a pay-wall.
The devil often mixes truth with fiction, it's not surprising.

>real prophet
he would need to have real prophecies that come to fruition, he would have to speak with authority from God, perform miracles, all while embodying all the virtues of God, humility, generosity, self-sacrifice, honesty, etc. LRH life was marked with vice and deception.

>Could this not be a form of gate-keeping in the same way that requiring asceticism and renunciation of material pleasures is in other religions?
No traditionalist system requires asceticism as a means of receiving important teachings, salvation or self-improvement. Asceticism might be a calling for a select few who are predisposed to it and they would join monasteries or special orders to practice it. And they don't give their money to the order, they do what they please with it, give it to charity, or their family. It's totally voluntary and optional not built into the default system for laymen.

>666
How about you read Guenon instead of having seizures about what he 'might've' said.

i don't think he dedicated much time to btfoing only to theosophy and spiritualism, otherwise its only off hand remarks, from what iv'e read.

How about you make a coherent argument to support your assertations you brain-dead retard

how was he able to reconcile hinduism with islam belief of witchcraft/magic bad, when most muslims/abrahamics dislike hindus for precisely this reason

what assertions?

Read OP retard

the unity between islam and hinduism is at the transcendental level of the Absolute, not their exoteric practices/rituals/rites.

most muslims think hindus are polytheists and commit idolatry, that's where the dislike comes from.

>make a coherent argument to support your assertations
>read OP
I'm not OP so I didn't make that assertion.

>Scientology is ignorance that keeps it's real teachings behind a pay-wall.
No worries.

>he would need to have real prophecies that come to fruition, he would have to speak with authority from God, perform miracles, all while embodying all the virtues of God, humility, generosity, self-sacrifice, honesty, etc
Does this create issues for say Islam then or is it more of they just have to meet some of these factors and not all of them?

>No traditionalist system requires asceticism as a means of receiving important teachings, salvation or self-improvement.
So would it be correct to say that Buddhism is not a traditionalist system?

does that mean hindus also view psychiatry as counter initiation and why

I don't think the belief in the spiritual world is stupid, I just think that the belief psychoanalysis is demonic is stupid.

Does Guenon expect the masses to be initiated? And as far as Jung goes and all idea therapists are all initiated.

My post was responding to OP you mentally challenged idiot stop replying until you can follow a discussion

>So would it be correct to say that Buddhism is not a traditionalist system?
Guenon didn't look favourably upon buddhism for a long time, apparently Schuon changed his opinion but I'm not familiar with the discussion they had.

>Does this create issues for say Islam then or is it more of they just have to meet some of these factors and not all of them?
From the Islamic perspective muhammad would meet all the requirements.

>My post was responding to OP
No it wasn't, you said 'doesn't seem anyon

vedanta also requires asceticism

>Guenon didn't look favourably upon buddhism for a long time, apparently Schuon changed his opinion but I'm not familiar with the discussion they had.
Fair enough.

>From the Islamic perspective muhammad would meet all the requirements.
Do you agree with this assessment?

Likewise when a prophet holds all other truths outside their own as fundamentally false does this exclusivity affect their claim in the eyes of traditionalists?

Not only the OP; you targeted everyone in this thread, see

no that poster, but im also interested in the possible link between the traditionalists and jung. only thing i could find that directly mentions jung is a guenon letter to evola
>As for Carl Jung, his influence unfortunately is gaining ground everywhere, in France as in Italy and Switzerland, and he seems to me still more dangerous than Freud because of his pseudo-spiritual pretense. Recently I had to write an article about the deformations of the very idea of Tradition provoked by his theory of the “collective unconscious”.

it is curious that eliade was close to jung. both were members of the eranos group

It was responding to an argument put forward by OP and observing no one in this thread has the basic mental faculties to support the premise of the thread. Disgusting brainlet worms

how do you resolve mental illness then

basically everything that has origins in modernity.

>Do you agree with this assessment?
No, I'm Christian so I don't look favourably upon Muhammad. I'm traditionalist but not perennialist. Islam has some truths and many lies, if muslims get saved it's due to their lucky relationship with God and his mercy, not because of Islamic practices.

If its biological then you can't unless a drug has been proved to work and the side effects are not worse than the help. If it's psychological your best bet is psychoanalysis. Which also includes advocating for spiritualism/tradition if it is necessary and is what the patient is missing.

Kant privileges reason above all else and thinks it can reach the universal by pulling itself up by its own bootstraps, hence his whole enterprise into categorical imperatives and critique of pure reason.
Guenon would say that logic is nothing other than the science of mental coordination, of rational conclusion; hence it cannot attain to the universal and the transcendent by its own resources; a supralogical – but not "illogical" – dialectic based on symbolism and on analogy, and therefore descriptive rather than ratiocinative, may be harder for some people to assimilate, but it conforms more closely to transcendent realities than anything pure rationality can achieve.

Philosophical skepticism takes itself for an absence of prejudices and a healthy attitude, whereas it is something quite artificial: it is a result not of knowledge but of ignorance, and that is why it is as contrary to intelligence as it is to reality.

This is what Kant with his rationalistic ingenuousness did not foresee. According to him, every cognition which is not rational in the narrowest sense, is mere pretentiousness and fanciful enthusiasm (Schwärmerei); now, if there is anything pretentious it is this very opinion Kant promoted. Fantasy, arbitrariness and irrationality are not features of the Scholastics, but they certainly are of the rationalists who persist in violently contesting, with ridiculous and often pathetic arguments, everything which eludes their grasp. With Voltaire, Rousseau and Kant, bourgeois (or vaishya as the Hindus would say) unintelligence is put forward as a "doctrine" and definitively installed in European "thought," giving birth, by way of the French Revolution, to scientism, industry and to quantitative "culture."

The validity of a logical demonstration depends then on the prior knowledge which this demonstration aims at communicating, and it is clearly false to take as the point of departure, not a direct cognition, but logic pure and simple; when man has no "visionary" – as opposed to discursive – knowledge of Being, and when he thinks only with his brain instead of "seeing" with the "heart," all his logic will be useless to him, since he starts from an initial blindness. A further distinction must be made between the validity of a demonstration and its dialectical efficacy; the latter evidently depends on an intuitive disposition for recognizing the truth demonstrated, namely on intellectual capacity, which amounts to saying that a demonstration is effective for those to whom it applies.

Attached: plot.jpg (560x392, 94K)

what would guenonfags say about the symbolism of black sun

Attached: Mann_im_Kreis.jpg (2048x1536, 876K)

There is no salvation in neo-pagan revivalist movements from the 1970s or 1930s.

What about 21st century pagan movements? A lot was passed down in regards to ritual from the greeks

Well there are so many with so many different practices and beliefs, from gay lgbt socialist pagans to racist muscle worshiping pagans.

If we are talking about traditional forms then the best greek paganism would be some sort of Neo-Platonism with some theurgy...As long as you could find reliable scriptures and proofs to back up your beliefs and practices.

>psychiatrist as a counter-initiation process in which all doors in your mind that go "up" are closed and all doors that go "down" are kept wide open
how so
can someone elaborate

He really fucking hated it and saw it as directly opposed to initiation.

good post

This is the chapter of Reign of Quantity where he criticizes it

ignotascintilla.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/renc3a9-guc3a9non-the-misdeeds-of-psychoanalysis-1.pdf

Attached: images.jpg (151x276, 18K)

>where does he 'btfo' process philosophy?
In 'The Crisis of the Modern World'

The same trend is noticeable in the scientific realm: research here is for its own sake far more than for the partial and fragmentary results it achieves; here we see an ever more rapid succession of unfounded theories and hypotheses, no sooner set up than crumbling to give way to others that will have an even shorter life— a veritable chaos amid which one would search in vain for anything definitive, unless it be a monstrous accumulation of facts and details incapable of proving or signifying anything. We refer here of course to speculative science, insofar as this still exists; in applied science there are on the contrary undeniable results, and this is easily understandable since these results bear directly on the domain of matter, the only domain in which modern man can boast any real superiority. It is therefore to be expected that discoveries, or rather mechanical and industrial inventions, will go on developing and multiplying more and more rapidly until the end of the present age; and who knows if, given the dangers of destruction they bear in themselves, they will not be one of the chief agents in the ultimate catastrophe, if things reach a point at which this cannot be averted?

Be that as it may, one has the general impression that, in the present state of things, there is no longer any stability; but while there are some who sense the danger and try to react to it, most of our contemporaries are quite at ease amid this confusion, in which they see a kind of exteriorized image of their own mentality. Indeed there is an exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere ‘becoming’, leaving no place for the changeless and the permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this ‘becoming’, thus implicitly denying true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, namely transcendent and universal principles. One can go even further and say that it amounts to the negation of all real knowledge whatsoever, even of a relative order, since, as we have shown above, the relative is unintelligible and impossible without the absolute, the contingent without the necessary, change without the unchanging, and multiplicity without unity; ‘relativism’ is self-contradictory, for, in seeking to reduce everything to change, one logically arrives at a denial of the very existence of change; this was fundamentally the meaning of the famous arguments of Zeno of Elea.

Attached: vishnu.jpg (300x414, 92K)

However, we have no wish to exaggerate and must add that theories such as these are not exclusively encountered in modern times; examples are to be found in Greek philosophy also, the ‘universal flux’ of Heraclitus being the best known; indeed, it was this that led the school of Elea to combat his conceptions, as well as those of the atomists, by a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Even in India, something comparable can be found, though, of course, considered from a different point of view from that of philosophy, for Buddhism also developed a similar character, one of its essential theses being the ‘dissolubility of all things ’. These theories, however, were then no more than exceptions, and such revolts against the traditional outlook, which may well have occurred from time to time throughout the whole of the Kali-Yuga, were, when all is said and done, without wider influence; what is new is the general acceptance of such conceptions that we see in the West today.

It should be noted too that under the influence of the very recent idea of ‘progress’, ‘philosophies of becoming’ have, in modern times, taken on a special form that theories of the same type never had among the ancients: this form, although it may have multiple varieties, can be covered in general by the name ‘evolutionism’. We need not repeat here what we have already said elsewhere on this subject; we will merely recall the point that any conception allowing for nothing other than ‘becoming’ is thereby necessarily a ‘naturalistic’ conception, and, as such, implies a formal denial of whatever lies beyond nature, in other words the realm of metaphysics— which is the realm of immutable and eternal principles. We may point out also, in speaking of these anti-metaphysical theories, that the Bergonian idea of pure duration’ corresponds exactly with that dispersion in instantaneity to which we alluded above; a pretended intuition modeled on the ceaseless flux of the things of the senses, far from being able to serve as an instrument for obtaining true knowledge, represents in reality the dissolution of all possible knowledge.

This leads us to repeat an essential point on which not the slightist ambiguity must be allowed to persist: intellectual intuition, by which alone metaphysical knowledge is to be obtained, has absolutely nothing in common with this other ‘intuition’ of which certain contemporary philosophers speak: the latter pertains to the sensible realm and in fact is sub-rational, whereas the former, which is pure intelligence, is on the contrary supra-rational. But the moderns, knowing nothing higher than reason in the order of intelligence, do not even conceive of the possibility of intellectual intuition, whereas the doctrines of the ancient world and of the Middle Ages, even when they were no more than philosophical in character, and therefore incapable of effectively calling this intuition into play, nevertheless explicitly recognized its existence and its supremacy over all the other faculties. This is why there was no rationalism before Descartes, for rationalism is a specifically modern phenomenon, one that is closely connected with individualism, being nothing other than the negation of any faculty of a supra- individual order. As long as Westerners persist in ignoring or denying intellectual intuition, they can have no tradition in the true sense of the word, nor can they reach any understanding with the authentic representatives of the Eastern civilizations, in which everything, so to speak, derives from this intuition, which is immutable and infallible in itself, and the only starting-point for any development in conformity with traditional norms

If I remember correctly, Guenon says Jung's reduction of symbols to psychoanalysis was Satanic. It was either in Crisis of the Modern World or Symbols of Sacred Science.

Attached: Untitled6.png (881x573, 231K)

Leibiniz and Confucius retroactively btfoed guenon

how?
>doubt.jpg

read this

Pre-established harmony

how does that btfo Guenon at all?

post the quotes OP

Guenon accepts and agrees with the idea of pre-established harmony. He writes in one of his works that the Kali Yuga is only a temporary phase of a revolving cycle and that it can never affect the underlying harmony and immutability of the supreme principle

the media

Only Advaita does, the later Vedanta schools like Vishishadvaita and later Vedantic-Yogic-Tantric syncretic schools say you can live a householders live and still attain union with God through constant devotion, egolessness, meditational practices etc

Attached: Mahadeva.jpg (266x320, 55K)

Psychologist here. This text gets it right in some aspects and errs in some others.

Psychoanalysis, or Freud for that matter, was heavily influenced by the theological philosophies of the unconscious, such as Schopenhauer, which was himself influenced by Boehme.

Freud, however, put lots of effort into devoiding his theory of any theistic aspect because he wanted psychoanalysis to be a part of medicine, and it had to be accepted by the scientific community.

Schools of psychology, mainly psychoanalytical ones, with the exception of Jung and Reich and some others, tend to deny any teleology to the mind, and even more so anything sacred in the mind. This, however, does not do any evil to the patients.

The analytical process is very benefitting to the people who undergo it. Psychological complexes, or schemas as some other schools put it, are like "knots", and while they last they rob you of your own free will. While you are ignorant of them, they control your behavior to some degree. You may avoid something, or cling yourself to something, and not even know why, or how, until you come to the cathartic realization of why you were stuck in this situation to begin with.

The problem with psychology nowadays, I'd say, is not the discipline per se, but the rampant postmodernism and moral relativism that pervades universities.

Psychologists - - good psychologists - - don't give advice. They operate under the realm of maieutics. Guenon, here, is prejudiced because he does not like anything that may be a highway to the sacred be recognized by anything other than the sacred. What he has is some sort of hipster complex, "I had access to the mind before it was cool, so all these people who are doing it in a way that differs to mine must be a bunch of Satanists".

And I am completely against Satanism, I just think he's trigger happy in his accusing there.

is guenon's traditionalism really self defeating

religioscope.com/pdf/esotrad/legenhausen.pdf

He writes about the symbolism of the Swastika and similar images in the Symbolism of the Cross and Symbols of Sacred Science

>research here is for its own sake far more than for the partial and fragmentary results it achieves; here we see an ever more rapid succession of unfounded theories and hypotheses, no sooner set up than crumbling to give way to others that will have an even shorter life
Stopped reading right here. This man never worked in the sciences and is, at most, critiquing the most bottom-on-the-barrel participants in it, as it the most common method of "critique" used by non-participants in any particular thing. You see """"scientists"""" make the same empty criticism, using the same vapid process, when they speak about the humanities, especially philosophy.

This is another person picking needles up off the ground from the bottom of a redwood and thinking, "If I can hold this in my hand, is it actually that tall?" or worse yet, "Look at how tall I am."

butthurt scientism-drone detected

Pseudo-initiations into garbage fake doctrine is worse than remaining an ignorant pleb

bump

Guénon btfod Leibniz in Les principes du calcul infinitésimal. half of the book is dedicated to dismantling Leibniz half baked theory of infinity

Islam is garbage fake doctrine, but Guenon chose to devote himself to it. Muhammed was false prophet by his own test. Freemasonry is virulently demonic at its highest degrees of initiation while duplicitous at its lowest degree initiations, and Guenon was a mason. How can he say psychoanalysis is a bad initiation (which it most certainly is as originally conceived) but fail to see freemasonry for its similar hubris and corruption?

Because he was probably being backed by the Pallavicini family, who have a weird love affair with using Islamism for certain purposes. Regardless, he had some links to Black Nobility.

Right, at higher levels, masonry identifies Islam as a Cybele cult/artificial religion perpetuated by Templars. Masons are supposed to exhibit one exoteric, preferably Abrahamic religious faith, both to promote those faiths and to cover their own true lack of faith as evinced through initiation into higher degrees. High degree masonic initiations are blasphemous by design, as fallen angels or djinn are callen upon by name.

He sounds pretty spooked, imho.