"Yet even now the difficulty remains unsolved, since we must ask how, generally speaking, ignorance and relative perspectives arise. We could find a solution if we were operating in the context of a creation theology typical of religions such as Christianity and Islam. Since theistic religions postulate the existence of created beings (who are somehow separated from God, who is their principle, and therefore are not to be identified with Him), we could attribute to them the relative perspective that arises as a consequence of maya. Unfortunately, in Vedantic monism there is no place for such a notion. Its cardinal tenet is "brahman has no equals," namely, there is nothing outside of it, not even created beings that are subject to ignorance and to experiencing the world according to the illusion of maya. If we uphold Vedanta's Advaita monism, we are thereby forced to conclude that maya, in its irrational and miragelike nature, could mysteriously arise within brahman itself (since nothing exists other than it). This, in turn, would lead us to conclude that brahman itself is subject, in some way, to "ignorance." It is the only way out, but by choosing it, the radical Vedantic monism is fatally flawed."
Why didn't you guys tell me Evola was based? I thought Perennialism was all about sucking Guenon's dick and doing opium. Advaita is incredibly overrated in Perennialism and the basis for privileging it comes out of Blavatsky's Theosophy, whether or not Guenon wants to admit.
He eventually retracted those statements about Vedanta for whatever it's worth. It's actually a misunderstanding on his part which he admitted to.
Alexander Cox
>"Yet even now the difficulty remains unsolved, since we must ask how, generally speaking, ignorance and relative perspectives arise. We could find a solution if we were operating in the context of a creation theology typical of religions such as Christianity and Islam. Since theistic religions postulate the existence of created beings (who are somehow separated from God, who is their principle, and therefore are not to be identified with Him), we could attribute to them the relative perspective that arises as a consequence of maya. Unfortunately, in Vedantic monism there is no place for such a notion. Its cardinal tenet is "brahman has no equals," namely, there is nothing outside of it, not even created beings that are subject to ignorance and to experiencing the world according to the illusion of maya. If we uphold Vedanta's Advaita monism, we are thereby forced to conclude that maya, in its irrational and miragelike nature, could mysteriously arise within brahman itself (since nothing exists other than it). This, in turn, would lead us to conclude that brahman itself is subject, in some way, to "ignorance." It is the only way out, but by choosing it, the radical Vedantic monism is fatally flawed."
>Why didn't you guys tell me Evola was based? I thought Perennialism was all about sucking Guenon's dick and doing opium. Advaita is incredibly overrated in Perennialism and the basis for privileging it comes out of Blavatsky's Theosophy, whether or not Guenon wants to admit.
>He eventually retracted those statements about Vedanta for whatever it's worth. where did he say this?
Josiah Morgan
1972 interview with Breccio Cicciarello
Elijah Cruz
is that the one on YouTube?
Jayden Hughes
Yes, although it's a private video
Wyatt Wright
Way to spoil the fun.
Gavin Cruz
post the actual source and text otherwise it's bullshit
James Barnes
This is what happens when you evaluate something in a superficial manner from afar without actually reading the source texts. It's good that he eventually realized his mistake and retracted it.
>Its cardinal tenet is "brahman has no equals," namely, there is nothing outside of it, not even created beings that are subject to ignorance and to experiencing the world according to the illusion of maya. If we uphold Vedanta's Advaita monism, we are thereby forced to conclude that maya, in its irrational and miragelike nature, could mysteriously arise within brahman itself (since nothing exists other than it). Qualifiers like 'outside vs inside' can only be predicated about dualistic phenomena within maya and from the perspective of beings within maya, beyond maya it's inapplicable as a frame of reference. Trying to say "oh but it has to be inside/outside then" is missing this point. There is no outside/inside in undifferentiated non-dual absolute reality. Maya has no spatial location in relation to absolute reality as maya and absolute reality are not two existing objects that are related spatially, only the latter actually exists. When maya is projected as falsity/mithya it's not necessary for that to be located spatially, not least of all because maya is not an existent object. >This, in turn, would lead us to conclude that brahman itself is subject, in some way, to "ignorance." It is the only way out, but by choosing it, the radical Vedantic monism is fatally flawed." Brahman is not subject to ignorance in Advaita, Brahman is the unaffected source of illumination that illuminates and thereby permits the minds of ignorant living beings to function like how the light of the sun permits a man to go about his activities, while Itself remaining unaffected by ignorance or anything else. In Vishishtadvaita, Bhedabheda, Shuddadvaita and Kashmir Shaivism, Brahman or parts of Brahman (saying Brahman has parts involves a logical contradiction) are truly affected by ignorance/imperception and have a real bondage and a real release, while in Advaita and I think also Dvaita the Atman-Brahman is unaffected and is never truly bound, being instead always eternally liberated and free. >Advaita is incredibly overrated in Perennialism and the basis for privileging it comes out of Blavatsky's Theosophy, whether or not Guenon wants to admit. No, its privileging is because their arguments btfo the other schools
im curious to read about Evola's retraction about Advaita Vedanta. do you know what the tldr is? he made some retractions regarding Catholicism too and said Pagan Imperialism was cringe iirc
Jaxson Hall
>Nothing exists but Brahman, Brahman is unaffected by ignorance >Brahman permits the minds of ignorant living beings Where do these living beings and ignorance take place if it's not within nor outside of Brahman? You write "beyond maya" and "within maya" as if the illusion were existing outside of Brahman. You also write that maya is being projected, for something to be projected it requires a surface to be projected upon.
Noah Bennett
btw what region in USA do you live in? just curious t. midwest chud
Nicholas Jones
That sounds like wordplay and semantics to handwave the inherent contradictions of the system. If only Brahman truly exists and can never be deluded, change then delusion, change and multiplicity would have never come about.
Carson Nelson
I dont know what his retraction is because I haven’t watched the video, I was going off what the other poster said I live in the mid-Atlantic area (pic related), I have lived on the west coast too before but not at the moment
> I was going off what the other poster said I ended up digging through Path of Cinnabar to see if he mentioned it there but accidentally stumbled across some interesting quotes regarding Guenon (from a Q&A appendix interview) I have just enough time to type it up real quick before I gotta go. One sec >I have lived on the west coast too did you spend any time in california by chance? if so, did you feel anything related to what Guénon said regarding California being a secondary center of geological counter-tradition? (I lived there too and felt it ngl)
context: Letter from René Guénon to Marcel Clavelle of March 25, 1937 >“It seems that the atmosphere of Antwerp is something dreadful, which even gives rise to inexplicable physical discomforts; but, there and even for Lyon, like perhaps also the Balearics and some other places of Europe, and for California as far as America is concerned (because it is doubtless not for nothing that so many strange things gather there), I think that they are basically only secondary centers, which should not be counted in number of "turns" properly so called. These seem rather arranged in a sort of arc of a circle surrounding Europe at a certain distance: one in the region of Niger, from where it was already said, in the time of ancient Egypt, that the most formidable wizards; one in Sudan, in a mountainous region inhabited by a “lycanthrope” population of around 20. 000 individuals (I know eyewitnesses to this here); two in Asia Minor, one in Syria and the other in Mesopotamia; then one on the side of Turkestan where there are things as "mixed" as in Syria, good and bad; so there should be two more to the north, towards the Urals or the western part of Siberia, but I have to say that, so far, I cannot locate them exactly. "
Jonathan Flores
> Where do these living beings and ignorance take place if it's not within nor outside of Brahman? They “take place” as a part of maya, the illusion has no spatial location. Asking “where is the illusion located spatially?” is making the mistake as conceiving of Brahman and maya as two existing objects that are both floating in space or that can both be plotted on some 3d grid, which is exactly the misunderstanding that Advaita points out needs to be overturned, because its taking a frame of reference that stems from maya and which only makes sense within maya, and then trying to apply it on the level beyond maya where its actually invalid. In truth, there is just the non-dual undifferentiated Brahman existing without being characterized by any sort of spatial or temporal distinctions. Brahman’s inherent nature projects or casts maya (like a magic spell), and when maya is casted the result of this is us having minds and perceiving categories like spatial and temporal distinctions, even though these distinctions don’t actually exist in absolute reality. The places in your dreams cannot be located spatially and yet you experience them. Maya is another ontological category distinct from the ontological category of Brahman (truth/reality) and not a second existent object or substance. In order that maya lead to us having the experiences that we do, it simply has to be casted by what it is contingent upon (Brahman), it’s not necessary that it has to have a physical location in order to produce the experiences that we have. It’s virtual and not actual, virtual realities have no physical location. >You write "beyond maya" and "within maya" as if the illusion were existing outside of Brahman. When I say that, it’s because Advaita recognizes three distinct ontological categories of 1) absolute or unconditioned being/existence (Brahman), 2) falsity (maya) and 3) non-being or nothingness. This is not inconsistent with when Advaita says that Brahman is beyond being and non-being because by this they mean that absolute/unconditioned being is beyond both nothingness and the normal mundane understanding of being/existence in the creaturely intellect, which is just a part of maya, this mundane being that most people associate with the word ‘existence’ is just a part of maya and not the true non-dual unconditioned being/existence that’s not graspable as an object by the intellect. And so when I say “beyond maya” it means “speaking about Brahman as It truly is (in absolute reality), and not speaking about Brahman as though its subject to or characterized by the categories imposed upon our intellects by maya, but which don’t actually characterize/condition the absolute reality as it truly exists in Itself”; and saying “within maya” means “speaking about things under the false terms or frame of reference imposed by the illusion”
Julian Sullivan
>You also write that maya is being projected, for something to be projected it requires a surface to be projected upon. It’s not meant to be taken literally, saying “casts” as in the magician casts a spell more or less communicates the same notion, there will never be an empirical example that 1:1 maps how Brahman casts the illusion of the empirical realm, because we don’t have empirical examples of something being transcendent to the empirical world because something that is transcendent would necessarily be beyond the range of empirical knowledge and hence not observable as the perfect example or analogy.
Elijah Brown
> That sounds like wordplay and semantics to handwave the inherent contradictions of the system. There aren’t any inherent contradictions in Advaita chump >If only Brahman truly exists and can never be deluded, change then delusion, change and multiplicity would have never come about. Incorrect, because change/delusion/multiplicity have or belong to the separate ontological category of falsity and don’t belong to the ontological category of ‘existence’. Brahman remains as the only existent thing, and unchangingly casts like a spell the ontological category of falsity, which accounts for the experience of that falsity/maya, but without this function thereby assigning that falsity/maya to the ontological category of existence, which only Brahman belongs to and not maya.
Evan Mitchell
Question >In 'The Path of Cinnabar', which provides a general outline of your works, you admit to having been influenced by René Guénon, the chief contemporary spokesman for a traditional worldview, to the point that you have been described as the 'Italian Guénon'. Do your views perfectly accord with those of Guénon? And speaking of Guénon, would you say that certain people overestimate Eastern philosophy?
Answer >My approach does not differ from that of Guénon with respect to the value it assigns to the world of Tradition. By 'world of Tradition', I mean an organic and hierarchical civilization in which all human activities are both ordained from above and directed towards it, and defined by more than merely human values. Like Guénon, I have written various works on traditional wisdom by studying the primary sources. The first section of my chief work, 'Revolt Against the Modern World', provides a 'Morphology of the World of Tradition'. Like Guénon, I have also developed a radical critique of the modern world. With regard to such a critique, however, certain minor divergences exist between Guénon and myself. In examining traditional spiritualiy, Guénon, in accordance with his 'personal equation', has accorded 'knowledge' and 'contemplation' a certain primacy over action, subordinating kingship to priesthood. By contrast, I have sought to describe and valorise the heritage of Tradition from the point of view of the spirituality of a 'warrior caste', and to illustrate the various possibiliites offered by the 'path of action'. One of the consequences of this divergence of perspectives is that, whereas Guénon takes an intellectual elite as the foundation for a possible traditional restoration of Europe, I am more inclined to speak in terms of an Order. I also disagree with Guénon with regard to Catholicism and Freemasonry. I believe Guénon's approach does not fit the mould of the Western man, who, by his very nature, is inevitably inclined towards actions.
>The expression 'Eastern Philosophy' is inappropriate in this context. One should rather speak fo various forms of Eastern thought which belong to a traditional kind of wisdom that has survived in a more integral and pure state in the East (where it has replaced religion), but which was also known in the pre-modern West. if such doctrines emphasise what possesses a universal, metaphysical character, then it would not be correct to say that they are overestimated. One should be wary of superficial simplifications when discussing general views of the world. The East is not limited to that India which produced the 'Vedanta', the doctrine of 'Maya', and the idea of a detached contemplation of the world: teh East also includes that India which, through the 'Bhagavad Gita', developed a sacral justification for war and warrior duties, ancient Persia with its dualist and combative outlook, ancient China with its imperial and cosmocratic vision, as well as the Japanese civilization, which is so far from having been exclusively contemplative and introverted sort that an esoteric branch of Buddhism in Japan gave rise to the 'Samurai Philosophy'. >Unfortunately, what defines the modern European world is not action, but the faking of action, which is to say: an active drive devoid of any foundation, and aimed at purely material purposes. 'They have abandoned heaven with the excuse of conquering the Earth', to the point of no longer being capable of recognising of what genuine action consists.
>an esoteric branch of Buddhism in Japan gave rise to the 'Samurai Philosophy'. does anyone know what esoteric branch is he referring to?
Jack Baker
>Brahman’s inherent nature projects or casts maya (like a magic spell), why is brahman so mean in the first place
Andrew Green
> did you spend any time in california by chance? Yes, but it was when I was young and didn’t know anything about Guenon or eastern thought, it didn’t seem evil or nefarious back then when I was a kid. I’ve spent time in other parts of the west coast as a adult too, I’ve encountered weird situations and people on both coasts but I’ve never felt like it was emanating from a certain location. On the west coast I’ve encountered more schizo people but I think that’s because in the east coast they end up like your average city bum but on the west coast the more relaxed culture allows them to seamlessly occupy this weird middle ground where they are still schizo and homeless but they still deal drugs, carry a phone, present themselves as a hippy and show up to all sorts of public gatherings, shows, parties etc. I would agree though that things that fall under what you might call ‘counter-initiation’ are more prevalent on the west coast.
Leo Sullivan
> does anyone know what esoteric branch is he referring to? mostly likely Tendai or Shingon, there is a popular misconception that all the Samurai practiced Zen Buddhism but I have read before that the aforementioned Tantric/esoteric types were actually more common among the samurai. > why is brahman so mean in the first place I wouldn’t call that mean, whether or not one is born into circumstances that are more productive of joy or suffering is largely the result of one’s own past karma from innumerable previous lives, and whether or not one has more joy or suffering in this particular life after birth is largely the result of that past karma in combination with how you conduct yourself and respond to things in this life, with some natural variation/randomness introduced into the equation by other beings doing actions for reasons not caused by your karma. Brahman impartially sustains all beings like rain falling upon a field, and the positives or negatives of life for any one creature are largely determined by the actions of that individual creature, like how the extent to which the seeds in a field can grow is determined by the type of seed and not by the impartial rain that waters all the seeds more or less equally. Some beings are born into incredible refinement and luxury and have joy-filled lives, because of their own past karma.
Jason Perry
I don't know which one he's referring to, but the esoteric (vajrayana, tantra, etc) branch of Buddhism in Japan is Shingon. Then there's also Tendai, that might also be an esoteric stream, but I think Shingon is the one you're looking for. Typically Zen Buddhism, not Shingon, was the sect of the Samurai, so I'm not sure what this is getting at. In general, esoteric buddhism was for the nobility and royal house, and Zen buddhism was for the samurai.
Caleb James
>but I have read before that the aforementioned Tantric/esoteric types were actually more common among the samurai Interesting (me) Perhaps I'm mistaken
Carter Martin
Attributing different names to things doesn’t solve anything. You belong to the ontological category of retards.
Charles Moore
You consider this Evola recanting on his criticism of Guenon? You're retarded. Guenonians really are a cult.
Kayden Taylor
>everything is fake except le jeetgod nihilism
Landon Cooper
i mean yes, Evola isn't wrong here, the existence of maya is the big problem advaita has articulating their metaphysical system, the oly answer advaita practicioenrs cna give is"is in brahma nature to be this way" which is pretty much a non answer, even other non-dualist practicioner like Sri Ramanujacharya agree with this, here's his 3 argumentens against shankara
Paraṃ brahmaivājñaṃ bhramaparigataṃ saṃsarati - The Parabrahman, (somehow) itself becoming devoid of knowledge and getting caught in an illusion, has become subject to transmigration; Tatparopādhyālīḍhaṃ vivaśaṃ - It has becomes conditioned by some alien adjunct (Māyā) and hence has becomes helpless, (and therefore) Aśubhasyāspadaṃ - It has become the abode of inauspicious (of the interminably sorrowful transmigration; who will be our Saviour, if such be the case?!).
Jason Perez
this
Ethan Diaz
this doesn't resolve the point Evola is making, if brahma is pure being, how can maya exist withouit brahma? the 2 most common answers are: maya is not real, which isn't good at all, since maya stil has being, it must exist in some way, even as an illusion, if maya has no being, we shouldn't be able to even talk about it, the second answer is: brahma just projects maya but is not involved in it, this notion of projecting something is also pretty dubious, because again, maya needs being to even BE an illusion, so if that projection that brahma is giving to maya gives maya its being and brahma is pure being, then that means that brahma is giving a part of itself to maya, thus maya needs to be part of brahma to even be an illusion, thus the problem many advaita tried to resolve, how can brahma be pure being(ultimate reality) and partial being(maya) at the same time
Brody Ward
> Attributing different names to things doesn’t solve anything. Yes it does, because there is only the appearance of a problem if you incorrectly assign both Brahman and maya to the category of existence. However, this is not even what Advaita teaches, so, what you described is not even something that is actually taught by Advaita but is just a fake strawman of your own creation. There is no actual problem or contradiction in what Advaita teaches, there just seems to be if you pull the brainlet move (when done unintentionally) or sophist move (when done intentionally) of creating strawmen that involve wrongly combining Advaita with non-Advaita ontologies. If you actually understand what Advaita is talking about and don’t falsely put words in their mouth which they don’t say, there is no contradiction in saying that what is true alone exists and that what is false doesn’t actually exist.
Christian Sanders
dude yeah I lived in both San Francisco and Venice Beach in the past 4 years and experienced it first hand (this was right before I read guenon) I distinctly remember my first time driving to San Francisco and got hit with a weird force and thought "woah what is this negative satanic energy?!?' true story word, thanks. might move to japan so gonna look into this more >You consider this Evola recanting on his criticism of Guenon? where did I say that? dumb fuck
Kayden Gray
oh I figured you were guenonposter because of the trip (you can go ahead and drop the trip anytime)
Jeremiah Martin
> the oly answer advaita practicioenrs cna give is"is in brahma nature to be this way" which is pretty much a non answer, even other non-dualist practicioner like Sri Ramanujacharya agree with this, here's his 3 argumentens against shankara Ramanuja actually makes 7 main arguments against Advaita (anupapatti), and Advaitas replied to and refuted all of them. John Grimes’ book ‘The Seven Great Untenables’ covers the refutation of them by Advaitins. Ramanuja gives no answer as to WHY Brahman makes jivas subject to beginningless karma and transmigration in Vishishtadvaita, which is practically the same as saying its his nature to do so.
>Paraṃ brahmaivājñaṃ bhramaparigataṃ saṃsarati - The Parabrahman, (somehow) itself becoming devoid of knowledge and getting caught in an illusion, has become subject to transmigration This isn’t what Advaita teaches, Brahman remains unaffected by maya and doesn’t transmigrate in Advaita. This may actually be directed against his own guru, with whom Ramanuja differed, or at other kinds of Bhedabhedins (like Bhaskara), but what this is attacking is not even taught by Advaita.
This is the 'towers of satan' thing right? Not a lot about it in English although I think there is a French book dealing with it. It is interesting that as far back as then someone like Guenon (who I assume never visited) noticed that "strange things gather there". I have been reading lately about this whole overlapping phenomenon of Crowley, Scientology, Manson, The Process, MKULTRA, Son of Sam and all the California and San Francisco connection.
Christian Bennett
>This doesn't resolve the point Evola is making It’s pointing out that the very points he is trying to make are inapplicable since they are based on a misunderstanding of what Advaita is talking about >if brahma is pure being, how can maya exist withouit brahma? Maya doesn’t ‘exist’, it belongs to the ontological category of falsity, which is not the same thing as existence. Maya belongs to this category of falsity because it is cast like a spell by Brahman >the 2 most common answers are: maya is not real, which isn't good at all, since maya stil has being, it must exist in some way, even as an illusion Wrong, this is incorrect, the category of falsity/illusion accounts for maya being experienced, falsity is distinguished from complete nothingness because falsity or an illusion can actually can present itself in experience as *falsely* appearing to be real, while nothingness is not even encountered in experience and is incapable of presenting itself in experience. Only what is real has being/existence; the false has no being/existence but is distinguished from nothingness because the former can appear as illusion while the latter can’t.
When you say “maya has to have existence/being if its not nothingness”, that is actually you committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, which refutes yourself. Advaita teaches the 3-way ontological distinction of absolute being/ falsity / nothingness. When you say “maya has to have being if its not nothingness”, that is simply citing the conclusion you are attempting to prove as the reason why that conclusion true, which is circular reasoning and doesn't refute anything. It’s impossible to refute or demonstrate a contradiction in the 3-way model by using an argument that presupposes or relies on an a priori assumption that it’s wrong (as you did in your post), because this amounts to circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. >if maya has no being, we shouldn't be able to even talk about it Wrong, because falsity and nothingness are not identical but are instead separate ontological categories >because again, maya needs being to even BE an illusion another example of you committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning >so if that projection that brahma is giving to maya gives maya its being and brahma is pure being, then that means that brahma is giving a part of itself to maya When Brahman casts maya, its not giving maya being, its casting/projecting maya *as* the ontological category of falsity, which is neither true being nor nothingness, its illusory/false nature is precisely what separates it from being and nothingness
It’s too bad a lot of Guenon’s schizo shit remains untranslated from French. There used to be this Greekfag in France who used to give us all qrd on this type of Guenon content.
Justin James
Tell us more about the other connections to the counter-initiation
Jaxon Gonzalez
The Advaita Vedanta model of:
Brahman (absolute being) =\= maya (falsity) =\= nothingness can be rendered as:
A =\= B =\= C
When some fallaciously tries to refute this by saying:
“b-b-but maya/falsity has to have being/existence, even as an illusion, it cannot be its own distinct category”
That amounts to saying:
B HAS to be included within A, it can’t be distinct from both A & C
But since the above argument was originally intended to disprove that A =\= B =\= C, it amounts to the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, since it’s just citing the conclusion it wants to prove true as the reason why that conclusion is true, which is circular and proves nothing but the foolishness of the person who says it.
You did your usual word play, that I agree. But the only thing that got refute was advaita again
Justin Reyes
>Guénonfag getting BTFO’d Literally has never happened
Asher Gutierrez
> But the only thing that got refute was advaita again With what argument? The only thing people had in this thread was either: 1) the logical fallacy of circular reasoning 2) a strawman whereby Advaita ontology is combined with a non-Advaita ontology and the resulting non-Advaita syncretic product of this illegitimate mixing is attacked, which doesn’t harm Advaita
Cameron James
Well you have Crowley establishing an O.T.O lodge in Californa and appointing Jack Parsons to it who was buddies with L.Ron Hubbard, they both performed something known as the Babalon Working out in the desert, which coincided with the first spate of UFO sightings. Later on Hubbard of course goes on to found Scientology, in England two Scientologists split off and The Process Church of The Final Judgement, which shifts to California, Sanfran, and increasingly becomes explicitly Satanic in its teachings (rumoured to have produced some purely Satanic splinter groups, one known as 4P). Meanwhile Charles Manson learns all about Dianetics while in jail, is moved to Sanfran by his Parole Officer when he gets out, starts frequenting a Medical Clinic which is later revealed to be a front for the CIA's MKULTRA research, and lives a street down from the Process, writes for their Magazine, and in later interviews claims that he and the Processes' leader are "one and the same" presumably metaphorically. The Process Changes its name and relocates to NYC after Manson Murders bring them in to the public eye, they integrate in to the Occult scene of NY fairly rapidly, while continuing to produce splinter groups. There might be a connection with the cult David Berkowitz claimed to be part of, but its much harder to pin down the East Coast stuff, however it is claimed that the the killing of Arlis Perry back in Standford California, just south of Sanfran, is tied in to all this. This isn't even to mention Church of Satan and then its spin off Temple of Set coming out of Sanfran also.
Ryder Green
Redpill me on Process Church
Charles Wilson
Advaita has no ontology outside of coping itself with words, because the existence of maya contradicts the absolute nature of brahman. This, of course, without raising tbe question of how does advaita prove the existence of brahman in the first place. (It never does)
Luke Johnson
Seraphim Rose does mention in Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future that the occult center in Cali is Mount Shasta.
Jaxson Rogers
I’m quite redpilled on all that stuff Where do you feel the counter-initiatory forces are today? It seems like all those organizations are kind of jokes Alex Jones said on Joe Rogan that its breakaway/rogue elements within the CIA and they’re mostly in San Francisco
Tyler Green
Apocalyptic spin off from Scientology that believed God had been shattered into four fragments, Jehova, Lucifer, Satan, and Christ. People had to work through all four stages (This is the titular "Process") to reunify God within themselves. So when you went through the Satan stage you were meant to act Satanically, engage in dangerous activities and anti-establishment actions. They have undergone multiple different restructurings since their beginnings within Scientology, these days they are Best Friends Animal Shelter or something, lol. It seems to be that the main "orthodox" line of the process itself was mostly a big Larp, but that it started producing little off-shoots, closed groups that recruited from within the broader church, and some of these groups were strictly dedicated to Satan and turned violent.
This is about all I know, and its hard to separate what is bullshit, from what is truth, and what is hysterical misunderstandings from outsiders. I think what is most interesting about these times and places is not so much the doctrines of any specific groups but the overlap. A lot of people coming and going between multiple groups and institutions. Anywhere else in the world knowing that one cult lived nearby would be weird enough, but you could trip over 3 of them walking down the street in California at one point.
Grayson Sanchez
My weak guess is just to suggest the Internet as the primary location, since it seems to be the point of exchange for every other type of information.
As for a geographical location I haven't a clue. I just started reading about this stuff fairly recently. Maybe you have an idea?
Grayson Butler
Are there good books that explore the link between the Samurari and Vajrayana Buddhism (Shingon, Tendai) as well as Zen
>Advaita has no ontology outside of coping itself with words Yes it does, the Advaita ontology separates absolute existence/being vs falsity vs nothing, and within the realm of falsity are further various cosmological and epistemic sub-categories. >because the existence of maya contradicts the absolute nature of brahman. No it doesn’t, that’s wrong, because maya doesn’t exist, maya is instead just simply false, which isn’t existence. Only Brahman exists, what is false (maya) and what doesn’t exist (maya) cannot possibly contradict what is true (Brahman) and what has existence (Brahman). Have you even paid attention to what was posted in this thread? >This, of course, without raising tbe question of how does advaita prove the existence of brahman in the first place. (It never does) It doesn’t have to prove Brahman’s existence in order to remain logically consistent. The Absolute has to be personally realized and discovered within oneself in spiritual realization, you can’t take a shortcut to enlightenment through logical proofs, that’s fake pseudospirituality. Not a single religion or religious tradition proves all of their claims either but they all make unfalsifiable metaphysical claims, this is the norm.
Angel Ramirez
People have been saying Evola is based for a long time, but I know you're just taking the piss.
Here's the thing about theosophy, they were the first "Coast to Coast AM". They had no scruples, no morals, wanted to believe every fantastical idea and fancied themselves literal harry potters and hermiones.
If you go back and forth between Guenon and Evola enough, you'll come to the obvious conclusion that Guenon was close, but at the end of the day was just a try hard who couldn't fully grasp his concepts. God love him for going down this path in the first place, but everything was just out of reach to him.
Reading Evola is like a beam of light shooting into your brain. He had a certain confidence which came from being closely involved with what must have been a small network of secret lodges dedicated to this school of thought. Evola comes off as the historian of this stuff. Like he was being given topics to write on and unlimited access to ancient repositories of knowledge.
Kayden Taylor
didn't Crowley work for the British government too? And Parsons worked on rocket technology for the US military, and Hubbard came out of naval intelligence. I've seen conspiracy theories that Manson was an agent and the killings were a psyop. Going back further, Gerald Gardner (founder of Wicca) also worked for the British government, and Henry Steel Olcott (co-founder of the Theosophical Society) came out of US military intelligence. Occultism has always had a glowie problem.
