>syncretism is bad>but there is a hidden esoteric core in every religions that is the same, which most people in the religions do not speak about and cannot agree to and you have to arrive at knowledge of its existence by rational study and reasoningHow is this not "syncretism for me but not for thee"? Seems like meta-syncretism where doing it on the "esoteric" level is fine, which doesn't answer the question of determining what is precisely the distinction between esoteric and exoteric in each tradition, you have to pick something based on your own limited knowledge. Yes I know he believes it's already there, that you don't have to synthesize the teaching, but ultimately that is what he and every other traditionalist is doing because they don't have an objective way of determining what is part of this Perennial Tradition. It's based on a logical study of different religions and noticing similarities and then based on their study attributing them to one source, exactly just the syncretism they despise with the only difference of them not mixing forms haphazardly but creating a system above all traditions (which is an innovation and not traditionally taught by those religions themselves).
>>23626140the problem of syncretism isn't recognizing a subtle truth in other traditions, the problem is in mixing exoteric practices together; a christian praying in a mosque like muslims, a muslim taking the eucharist, etc.As a christian I can say that muslims and jews worship God the creator, they have some truth in their religions, but they do so in a confused and incorrect way. Buddhists also have truth and recognize a ''divine reality'' but even less than the Abrahamic monotheists.
>>23626168I agree with this, but I'm noticing that Guenon does the exact same thing when it comes to the meta study of religions. It's mixing "esoteric" practices together and attributing singular origin because of perceived similarities based on his subjective study and viewpoint.>muslims and jews worship God the creator,Is there another creator than the Holy Trinity? They think they worship the creator, but they don't.
>>23626188>Is there another creator than the Holy Trinity? They think they worship the creator, but they don't.I think of it like Paul encountering the pagans who had an altar ''to an uknown God''. Paul explains that this “unknown god” was the biblical God, the Creator of heaven and earth, who does not dwell in temples made with hands. They intend to worship their creator but do so incorrectly. > but I'm noticing that Guenon does the exact same thing when it comes to the meta study of religions. It's mixing "esoteric" practices together and attributing singular origin because of perceived similarities based on his subjective study and viewpoint.Yeah Guenon was deeply influenced by vedanta so he sees the ''primordial'' truth in other religions as approximations with advaita vedanta's "Absolute'', which is why he thinks that the Trinity is less real than the divine essence. Philip Sherrard refuted him in one of his books, the article used to be online but I can't find ithttp://thechristianmysteries.blogspot.com/2011/04/late-philip-sherrard-and-member-of.html
>>23626236I can essentially agree, but those pagans were in a state of being ignorant instead of willful rejection like the Jews who pray for the coming of the Messiah they crucified. >The second assumption was that every “determination” of the Absolute must be some form of limitationThis seems to be a core assumption that they make and thus don't believe in the reality of the divine energies and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being real and distinct from the divine essence, which is what is apophatic.>But it separates Christianity, and perhaps even raises Christianity above them, in a way that seems to me incompatible (more so than he himself realized) with the theory of “transcendental unity” as stated by Schuon. It's a shame Sherrard apparently didn't fully drop his perennialist worldview when he became Orthodox? I wonder why it's such an alluring stance to modern people. Christianity really breaks apart the entire perennialist framework because they all want to somehow include it, but that just isn't possible while remaining logically consistent.
guénon is a freemason, he was always mentally ill due to being infested with abrahamism
>>23626332>abrahamismMeaningless buzzword.
>>23626188>It's mixing "esoteric" practices togetherGuenon didn't do that anywhere, he is against combining practices, in his view you should practice one path alone or mainly, although it's fine to do so while having an understanding of them being different rivers to the same sea.> but that just isn't possible while remaining logically consistent.You can, but it just involves certain Christian dogmas being incorrect/mistaken, if you are willing to admit this as true then it can be reconciled in a consistent way.
He was wrong about Buddhism.
>>23626299meant to reply in >>23626848
>>23626344all words are meaningless when you don't understand what they mean dimwit, why dont you do some reading and learn?
>>23626849Guenon (pbuh) refuted B*ddha
Gweenon
>>23626848>he is against combining practicesYes I know, hence the quotes. I'm arguing that his conclusions of perceived unity lead to nothing more than syncretism on a higher level even if he doesn't want it, where he's combining many different viewpoints to gain understanding about this fundamental perceived unity.
>>23626848>just involves certain Christian dogmas being incorrect/mistakenHow do you know which dogmas are incorrect or mistaken? It's impossible to accept parts of Christianity without the whole without being ahistorical, adhoc and relativistic.
>>23626889>where he's combining many different viewpoints to gain understanding about this fundamental perceived unity.He is subordinating them to a general conception of metaphysical non-duality, that's not combining different viewpoints as all being true on the same level but is rather placing them into a hierarchy, which isn't really syncretism. >>23626894>How do you know which dogmas are incorrect or mistaken? That's for the person making the judgement to decide on their own based on what they think the ultimate metaphysical truth is.>It's impossible to accept parts of Christianity without the whole without being ahistorical, adhoc and relativistic.So? That's not a real problem, you can do this and it's inconsequential.
>>23626911>adhoc and relativistic>that's for the person making the judgement to decide>So? That's not a real problemNo truth is not a problem? Okay...
>>23626917>No truth is not a problem? Okay...I was speaking about someone who has already decided what is true and is fitting Christianity into the specific place it has in that understanding of theirs. For this type of person, once they have concluded what is true then "truth" is not a genuine problem anymore.
>>23626140Yes, guenon is a crypto-posmodern
>>23626928That's completely irrelevant to what is actually true, and the inability to fit Christianity into their system despite every perennialist's desire to do so is a good sign of the system being broken, because every time they do this they either betray their ignorance of the topic or are just being relativists picking and choosing what suits their feelings arbitrarily.
>>23626946>That's completely irrelevant to what is actually trueHow do you know? You are just saying that but you have no actual idea.>, and the inability to fit Christianity into their system despite every"Inability"? Plenty of perennialists and traditionalists have already done so in fact.
>>23626911>combining different viewpoints as all being true on the same levelYes, it's precisely that. They are all true on the same metaphysical level in his view. The hierarchy only exists in some traditions being more "pure" according to him which necessarily involves synthesising these differences based on subjective assumptions.
>>23626953>>someone who has already decided what is true >How do you know?Because opinions about reality do not determine reality.>have already done soBy ignoring things that don't fit into their system in an adhoc way.>these Orthodox saints were enlightened by [insert buzzword here] but actually they were wrong in every place they contradict me
>>23626957>Yes, it's precisely that. They are all true on the same metaphysical level in his view.That's not true, for example he says that Ramanuja and Shankara are two valid ways of approaching the same summit, although he says that Shankara's is more closer to the actual nature of ultimate reality, thus he isn't placing their two doctrines as being on the same level metaphysically but he is saying one is more true despite both being valid approaches.
>>23626968>Because opinions about reality do not determine reality.That's not demonstrating why their opinion is wrong about reality though, it may well be right for all you know.>By ignoring things that don't fit into their system in an adhoc way.Nothing wrong with doing so, you are using ad-hoc as a buzzword there but in that context it doesn't even mean anything bad.>>these Orthodox saints were enlightened by [insert buzzword here] but actually they were wrong in every place they contradict meThere is no requirement for someone subordinating Christianity to a perennialist worldview to consider a single Christian saint as fully enlightened, much less many or most of them.
>>23626188>>23626140Religious scholar here. The reasons why Guenon does this are historically and biographically complex -- but in short, he is mix of>De Maistre hegemonic anti-enlightenment>Theosophy and atheist freemasonry>Indian counter-europenism and islamic counter-culture, among others.To all of these elements Guenon both reacts positively and negatively, he is an expression of an age where european intellectuals were trying excessively to find rational (think sociological, or dry antropological with postcolonial lens) explanation for other newly encountered world religions. This was after the european theosophers who Guenon HATED but was ultimately made in the image of, who pushed the idea of "religion beyond religion" of a transcendental unique revelation. Guenon was somewhat a step ahead of his peers in that he was a very good hermeneut and an apt conceptual translator; however, after le left Vedanta territory his written works degraded significantly. His anti-modernist works are mostly an expression of auto-immune rationalism. His arguments for "gnosis" as a general esoteric category and nondualistic monism of the emanationst/neoplatonic/vedanta kind are as you remarked syncretism still and simply positions another system above others with nothing other than the authority of "the Spiritual realm" -- which is the same argument Blavatsky and other theosophers used before him to justify the superiority of some traditions over others.In truth, the traces of this type of universalist can be found in multiple syncretic basins, from Kaballah/Freemasonry to Sufism and other strands that genetically tailored Guenon's mindset. It is very underwheling to read Guenon after you become more acustomed with theosophical and religious syncretism from Late Antiquity onwards. What is more problematic is the influence Guenon had on comparative (academic) religious studies especially Eliade who took many ideas from him but never credited him (there is even a letter of Guenon towards Eliade accusing him of this). I could go on but it's late, might check the thread tomorrow.
>>23627007There is no requirement and yet they do this anyway. I understand that they don't care that it's all cherry picked.
>>23627203>There is no requirement and yet they do this anywayWhere? I don't recall them writing anywhere that any specific Christian figure was fully enlightened, maybe Jean Borella writes this but I don't think Guenon writes it anywhere.
