Oeaohoo

@AtheisticNonduality Amazing! I hope that even if you aren’t able to agree with his overall assessment you will still find parts of his analysis valuable and enlightening. ‘Guénon sees history as a descent from Form (or Quality) toward Matter (or Quantity); but after the Reign of Quantity - modern materialism and the “rise of the masses” - Guénon predicts a reign of “inverted quality” just before the end of the age: the triumph of the “counter-initiation”, the kingdom of Antichrist.’ This is the essential premise. Most of all, Guénon does not want to be a “philosopher” with all the vanity and banality that the modern sense of that term, even in the case of undeniably insightful thinkers like Nietzsche, implies. Instead, he sets as his task the simple elucidation of principles; principles which are derived from traditional wisdom and ultimately from the founder of all traditions: God, the Principle of creation itself. One of Guénon’s greatest merits is his constant emphasis on the aspect of inversion: as just one example, the modern understanding of unity as ‘the uniformity of beings denuded of all their qualities’, which is the essential ambition of all progressive political ideologies, is an inversion of true unity, in which all distinctions are included and transcended. The Reign of Quantity demonstrates how this mechanism of inversion has been applied to every aspect of modern existence, culminating in “The Great Parody” which is “Spirituality Inverted”. I could go on but Guénon speaks for himself. I’ll look forward to hearing what you have to say about it. Incidentally, here is a somewhat Leonian passage on the insufficiencies of the scientific mentality: ‘The profane sciences of which the modern world is so proud are really and truly only the degenerate residues of the ancient traditional sciences, just as quantity itself, to which they strive to reduce everything, is no more than the residue of an existence emptied of everything that constituted it’s essence; thus these pretended sciences, by leaving aside or even intentionally eliminating all that is truly essential, clearly prove themselves incapable of furnishing the explanation of anything whatsoever.’

Mr. Volcano has a very negative view of all social, worldly or even human ambitions. That is why he often erupts, laughing demonically as smoke pours out of his mouth and his lava pours down into local human settlements, dissolving all of the pathetic monuments they have erected to their petty ambitions! Joking aside, it is interesting how followers of a spiritual teacher often serve to inflate the teacher’s negative aspects, as I see a subtler form of the same nihilism in Leo’s teachings. It is a bit like the tendency towards “naive skepticism” you described a while back, in which advanced spiritual truths are misapplied to deny more fundamental, if less significant, realities.

If you think panpsychism is baloney, wait until you hear about panprotopsychism!

That has nothing to do with the state of Enlightenment (not my preferred term), only with its expression in the world. I can agree with you though: enlightenment in the past meant transcending all human limitations; today it seems to be more about building muscles and going bald whilst churning out endless “meta-theoretical frameworks”! Bravo to the Sacred Law of Progress! Anyway, this forum has given me what little it had to offer. You are probably the most intelligent person on here, and that isn’t a compliment.

Hahaha, of course it would be… Onwards and upwards we go forever and ever! Even enlightenment obeys the Sacred Law of Progress?! Guénon is making the point that the peak of the ascent is liberation from the cosmos and thus from change itself, the attainment and possession of the eternal. The descent then involves permeating the lower world with this transcendent freedom. Your response is very predictable because you seem to be very attached to “immanentising” the divine.

True, but why not? The world has to be ordered around something. The choice is: God or transgenderism! Take your pick…

You didn’t offend, I was just wondering where you got the 40% figure from.

You demand evidence but only on your own terms, whereas the claim that the relationship between relative existence and God is analogous to the relationship between waking and dreaming is something which has to be realised for yourself. The only possible form of evidence for this very advanced teaching is a direct realisation; this is one of the reasons why this teaching, before the world became so dissolute, was always kept secret. There are many ways to realise this truth: contemplation and prayer, devotion and faithfulness, morbid or active asceticism, anagogical (mystical) study of religious texts, yogic exercises and meditation, and so on. If you aren’t going to pursue this realisation for yourself, you would do best to simply forget about it and move on with your life.

Yeah, that's right! The reason those AUTHORITARIAN ABRAHAMIC CONSERVATIVE FASCIST PIGS want to stop people driving 300mph down pedestrian highways is... THEY'RE JUST AFRAID. THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. JOIN ME in your sports car for the RIGHTEOUS RESISTANCE against EVIL and FASCISM in which we will race through the streets and destroy innocent lives in the name of... LOVE and TRUTH!

My experience is that the only real confidence is one which is grounded in the immutable and unshakeable nature of the metaphysical plane and the Supreme Identity. Incidentally, this is why one of the most significant and universal metaphysical symbols, the World Tree or Tree of Life, is often depicted with roots in Heaven rather than Earth: 'This ancient Aswattha tree has its root above and branches below. That is pure, That is Brahman, That alone is called the Immortal. All the worlds rest in That. None goes beyond That. This verily is That.' - Katha Upanishad, Verse 2.3.1.

@WokeBloke Both of us are only a part of God’s creation - but our ultimate identity and real nature is not other than God. If you wanted to put it poetically, you could say that we are only a part of no part apart.

@WokeBloke I as the human being typing this message am not God, nor is Leo or any other human being. We are all just little rays emanating from the sun of God - will you take that literally too? As we are partial emanations of God, however, it is possible to retrace the journey which led us into this illusion of separateness and realise the true identity from which we emerged.

Language matters but language has different functions. In traditional interpretation of religious scripture it was understood that there are four ways to understand a text: literally, socially, philosophically and “anagogically”. This funny last word refers to “a mystical interpretation of a word, passage, or text, especially scriptural exegesis that detects allusions to heaven or the afterlife.” The teaching that we are living in a dream is an anagogic one. No. The individual human is one of an infinite panoply of emanations of God. None of these emanations are separate from God, however, because God is the All. Our human lives are relatively real; The only thing that is absolutely real is God.

@WokeBloke You shouldn’t take these high-level teachings too literally: the problem here is that you are understanding imagination in a dualistic sense in opposition to reality. The purpose of teaching that “this is a dream in the mind of God” is simply to point you towards the realisation that mundane existence is only relative and hence is not ultimately Real. God is living all of these lives not any individual human being.

It is only a fitting analogy to say that life is a dream. The analogy breaks down when you start to compare the lucid dreamer with the Awakened One. A dream occurs within the consciousness of the individual soul whereas the dream of this world occurs in what the Ancient Greeks called the Soul of the World. Thus, a lucid dreamer can attain to relative omnipotence within the dream because he is its only conscious witness. However, the Awakened One understands that, whilst consciousness is an indivisible unity, they share this consciousness with everybody and even everything else in the dream. Only God is omnipotent: the Awakened One is one who has annihilated all sense of otherness and so exists in total alignment with God’s will.

The most important dream I have had was a set of trials in a forest setting which seemed to have the purpose of both a purification and a preparation. After the last trial was successfully complete, a wall of pure Light - which was not of the same dimensional space as the rest of the dreamscape - arose from the ground and slowly climbed upwards. As it was arising I walked under the veil and found myself totally absorbed in a blissful unity of Light. Then, unfortunately, I woke up!

Most people on here are American so you might find this interesting. I once had a dream where a golden key had come in the post. This key was a small disc which emanated a numinous and arcane quality. The key came with a letter which stated that, whilst this was my key, I had to deliver it to the nearest government authority as soon as possible. I was originally going to take it to the local council but, as I was leaving the house to go and do this, the radio was on and it announced that Donald Trump was for some reason residing in my hometown (this was when Trump was still in office). The letter simply stated that I had to give my magical key to a government authority so I thought I would take it to Trump instead! As it turned out, he was staying just down the road from me… and the door to his house was cracked open! I walked in to an empty kitchen and shouted, “Is anybody home?” After a brief period of silence, a reply came from the next room in a deeper and more resonant version of Trump’s voice, “You should knock before you come in!” I waited and the door to the next room opened, out of which came Melania Trump! I greeted her and explained my situation, “I am here to give you my golden key.” She, however, had no idea what I was talking about, “what do you mean? What is this key? What are you doing in my house?” The conversation became increasingly heated, with me trying to give her my golden key and her being flabbergasted and even outraged by this whole situation, until… it turned into a wet dream between me and Melania Trump!

I have just been rereading a collection of reviews which Guénon wrote in Studies on Hinduism on Aurobindo’s books. I thought you might find it interesting so I have copied some highlights out below (you might be able to see where some of my anti-progressive views come from!): ‘Sri Aurobindo […] is a man who, although he perhaps sometimes presents the doctrine under a rather too “modernised” form, has no less incontestably a high spiritual value. For him, it is a question “not only of rising from ordinary ignorant mundane consciousness to the Divine consciousness, but also of bringing down the supra-mental power of this Divine consciousness into the ignorance of the mind, of life, and of the body, and of transforming them, of manifesting the Divine even here below, and of creating a Divine life in matter.” This amounts to saying that the total realisation of the being includes not only the “Supreme”, but also the “Non-Supreme”, both the unmanifested and the manifested aspects finally uniting as it were indissolubly as they are united in the Divine. Perhaps the author’s insistence on showing a difference with “the other Yogas” risks an incorrect interpretation; there is in fact nothing “new” here, for the teaching has always been that of the Hindu tradition as well as of the other traditions (the Islamic tasawwuf in particular is very explicit in this regard). If the first point of view seems more in evidence generally than the second in expositions of Yoga, there are several reasons, but let it suffice to point out, first, that the “ascent” must necessarily precede the “redescent”; and then that the being that has truly realised the “Supreme Identity” can therefore, and for that very reason, “move at will” in all the worlds (this excludes, of course, that in the “redescent” he must once again find himself enclosed in individual limitations). It is therefore a mere question of “modality” and not of a real difference as to the goal, which would be strictly inconceivable; but it is worthwhile to stress it, since too many people tend to see innovations where there is only a perfectly correct expression or legitimate adaptation of traditional doctrines and to attribute to individuals a role and an importance which they could never have. Responding to a rather “sentimental” question regarding the reasons for suffering and evil in this world, Aurobindo rightly answers that all possibilities must be fulfilled, and that it is division and separation that give birth to evil insofar as these possibilities are considered in isolation from each other and from their principle. In sum, what we consider as evil, that is to say as a negation, is such only in consequence of our ignorance and our limited horizon. What is more contestable is that he seems to admit not only a spiritual evolution for each being but also evolution in the sense of a “progression” of the world in its totality. This is an idea which appears very modern to us, and we do also do not see how it can agree with the very conditions of the development of all manifestation. After all, how can such affirmations be reconciled with the least understanding of the traditional doctrine of cycles, and more particularly with the fact that we are presently in the darkest period of the Kali-Yuga? On the other hand, if we sufficiently understand what is not expressed very explicitly, he appears to think that “ascending realisation” is insufficient in itself and that it requires completion by “descending realisation”; at least, some of his expressions allow this interpretation of his thought. But why then oppose liberation as he understands it to what he calls an “escape from the world”? As long as the being remains in the Cosmos (and by that we mean not only this world but the totality of manifestation), however elevated the states he can reach, they are always only conditioned states which have no common measure with true liberation. Liberation can only be attained by leaving the Cosmos, and it is only thereafter that the being can “redescend”, in appearance at least, without any longer being affected by the conditions of the manifested world. In other words, “descending realisation”, very far from being opposed to “ascending realisation”, on the contrary necessarily presupposes it; it would have been useful to clarify this so as to leave no room for equivocation, but we want to believe that this is what Aurobindo means when he speaks of “an ascension from which one no longer falls back, but whence one can take flight in a winged descent of light, strength and Ānanda.”’

Personally, if I am reading something that I really want to internalise and integrate I will first read it aloud and then re-read and mull over it internally. Reading something aloud is more helpful for attaining a superficial understanding of something - because your eyes, ears and mouth are all processing the same information - whereas mulling over it internally is a better way to understand its full ramifications and its relationship to the context of the book and your understanding as a whole. Maybe you haven't yet mastered speech and enunciation in general: if you are focusing on these then you'll likely be too busy focusing on speaking the words rather than understanding them!

You can even make a very persuasive case that modern leftism and progressivism originated with Christianity: In its opposition to the Roman, Nordic and Celtic conception of virtus - from the root vir meaning man, not man in general but as opposed to woman, from whence derives virility - and its correspondingly one-sided emphasis on Love over Truth and Compassion over Wisdom; in its subversive and revolutionary character which has slowly eroded the Greco-Roman patriarchal family structure and the ancient Indo-European Cult of the Ancestors: "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother" and "I do not come to bring peace but the sword"; in its eclectic and syncretistic origins which make of it a sort of proto-multiculturalism - Christianity arose out of the decadence and spiritual chaos of late Antiquity and drew all sorts of peculiar influences from the collapse of the Roman Empire which had grown to encompass almost all of the civilised world - and its corresponding emphasis on universalism and "catholicity" over discrimination and homogeneity; and so on. Not only this, but Christianity replaced the historiography of cyclic decline and involution (which can be found in such diverse sources as the Vedas, the Zend Avesta, the Laws of Manu, the Nordic sagas, Hesiod) of earlier mythology and replaced it with one of linear evolution and therefore "progress" towards Salvation and Redemption in Christ the Messiah. This is why Christian conservatism and traditionalism is so absurd; you might as well call it "revolutionary conservatism" or "reactionary progressivism"! Anyway, maybe Nietzsche was right to describe Christianity as "the final stages of disease meekly announcing themselves"... Edit: Reflecting on it, I am inclined to append the passage from which this last quotation derives because it is so relevant today, particularly in that with his usual prophetic genius Nietzsche predicts a "European Buddhism" as "Nihilism"! What else is the endless spiritual bypassing and "non-duality means I can sit on my sofa and watch Netflix all day" which you find in almost all new-age circles today?

This is definitely one of the biggest weaknesses of the progressive left today. I would say that this is a sort of failed appeal-to-emotion: evasive phrases like “communities of colour” (of course, this is basically just a way to say: non-white communities…) are designed to create a feeling of safety and inclusion and not box anyone into a narrow ethnic group, but it has the opposite effect because it makes people feel like they will be persecuted if they aren’t up to date with the latest silly vocabulary. When mothering turns into smothering! Not if it is counterbalanced by a stronger emotion which says “if I care about white ethnic homogeneity I am a fascist and that is the worst thing anyone can be! I will lose all of my cosmopolitan friends and maybe even my job.” The base instinct is more toward surviving and being in conformity with one’s surroundings: this sets a different criteria for Blue and Red states.

Not every white Christian American values ethnic homogeneity above all else. Since the reframing of America’s self-concept that took place with the victorious defeat over fascism and the civil rights movement, many people in this demographic have come to view the advancement of their own ethnic interest as inappropriate and bigoted. Many forms of Christianity today are quite left-leaning and there has always been an element of universalism (the literal meaning of “catholicity”) in Christianity.

Exactly. Of course this is not the only explanation for what you are describing though. Many people simply vote as they have always voted; some will vote simply because they prefer one candidate (at the local or national level) to another, even if it is for totally superficial reasons; and I am convinced that many vote based on nothing at all! I’m not sure I agree with you that the Republicans have a stronger emotional appeal. If anything, Democrats appeal more to the emotional level, or maybe you could say that they appeal to different emotions: Republicans appeal more to emotions of duty, patriotism and national strength, security, ethnic kinship and family, whereas Democrats appeal more to safety, inclusion, tolerance, acceptance of weakness, love and compassion for the excluded and rejected.

That’s a bit like asking why Muslims generally don’t support Christianity: most traditionally oriented people are oriented around a specific tradition, not tradition as such; add to this that a significant part of tradition is ethnic homogeneity (remember that the word nation itself comes from the Latin word natio which means “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe”) and it should be clear why non-whites would not be supportive of Republican-style tradition!

There is definitely a tragic element underlying the whole thing; ironically, it is like the tragic pathos which underlies the Christian message. To me the jester leaping over the tightrope-walker is a dream-like metaphor for the fundamental problem with Nietzsche’s life and philosophy: he (as the tightrope-walker) had awakened a transcendent force within himself (which he perceived as a jester, because transcendence makes a mockery of all partial and limited identifications) which insistently drove him on towards the destruction of all limitations (“philosophising with a hammer”). However, without the appropriate context and training he was not able to master this transcendent force and so it overcame him, driving him down into the abyss. That being said, I find passages in The Antichrist particularly and the fourth part of Zarathustra to be raucously funny! Well, he specifically says that Jesus still had the overwrought passion of early life and so his teaching was contaminated by a one-sided escapism and a contempt for mundane things, almost like a rebellious teenager. I would say that Zarathustra suffers from the opposite problem, in that he esteems the earth and the body over spirituality. There is a very weak passage in which Zarathustra basically denies all metaphysics: However, towards the end of Zarathustra, particularly with the motif of the Eternal Return, he increasingly transcends this one-sided emphasis on impermanence: ‘That everything recurs is the closest approximation of a world of Becoming to one of Being’; ‘Every moment begins existence, around every “Here” rolls the ball “There”; The middle is everywhere’. The final song, The Seven Seals (or: the Yea- and Amen- Song) is very beautiful and a true spiritual revival! It is very striking how Nietzsche seems to have rediscovered the teaching of the subtle body. His description of the Seven Seals maps perfectly onto the system of Chakras of Tantra, and consider the opening to his description of the Last Man: “What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star? Thus ask the Last Men and they blink. For the earth has now become small, and upon it hops the Last Man who makes everything small.” Love is the Heart Chakra; Creation is the Throat Chakra; Longing is the Third Eye; and a Star is The Thousand Petalled Lotus of pure transcendence; thus, the Last Man only has access to the lower, material and animal centres of the body. I see Thus Spoke Zarathustra as Nietzsche breaking away from all of the rotten assumptions of a profane and atheistic world and so making a profound rediscovery of transcendent wisdom. The greatest mistake I see in people who discuss it is that they take specific teachings of Zarathustra (particularly the prologue and the Superman) without regard for their context within the book as a whole. It has to be understood more like a symphony, an unfolding narrative who’s culminating crescendo is the Great Midday in which all oppositions are reconciled and everything is once more harmonious. Hahaha, it is probably so! I haven’t read much Aurobindo. Would you recommend a particular book of his? If you are interested, the works of René Guénon have been very valuable to me, particularly his books Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, The Multiple States of the Being and The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times.