W. Guenon talking about the walls of materialism cracking from the bottom up is really useful to understand, too. The lower aspects of the spiritual world get back into our reality first.
Great video guys! I'm an Orthodox Christian who, for a time, was enamored with Traditionalism/Perennialism before coming to the conclusion that the two aren't ultimately compatible. It's my understanding that the Traditionalist/Perennialists believed that Christ really is truly God and truly man and not just another Avatar, but only in the realm of Christian belief (though this may be more "Schuonian" than "Guenonian"). For them, it's important to be initiated into a "valid" Tradition and to accept its dogmas and religious prescriptions to the fullest without mixing them with the forms of other religions. In their view, if you happen to be a Christian you must believe that the Incarnation is true. Then again, for them, Christianity itself is nothing more than one of many ladders to Heaven that can be discarded once one has climbed it to the top. Schuon would often paraphrase St. Athanasius in saying "Atma became maya that maya might become Atma." Needless to say, this is unacceptable from the Orthodox point of view. That said, I do think the Perennialists offer valuable insights, especially in their critiques of modernity, as long as we're careful to practice discernment when reading them.
I honestly think you can integrate a fair bit of the insights Some traditionalist beliefs will have to be... modified though. For one, there has to be a way of ranking the exoteric aspects of the different religions. And the exoteric ultimately is just as important, since it is through the exoteric that you reach the esoteric. So the exoteric needs to have synergy with the esoteric and must cohere together.
Guenon is one of my favourite writers. Hes influenced my thinking potently. As Orthodox Christians we can agree plentiful with him.. Fr. Seraphim Rose himself was heavily influenced by Guenon. On my Orthodox Christian Critique of Guenon/traditional perennialism, - would be thus: Orthodox should soak in & learn some of the knowledge of the whole "critique of modernity" angle from Perennialists(Evola/Guenon) as in that field they're most acute. However, imo, perennalists self-defeat themselves, as there's nothing more postmodern than the relativization of truth. As Orthodox, this is what we should reject. Marcel Avramescu, the major animator of esotericism in 20s/30s Romania (influencing Mircea Eliade), an ethnic Jew, who became a Traditionalist under the influence of Guenon and ended up as an Orthodox priest. Fr. Seraphim Rose was influenced by Guenon too, as aforementioned. Its "universalism", which I know isn't the New Age one, is still an argument against it for us Orthodox Christians, ..and in some letters, Guenon talks of Kabbalists who as Jews "have" to insult Christ. How can you let/justify Christ, & the prophets getting insulted because you have to respect other religions' "exoteric dimension"? It also *pushes* you to "respect" all types of idolatry, you can imagine (Hindu idolatry gets a pass thanks to Advaita Vedanta, etc). Such thinkers believe the Renaissance wasn't good. I agree with them. However, I find it ironic, because of their brand of "primordial tradition" (a shared metaphysical truth beyond formal religious expression) could be shown to be a modern trope as well (the thesis of academics like Faivre and even Guenonians like Vivenza), dating from the Renaissance, itself. Additionally, & on the positive, - that we Orthodox Christians should absorb with my years of my engagement with traditional perennialist thought, the best you can take from it is what you'd call a healthy skepticism with modern thought: by reading Guénon, Schuon, etc... you *can't* take rationalism/individualism/ nor individual thinkers like Heidegger *seriously*. And there's indeed a whole aesthetic angle (even more so than Lings I think, it's embodied by Burckhardt/Coomaraswamy).
If you are to get into some deep nitty gritty topics, get Brett Stevens on here, I myself am just a lowly musician, I don't read like I should, have my own doubts of Christianity vs Traditionalism/Perennialism, but ultimately I do have a feeling and yearning what I believe to be Jesus, considering I grew up Catholic and felt God in the solemnity of mass.
The One in Neoplatonism is the principle by each thing is one thing. It’s a kind of principle of individuation which is ontologically prior to Being and not some kind of perfectly simple Monad which emanates all of reality as in some vulgar misinterpretation. This is why real distinctions within being can exist without undermining the unity of being in a Neoplatonic framework
If that's the vulgar misinterpretation, I would think most of the neoplatonic tradition amounts to a vulgar misinterpretation. But, even if this was representative of neoplatonism, there would still be issues.
@@aliensdidit8452 First, questions: 1. What is the difference between the principle of individuation and the form of distinction? 2. Who among the neoplatonists takes your view, and not the view you characterize as a "vulgar misinterpretation"? I see you have some Aarvoll stuff on your channel, but it sounds to me he takes the "vulgar" view rather than yours.
@@ALLHEART_ It’s apparent from a pretty standard reading of Plato’s Parmenides and was readily understood in the tradition. Plotinus says The One is beyond predication and super essential and that “it gives what it does not have” Literally None of the pagan Neoplatonist thought of the one as a monad. I take it you aren’t we’ll versed in Neoplatonic thought and I’m also not sure what you mean by form of distinction
@@aliensdidit8452 I think your view is indiosyncratic, even taking Aarvoll into account, who you seem to like. Now, it's possible I could be misunderstanding you, but some of your phraseology doesn't seem to help. Also, by form of distinction I mean the concept certain neoplatonists have brought up to explain the origin of multiplicity, namely that there is a form of distinction, and consequently there is distinction in the world.
W. Guenon talking about the walls of materialism cracking from the bottom up is really useful to understand, too. The lower aspects of the spiritual world get back into our reality first.
Great video guys! I'm an Orthodox Christian who, for a time, was enamored with Traditionalism/Perennialism before coming to the conclusion that the two aren't ultimately compatible.
It's my understanding that the Traditionalist/Perennialists believed that Christ really is truly God and truly man and not just another Avatar, but only in the realm of Christian belief (though this may be more "Schuonian" than "Guenonian"). For them, it's important to be initiated into a "valid" Tradition and to accept its dogmas and religious prescriptions to the fullest without mixing them with the forms of other religions. In their view, if you happen to be a Christian you must believe that the Incarnation is true. Then again, for them, Christianity itself is nothing more than one of many ladders to Heaven that can be discarded once one has climbed it to the top. Schuon would often paraphrase St. Athanasius in saying "Atma became maya that maya might become Atma." Needless to say, this is unacceptable from the Orthodox point of view.
That said, I do think the Perennialists offer valuable insights, especially in their critiques of modernity, as long as we're careful to practice discernment when reading them.
@@telosbound Agreed! ☦❤
I honestly think you can integrate a fair bit of the insights
Some traditionalist beliefs will have to be... modified though. For one, there has to be a way of ranking the exoteric aspects of the different religions. And the exoteric ultimately is just as important, since it is through the exoteric that you reach the esoteric. So the exoteric needs to have synergy with the esoteric and must cohere together.
Guenon is one of my favourite writers. Hes influenced my thinking potently. As Orthodox Christians we can agree plentiful with him.. Fr. Seraphim Rose himself was heavily influenced by Guenon.
On my Orthodox Christian Critique of Guenon/traditional perennialism, - would be thus:
Orthodox should soak in & learn some of the knowledge of the whole "critique of modernity" angle from Perennialists(Evola/Guenon) as in that field they're most acute.
However, imo, perennalists self-defeat themselves, as there's nothing more postmodern than the relativization of truth. As Orthodox, this is what we should reject.
Marcel Avramescu, the major animator of esotericism in 20s/30s Romania (influencing Mircea Eliade), an ethnic Jew, who became a Traditionalist under the influence of Guenon and ended up as an Orthodox priest. Fr. Seraphim Rose was influenced by Guenon too, as aforementioned. Its "universalism", which I know isn't the New Age one, is still an argument against it for us Orthodox Christians, ..and in some letters, Guenon talks of Kabbalists who as Jews "have" to insult Christ. How can you let/justify Christ, & the prophets getting insulted because you have to respect other religions' "exoteric dimension"?
It also *pushes* you to "respect" all types of idolatry, you can imagine (Hindu idolatry gets a pass thanks to Advaita Vedanta, etc).
Such thinkers believe the Renaissance wasn't good. I agree with them. However, I find it ironic, because of their brand of "primordial tradition" (a shared metaphysical truth beyond formal religious expression) could be shown to be a modern trope as well (the thesis of academics like Faivre and even Guenonians like Vivenza), dating from the Renaissance, itself.
Additionally, & on the positive, - that we Orthodox Christians should absorb with my years of my engagement with traditional perennialist thought, the best you can take from it is what you'd call a healthy skepticism with modern thought: by reading Guénon, Schuon, etc... you *can't* take rationalism/individualism/ nor individual thinkers like Heidegger *seriously*. And there's indeed a whole aesthetic angle (even more so than Lings I think, it's embodied by Burckhardt/Coomaraswamy).
If you are to get into some deep nitty gritty topics, get Brett Stevens on here, I myself am just a lowly musician, I don't read like I should, have my own doubts of Christianity vs Traditionalism/Perennialism, but ultimately I do have a feeling and yearning what I believe to be Jesus, considering I grew up Catholic and felt God in the solemnity of mass.
You guys are great
LETS GOOOOOO
NICE
I’m very curious what you guys think of the book christ the eternal tao?
Aristotle certainly believed is pure form outside of its particular instantiation
nice mustache gabe
Vicky moment
Id like to hear your guys thoughts on Islamic metaphysics
The One in Neoplatonism is the principle by each thing is one thing. It’s a kind of principle of individuation which is ontologically prior to Being and not some kind of perfectly simple Monad which emanates all of reality as in some vulgar misinterpretation. This is why real distinctions within being can exist without undermining the unity of being in a Neoplatonic framework
If that's the vulgar misinterpretation, I would think most of the neoplatonic tradition amounts to a vulgar misinterpretation. But, even if this was representative of neoplatonism, there would still be issues.
@@ALLHEART_ Such as?
@@aliensdidit8452
First, questions:
1. What is the difference between the principle of individuation and the form of distinction?
2. Who among the neoplatonists takes your view, and not the view you characterize as a "vulgar misinterpretation"? I see you have some Aarvoll stuff on your channel, but it sounds to me he takes the "vulgar" view rather than yours.
@@ALLHEART_ It’s apparent from a pretty standard reading of Plato’s Parmenides and was readily understood in the tradition. Plotinus says The One is beyond predication and super essential and that “it gives what it does not have” Literally None of the pagan Neoplatonist thought of the one as a monad. I take it you aren’t we’ll versed in Neoplatonic thought and I’m also not sure what you mean by form of distinction
@@aliensdidit8452 I think your view is indiosyncratic, even taking Aarvoll into account, who you seem to like. Now, it's possible I could be misunderstanding you, but some of your phraseology doesn't seem to help.
Also, by form of distinction I mean the concept certain neoplatonists have brought up to explain the origin of multiplicity, namely that there is a form of distinction, and consequently there is distinction in the world.