Rene Guenon and authentic Hinduism

[Rupert Pupkin]

Hi all! Just a quick question especially for Hindus.

I am reading the traditionalist Rene Guenon. I'm making my way through "Man and his becoming according to the Vedanta".

I was attracted to Guenon because of his critique of modernity, and he seems to be very concerned with presenting an "authentic" and non-Westernized version of Hinduism to his readers. What do Hindus think of him? Do you think the above book is an accurate outline of non-dualistic Vedanta Hinduism? Although he constantly goes on about how unique and utterly distinct to Western thought the Vedanta is, I can see lots of parallels to neoplatonism and some schools of Western thought. The concern with the issue of universals is characteristic of early Western thought. I think he might be reacting specifically against modern philosophy, more than Western philosophy in general.

What do you think? Thanks everyone!

[Aupmanyav]

Rupert Pupkin, if hindus were to know about Vedanta, they would not read Rene Guenon. They would read Upanishads and Geeta. The translations are available on the net (of course, not the Hare-Krishna translation. That too is good if you disregard Krishna as a God and take him as the uninvolved Brahman). 'Authentic', 'non-westernized', I hope he did a good job.

[smaneck]

Rupert Pupkin, if hindus were to know about Vedanta, they would not read Rene Guenon. They would read Upanishads and Geeta. The translations are available on the net (of course, not the Hare-Krishna translation. That too is good if you disregard Krishna as a God and take him as the uninvolved Brahman). 'Authentic', 'non-westernized', I hope he did a good job.


Traditionalism had strong connections with Fascism. There is a good book on the backgrond of this movement which can be found here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=GcUFmQ-NF_0C&dq=AGAINST+THE+mODERN+WORLD:+TRADITIONALISM&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=QxrYP-KFcN&sig=WycJ_5vtXz1LHFnNj7ZOhprQcWs&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

[Aupmanyav]

Hinduism is not tied to traditionalism. That is why we have so many panthas (roads) and so many matas (opinion). My own atheistic 'advaita' differs from what Sankara advocated and accepts Einsteinian/quantum energy/matter as the substrate of the whole universe. The substrate is not homomorphic, neither Rahim nor Rehman.

[smaneck]

Hinduism is not tied to traditionalism. That is why we have so many panthas (roads) and so many matas (opinion). My own atheistic 'advaita' differs from what Sankara advocated and accepts Einsteinian/quantum energy/matter as the substrate of the whole universe. The substrate is not homomorphic, neither Rahim nor Rehman.

TM comes from that, doesn't it?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Traditionalism had strong connections with Fascism.

Hello again. I have read a fair bit of Guenon now; this statement is untrue. It is "Radical Traditionalism", as represented by people like Julius Evola, that is connected with fascism. Traditionalism is not, and cannot be, connected with fascism, which is a modernist political philosophy. However, modernists often confuse traditionalism with fascism, simply because they are so thoroughly enmeshed in modernist preconceptions, that they are unable to see the difference.

Indeed, traditionalists would charge that anyone who supports modern democratic liberalism, is, in fact, whether they acknowledge it or not, a de facto supporter of fascism, because fascism is the logical end-point at which all societies must arrive, once they thoroughly adopt democratic and egalitarian ideology. Fascism is a pseudo-traditionalism.

Let me explain. Premodern societies, or in other words, traditional societies, are patriarchal and have a complex hierarchical structure which is based on blood relationships (family or "clan" ties). Everyone is enmeshed within this structure. This is precisely the structure of the Old Testament society, which is why there is so much concern in the OT with genealogies and who was from which tribe. Traditionalists regard this premodern state of affairs as being the most optimal form of human society that is realizable, although that does not mean that they regard them as being perfect or without flaws. In traditional societies, there is hardly anything resembling what we would consider the "state". A centralized government is almost completely unnecessary.

Now along comes democratic and egalitarian ideology, and it starts to erode the traditional hierarchical structure. Despite the fact that people are simply not equal in their abilities, wisdom, and judgement, it wants to give an "equal say" to everyone. For a while, democratic ideology co-exists with the traditional hierarchy, and hence a stable form of government results. This is what happened in England, for instance, during the 18th-19th centuries. However, eventually, the individualistic and egalitarian ethic must destroy all traditional family structures, must produce feminism, the acceptance of homosexuality, all in the name of "equality". This is not just some recent aberration in democracy; it is just the logical expression of democratic ideology. If people are to be "equal", they must be completely individual, with no familial ties which might distinguish them from others. All qualitative differences between people must be eradicated, since these make the lie of egalitarian assumptions.

Now it so happens that "nature abhors a vacuum". What this means in this context is that no society can, in fact, function without a hierarchy. So by destroying the traditional hierarchy, democracy does not result in "equality" - rather, it prepares the way for a new, evil or "inverted" hierarchy. It clears the decks of traditional society, so that the "scum can rise to the surface" and lead.

Once traditional family structures have been eroded by democracy, all sorts of massive social and criminal problems erupt. Anarchy begins, and people clamour for someone to fix the problem. However, there is only one entity left that has any uniting power: namely, the state. This is why democracy always leads to fascism.

Now the fascist state steps in and "restores order". In doing this, it has to emulate traditional society, it has to try and imitate it. And this is precisely why modernists associate traditionalism with fascism. They are confusing an original and its imitation. Let me give an example.

Traditional society is patriarchal. So the fascist state (and incidentally, communism is itself just a version of fascism) imitates this by encouraging the "traditional" family, role of the mother and father and so forth. This might look like traditionalism to an outside observer, but it is not. If one reads fascist theorists, one finds that they always assert that children belong to the state, over and above their parents. The children are first and foremost the children of Germany, or Italy, or Russia, or whatever. This is the antithesis of true patriarchy. The patriarchy found in fascism is a pseudo-patriarchy.

Traditionalism is not, I repeat, not, a modernist ideology, and supports neither democracy nor fascism, nor anything else on the left-right political spectrum. The whole modern notion of politics is rejected. Indeed, traditionalism has no political programme. Traditionalists regard the modern deviation, and the fall into democracy and then fascism, as being completely irreversible. This is for the same reason that once pornography has become widely disseminated amongst people, it is impossible ever to remove it. Democratic ideology is like pornography, in that both succeed because they appeal to the basest instincts in people, and both are thoroughly destructive of society.

Guenon, and I agree with him, sees no political salvation for modernity. There is just the inevitable decline into global fascism, with the emergence of the counter-hierarchy headed by the figure the Bible calls "the antichrist". That is where we are headed, and nothing can be done about it. The only thing individuals can do, is to try and isolate themselves and their families as much as possible from the poison of the modern world, and retain true virtue.

In short, anyone who claims that traditionalism is connected with fascism, just hasn't understood traditionalism. This is probably because they are so enmeshed in modernist fallacies, that they cannot even see any genuine alternatives. "Radical Traditionalism", however, as expressed by people like Evola, does have a political programme, and seeks to reconstitute traditional society in a modern context. What actually results is just fascism. In the end democrats and Evola and his colleagues all just end up at the same place.

When the Lord Jesus Christ arrives and sets up his kingdom, it will not be a democracy.

P.S. This discussion, if it continues, might be better shifted into the political forum.

[smaneck]

When the Lord Jesus Christ arrives and sets up his kingdom, it will not be a democracy.
.

You might be surprised. ;-}

[Aupmanyav]

TM comes from that, doesn't it?TM is a technique (I arrived at it without paying a dime to Maharshi), Advaita is a philosophy.

Pupkin, Smaneck: Abrahamic Gods are dictators, with cells of hell behind their chairs. How can Jesus' kingdom be democratic?

[smaneck]

Pupkin, Smaneck: Abrahamic Gods are dictators, with cells of hell behind their chairs. How can Jesus' kingdom be democratic?

There is only one Abrahamic God, so perhaps you should say dictator. ;-} And it can be democratic if God so decrees. And it just so happens that this *is* what He decreed in this day:

The Lord hath ordained that in every city a House
of Justice be established wherein shall gather counsellors
to the number of Baha, and should it exceed this
number it doth not matter.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 29)

However, there is a sense in which these Houses of Justice are not democratic, even though they are democratically elected. Baha'u'llah goes on to say:

They should consider
themselves as entering the Court of the presence of
God, the Exalted, the Most High, and as beholding
Him Who is the Unseen. It behoveth them to be the
trusted ones of the Merciful among men and to regard
themselves as the guardians appointed of God for all
that dwell on earth. It is incumbent upon them to take
counsel together and to have regard for the interests of
the servants of God, for His sake, even as they regard
their own interests, and to choose that which is meet
and seemly. Thus hath the Lord your God commanded
you. Beware lest ye put away that which is clearly
revealed in His Tablet. Fear God, O ye that perceive.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 29)

They are not 'democratic' in the usual sense because ultimately they answer to God, not the electorate.

warmest, Susan

[Aupmanyav]

well, as an athiest (advaitist) hindu, I am not at all impressed by any tale of God and do not care much about His tablets. Fear God in christianity, fear God in islam, fear God among bahais. What to fear, every one would die and there is no heaven or hell, since there is no soul. (That does not mean that one should not engage in 'dharma', duties and righteous action, or socially acceptable behaviour, that is our responsibility as a part of our society and humanity).