Can we finally admit that Guénon was right about reincarnation and stop pretending it's some profound traditional doctrine?

>theosophical 'reincarnation'
Sentimentalist garbage for western women who read Ouspensky once and think they were Cleopatra. We can all agree this is retarded.

But even the supposedly "higher" version you find in the late Upanishads is philosophically incoherent. Take their own logic:
>Magnus Carlsen dies
>His 'vasanas' (chess skills, tendencies) are passed on
>Some new kid in Mumbai is born a chess prodigy
>This new kid has ZERO memory or consciousness of being Magnus Carlsen

How tf does the kid remember how to play chess but not his identity as Magnus Carlsen ? This is like me knowing how to drive but i forgot my name

>B-but what about Shankara and Advaita Vedanta? He accepted it!

Shankara was a reformist as much as a metaphysician. He had to work with the material he was given. The Puranic/Upanishadic worldview was already dominant; he wasn't going to get himself cancelled by telling every Hindu their core belief is a late-stage deviation. He re-contextualized it within his system, he didn't endorse it from first principles.

Go read the Rig Veda and find me a single verse about being reborn as another dude on earth. You can't.

Stop being a scriptural NPC and actually think.

>>24487338 (OP)
PBUH

**dogmatism**

>>24487338 (OP)
Of course there is transmigration in Guénon. So it's a simple case of reinterpreting at most, that the reincarnation means the recrystalization of another world, another state of being.
>But even the supposedly "higher" version you find in the late Upanishads is philosophically incoherent.B-but what about Shankara and Advaita Vedanta? He accepted it!
I didn't know about that. I should ask my swami. I thought like Guénon. Even if he and the upanishads talked about that I don't think they necessarily insisted on the fact that it is in this world, and only world. Maybe the point of these upanishads and Shankara was not on this precisely, and they didn't care about precision. Anyway someone meditating of saguna brahma goes to brahmaloka, and someone meditating on nirguna brahman (non-dualism) gets libertaed now or after death, so the case of reincarnation is a bit secondary for shankara maybe. And anyway some upanishads presents things in a certain way not all have to accept, just like for yogic upanishads with all the chakras,... things specific to a yogic school, or the upanishads presenting different divinities, differents ways of doing, etc...

Maybe it's just another cas of "the question didn't arise in the same way previously" with people closing this world to what is higher and denying it's unlimitedness and charlatan inventing themselves origins, etc...

>>24487338 (OP)
Show me scientific proof of reincarnation, or transmigration of souls.

>>24487435

>>24487338 (OP)
>if Buddhism hasn't completely shocked you then you didn't experience Buddhism
>to observe is to suffer?
>why is only one mountain not white in winter?
>what survives from one moment to the next?
>either the chains are broken or they aren't

I guess it doesn't matter if you get one shot or two. This does make it hard to figure out what's traditional though. You still have plenty of time to figure it out.

>>24487524
Edison was working on an analog version of something like that just before he died.

>>24487435
>OP spends the whole post shitting on reincarnation
>illiterate STEMbug faggot: "where is da evidence for reincarnation doe"

>hey guys let's discuss this french guy turned muslim who wrote books about wacky bullshit
is there a concerted effort here to dethrone /v/ at having the lowest IQ?

>>24487338 (OP)
Reread the relevant chapter in The Spiritualist Fallacy to actually understand the latter case.

>>24487434
In fact, Guénon holds a very common Sufi perspective on death and birth. For example, both Guénon and the Akbarians believe that each being is born with latent predispositions (isti'dâd in Arabic), which influence the person’s life and qualities. Both also agree that a person’s experiences shape their future subtle body and post-mortem journey. Additionally, they reject the possibility of a human transmigrating into another human body: "The acorn becomes an oak, the coconut becomes a palm tree; but even if the oak produces myriads of acorns, it never reverts to being an acorn itself, nor does the palm tree become a nut again" there is no "previous life"

>>24487604
Thanks for the info.
His stance might also come from the need to explain the christian traditional stance of several post-modern states and possible evolutions with transmigration, against a reincarnationism that is anyway incompatible with christian view. Transmigration is other states of being permits an easy coherence with the idea of evolution and states of being, lower and higher (hell or heaven).
The latent predispotion is simply aristotle potency, and the
>Both also agree that a person’s experiences shape their future subtle body and post-mortem journey
Is pretty classic in christianism, neoplatonism, dharmism,...

I asked my swami on the reincarnation in the world or not anyway. He is a very good shankara and vedantic scholar. I don't think shankara endorses simple modern reincarnationism.

>>24487524
This can't be real.

>>24487338 (OP)
> But even the supposedly "higher" version you find in the late Upanishads is philosophically incoherent.
Not at all, they speak about the subtle body transmigrating from physical body to physical body until it ends the cycle, there is nothing incoherent at all about this. Vasanas are not what transmigrate themselves, they inhere in either the subtle body or the causal body depending on the sub-school of Vedanta.
> How tf does the kid remember how to play chess but not his identity as Magnus Carlsen ?
There is zero logical necessity why one detail would have to be remembered and not others, this objective is completely arbitrary. Most memories are erased by default, any continuity beyond subtle trace
> He re-contextualized it within his system, he didn't endorse it from first principles.
Completely wrong, he takes the Upanishadic passages about transmigration at their word. If you haven’t read the part of his writings where he talks about this than you have no idea what you are talking about.

> Go read the Rig Veda and find me a single verse about being reborn as another dude on earth.
“I was aforetime Manu, I was Sūrya (the sun): I am the sage Kakṣīvān, holy singer.”
- Rig-Veda 4-26-1

>>24487338 (OP)
You don't need to be guenonian.
Indianists understood very well that the doctrines of samsara and transmigration are not part of the older strata of the vedic religion, even less of proto-indo-european culture. It's unclear where they come from. They could come from a non-Arya, non-Vedic religion among Indians (after all many primitive tribes have some form of transmigration). They only became widespread among literate classes in the mid first millenium BC and the norm later. All of this history is admittedly muddy because Indians didn't really write history until foreigners taught them and the texts we have have five centuries of uncertainty in their date of composition and messy history of transmission.
This of course was opposed by modern Hindus.

>>24487717
>Not at all
It's this faggot again

>>24487723
OP is simply wrong on the facts and his whole post is embarrassingly misinformed, for starters, he seems to think that its the vasanas that are what transmigrates.

>>24487741
>>24487717

Literally learn how to read, you absolute pseud. I never said *only* vasanas are transmigrated. I said they are PASSED ON as part of the whole package. This is basic Sankara 101.

>“The soul accompanied by the chief vital air, the sense-organs and the mind, and taking with itself nescience (avidyā), moral good or ill-desert (karman), and the impressions left by its previous existences, leaves its former body and obtains a new body” (Brahma Sutras III,1,1)

Then some midwit brings up this:
>“I was aforetime Manu, I was Sūrya (the sun): I am the sage Kakṣīvān, holy singer.”

That's Indra's *ātmastuti* (self-praise hymn), not some guy's past-life journal ffs.
Your "reading" of that is on the level of seeing this verse:
>“You, Agni, are born Varuṇa, you become Mitra when kindled; in you, son of strength, are all the gods; you are Indra, son of strength, to the mortal who presents (oblations).”

And concluding that Agni was literally reincarnated as Varuna who then became Mitra.

It's a level of scriptural illiteracy that is genuinely staggering.

>>24487783
>you absolute pseud.
Your assertion that the Upanishadic transmigration is “incoherent” because some things are remembered and not others was a pseudo-intellectual remark to make because its completely arbitrary and there’s no logical justification for it. A shitty metaphor does not suffice for a genuine logical justification or a genuine demonstration of any inconsistency. Most memories are *not* supposed to carry over by default, so its an invalid analogy to apply the example of one person forgetting things within their lifetime in the same body, such a poor comparison demonstrates zero actual inconsistency in what the Upanishads say about this.


>That's Indra's *ātmastuti* (self-praise hymn)
Those hymns are by the Rishi Kakṣīvān and in the midst of the passage he starts talking about himself, of the past lives of his subtle body. “I” there is referring to Kakṣīvān and not Indra. Shankara cites that as an example of transmigration in one of his Upanishad commentaries, and he was a lot more knowledgeable about Vedic verses than you are.

>>24487851

>tries to prove reincarnation is in the Rig Veda by quoting a 9th-century commentary on a 7th-century BCE Upanishad

lmao

>>24487885
Nice goal-post moving dummy, someone asked for an example of a Vedic verses than talking about transmigration, and I cited it. The verse makes clear that Kakṣīvān is talking about himself and not Indra either, you have to be substituting alternative interpretations other than the surface level reading to come to the conclusion that it’s *not* talking about some sort of continuity between lives/births involving Kakṣīvān.

Whether or not that’s irrefutable proof is really irrelevant, traditional Hindu authorities and founders of the Vedanta schools interpret the Vedas to be talking about transmigration in that way, and there is no requirement that they do so anyway since the essential knowledge of that stuff is supposed to be contained in the Upanishads which are the final word on all things metaphysical anyway.

>>24487435
Dr. Ian Stevenson wrote multiple works on reincarnation evidence that should not be readily dismissed, in my opinion.

>>24488055
>Ian Stevenson

There can be no proof of reincarnation since memory dissolves at death, this is just theosophical fantasy

>>24487906
>Vedic verses than talking about transmigration, a
Those are not examples of transmigration as a common quality of human beings, so you're the one moving the goalpost

The worst thing about reincarnation is its tendency to destroy all spiritual paths. Just look at the tulku system, which single-handedly destroyed Tibetan Buddhism. The Karmapa is supposed to be a great, realized being since he was supposedly born with great abilities. But today, we have a Karmapa who has abandoned Tibetan Buddhism and another who is having sex with female believers and has had a child with one of them. It's so serious that the entire institution is terribly corrupt.

>>24487338 (OP)
>How tf does the kid remember how to play chess but not his identity as Magnus Carlsen ? This is like me knowing how to drive but i forgot my name
Nigga you retarded
Knowledge is knowledge and is immaterial and permanent
Identity and the self is nothing it's temporal

>>24487604
This is true, but Ibn Arabi does not share the perspective of Guenon/Shankara on annihilation. Ibn Arabi is firmly a modified non-dualist, personal identity is preserved in union with God.

>>24488855

You are both right and wrong.

You are right that, for Ibn Arabi, the state of baqa' follows fana'. This means a person who attains annihilation returns to their companions as a seemingly normal, though inwardly transformed, being. They are not permanently gone; the only thing annihilated is the illusion of a separate self, or "me," much like in Advaita Vedanta.

However, you could be seen as wrong in suggesting that no real personal identity is preserved. The individual who has realized fana' ceases to exist as a person in the ordinary sense (like you and me) and is now a conscious manifestation of the Divine.

See the chapter "Ascending and Descending Realization" in Initiation and Spiritual Realization.

>>24489553

>Why is there no really explicit doctrine of "Descending Realization" (baqa) in Shankara's corpus?

It's not a lacuna in his understanding. As Guénon (PBUH) clarifies, this was a deliberate and necessary omission. The teaching on the "descent" is a truly esoteric matter, a "secret of the king," reserved for those who have completed the ascent.

Shankara's work is overwhelmingly focused on the ascending path (fana)—the difficult, preparatory work of negation and discrimination required to realize the Self. Why? Because if you dangle the concept of the "descent" (reintegration with the manifold, the state of the jivanmukta) before the aspirant has even begun the climb, you create a fatal spiritual loophole.

The neophyte will inevitably attempt to skip the arduous ascent. He will rationalize his attachment to the world as a form of "divine play" or a "Bodhisattva's duty." This is the genesis of the modern spiritual larp, where individuals who have not achieved any degree of non-attachment claim the station of a Tantrika, deluding themselves and others. It’s a complete inversion of the traditional order.

Shankara’s silence is a filter. He presents the strait gate, and only after passing through it can the full scope of the landscape be understood. We are immeasurably indebted to the Master (PBUH) for illuminating these finer points of doctrine, which connect the inner heart of all traditions.

P.S.: Note that the ideas in "Ascending and Descending Realization" closely align with the Trika tradition.

I still have no idea what are meant to be the differences between reincarnation and metempsychosis. I thought Guenon and the rest believed in the latter?

Is it like this:
Reincarnation:
>karma decides what you are reborn as, good karma = heaven/higher being, bad karma = hell/lower being. "YOU" being atman? But then what do Buddhists believe reincarnates if they don't believe in atman?
Metempsychosis:
>completely impersonal, karma still decides the rebirth, but actions seem to create some metaphysical vestiges that condition the next existence? So there is no form of memory in this case? But then again, Pythagoras recognized the dog who was his best friend in a past life?

Also, didn't they believe unless you get initiated or achieve some other state of being in this life time you are annihilated?

>>24490297
The truth is rebirth is seen a million different ways in the intelligentsia of the religions that believe it, and both the descriptors you greentexted overlap in just about all the metaphysics I've read on rebirth. Basically my tentative conclusion is that nobody is totally certain how it works.

>>24489553
>The individual who has realized fana' ceases to exist as a person in the ordinary sense (like you and me) and is now a conscious manifestation of the Divine.

This is one of the most presumptuous and ill-fated beliefs across multiple faith systems. The persons who are and/or reach this state are categorically NOT the ones that say this about themselves, nor usually the ones about who other people say manifest Divinity (not just divine will, which can be a spotaneuous and different thing to discuss).

In Orthodox Christianity there is a thing called "prelest", describing the fake perception of high (self-)spirituality. What is interesting is that this fake spirituality can also occur in degrees of self /soul degradation which are not really ego death but rather forms of depression, extasis, or succumbation towards negative collective aspects (translucent forms of impersonation).

So while there certainly was and can be such a phenomena as baqa state (human in divine sustenance), boddhisatvas and the likes, the chance of one such figure being real and not a qualified form of self-delusion is 99.9% if not more. Most people just confuse empowerment and/or ascetic results to divine transcendence which frankly is not something an aunt can attain after Sunday yoga class that easy -- but neither a lifelong monk. Only God can tell, not humans

>>24490634
This is why Guénon (PBUH) rejected phenomena as the basis of the spiritual path

>>24487338 (OP)
Transmigration is undeniably true. Jews have been infiltrating Dharmic schools in order to teach an atheistic nihilistic version of the Dharma. My Buddhist center was full of Jews spreading adharma. OP is an idiot who doesn't realize he is spreading propaganda.
If mind is not fully reducible to brain activity, then it makes sense for explicit memory to have a degree of independence from brain activity when it is not arising. Memories and our responses to them carry mental energies that influence future lives.
It's possible that rebirth is more interplanetary rather than exclusively tied to earth. My own numinous experiences indicate planets are somehow tied to the dispositions latent in our psyches.

>>24491190
But don't the Jews believe in reincarnation as well? They call it gilgul, it's kabbalistic

>>24491190
>Memories and our responses to them carry mental energies that influence future lives.

That's not buddhist reincarnation lmao

>>24491352
The Lanksvatara Sutra teaches that the storehouse consciousness preserves the volitional imprints of our explicit memories, whose latent dispositions then ripen to shape the conditions of our future rebirth. Something like that.

>>24488101
glad to know that guenon tards are just materialist atheists.

>>24487524
This cannot be good.

>>24491061
Wow. In all the years of Guenonposting, I've never seen this image.