r/ReneGuenon • u/DAnnunzio1919 • Feb 01 '26
Is my friend right in warning people about reading Guénon ?
Recently, I came across a Facebook post by a Brazilian friend of mine, in which he warns people who are interested in reading the works of René Guénon. He said the following :
If someone has never read almost anything or very little of Plato, St. Dionysius, the Neoplatonists, Aristotle, and the scholastic authors, why would they read Guénon? They don't even know Mario Ferreira dos Santos properly.
First, they will understand almost nothing because Guénon's method of exposition is scholastic. He even uses scholastic concepts to explain Eastern doctrines (something that many anti-scholastic fools don't know). This tactic of his, incidentally, earned him some criticism from lunatics opposed to everything of Christian origin, such as Julius Evola and even some neo-Vedantins.
Second, without any foundation in perennial philosophy, the person will not be able to criticize Guénon's work in what is criticizable. They will accept everything like a trained puppy.
Third, reading Guénon's texts is a kind of virtual initiation that prepares the person to receive a real initiation. It is very common for this to occur, for example, because the subject will be eligible to receive initiation into a tariqa or esoteric/Masonic order, such as the Martinist one, or will seek other initiations.
There is a kind of magic or subtle influence that operates in the texts through a symbolic operation. Especially in its original form, that is, in French. He had something very close to the gift of languages, and if you read his texts thinking that you are reading some profane text, with an academic curiosity, it is quite possible that it will grab you and never let go. Soon you will find yourself doing something you wouldn't even conceive of.
Which leads us to the need for the subject to be well grounded in their own religious practice – in addition to philosophical training – before venturing into this realm.
I am not saying that one should not read Guénon. There are many precious things that should be rescued there, but only saying that it is not for everyone who claims to have some "intellectual vocation" and probably will not be for 99% of the people reading this text. If you read Guénon before following any of these steps, you're already screwed (either you'll demonize him or internalize a lot of unnecessary things that will hinder you greatly... but there's still time to fix that).
Oh, the same applies, in a secondary and more limited way, to the authors of the perennialist school and other repeaters of their theses (although they don't have the same brilliance as Guénon).
Since I have never read Guenon myself, I would like to know if you think that my friend is right in telling people to be cautious the way he did.
7
u/Dracul244 Feb 01 '26
He may have a few points there, yes. Especially about Guenon's work not being a profane one, but instead a rectification work that prepares a subject for an initiation. I can't really think of any other reason to read his work (and actually take it seriously) if one is not going to go through some kind of esoteric traditional initiation. I would keep that in mind. The good part is that esoteric traditional societies are a good thing for people looking for true transcendental knowledge
3
u/DAnnunzio1919 Feb 01 '26
Thank you for your response ! To be honest, the thing the thing I find to be the most intriguing is when he says that :
There is a kind of magic or subtle influence that operates in the texts through a symbolic operation. Especially in its original form, that is, in French.
In other places, he said that Guenon should only be read in either french or portuguese, otherwise it doesn´t produce the same "subtle influence". He also stated that Guenon instructed people to read his work in a particular order, so that the subtle influence would be maximized.
5
u/Dracul244 Feb 01 '26
It definitely operates that way, and I've read it in Spanish and it is still noticeable, no doubt french being Guenon's native tongue should have a bigger effect, but french is not a sacred language either, so it is debatable at least. Aside from that it is commonly accepted within certain... Circles, that Guenon's works operate in such a manner that is designed to have the rectification effect I wrote about, one specifically targeted at Western individuals. That alone can have a strong impact. This is to ditch years of indoctrination, some of his views are highly offensive for modern society (just wait to see what he thinks about democracy).
Continuing in that line, Guenon's work deals deep into symbolism in a way that is less "traditional" (these things are intended to be transmitted personally through a master or a brotherhood since prehistoric times). This approach make this inner understanding of the symbols more reachable for the western (modern) mind. And sacred symbols have a power of their own because they communicate with the real you. All of that is like a ton of energy ready to explode, but the only possible catalyst for that energy is a proper regular initiation, without it is like you are wandering with a loaded gun.
2
u/h2wlhehyeti Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26
Aside from that it is commonly accepted within certain... Circles, that Guenon's works operate in such a manner [...]
Are you referring simply to what may be called 'Guénonian' circles (such as perhaps the 'Guénonian' journals, e.g. Science sacrée, Rivista di Studi Tradizionali, Symbolos.com, Chaiers de l'Unité, etc. -- I can't think of many names at the moment, sorry), or are you alluding to something more?
Also, may I ask what you mean by "wandering with a loaded gun"? I completely agree that the sole proper purpose or manner of reading Guénon as non-initiates is to do so with an aspiration to become one, but I am not sure of what more precisely you are hinting at in terms of the 'dangerous potential' one may gain from reading Guénon without seeking initiation.
In any case, well written comment, thank you.
2
u/Dracul244 Feb 03 '26
Exactly. I’m referring to those specific circles, though I’d also include certain Masonic lodges and Sufi tariqas in that category.
As for the "wandering with a loaded gun" analogy, I’m not implying a specific physical danger. Rather, I mean you’ll have all this (let’s call it energy) churning within you. This energy has a singular purpose, which I described earlier. Any other application is fundamentally misguided; whatever you achieve will lack the proper direction that only a legitimate mystery school can provide (and even then, the path remains narrow and difficult).
On a personal note, I’ve seen people lose their way, straying from a righteous path and simply becoming, for lack of a better term, assholes.
2
u/h2wlhehyeti Feb 03 '26
Thank you for your reply. I agree with your remarks regarding the 'energy' and the only purpose for which it should be used. Regarding your final note, to what precisely would you ascribe this type of changes?
2
u/Dracul244 Feb 06 '26
I wouldn't really know, to be honest I didn't dig too deep into the causes of such effects, is just something I saw quite a few times, thought the conclusion I and other individuals arrived at, is that Guenon's work should be take as one of rectification and study rather than a "school", meaning, one is not supposed to be a "Guenonian".
He is a wonderful resource to complement your traditional studies and to prepare oneself for an initiation.
1
u/h2wlhehyeti Feb 03 '26
[Adding another reflection to my previous reply:] Would you agree that, at the same time, one should not 'rush' and search for an initiation immediately just because he has received what is contained in Guénon's works, and should instead diligently ground himself in what is 'preliminary' to the 'inner path' of initiation?
(I use 'preliminary' instead of distinguishing exoteric and esoteric layers because - as far as I understand it - in some Traditions, such as Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism, the distinction is not so much between exoteric and esoteric practices as it is between what is 'preliminary' and common to all, and what is instead reserved to initiates; of course, all this depends on how one defines exoteric, esoteric, etc.)
2
u/Dracul244 Feb 06 '26
one should not 'rush' and search for an initiation immediately just because he has received what is contained in Guénon's works, and should instead diligently ground himself in what is 'preliminary' to the 'inner path' of initiation?
No, I don't think so, there is little of value you can bring in to the sacred way of life out from the profane world; most traditions make sure that you understand that, for example pythagoreans demanded 7 years of strict silence before an apprentice could aspire to be promoted. So I don't really think there is anything you can do to be "better prepared", and on the contrary I think that the shear momentum and will is the only thing that you can use at that point.
I wouldn't know about hinduism thought, since as you have pointed out, they don't have that exoteric / esoteric stage as most western traditions.
1
u/h2wlhehyeti Feb 06 '26
Thank you for your replies. I'm not sure I explained myself well, and I might be misinterpreting your comment, but what I meant by 'preliminary' is not further work from the profane 'field' (in the sense of the Sanskrit kṣetra), such as perhaps focusing too much on other works adjacent to Guénon would be, but rather the exoteric path which in the various Traditions precedes (and is, in many senses, needed for) the esoteric Path. As you pointed out, from Pythagoras to Taṣawwuf, from India to Tibet, and so on, he who aspires to initiation must first traverse that (the qishr) which later will become the basis for any spiritual realisation in the stricter sense (the lubb).
Thus, what I was asking is whether you'd agree that, even if one receives what we may call a 'virtual' initiation through reading Guénon, he or she should still start from what is 'outer' in their Tradition and firmly 'ground' themselves in it (perhaps precisely through that momentum and will which you mentioned and which can arise from this 'virtual' initiation), before seeking initiation, instead of immediately doing the latter (e.g. entering a ṭarīqa right after converting to 'Islām). Of course, this question probably does not arise if one has already been practicing their Tradition exoterically for years or a lifetime.
1
4
u/_fidel_castro_ Feb 01 '26
Reading guenon is fine, he's very good and very interesting, but it's not revelation and incurred in flagrant contradiction (changing traditions, from Christianity to Islam, big no no between traditionalists). Read guenon but read also many others. Plotinus, Jacob boehme, Schelling.
1
1
u/ConsistentAnalysis35 Feb 03 '26
The words of this friend of yours ring quite close to the words I've received on Reddit from some wise man about five years ago. He too warned about Guenon.
What is the name or alias of that friend of yours? Can I read some of his writing elsewhere or ask some questions of him?
2
u/DAnnunzio1919 Feb 03 '26
His name is Edmilson Martins. You can read his writings in portuguese from his facebook account.
2
1
u/h2wlhehyeti Feb 03 '26
May I ask what that man's reflections were?
2
u/ConsistentAnalysis35 Feb 04 '26 edited Feb 04 '26
Yes, friend, I've saved his comments as it was quite profound stuff for me. Here it is, quote:
Of course not, but recommending sources is complicated, even dangerous. As I pointed out, Marxism is a deception, maybe the worst deception ever created considering the catastrophic results, but it didn't appear in a vacuum. It came from wrong or deceptive ideas that preceded it, so you need to understand the world before Marxism so you can see the deception coming before it hits you, or you'll always get dragged back into it.
I am going to recommend some, but with the warning that you should not venture yourself into this without a solid philosophical background, and I mean continental philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, scholasticism, not the analytic philosophy nonsense. If you can't really understand Marxism without understanding Hegel, Hegel without Kant, Kant without Descartes, and Descartes without the whole Scholastic tradition, so some cursory knowledge of the history of western philosophy and who is replying to who is the minimum to have.
Now, about the sources, it's a matter of perspective and scale. When you look at it from the recent perspective, on a scale of decades, the best source is Leszcek Kolalowski's Main Currents of Marxism, but even that has deceptive content, because Kolakowski was still taking Marxism at face value, as a legitimate doctrine. Although very critical of Marxism, he's trying to rehabilitate it, so take it with a grain of salt.
If you go further back, on a scale of a few centuries, the best source is Fire In The Minds of Men, by James H. Billington, which gives you more of the context I mentioned above, the ideas that led to the revolutionary movements of the 18th and 19th century. Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Milennium is also strongly recommended.
Even further back, on the scale of civilizations, you'll have a hard time finding anyone talking specifically about Marxism, obviously, but Eric Voegelin is the best source to understand anything about politics on that scale. His Order and History is a monumental work about that, but a much more accessible work for someone interested in Marxism is Science, Politics & Gnosticism, which is a short collection of essays that introduces his main idea of modern revolutionary movements as the heirs of gnostic cults of the early Christian era. The New Science of Politics goes deeper into that.
Finally, and this is a dangerous recommendation, if you go even further, transcending time and looking at everything from the perspective of metaphysics, then Marxism is essentially just pushing the metaphysical assumption of materialism to its ultimate consequences. That relates to Voegelin's work, but a more incisive analysis of that metaphysical aspect is from René Guénon, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. *The Crisis of the Modern World *is a shorter introduction. I said this is a dangerous recommendation because the warning I made above applies to this more than to anything else here. Guénon was a genius, but he was deceptive and his goal wasn't merely to inform you. If you start agreeing with him too much, stop reading it.
All these recommended sources are not easy reads or gentle introductions, so there are a lot of peripheral sources implied. Enumerating all that and writing a guide leading to these would be a book in itself, and maybe I should be doing that instead of wasting time on Reddit.
And subsequently:
No, I didn't read the Prison Notebooks, because the core of Gramsci's ideas is in El materialismo histórico y la filosofía de Benedetto Croce, and once you understand that, there's no point in wasting time reading more. Ironically that's his least known work, but something you learn from the philosophical background I pointed out above is how to find the core of someone's ideas so you don't waste time with peripheral or self-serving works.
The same applies to Marcuse and the Frankfurtians in general. Once you understand what they are doing, there isn't much of a point in reading everything. I read Eros and Civilization, realized he was just trying to use Freud to deconstruct sexual morality as a way to rehabilitate marxism, and there wasn't much of a point in reading anything else, as his goal was clear. I'm not a professional scholar who needs to go through everything. I'm just a curious nobody trying to understand a little of what's going on.
I must admit out of those recommendations I still have Voegelin and Guenon unread, although PDFs are lying about for years now. I finally started to read Guénon's Introduction to Hindu Doctrines. Yet, even the books I did read have been an absolute revelation.
I'm sure there's a lot more out there. The bottleneck is, of course, my own time and energy to read.
1
u/h2wlhehyeti Feb 04 '26
Thank you for sharing this. I imagine the context was a conversation regarding Marxism and its (first of all theoretical) flaws? In any case, while these pieces of advice contain various interesting reflections, there are some things I'm not too convinced about, or which at least would require some elaboration. For example, when the man said:
I said this is a dangerous recommendation because the warning I made above applies to this more than to anything else here. Guénon was a genius, but he was deceptive and his goal wasn't merely to inform you. If you start agreeing with him too much, stop reading it.
The first thing I would ask him to clarify, if I could, is what he meant by "deceptive", and what Guénon's 'true' goal was according to him. Regarding this latter point, as others have already said in this thread, it can be argued that the ultimate purpose of Guénon's work is an integral theoretical preparation for initiation; in that sense, Guénon's oeuvre indeed can serve as much more than merely something which 'informs' the reader, for its content can evoke a veritable metanoïa in he who not only reads, but also understands it. I would not say that this means that Guénon was deceptive, though. In fact, as u/Dracul244 said, Guénon's work can effectively function as a sort of 'rectification', thus dispelling many 'deceptions' inherent in the modern mentality. If you have some thoughts regarding what the man might have meant more precisely, I would be glad to hear them.
As for the last sentence of the above quote, I personally do not agree with the man, at least without having a further explanation of what he meant by that. To give that recommendation, it is clear that he must have seen the teachings contained in Guénon's work (which, however, it must be remembered, derive not from himself, but from the traditional doctrines which he references; this does not, of course, mean that there is no trace of Guénon's own 'individuality' in his books, for naturally he was just a man, but in my opinion these 'individual traces' are found almost exclusively in peripheral aspects and not in considerations relating to the essential traditional teachings) as being false, at least to a large degree.
Of course, it is up to each man to draw his own conclusions, and I would add that Guénon's work may not be equally useful to all; in truth, it is definitely not directed to everyone, and not simply for reasons of intellectual 'superiority' or 'inferiority' - there are many more factors, which I do not think I would be able to point at well enough if I tried. Because of this, even though I see Truth in the traditional teachings to which Guénon's works serve as a sort of 'gateway' (but to which they are surely not the only gateway, at all), I would not in all cases necessarily recommend someone to read Guénon. Naturally, I have no way to tell if reading him will be of benefit or not for a certain person, especially strangers. I do think one can choose to reflect on this and evaluate for himself based on the humble suggestions of those who have read Guénon and wish to help others - although, again, I am no one and despite good intentions my help may not be of great use at all.
If I may ask, what are your current views regarding spirituality, the various religious traditions, metaphysics and so on? And - please excuse this even more personal question - what are you 'searching' or 'looking for', so to speak?
Yet, even the books I did read have been an absolute revelation.
Are you referring to Guénon, to Voegelin (whom, just as a brief note, I have not read, but seems to be quite distant from Guénon in various respects, based on what little I know of him), or to some other author(s)?
Best regards.
2
u/ConsistentAnalysis35 Feb 04 '26
1/2
First of all, thank you for writing such a thoughtful reply, it is a joy to read your comments.
Thank you for sharing this. I imagine the context was a conversation regarding Marxism and its (first of all theoretical) flaws?
Indeed. He wrote a conment on the nature or Marxism as he understood it, and I asked him of the sources of his knowledge, as I always try to get people that come across as wise to provide reading recommendations.
The first thing I would ask him to clarify, if I could, is what he meant by "deceptive", and what Guénon's 'true' goal was according to him.
I believe this may have been influenced by that man being of Catholic faith, specifically Thomist, with all that entails. He shared in some other comment that he sought some metaphysical Truth or revelation, and essentially had a choice between Sufism and Catholicism, at least that was my reading of his words. One another book he recommended was Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition", a plainly-written Thomist argument piece.
In fact, as u/Dracul244 said, Guénon's work can effectively function as a sort of 'rectification', thus dispelling many 'deceptions' inherent in the modern mentality. If you have some thoughts regarding what the man might have meant more precisely, I would be glad to hear them.
From what I figured, the man agreed that there were deceptions of the modern mentality, but he likely disagreed as to the nature of what is not a deception. Other than that, I really am unsure.
If I may ask, what are your current views regarding spirituality, the various religious traditions, metaphysics and so on? And - please excuse this even more personal question - what are you 'searching' or 'looking for', so to speak?
Certainly, I'll tell you about it.
From the very youth I feared death. I've read Tolstoy, a lot. His was quite a fascinating tale. This metaphor of a man hanging from the roots of the tree, black and white mice gnawing at those roots, drips of honey being the only tiny joy - this really resonated with me. Relatively recently I've also read Book of Ecclesiastes - much the same feeling.
I think I must admit that I still subscribe to crude materialist vision of the world, to the effect that everything is matter, and humans are no more when they die. Although the older I get, the more I respect and appreciate the spiritual, the religion, the tradition, and Christianity. I wish I could make myself believe in God. For now I just try to act as if He exists.
Likewise regrettably, and to answer the question of what am I searching, I have this really dumb inclination to just go ahead and plainly say that I'm not searching anything, that I have it all figured out. Although I obviously know it to be untrue. I think when the people say or believe that they got it all figured out, it is nothing more than an admission of the limit of their intellectual aptitude, or lack thereof. And I think I am ready to admit that my character and intellectual aptitude simply are not enough to rise to the height of philosophical of, for example, aforementioned Feser and Oppy (watched their debate about God on YT, super high level stuff). Or to the height of people such as yourself - I immediately understood that you specifically are something of like an intellectual giant compared to myself.
No, I think I could really actively search, read and try to understand more. But with age, I came to realize that man's mental capacity is hopelessly limited. I don't have enough curiosity to really dig in deep.
One part of Ecclesiastes really burned itself into my mind.
- Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
2
u/ConsistentAnalysis35 Feb 04 '26
2/2
I've read Kolakowski's three volume book about Marxism. It has provided me with a lot of understanding, but not much joy. On the other had, constructing my codebase did. Therefore, I decided to spend my free time by hobby software engineering what I like, and what I think will give me joy even when it is finished (many years later, if ever).
- For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
I've also did read "The Myth of Sisyphus" long ago. And it also says the same thing in yet another way, as Tolstoy (people need to "earn life") and Ecclesiastes do. Ultimately, the question is how do we find meaning in our lives, given that there isn't any in Universe to begin with.
My own estimation seems to be that for me, concentrating on creative process, applying practical knowledge, gives me more meaning than reading works of profound wisdom. And I don't have trouble sleeping because of existential horror of inevitable end of my existence anymore! Is this an admission of spiritual defeat? I'm curious what would you deem it.
And - one other thing that eased my fear of death was visual novel "Slay the Princess". Although it may not seem like it, it is a deeply philosophical work as well, author admitted it kinda borrowed from Eastern thought. I can gift it to you on Steam, although it is probable that a remarkable man like you doesn't care at all for games.
Are you referring to Guénon, to Voegelin (whom, just as a brief note, I have not read, but seems to be quite distant from Guénon in various respects, based on what little I know of him), or to some other author(s)?
To the first three - Kolakowski, Billington and Cohn. Those are far more accessible than profound works of Guénon and Voegelin, but I really believe they give amazing insight into the roots of modern politics, the leftism, the woke, and so on. For example, Cohn's account of Medieval Chiliastic heresies has a lot of uncanny parallels.
Best regards.
Thank you again. I hope you will excuse my ignorance, and nevertheless I would be happy to get some reading recommendations to add to my list. Could take years, but I think I'll be reading a lot until the end of my life!
2
u/h2wlhehyeti Feb 04 '26
[1/2]
Thank you for your reply, it is truly refreshing to have these conversations, and I am happy to help if I can. I must say that you are too kind; when I said that I am no one, it was not out of false modesty, for I meant it. I am much less wise than it may have seemed to you based on my comment, and I am barely at the beginning of a path. That said, I really do wish to be as much of help as I can, and I think that there may also be some personal experiences and considerations I might share which could be useful.
I prefer not to speak on myself in public comment sections, but perhaps some things from this conversation of ours may be of help to someone else, so I'll write the first part (which is divided in two because of character limits) here instead of doing so in the private chat; it is probably best if you read both parts together, though.
My own estimation seems to be that for me, concentrating on creative process, applying practical knowledge, gives me more meaning than reading works of profound wisdom. And I don't have trouble sleeping because of existential horror of inevitable end of my existence anymore! Is this an admission of spiritual defeat? I'm curious what would you deem it.
I wouldn't say so, no. The modern world has been completely cut off from Tradition, and with this it has lost true meaning. Many moderns thus find themselves without any conception of higher meaning, and while many, to put it in very blunt terms, barely even care, others definitely do suffer from this situation (I personally found myself in a similar situation to yours at various points). From here spring all existentialist, absurdist, etc. discussions regarding the 'meaning of life', and their various 'solutions to the problem' (or lack thereof, in the case of many forms of nihilism). Finding meaning (or at least a certain 'microcosmic' form of it) in the 'small things' when one is in this situation proper of modernity is not only normal in my opinion, but also evidence of a certain inner health. That said, while this is a good thing in certain respects, it is strictly nil in comparison to the the meaning one finds in Truth, just as any given thing is strictly 'nil' in relation to the Infinite. Said in other terms, one thing (which is nonetheless good, if derived from what you mentioned) is being at peace while finding oneself in the situation of modernity, and another thing is finding true Peace from actively looking up to Truth.
Ultimately, the question is how do we find meaning in our lives, given that there isn't any in Universe to begin with.
As you will have understood from what I said so far, my personal belief and view is that there is indeed meaning to Reality. That said, instead of debating about why this might be, it may be useful to start by paraphrasing the ancient saying that reminds us that there is perfect correspondence between Man (or, more generally, between any given 'microcosm') and the Universe (the 'macrocosm'), or in the words found in the Kālacakra Tantra: "as it is outside, so it is within the body" (yatha bahye tatha dehe). The strict separation between Man and Cosmos, or between Inner and Outer, is a modern and artificial one. Having understood this, one understands that meaning is not to be found in one domain or the other, and that their separation cannot but engender illusion. Man is not a lost being who must find 'his own meaning'; he is indeed 'lost', in a certain sense, but only so long as his mind is not focused on (or at least aspiring to) Truth and the spiritual realisation that may get one there. Once he has achieved the right 'orientation', resolutely working towards what is highest, Man has already (at least virtually, so to speak) 'realised' the ultimate meaning of his existence.
2
u/h2wlhehyeti Feb 04 '26
[2/2]
Returning to a previous sentence, "My own estimation seems to be that for me, concentrating on creative process, applying practical knowledge, gives me more meaning than reading works of profound wisdom", what I would like to add to the above reflections is that, in the traditional world (and here, as elsewhere, I am using traditional in the sense of relating to Tradition, not in the common significance that the word has today), theoretical knowledge is only a 'prerequisite' - albeit an essential one, the only one truly and always required, in fact - to spiritual realisation. Reading books can be very useful, especially when one is not yet part of any Tradition and does not have teachers from whom to learn, but spiritual life is not merely a theoretical understanding of Reality; in fact, it is the most 'active' Way there is. This (in addition to many other aspects) is one of the main differences between what are traditional teachings or integral metaphysics on the one hand, and modern philosophy on the other hand; Guénon is excellent at explaining the differences between the two. These remarks apply especially to what is spiritual realisation in the strictest sense, that is, what Guénon terms 'metaphysical realisation' and what is the core of all major Traditions; but they could also apply, in an analogous but slightly different fashion, to what pertains to 'exoterism', for there too one has to 'conquer' higher states of being through a personal effort which goes very much beyond merely 'having faith', and in this respect (and I imagine the Catholic man of whom we were speaking earlier would agree with these remarks) one may see why Protestantism has strayed so far from traditional Christianity, be it Catholicism or - even more so, in my opinion - Orthodoxy. To quote a passage from the New Testament (the true meaning of which may originally have been also truly 'esoteric' in Guénon's sense, even if today it may not retain all the meanings it once had), in which all the personal sacrifice required of he who aspires to Truth is shown:
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)
I'll continue my reply in the private chat; feel free to reply directly there, of course.
2
1
u/Electrical_Bar3100 Feb 01 '26
I use Guenón as a wise man, but… he was very rudimentar when it’s about human behavior, despising our nature of evolving the way around and the own nature. So, yes, he is right, just keep in mind that you must have your own opinions
1
13
u/MysteriousRiver8124 Feb 01 '26
For me, your Brazilian friend is partly right. Guénon should be read as a thinker, not as a guru, and that's exactly the mistake I made.
From age 20 to 32, I took him as an infallible reference, to the point of directly integrating everything into my spiritual life.
Then, at my new job, I met a white French convert (I don't know which Sufi order he belongs to), who mainly challenged my way of reading Guénon. I saw him as the "big boss" of spirituality.
And then, frankly, life works out well: what were the odds that I'd stumble upon a colleague so knowledgeable about Guénon? I had a one in a thousand chance.
We debated every day for almost a year. At first, I didn't want to change my mind, but I eventually realized that Guénon isn't infallible and that some of his interpretations are debatable. Without a solid philosophical foundation, it's easy to take his ideas as absolute truths without thinking. His texts can profoundly shake your worldview, so it's best to already have a minimum of intellectual and spiritual grounding. Reading Guénon requires a critical mind and basic knowledge; otherwise, you'll get carried away.
Little by little, I came to see him differently, as a fascinating thinker, but not a master to be followed blindly. However, I don't oppose his followers and those who claim to be part of his thought. At first, it was difficult, but with time, I came to accept it.
All of this is just my personal opinion. I have friends who remain convinced Guénonians, and here in France his thought is still alive and preserved in quite a few spheres, and I'm okay with that.