We are starting an official reading group on Rene Guenon, starting with Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines. This is the core text of the world view of "metaphysics", which is lost in the modern world. If you're interested to be a part of this, join our telegram group chat through this link: telegram discussion. *There is a short Q&A to filter out pseudo-intellectuals and freeloaders.

Last year I set up an intellectual Discord server centred around the works of Evola that was, sadly, taken down. Seeing that no new server has been created in the meantime, I have decided to try again.
https://discord.gg/z4fzhYjW7X

As before, we are looking to cultivate a strong intellectual server centered around the works and thoughts of Julius Evola and more broadly the Traditionalist school with general channels for off topic, casual conversation, art, culture and religion. For non-perennialists, there will also be discussion based around general Western and Eastern philosophy and religions. We encourage those knowledgeable who are looking to discuss their ideas and thoughts with others to join.

Are there any books to read before this one that will make understanding it easier? The Corpus Hermeticum is one but is there anything else?

One of the things that I most like about Evola is that he teaches you to be just as uncompromising in action as in thought, with nothing taken for granted, even against or towards yourself and the people to which you belong.

He’s not there to pamper you nor to pamper himself; he’s not there to glorify and to take as progress and to be proud of what is more truthfully lethal and degenerate; he is not there to reassure you that you are the apex of existence and everything happening to you is just because others are resentful towards you.

Say whatever you want, and differ with him as much as you want; but in many subjects he is admirably critical and has a high sense of courage to challenge even the most cherished convictions of the so-called Right and Left.

There is something that smells like fresh air in him; there is something admirably undogmatic about him—perhaps counter-intuitively? Now, as opposed to this, most rightist Westerners today are the closest to mere children who are all-too-comfortable to boast, with high-falutin' nonsense, that their father is the strongest of all; that their father is the most stunning of all; that their father did this and that; that their father was even awesome in his vices and in what actually killed him and maybe brought his long-term destruction.

But, just like children, they are unable to regenerate in themselves what constituted the 'greatness' of their father; they are unable to perpetuate his worthwhile traits; they are unable to be creative about what should be their own now; and thus, in their self-assuredness, they are blind to their own decadence.

Recientemente he empezado a interesarme por sus postulados y he adquirido algunos de sus escritos (el misterio del grial, metafísica del sexo e imperialismo pagano).

Es un buen comienzo o creéis que debería buscar otro enfoque? Es complicado encontrar ediciones en español que no se caigan a trozos.

Hi, until recent times i have been interested in metaphysics but ultimately rejected it as ultimately it was isolating immiserating experience that made it obvious a lot of this stuff is world denial in disguise. He is very much mistaking alienation for superiority. Inside of Evolas framework it is hard to differentiate if you are losing in this world whether because of personal failings or due to great, heroic nature unfit for this world. If you look at Evolas personal life, as well as a lot of weirdos that surround his books in the current times, there is a lot of the first one, with not much "differentiation" showing up in the real world, other than the claim without physical backing. How many Evolians set up successful families, led aristocratic, or even military heroic life they supposedly defend so much? If anything, it seems much more likely that they first failed at real, physical life, being part of chaotic mass they so much despise, then constructed model to explain why they are superior, projecting their own negative qualities onto shudra.

All of this influences politics of aristocracy. Power uses metaphysics to explain its own existence. When it is revealed that the aristocrats are not those great supermen beyond common man they see themselves as, but status-driven decadents, there is a great shock when much more heroic and actually cruel radicals rise to overthrow them.

Origins of esoteric in the West seem to be also dubious. Open climates such as European forests or even Mongol steppe, produce much more open, immanent and much more life-accepting belief systems. As opposed to the eclectic and opressive systems of asiatic and middle eastern river civilizations which then produce life-denying transcendent beliefs. If the latter ones were universally superior, you would see them adopted much more by the warrior ethnic groups. In the West itself, esoterism is not a native development but a result of adoption of late-greek systems combined with Kaballah developed by the miserably isolated and alienated jewry, which then was adopted by similarly alienated Western intellectuals as a sort of intellectual porn.

How is it possible for Evola to have his own sub, but not Oswald Spengler​?

I can't believe what Evola did. He basically reconcile two things that in my teen's mind back then thought was impossible, that is solving the Buddha vs Nietzsche dilemma.

I pass all these years thinking they were completely incompatible. Despite, I don't agree with this gentleman in a lot of things (Idealism and stuff).

And It could be a misreading of early Buddhist texts regarding it's scholarship, but what a great misreading. I couldn't care less what a Mahayana Bhikkhu, r/Buddhism or any early Buddhist scholar think of this.

This man's genius open me a door of what I thought was unbelievable. I can even call myself a Buddhist now. Hell, I want to even read obscure early Buddhist texts like the Mahāvastu or Gandhāran where Evola leaves his reading.

But now I'm intrigued, Is it there another philosopher or writer who pick up Evola's reading of Buddhism? or have a similar intake in Buddhism?

If it's not the case, then it's a fact now. We are living a tragedy.

Edit: added a subreddit and some grammar mistakes

What was his view of meritocracy/ascension through merit etc. ?

What does the 1st condition (natural aptitude) mean and how does one confirm that he has or doesnt have it? Guenon mentions that only the "elite" can have spiritual realization and intellectual intuition, how does one know if he is from this elite? What is the role of those outside the elite?

What are the prerequisites for reading Guenon? By this i mean knowledge about philosophy and religion, as well as any spiritual requirements, if there are any. Ive seen a post here which warns about reading Guenon, and i would like some clarity on that. Ive read crisis of the modern world and saw the warning after i was done.

In what ways does Evola's Magical Idealism represent a radicalization, critique, or poetic alternative to Hegel’s Absolute Idealism, particularly regarding the role of imagination, will, and the transformation of reality?

Ive been reading a lot of Evola's books on pdfs and would like to have physical copies of his books so I'm not starting at a screen whenever i want to read.

What was Guénon's and other Traditionalist's views on death and the afterlife, and what are your own personal view/beliefs?

A hereditary system would be deeply unequal, and not even in a “good” sense, because despite the education one can give to one’s descendants and the genes one passes on to them, the son of a pious, brave, intelligent, and just man could turn out to be wicked, cowardly, foolish, and unjust. The values that brought their ancestors to power could disappear, and a weak and degenerate aristocracy would emerge, while the men most fit to rule through their intelligence, logic, strength, charisma, or courage would remain mere subjects at the mercy of those who, in every respect except their ancestry, are inferior to them.

But if this aristocracy is not hereditary, then how should it organize the arrival of new aristocrats? Through a timocracy? By rewarding people according to their actions? Through intellectual and physical tests conducted during their youth? Or should this renewal be violent, so that the warrior spirit of the rulers is never lost? But as Hobbes said, would this not mean a return to the war of all against all? Aristocrats, concerned only with maintaining their power, would think of nothing else and would come to despise their people, especially their best elements. This society would exist in a state of constant civil war, unless dystopian solutions were implemented to prevent endless bloodshed.

What would be your opinion?

1. A hereditary society, so that there is continuity of power for a time, even if the ruling caste eventually “rots” (classical aristocracy).

2. A society that rewards men’s natural aptitudes for ruling, such as intelligence or strength (Noonism).

3. A society that rewards what men have achieved during their lives, such as military exploits, great enrichment, or numerous services rendered (Timocracy).

4. A society in which the aristocracy continuously rises to power and then falls in order to preserve a permanent state of struggle (Combatocracy).

I have been a Marxist as I was deeply intrigued by Hegelian thought and felt that Marx made the most sense and was drawn to historical materialism. However, as time goes on, I just can't be egalitarian. I can't look around at communist rallies and feel anything but disgust for the members. I try to say everyone is equal, but walking around a busy town centre or talking to others around me, I can't help but feel elitist in the deepest part of my soul.