Re: the cube as the maximum of solidification. I took some tracking classes a few summers ago. The first principle: "anything that isn't flat is a track." In other words, it seems, any change whatever may be traced from a corresponding deformity on the surface of a cube. Naturally, if the cube corresponds to prakriti or hyle, then it is in its nature to be shaped by action. But the possibility of shaping it lies on the side of purusha. Thus in the "terrestrial paradise" which corresponds to purusha, changes are all possible but none actual, whereas in the "heavenly jerusalem" none are possible (for purusha has ceased to act upon it). Change actually occurs only between these two extremes, in the "fallen world" where manifestation is not fittingly represented either by a sphere or a cube but something in between that borrows aspects of both figures. "Cessation of action" reminds one of Agni, thus relating the flames of the final judgment to the flames of jnana, which also accords with the microcosm-macrocosm analogy. Re: the New Testament. Guénon's remarks about the historico-critical method are certainly applicable to the research of Ehrman and the like. Even so, my own priest once remarked that the provenance of the New Testament was almost scandalously poor compared to the exactitude with which the Quran has been preserved. In Insights into Christian Esoterism Guénon postulates a deliberate cover-up of the teachings of the primitive Church around the time of Constantine. It seems that most Christian Traditionalists take umbrage at this idea, but I wonder what you think. Isn't it said that the Church was originally a tariqa? If so, then have modern critics any hope at all of understanding how the New Testament came to be?
Teacher, please make a video on John Michell reading list. AND also, I might be asking for more but I can't help but enjoy these videos, once you are done with the 'reign', make a list of videos on another book of Sheikh AbdalWahid Yahia Guenon. I just can't seem to get enough of these videos.
Hello Sir, I had thought you were ill and we weren't going to get a lecture this week. AlhamduLILLAH the lecture is here. I hope you are doing good Professor. Best Wishes, Aakash Rabbi
Re: the cube as the maximum of solidification. I took some tracking classes a few summers ago. The first principle: "anything that isn't flat is a track." In other words, it seems, any change whatever may be traced from a corresponding deformity on the surface of a cube. Naturally, if the cube corresponds to prakriti or hyle, then it is in its nature to be shaped by action. But the possibility of shaping it lies on the side of purusha. Thus in the "terrestrial paradise" which corresponds to purusha, changes are all possible but none actual, whereas in the "heavenly jerusalem" none are possible (for purusha has ceased to act upon it). Change actually occurs only between these two extremes, in the "fallen world" where manifestation is not fittingly represented either by a sphere or a cube but something in between that borrows aspects of both figures. "Cessation of action" reminds one of Agni, thus relating the flames of the final judgment to the flames of jnana, which also accords with the microcosm-macrocosm analogy.
Re: the New Testament. Guénon's remarks about the historico-critical method are certainly applicable to the research of Ehrman and the like. Even so, my own priest once remarked that the provenance of the New Testament was almost scandalously poor compared to the exactitude with which the Quran has been preserved. In Insights into Christian Esoterism Guénon postulates a deliberate cover-up of the teachings of the primitive Church around the time of Constantine. It seems that most Christian Traditionalists take umbrage at this idea, but I wonder what you think. Isn't it said that the Church was originally a tariqa? If so, then have modern critics any hope at all of understanding how the New Testament came to be?
Thank you for uploading another chapter!
My pleasure. More next week. I got behind schedule a bit, but now back on track, al-ḥamdulillāh.
@@SaiyadNizamuddinAhmad Excellent! Looking forward to it!
Excellent, just excellent. Thank you for this series.
Thank you for continuing the series Saiyad
Teacher, please make a video on John Michell reading list. AND also, I might be asking for more but I can't help but enjoy these videos, once you are done with the 'reign', make a list of videos on another book of Sheikh AbdalWahid Yahia Guenon. I just can't seem to get enough of these videos.
These are excellent suggestions and I will try to do it some time next year in shāʾ Allāh.
Fantastic lecture, as always. Thank you!
You're most welcome!
Pure gem
Thank you.
Watching for the second time, it was very well explained.
Love it! ✨
I very happy to know you are finding this material to be of benefit.
Hello Sir, I had thought you were ill and we weren't going to get a lecture this week. AlhamduLILLAH the lecture is here. I hope you are doing good Professor.
Best Wishes,
Aakash Rabbi
Thank you for your concern. I am well al-ḥamdulillāh.