Because we write about topics such as being, religion, knowledge, history and the like — topics philosophers like to deal with — some readers of Gornahoor have the mistaken impression that we are also philosophers. Hence, they presume we are defending a particular philosophico-religious system, or trying to promote one; then they desire to engage in debate, for their own unfathomable purposes. Philosophy in our time involves speculative theories about the nature of the world and mind or else a tedious logical analysis of words. This is far from our task. Readers wishing to discuss topics are obliged to read the entire blog, or at least related material, prior to drawing any conclusions.
As we pointed out in Metaphysical Positivism, we regard metaphysics as an exact science analogous to physics.
- Physics
- The science of the natural, or external, world
- Metaphysics
- the science of the states of the inner world
When someone denies the possibility of such metaphysical knowledge, they are like the bishops who denied the existence of Jupiter’s moons discovered by Galileo. In the latter case, the solution is simple: look through the telescope. Analogously, in the former case, the solution lies in meditation or other spiritual exercises that will unveil the inner world. The obstacle is, however, that in metaphysics, “to know is to be”. That means that, in order to know a particular inner state, one’s very being much change to be in that state. Few are willing to go through the trouble; perhaps it is not even an option for many.
Such a change in being is not required in order to look through the telescope, a task that is readily accomplished by anyone. Therefore, physics is universal, democratic and egalitarian. Metaphysics is necessarily just the opposite.
We can relate this to the trichotomous structure of man.
| Spirit | Non-formal manifestation |
| Soul | Subtle manifestation |
| Body | Gross manifestation |
The body is part of gross manifestation, or nature. It is subject to the laws of physics. We may not be accustomed to regarding our soul life as part of manifestation, but it consists of our thought, desires, moods, feelings, daydreams, fantasies, likes, dislikes and so on. It is part of our human state. Physics is the science of gross manifestation, metaphysics of subtle manifestation or higher states. Hence, just as the physicist is detached when he studies the movements of the planets, so also must the metaphysician be when he observes the movement of thoughts, fantasies, and so on in his consciousness.
In the Kali Yuga, man’s identity is centered in his soul life, so it is very unnatural to have that sense of detachment in regards to the events in one’s own consciousness. The “analog I” is being asked to detach from the very objects of consciousness he is creating. That is why so many spiritual practices are aimed at destroying that identity of one’s being with the analog I.
The Spirit refers to non-formal manifestation. Whereas the soul and body are part of the phenomenal world, that is, part of our experience, the spirit cannot be an object of consciousness. In other words, it is noumenal; we can’t know it as an object, but rather as subject, a direct intuitive knowledge of oneself as subject. In most men, this awareness will be vague or even non-existent, that is, it is virtual. In the True Man, it is actualized as one’s true will.
Pingback: » Heredity and the Law of Attraction
What of the view that the temporal authority and the spiritual authority are “seperate, but equal” powers? Evola in Revolt mentions this as an acceptable thesis of the Middle Ages, though not his favoured one. In others words, there are areas where the Emperor is supreme and areas where the Pope is supreme, and they defer to the other in these cases. I have some quotes I have to dig up from that time, but essentially there were many clerics who felt that the Emperor must submit to the spiritual authority of the Pope, but that the Pope had to submit to the Emperor as a feudal lord in the Papal States and to his temporal power as “domine terrae” (lord of the earth). So in this thesis, when the Pope proclaims the observance of Easter, the Emperor must comply. But when the Emperor calls on troops to fight in a Crusade, the Pope must comply and send the Papal Army to fight. Any views on this system?
@ Colgero: I agree. Ideally there should be no conflict between the rulers/warriors and the clerical class. And yes, there should be a single man as head of both castes–the concept of Emperor who is above the various gradations of royalty and priestly class.
But unfortunately there have been conflicts. I mentioned previously the conflict between the Guelphs and Ghibillines.
This conflict, as well as the contours of modern world, are examples of a pervasive chaos and confusion. Part of the cosmic cycle…
The topic is getting abstract, without bringing into play the principals involved. Perhaps there is less difference than it appears. Back to principles, because terms like primacy or superiority are unclear.
Temporal power gets its justification from spiritual authority.
There really should be no conflict between the two, at least in a well-ordered system.
Ideally, the two castes would have a single man as the head of both.
So is your point that spiritual authority is merely a matter of material power? That’s what the primacy of temporal power over spiritual authority would imply, isn’t it?
Show us original sources, not secondary commentaries.
Not eliminating anything. Some may want to approach the material at a deeper level.
Ah, thumos is passion. I was mistranslating thumos as will.
I hope by taking it private you mean just eliminating the discussion forms. I really do enjoy your articles and would hate to lose access to them.
Came accross an article on Euro-Synergies, originally at counter-currents.com
The last paragraph is as follows: “Although Evola is indebted to Guenon in many ways, they differ on one point: the relationship of spiritual authority and temporal power, i.e., priesthood and royalty. In (his) book ‘Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power’ published in 1929, Guenon affirms the primacy of the priesthood over royalty. Evola, however, who thought that Western culture is rooted in a ‘tradition of warriors’, defends the opposite thesis, claiming that Guenon’s reasoning is marked by (the) ‘bramanico-sacredotal point of view of an Oriental.'”
Mark Sedgwick in his book “Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the 20th Century” also discussed this fundamental difference between Guenon and Evola.
http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/tag/ren%C3%A9+gu%C3%A9non
The above is the lind to the Euro-Synergies/counter-currents article. If it does not work just type in Remember Rene Guenon by Edourad Rix Eurosynergies in a search engine.
I think it is clear that some differences did in fact exist between Guenon and Evola. For my part, on come down on the side of Evola on this particular issue.
Thumos is not identical to the soul, it is one tendency. Eros is another. Get out of theory and observe your own consciousness.
You can experience a desire (eros) independent of thumos. The intelligence will decide whether or not to act on it, or how best to satisfy it. The desire may be strong, so some “will-power” (thumos) may have to be called up. In this case, thumos may be active in relation to eros, yet passive in relation to nous; so it is not absolutely masculine, just relatively.
Observe a moment of anger arising. Perhaps someone slighted you, a friend irritated you, a car cut you off on the highway. In this case, do you summon that anger or does it arise spontaneously in reaction to the event? I’m certain it is the latter. That is what makes it passive, or feminine. If the nous is not strong enough to channel it, you will act on that anger, probably in an ineffective way.
Say you are preparing for a sporting contest or some other competitive activity. In this case, you will “pump yourself up”, that is, use the energy of thumos to improve performance.
The point is that this is not really a matter for opinions or thoughts. One must learn to observe oneself over time in many different situations. Then one comes to understand himself, one’s nous is strengthened. One then sees the folly and futility of all the debates he used to participate in.
That is why we are taking Gornahoor “private”. There is only so much that can be shared via theoretical discussions. These need to be replaced with self-observation and spiritual exercises, at least for those able and willing to make the efforts.
As I understand it, both Evola and Guenon contend that their was originally no seperation between between the sacredotal and royal caste. As I recall, Guenon called this “Hamsa”, a Hindu term. But with the unfolding of the cosmic, a division occured. And the Kshtriyas, according to Evola, were above the Brahmans. Guenon takes the opposite position.
Guenon in one of his books–I believe East and West–has a chapter entitled “Revolt of Kshtriyas”, in which he discusses how this class attempted to usurp the functions of the priestly caste.
And Evola further contends that the conflict between the Guelphs and Ghibillines during the Middle Ages was just another example of this fundamental conflict.
In any event, I really am going to have to research this further. Let’s contine this thread for a while longer and see if we can come to a consensus resolution of this rather vexing question.
Oh, and one more thing. In the far East there is the tradition of the “Sage-King” which, of course, is identical to Plato’s Philosopher King.
‘Only logically distinct’ is a misleading way to put it. ‘Two sides of the same coin’ is more accurate.
Cologero,
Perhaps this is a more convenient and apposite place to continue our discussion of thumos. I hope I’m not falling into confusion by identifying thumos with soul and with the royal caste, and nous with spirit and the sacerdotal. Gottion’s quotation of Evola nicely underscores the issue; I also discovered this one on Evola as He Is:
“It should then be pointed out that, for the purpose at hand, that is to say to be able to show the subordination of the latter to the former, Guénon establishes between knowledge and action (as respective symbols of the sacerdotal caste and of the warrior or royal caste) an artificial differentiation which derives much more from a certain occidental philosophy than from the Orient. Since he understands correctly (insofar as it has always been the traditional teaching) that ‘knowledge’, in the metaphysical sense, and ‘realisation’ (action) are one and the same thing, are inseparable elements in the simplicity of an act, Guénon should not have any difficulty admitting that action – symbol of the warrior castes – can constitute a path just as metaphysical as ‘knowledge’. If this is not the case, it is because he prefers to consider and take for the whole an exclusively material type of action which in Sanskrit is termed sâkama-karma. Thus, for instance, when he speaks of will, he can write that it belongs to the material domain because “it is essentially oriented towards action” (p. 30). [Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power]
If I remember right, Plato states that the Philosopher-King would be trained as a warrior as well as a philosopher, which perhaps indicates that he viewed the royal and sacerdotal powers as united in this man. He also wrote that nous and thumos must cooperate to subjugate eros. Nevertheless, he appears ultimately to privilege knowledge over action; Platonism may even be the ‘certain occidental philosophy’ to which Evola refers.
I’m not so sure that thumos and eros aren’t equivalent, or nearly so, to yang and yin. As essence and substance in their relative forms.
At the very least, it appears problematical to say that thumos is feminine. If we take Evola’s way, nous and thumos even appear to be bound together (only logically distinct, as Coomaraswamy might say) in the masculine principle, or Yang. The androgynous ‘Tao’ or would exist at their source. Although Plato hints at this, it departs from his overt views quite radically.
But I think it fair to say castes are organized in a hierarchy. Therefore, some are above others. And then there is one which is above the others.
Ted, you need to start over again. You deliberately ignored our explanation. I hate to repeat myself … there is no disagreement between Guenon and Evola on this issue: “The masculine directs the feminine,” is true for both. “Superiority” is not the distinguishing mark of castes, which is based, instead, on their respective functions.
The only “further evidence” one needs is the alchemical transformation. Are you able to discern the actions of Sulphur and Mercury in your own consciousness ? When you do so, it will all become clear.
Easy.
´The br?hma?a caste is habitually thought of in the West as a “sacerdotal” caste. This is true only up to a certain point. In the Vedic origins the type of Brahman or “sacrificer” bears little resemblance to that of the “priest” as our contemporaries think of him: he was, rather, a figure both virile and awful and, as we have said, a kind of visible incarnation in the human world of the superhuman (bhu-deva). Furthermore, we often find in the early texts a point where the distinction between the br?hma?—the “sacerdotal” caste—and the ksatram or rajam—the warrior or regal caste—did not exist; a feature that we see in the earliest stages of all traditional civilizations, including the Greek, Roman, and German. The two types only began to differ in a later period, this being another aspect of the process of regression that we have mentioned.´ [Evola, “The Doctrine of Awakening” p. 28]
This conflict is really one that is essential to modern esoterism. Guenon exalts the priestly class, so for him–and for most traditionalists–the spirit, which represents the the aforementioned class, is superior to the masculine principle of the warrior/ruler class. Evola takes the opposite approach. In Alchemy, Mercury is Spirit and Sulpher is Soul. Mercury corresponds to the first phase of Alchemy, the White Work, which Evola calls the “regime of the Moon” in “The Hermetic Tradition”. This roughly corresponds to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and subsequent time spend on earth among his disciples before he rises to be “with the Father”, which corresponds to the Solar phase of the “Great Work”–the Red Work. In other words, the masculine principle of the Soul is above the feminine principle of the Spirit.
Evola cites some ancient Hindu texts to support his contention that the Kshatriya class of rulers/warriors,which represents the masculine principle of Soul, is superior to the Brahmin priestly caste, which represents the feminine principle of Spirit. Most notably in the Brihad Aranyaka Unpanishad where a Kshatriya actually instructs a Brahmin, who is surpised at the warriors knowledge. The Kshatriya replies that there are some things the Kshatriya’s have not yet told the Brahmans.
Will and Ariel Durant, who co-authored a multi-volume history of the world, say in volume one of this work, entitled “Our Oriental Heritage”, that the Brahman class was originally a secondary caste and were merely assistants to the rulers/warriors. This supports Evola’s contention.
Also the female principle, which represents the Spirit, is always secondary in all of the symbolic cosmogonies. Shakti comes from Shiva. The Yin comes from the Yang. Binah is an emanation of Chockmah in Jewish Kabbala. Eve is created from a rib taken from Adam. This supplies even further evidence that the masculine principle of the Soul is a higher principle that that of the feminine principle of the Spirit; the lesser always comes from the greater.
I think the terminology should many times be looked from different angles depending on where one stands currently, something like the planetary archetypes in astrology, in which different archetypes reside in each other and affect each other while one remains the primary dominating one. For example, “mercury as spirit” would mean the spirit as a dissolving force that draws everything back into the “one life”, back into the liquid state without distinction, and “mercury as soul” would mean the higher intellect so. buddhi; and “sulphur as spirit” means the fiery, dry force of will that asserts itself and “sulphur as soul” would mean the fiery, passionate and timid forces of the individual. Salt seems to be the most stable symbol of the body, but we can also remember the gospel saying about “the salt of the earth”, in which it means people who can bring light of reason and meaning into peoples lives, and salt can be related also to the reasonal, logical faculties via its symbolical structure. And so on.
It can be confusing, that’s for certain. The alchemists and hermeticists didn’t hide their art behind apparently meaningless mumbo-jumbo without sufficient reason. Just as Cologero said: it is more important to understand principles, not vocabulary.
Unfortunately, Ted, there is merely a confusion of terminology. In the beginning of the chapter “Soul, Spirit, and Body” in Hermetic Tradition, Evola makes this clear: “It should be noted henceforth that soul and spirit do not possess the same meaning here that they do in our time.”
To make it more confusing, in other parts of the book, Evola seems to reverse the meanings of soul and spirit again. That is why it is more important to understand principles, not vocabulary. English is not a very precise language when it comes to metaphysical topics.
It gets even worse. In the chapter “Sulfur, Mercury, and Salt” in Guenon’s “The Great Triad”, Guenon uses the word soul and spirit in our sense. So both Guenon and Evola make the equivalence between mercury and passivity. But Evola writes “Spirit is Mercury” (ch 13) and Guenon claims that Mercury corresponds to the soul. Nevertheless, they are not disagreeing with each other on this point, despite the seeming verbal contradiction.
Good article. However, the positions of Soul and Spirit should be reversed As Evola shows in his book “The Hermetic Tradition”, the attainment of the Soul is a stage in Alchemy which occurs after the attainment of the Spirit. The Spirit is feminine and represents the Moon and subtle while the Soul is masuline and represents the Sun and higher states of being above that of the subtle realm. This seems to be a common error in much esoteric writing.
Other than that, this article was excellent.