It seems necessary at this time to make some ideas clear, or at least, clearer. First of all, metaphysics is not the same thing as philosophy. Metaphysics is knowing, an activity of spirit, active and masculine. Philosophy is thinking, an activity of the soul, passive, and feminine. A man knows himself to be free, with an active will; he has no need to wade through several hundred pages of Kant to convince himself of what he knows in his own immediacy.
A warrior acts courageously because it is an expression of his nature, his being. An artist can portray a courageous man in a poem or play, but is not thereby courageous himself. A philosopher will debate the meaning of courage, but will always end in aporia. If a scout comes back to camp with news that the enemy is on the march, a debate about the meaning of the “other” will not then ensue. Nor will anyone attempt to achieve the synthesis between the self and the other as enemy.
When we write of doctrines, we mean metaphysical doctrines, not specifically religious or theological doctrines. Here are some quotes from Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power by Rene Guenon that clarify our point of view
During the Middle Ages there existed throughout the West a real unity, based on properly traditional foundations, which we call ‘Christendom’, but when these secondary unities of a purely political — that is to say temporal and no longer spiritual — order were formed this great unity of the West was irremediably broken and the effective existence of Christendom came to an end. Nations, merely the dispersed fragments of what was formerly Christendom, false unities substituted for the true one by the temporal power’s will to dominate can, given the very conditions of their origin, survive only by opposing each other and ceaselessly contending among themselves in all fields. Now spirit is unity, matter is multiplicity and division; and the more one removes oneself from spirituality, the more antagonisms are accentuated and amplified.
The last sentence speaks for itself. Please understand the following point thoroughly.
When speaking of Catholicism the utmost care must always be taken to distinguish between what concerns Catholicism itself as a doctrine and what relates only to the present organizational state of the Catholic church. Whatever one may think about the second, it cannot affect the first. … there are very few today who are able, when such a need arises, to free themselves from historical contingencies, to the extent that certain defenders of Catholicism, not only its adversaries, believe that everything can be reduced to a simple question of historicity, which is one form of the modern superstition of fact.
As for the continuity of the Roman Tradition, Guenon points out
The symbolic assimilation of Christ with Janus as the supreme principle of the two powers is the very clear sign of a certain traditional continuity (too often ignored or deliberately denied) between ancient Rome and Christian Rome; and we must not forget that in the Middle Ages the empire was just as Roman as the papacy.
Interesting observation, Robman.
Mark wrote:
>>>Let me repeat this again
“This is not to be confused with the heretical (apothé?sis) – “Deification in God’s Essence”, which is imparticipable.”<<<
Excuse me for breaking into this discussion, but I was wondering, wasn't Evola himself a fan of Plotinus? Yet Plotinus himself posited that the Absolute, the Unity beyond both being and non-being, was itself unattainable by man, but that the closest one could attain to the Absolute was to its first hypostasis, the Nous. This doesn't sound all too different from Christ as the Logos, where God became man, so that man may become god-"like". So in this sense, there is definitely the possibility of transcendence for a Christian. On the other hand, if I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be stating that in a "true" traditional metaphysic, the aspirant is afforded the opportunity towards achieving complete equality with the Absolute principle. I know Evola alluded to this in the Doctrine of Awakening, but the claim seems quite extravagant to me. I don't see how the finite and temporal human creature could ever achieve total parity with the atemporal infinite Absolute.
I wish the same for you Mark. It just seems that we are almost speaking different languages. And since the racial/ethnic component is not important to me (even though I am from an overwhelmingly European background) in spirituality, obviously finding a commonality would be difficult.
I admire your resolve for philosophical rigour. However, in my view, the Traditional life (speaking on a practical level) would not be very philosophically vigorous, and the philosophical issues you propose I do not think would have occured to most people in a Traditional society.
My great-grandmother just passed away. She was 100 years old, and from Portugal. She still remembered the Old World before World War I, the monarchy, the belle epoque. This was her simple philosophy: “God made the world. God made the rules. If I follow them, everything else will fall in place.” She was not big observer of Catholic externals, but she definitely had that strong, traditional resolve that made people of that time different from now. When I think of her, that is how I think of the people of tradition. Strong, silent, resolute, hard-working, and large-hearted. They did not ask why, they just did.
We, of course, being born and bred in modernity, do not have the luxury of having tradition inborn. So we must ask why. I often wonder though if asking too many questions is a defeat for traditional thinking. Would the German pagans of old really have been so inquisitive? I doubt it. Like my great-grandmother, they just were. That is how we wish to live, by just being.
So no, perhaps I do dig into the philosophical depths you would desire me to plunge. But I think if Tradition becomes too complex, it ceases to be Tradition. It certainly would not be one most people would recognize. Evola & Guenon, when all the externalities of example are removed, have a simple desire: To be, rather then become. All the rest is the support for the platform, but in the end, it all comes to this simple thing.
Perennial,
That is cool, go to the path that you want. I am arguing in the sense of wanting to build a good philosophy. The problem with the Gornahoor project is that any rational critique of the Gornahoor project is met with “I have gnosis, so I am right”. I am not denying that component, but most Traditional systems tried to defend their positions using reason as well. Insight into what is Transcendent is superrational, not subrational.
This type of discussion should not be seen as a bad thing, and I didn’t mean to be harsh to you at the end, but I did not see anyone with the ability to deal with my points. For the sake of discussion, I accepted the Traditionalism of Guenon, when it comes to the ideal nature of Vedantic metaphysics. I then argued the metaphysics of Vedanta is congruent with our “paganisms”, and not Christianity. I then argued using Evola’s statements about the “blood” that there is always a connection to our ancestral religions, and I don’t need something “virtual” like Medieval Catholicism, the “blood” makes our ancestral faith real to us. Again, I did not get any arguments against this, just that I lacked “gnosis”. I wish you the best, but this project is going to need some serious philosophical rigor.
Take this comment from Stephen MacNallen about paganism
“Lack of philosophical depth … We have studied the Eddas
and sagas. Beyond that we know of Georges Dumezil, Edgar
Polome, and the excellent popularisations of H. R. Ellis
Davidson. But until we can hold our own in debate with the
Jesuits or in the pages of the New York Times Review of
Books, we will not be taken seriously. What does Nietzsche
have to say to our topic? How does our idea of the holy
compare to that of Rudolf Otto? Are the gods only Jungian
archetypes? Does the work of British biologist Rupert
Sheldrake confirm our own ideas on kinship affinity? How do
the writings of Alain de Benoist and Tomislav Sunic impact
us? In short, versus from the Havamal will not suffice to
express our beliefs to a sophisticated world.”
Many months ago, I made a comment in this site about the “handicap principle” and paganism, and people did not get what I was saying. Paganism is a handicap, but in a good sense. Given its marginalization, I am tested for philosophical sophistication, you as “Christians” are not. You don’t have that test placed upon you, but I do, and I love it. I don’t have the “luxury” of explaining everything by “gnosis”, I must also give reasons.
I wish you the best though.
I really do not think it matter what I, or anybody else says, regarding this subject. It is obvious that anything I say, quote, or cite will be irrelevant, wrong, misinterpreted, out of context, or syncretic. So I give up, believe what you want. I am not sure why you are on Gornahoor, since it wishes to use Christendom as a foundation, but so be it. If you desire a racial/ethno centered spiritual path, I want no part of it.
I did not touch theosis, well let me show you this
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis
“This is not to be confused with the heretical (apothé?sis) – “Deification in God’s Essence”, which is imparticipable.”
Let me repeat this again
“This is not to be confused with the heretical (apothé?sis) – “Deification in God’s Essence”, which is imparticipable.”
Here are some more comments from the site
“Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis – it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or even another god.
I disagree with EXIT in that you are being dishonest, I just don’t think you really understand these doctrines. You just quote from the bible and church fathers, without understanding the proper hermeneutics when it comes to interpretation.
Cologero*
Cologera,
I am not sure what we are missing, but perhaps you can show us the point of departure? Are you trying to say we are overly focused on means and not ends? If so, what means do you want us to focus on, in order to know those ends?
Mark, you statement is merely your opinion. You have not shown where anything I have written contradicts the orthodox Fathers or Holy Scripture. I also notice you do not even touch theosis.
In order for me to be syncreticist, I would have to actually, um, mix in another religion. But you have not shown this to be the case, so do share.
“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2nd Epistle of St. Peter 1:2-4)
In saying the moral god is dead, you are right. Liberation does not consist in following a set of rules, but making an interior path. If one knows the self, and finds the interior path, then ipso facto one has found a virtuous one. St. Thomas notes: “Now all men know the truth to a certain extent, at least as to the common principles of the natural law: and as to the others, they partake of the knowledge of truth, some more, some less; and in this respect are more or less cognizant of the eternal law.” (Summa Theologica PSP:Q.93)
To find the interior way is to know the Law of God, since it is in the laws of creation we partake when we follow the inner path. St Augustine notes: “Knowledge of the eternal law is imprinted on us.” All can know the Law if they seek the authentic self. By abandoning material wants, and desiring only what is eternal, we begin to seek this authenticity, for “vice arises from the appetite for mutable good.” Whereas virtue, “is caused by the subordination of the appetite to the immutable good, which is God.” (Summa Theologica PSP:Q.84)
Cologero,
How do you explain these quotes from Evola
“”Divinity consists in precisely this: that the gods exist, but no God.”
“What is the God whose death has been announced? Nietzsche himself replies: “Only the god of morality has been conquered.” He also asks: “Is there sense in conceiving of a god beyond good and evil? The reply must be affirmative. “Let God slough off his moral skin, and we shall see him reappear beyond good and evil.” What has disappeared is therefore not the god of metaphysics, but the god of theism, the personal god who is a projection of moral and social values and a support for human weakness. Now the conception of a god in different terms is not only possible but essential within all great traditions before and besides Christianity, and the principle of non-duality is also evident in them.”
So, here we have “gods”, and a principle of non-duality that transcends both the “gods” and “god”, but can also exist in a system that believes in the “gods”, but not “god”.
Perennial, from what you stated it seems as if your system is like the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta of Ramanuja, which I would see as incongruous to Christianity. You are a syncretist.
Cologero,
Since we are using Guenon as a source, and Advaita Vedanta as the standard for a pure metaphysics, I think that if you use the term monotheism to understand that, it shows a lack of understanding of the Indo-European systems. Also, I could not find your article on “transtheism”, so you will need to post the link.
Your definition of “Christendom” above does not state what its metaphysics are. So, I will ask you, does Christendom have the same metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta?
Also, as far as your view on “paganism”, I just had a conversation with a Hindu yesterday, and he sees no contradiction whatsoever of believing in the Devas and the Brahman(as interpreted by Advaita Vedanta).
“Nathan Katz in Buddhist and Western Philosophy (1981, p. 446) points out that the term “transpolytheistic” would be more accurate, since it entails that the polytheistic gods are not denied or rejected even after the development of a notion of the Absolute that transcends them, but criticizes the classification as characterizing the mainstream by the periphery: “like categorizing Roman Catholicism as a good example of non-Nestorianism”. The term is indeed informed by the fact that the corresponding development in the West, the development of monotheism, did not “transcend” polytheism, but abolish it, while in the mainstream of the Indian religions, the notion of “gods” (deva) was never elevated to the status of Brahman, but adopted roles comparable to Western angels. “Transtheism”, according to the criticism of Katz, is then an artifact of comparative religion.”
Asatru would be a traditionalist choice, since it is a blood religion. I explained my reasons in another comment.
Go to the 93rd comment here
http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=1484
From an exoteric perspective, religions like Asatru, Rodnovery, and Romuva are superior since they are based upon the blood. There is always a connection, and you don’t have to play historical reenactment of the middle ages, which we are separated from by hundreds of years.
From an esoteric perspective it is better since it is congruous with the metaphysics of Vedanta.
Do you deny those two?
What Buddha Suggested
Do not be led by hearsay
or by what is handed down by tradition
or by what people say,
or by what is stated by.the authority of your traditional teachings.
Be not led by reasoning,
nor by inferring,
nor by argument as to method,
nor by delight in speculative opinions,
nor by seeming possibilities,
nor by the directions from your teachers.
But, when you know of yourself
that certain actions done by you are not good,
wrong and considered worthless by the wise;
when followed and put in to practice,
lead to loss or suffering, then give them up …
and when you know of yourself that
certain actions done by.you are good, true
and considered worthy by the wise,
then accept them and put them into practice.
…..
I have shown you the methods that lead to liberation.
But you should know that liberation depends upon yourself.
Please restrict your discussion to ‘Christendom’ as Guenon defined it above, not some ill-defined “Christianity”.
Gornahoor has addressed what is being called “transtheism” … find it and discuss it please.
The typical pagan man in the street was a polytheist. The philosophical elite and their aristocratic followers were monotheists and did not even accept the existence of the gods.
Asatru is a fabricated system and quite modernist. The very idea of making a “choice” is modernist.
Boris Mouravieff wrote a monograph on Slavic paganism. Please locate it and discuss it if you like.
You can debate systems of belief all you want, but Gornahoor is focusing on states of consciousness that can be attained. Without that, all discussions are futile and result from a fundamentally materialist mindset.
I am not sure how what I described differs what you described. Perhaps you could elaborate? I speak of reaching liberation, where the fiction that seperates your from your Creator disappears. There is a Creator, and we are the created. Obviously, we are limited by the words we have, but essentially the Creator and the created share a like substance (God created us out of Himself, therefore we are “in His Image” and are like unto Him. We need to lose our duality and be with Him, in Him, in the Unity of the Holy Ghost. We are only seperate in nature (i.e. we are not God by design) but not in essence (the spirit returns to it’s source, the One). When we become theosis, we will no longer be a seperate being, but “Very God.” We shall be a unique component of His Oneness, but shall be of it nonetheless.
So either I am not understanding what you are trying to say, or you not understanding me. We shall see.
I am not sure that you understand the metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta, so the Sanskrit terms that I use might not be understood, and this might be the problem why you do not understand what I mean by “Transtheism”. The idea is that the Metaphysical “God” is the conditions that transcend existence. So, you are no longer conditioned in any way, you are no longer in the flux of becoming, but you are Satyam, you are no longer limited in intellect, but Jnanam, you are no longer conditioned by time, space, and causation, but Anantam, you are no longer tainted by Karma, but Amalatava, and you experience perfect bliss (Anandam).
In Christianity, you always remain a contingent being under the conditioning factor of a separate and distinct being (God). No Abrahamic religion can be transtheistic, since their deity is always a distinct being.
This is actually quite for wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheism
Another reason that I like the term is that a rather good view of it is in Ride the Tiger in a chapter called Beyond Atheism and Theism
So yes, I would say 3 is an error, since it is presumed, not proven, and in fact I think evidence shows otherwise. 4,5, & 6 are therefore ipso facto erroneous, as they are based on 3. That being said, in order for this and 1 and 2 to be judged, I request that you expand upon your definition of “Transtheism.” I myself am a Panentheist (all things exist in God, and are therefore not outside of, or foreign to, Him).
It is somewhat difficult to find the right words to describe it. This is why Eastern theologians always emphasized being apophatic, or only addressing what God and theology is not, rather then is. But I will give my best:
Religion is often described to mean “to bind back.” All creation is seeking to come back to the One, the Holy Trinity. Creation is distinct because of the Fall, but duality did not exist for Adam & Eve. In Him “they lived, and moved, and had their being.” The Fall brought ignorance, and thus duality, and loss of understanding. Thus, the narrative of man since the Fall is a “binding back,” since man must now rediscover that union that was lost. This is why Adam realized he was naked, because the higher Self was subsumed by the lower self, and in partaking of the forbidden fruit he actually rejected transendance in favour of the material. He did not recognize the material as “seperate” prior to the Fall. The knowledge of good and evil meant a loss of understanding. This is Original Sin. The loss of original unity, and the loss of transendence, is now the common inheritance of all men, and thus he cannot be “saved” without rising to the higher self, and thus by Holy Baptism he rejects ignorance and embraces the path toward his higher nature. As man thus progresses, in Soul, Spirit, and Sacrament, he loses the lower self and understands the Mysteries of the Divine, if he seeks them meetly. Eventually, the old self will die away, and he will Resurrect on the last day, the whole man, and be reconciled back unto the One, entering eternal and undivided union, in full knowledge of the Truth. He will not be absorbed into God, but will “…clothe (y)ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.” (St. Paul to the Roman 13:14) Christ thus came and died that we might follow Him, not as slavish worshipers, but “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” (St. Matthew 16:24) To follow Christ is to be Christ, and do as He did, and sacrifice to lower self to the higher. “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the Gospel’s, the same shall save it.” (St. Mark 8:33-35). This is how Christ is Our Saviour. He came to show the Way of Truth and Liberation, and this is to free us from material bondage and embark on the eternal. Only through gnosis can a man find the One, but through exoteric practice one at least begins the journey.
So, do you deny 3? Tell me the propositions that you deny, and why?
I am not sure about that Mark. In Eastern theology we often see theosis emphasis, of man becoming a god, so to speak. It has been observed that Christ came and died so that we may be like Him by realizing that oneness, and union, with Him who is Eternal, that is God. In other words, Christ came to show how we may be Him. Shedding the ignorance of our material existence, while not condemning it, will help us to realize our transcendent nature and come into gnosis of Eternal Truth. The Sacraments are just an exterior means of finding this Truth (i.e. “a means of grace”), just like meditation and ascetic practice. As means, they are a help. When they become ends in themselves, then the inner signifigance is lost, and the Sacrament becomes merely exoteric, as it has today. The Tridentine Mass was lost because the entire foundation of why it was built was lost to a utilitarian, populist, and democratic theology. But turning God into an object of worship does not make Him an idol.
I will start out by stating that I accept the view of Guenon in Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Religions about the character of Vedanta as a Pure Metaphysics that is elaborated in the chapter titled Essential Character of Metaphysics, and I will quote part of the first sentence.
“While the religious point of view necessarily implies the intervention of an element drawn from the sentimental order, the metaphysical point of view is exclusively intellectual”
So, lets not be concerned with sentimental attachments to paganism, Islam, Catholicism, etc.. Let us seek after what embodies Metaphysics. For this I will use Vedantic notions of the Brahman.
Definition: Brahman is Satyam (Truth), Jnanam (Knowledge), Anantam (Infinity), Anandam (Bliss), and Amalatava (Unstainable Purity). I have read this before as Satyam being perfect, unchangeable Being, Jnanam being Consciousness that is unrestricted, Anantam being unconditioned, not limited by space and time, for Anandam, bliss is a good enough description, and Amalatava means unstained by karma. So here we see a concept of pure metaphysics of the unconditioned, and it is a key doctrine of the Advaita school, which is the favorite of Guenon that the highest state is the merging of the Atman and Brahman.
Here we see a metaphysics of what I like to call “Transtheism”, which is the proper position of the Indo-European religions. The gods are not denied, but what transcends them is a state of Absolute Being, which we can attain. Here is my argument.
1) The “Transtheism” that is stated by Vedanta is pure Metaphysics
2) The Indo-European systems that we would call colloquially as Slavic paganism, Norse paganism, Baltic paganism, Hellenic paganism, and the other Indo-European paganisms are properly transtheistic
3) Any form of Christianity cannot be transtheistic, given its Abrahamic character it is monotheistic. God will always be seen as distinct from man, and the contingent and dependent nature of man upon a distinct being (God) cannot be transcended.
4) Accepting the notion of what is syncretic vs synthesis as to deal with what is congruent vs incongruent, then the “paganisms” synthesize with the Vedantic metaphysics, since they are congruent, whereas Christianity is syncretic with the Vedantic metaphysics, since it is incongruent with it.
5) Therefore systems like Rodnovery and Asatru are a superior choice to Christianity since they synthesize with Vedanta, as opposed to being syncretic like Christianity, since it is incongruent with the Metaphysics of Vedanta.
6) The only choice for Christianity over one of our pre-Christian traditions is due to sentimentalism, and not Metaphysics.
Great article! The material here is getting better and better!