Prolegomena to any future Western metaphysics.
Meeting of the Minds
In 1921, the great Thomist philosopher Jacques Maritain criticized Rene Guenon for participating in the rebirth of gnosis, the “mother of heresies”. Guenon responded, “It would make as much sense to speak of Catholicism as the father of Protestantism. In fact, you are simply confusing gnosis with Gnosticism.”
“If you take the word ‘gnosis’ in its true sense, that of pure knowledge, as I always do when I happen to use it … Gnosis so understood — and I refuse to understand it otherwise — cannot be called the mother of heresies. That would be the same as saying that the truth is the mother of errors.”
To be clear, by ‘gnosis’ or ‘wisdom’ as Evola usually called it, Guenon is referring to a state of being, not to a science or a set of doctrines to learn. At that point in his career, Guenon was involved in studying eastern doctrines on the one hand, and Christian symbolism on the other.
On May 25, 1925, Guenon participated in a round table discussion that included Maritain, where Guenon defended Hindu metaphysics. Guenon denied that it was either pantheist or idealist, contrary to academic consensus. Rather, it is connected more closely to the Aristotelian tradition, including the scholastic philosophy of the Middle Ages as exemplified by Thomas Aquinas.
Maritain objected because, from his point of view, this alliance between eastern and Catholic metaphysics is “an inadmissible subordination and the ruin of the distinction between the natural and supernatural order, between nature and grace.” For Maritain, metaphysics is not beyond theology, the “supreme science”. Although Maritain had an authentic intellectual respect for Guenon, he eventually forced Guenon out of contributing to Catholic journals, and an opportunity was lost to further develop Thomism more fully and completely.
Maritain’s Misunderstanding
First of all Maritain fails to grasp Guenon’s distinction between philosophy and metaphysics, so he thinks from the perspective of the former. Since metaphysics is by definition the study of supernature (“beyond physics”), the distinction between the natural and the supernatural order is preserved. Maritain simply asserts that the supernatural order can be grasped only by faith and not by any sort of gnosis; this is remarkable, since as Guenon reminds us, for “Aristotle and his Scholastic successors … the intellect was in fact that faculty which possessed a direct knowledge of principles.” In other words, Thomism does indeed admit a gnosis, though its full consequences have not been incorporated into theological thinking insofar as it may present a threat to the primacy of faith.
Further background
Evola also accepts Guenon’s judgment about Thomism, which he sees as part of the process of “rectification”. Interestingly enough, John Woodroffe, although he does not explicitly refer to the Aristotelian tradition (as far as I can recall), similarly denies that Tantrism is “idealist”, but is likewise “realist”. In his Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, Guenon develops this topic more fully. Although at one point he claims that the only Western metaphysics is that of Aristotle and the Scholastics, he clarifies:
We do not include the Alexandrians, however, upon whom Oriental influences came to be exercised in a direct manner.
The Alexandrians would include St Anthony the Great and what we call the Hermetists.
Future Directions
Where Thomism falls short is that it is a metaphysic of Being. It needs to be enhanced with an understanding of non-being as described in the Multiple States of Being. Catholic theology is hampered somewhat by the Eighth Ecumenical Council which denied the tripartite nature of man as spirit, soul, and body. (The Eastern churches don’t accept this council.) This needs to be overcome, so elements from the Great Triad and Man and his Becoming according to the Vendanta can be incorporated.
In summary: to recreate a Western metaphysic for our time one would:
- Begin with Thomism
- Incorporate an understanding of non-being, infinity, and non-duality from the Vedanta and Taoism
- Develop more fully the understanding of tripartite nature of man
- Integrate it with the ancient Hermetic tradition
- Integrate this with a spiritual practice so it arises from a true gnosis and does not devolve into yet another intellectualizing philosophy or theology
The young man who will take up this task may already have been born.
Reference: Rene Guenon: Le philosophe invisible by Jean-Luc Maxence. All translations from the French are mine.
I stand corrected on Thomism’s relation with non-being.
As for Hinduism, I don’t believe its the gold standard (just like how I don’t believe Buddhism, or such and such religious movement is the gold standard). I’d say Hinduism is just the term used to describe the various different religious practices and beliefs ,that are not considered Buddhist or Jainist, of India native to the region.
Some points:
For those interested in the current state of Hinduism in India, this article may be of some interest: Rush Hour for the Gods.
Graham/GF,
I suggested eastern orthodoxy over Thomism due to (1) it takes into account non-being to a certain extent (something that you have mentioned before in relation to Dionysius the Aeropagite) whereas Thomism doesn’t really take it into account at all (this is an example of what can be taken in terms of principles from Eastern Christianity) and (2) the Western Church is in such a state of disarray and corruption that I think its best that it be left to meet its inevitable fate of extinction.
Again, its not a matter of merely being dismissive of or that Christianity doesn’t live up to some historically contingent relgious body like Hinduism as the “gold standard” (the only standard is the Truth). Like I said before, in the anti-modernist movement that takes into account Tradition there seems to be poles of view….at one end there is the typical neo-pagan view that Christianity is completely alien to Indo-Europeans and there is nothing truthful and good in it, and on the other end there is the view that it is a Traditional doctrine (meaning, its metaphyhsical principles are in complete accordance with Tradition). I take a view that is different from both. I don’t see it as anti-Traditional like the doctrines of materialism, nihilism, new age/theosophy etc, but I also don’t see it as inherently being in complete accordance with Tradition either….and not because it doesn’t meet certain contingent criteria of other religious doctrines, but because it doesn’t have all the necessary metaphysical principles to be in accordance, and therefore it is an approximation. I try to focus on the Tradition(Truth), as I’m sure you do as well, and evaluate something (like a doctrine for example) in light of it.
Perennial,
And lastly I believe Christ himself was a good man, and have been to Church many times. Looking at religions from a transdentendal point of view has always been a Hindu perspective and we do not need to be told by traditionalists about this–they are merely rehashing old ideas which are known to us before traditionalism even started. However, I also believe people need to be alert about what is happening, and it is naive to ignore the realities of the world, and to ignore history…
I do not wish to comment here but you force me to correct errors. Hindu baiting without understanding the ground realities of India is pointless. The fact remains, India has not been controlled by Hindus for a long time, lets say for about 800 years or so. It was Muslim controlled before being British controlled, and the governments after independence have been clearly anti-majority.
Hindus in India just want the same law for all. It was when India was Hindu controlled that it accepted persecuted peoples from all religions: Syrian Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians persecuted by Muslims. Witness on the other hand the clear Muslim and Christian record in India. The Portugese forcibly converted people in Goa. Missionaries are active in places like the North East, converting tribals. Witness that the Hindu minority in places like Pakistan
and Bangladesh have been wiped out or forced to convert. Muslims on the other hand, are a thriving community in India and their population among HIndus has grown drastically. When Hindus were hounded out of places like Kashmir, and 400,000 people fled millenia of habitat, who in the international press raised a voice about their plight? Hindu in India are simply arguing for fairness and struggling to survive in certain areas where they are gradually being wiped out. Why are Muslims allowed a different civil law and allowed to have as many wives as they please? Why is taxpayer money being used to fund the Haj, Hindus are branded communal when they say this is not fair. Why are Chruches and Mosques allowed to do as they please with their money, but the money of Hindu temples is placed under the government scrutiny? There is open discrimination against HIndus in Christian schools in India. Hindus are being kicked out of places such as Kashmir and the North East. What are they to do in the midst of agressive religions? Cologero claims Hindus static. But it was under the pro-Hindu government that India had for only five years since its independence that it began to make real economic strides and changed many archaic laws dating from British times, which has been all but reversed by the current government which is anti-majority, and which wishes to make India forever poor, a nanny state dependent on government handouts. It is Hindus who allow Tibetans regugees settle amongst them and do as they please, although it has been fashionable for people to make “noise” here about their plight, it is actually Hindus who accept the Tibetan refugees. The war in Sri Lanka was because the Hindus were discriminated against.
Before the Hindu bating, the missionries ought to have the balls to protest real the discrimination against Christians in the Middle East and China. I suppose now that Africa is mostly Muslim, and they are losing ground in the West, India has been the focus of missionaries, ripe for harvesting of souls.
Also I do not take stock in what comes from the English media in India which is mostly funded by foreigners such as by Mid East oil money, missionaries, and not by Hindus. The English press in India is anti-majority, the truth is to be found in the regional non-English print media. Journalists like the Frenchman Francois Gautier have observed this. Agressive religions in India are risking turning the world’s most peaceful and non-agressive peoples into agression…
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/hindutva-and-radical-islam-where-the-twain-do-meet/254969/
And Francois Gautier on Christians in India
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1023153/Christian-Persecution-in-India-the-Real-Story
As Gautier puts it: When Christianity accepts the right of other people to follow their own beliefs and creeds, then only will Jesus Christ’s spirit truly radiate in the world.
I suggest you not belive every word of the Marxist english press in India, which is anti-Hindu and whose opinions are parroted by the Western press… and whose funding is from every source but Hindu…
Gautier understands how the media works in India
http://francoisgautier.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/a-french-journalists-view-on-india-and-its-media/
The only other Western reporter who is objective on India is Mark Tully of the BBC
I again comment, Mrs. Kadambari, looking further back, that I again find your assesments erroneous. Christ was of royal blood, and while he may have been born humble economically, his position in society was certainly not. I do not feel you can justifiably say Westerners misunderstand Hindu society and than proceed to make judgments regarding a religion it would seem you admittedly have only a superficial knowledge of. If you welcome our insight, we will welcome yours, but if you desire to exclude us ipso facto, then you would understand then why religions have often tended to be exclusionary. The fact of the matter is that while intolerant sects my arise (like the Pharisees in the Jewish faith)within Western faiths, these faiths as a whole were remarkably tolerant, in Faith questions not political ones, until the Council of Trent. The theologies of the West varied widely until Trent, when the fear of the protestant abberation made such variation a concern. The Inquisition only was concerned with those who sought to impose their erroneous views publically, and not through scholarly discussion,thereby corrupting the Faith of the people, which was not their right. Martin Luther was invited to Worms to debate, and protestant representatives invited to Trent, to discuss their views and come to agreement. It was their hatred of Tradition, Rome, and narrow theology that ultimately caused the final split. As it was, Pope Leo X only condemned 45 of the 95 theses, the rest were acknowledged as just. Not the type of picture I see you painting of the West. There are even 1 or 2 examples of saints who were canonized for their sanctity, despite being heretics, even before Vatican II. Eastern theology is also remarkably open and diverse. Intolerant and exclusionary? I do not see it.
Mrs. Kadambari,
I sympathize with what you say, and in many ways find it very traditional. However, you overstate your case. Hindus do not persecute other religions? This is not true even now. Sure, maybe all Hindus don’t, but not all Chrisitians ever did either. We often read over here of religious conflicts in Sri Lanka between Hindus and (of all things) Buddhists, persecution of Catholics by Hindus in India, even to the death. I agree with your evaluations of Evola on aspects of Hinduism, and he seemed to understand Hinduism less than he understood Buddhism. But I think you must also confess your understanding of Christianity is also somewhat lacking. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthdox especially feel no need to cite scripture to justify positions, even if Holy Scripture justifies their position. This position is no different than the position you ascribe to the Hindus.
Matt,
In Re: Catholic vs. Orthodox: I don’t think there’s any use arguing over contingencies. They come from the same source. Certain aspects of the Eastern Churches, like spiritual attitude and practice – theosis and hesychasm – could provide a useful template today, but it isn’t like Western Church tradition lacks its own variants of these. In the realm of principles, what do you think could be taken from the Eastern tradition?
As for Christianity’s relationship to Tradition . . . the more I ponder the Christian variant, the more elegant I find it. It’s closely related to some of the oldest religions we know of. I don’t think there’s any call here for dismissiveness or inferiority complexes vis-a-vis Vedantism or what have you.
And one last thing, Evola is a writer that struck me as interesting at first and a person of sound principles, but the more I read him, I realize he does not understand the spirit of the East as a whole, although his book on Buddhism is quite good in many ways. One has to read him again a few times to see this. I find that there is a lot of anger and hatred, the whole anti-egalitarianism, the anti-humanism and so on, I was impressed by some of his ideas on antiquity unfortunately at first, but I do not ultimately feel that he understands the East on the whole, although offering some insights. He might appeal to those having a lot of anger for whatever reason is my take on it. I suppose he is one of those writers you find fascinating at first and then just outgrow, as there is something missing, and that missing something is most important.
And if some comments I made offended some people, I sincerely apologize, I do not claim to be infallible or claim to teach anything, I just asked questions on things I did not agree with.
If one has the goal of advocating exclusivist doctrines, then it is best if one sticks to those sources that advocate those things, and not bring in symbols and ideas of other cultures that one not only seems to have no sympathy with, but does not clearly understand.
In matters of religion especially, it is best to stick to the one that one understands, and I do not think the traditionalist ideas are workable for the simple reason that Eastern religions are not exclusivist doctrines…
And as for our region being static, the civilization was quite on par there with Europe till the Middle Ages. Why it regressed has a number of historical and more recent political factors. I do not think it is certainly static in any case although one might not like what one sees there at present. One has to read more than just Kipling to understand the heart of the East. To us while he is an interesting writer, he is a chronicler of street life and never quite understood the East, just as the British colonials did not understand it and their understanding is superficial as is evident in novelists such as Kipling and Forester. One has to understand the British were the shortest lived empire in any case. As for being static, I would not underestimate it, it has been around longer continuously than any other country, so it is capable of surprising one and changing drastically when the conditions are right…
Again this is not to be offensive, but they do have to turn to scripture to justify why certain things are not acceptable…Yes lechery is disgusting, yes adultery is disgusting, yes many things are disgusting, and I was simply saying that we do not use scriptures to say why these things are wrong. Sorry is there is something offensive about saying this? No we do not use scripture to justify everything, and no we are not perfect, nor do we ever claim to be. We do not persecute other religions, we never have, nor do we think we that we are the sole carriers of religious truth, and that the truth was given to us only, and that grace comes to us only because we are Christians…There is a certain respect and openness to others in this–A Brahmin does not have to perform petty rituals daily, there are corruptions in all religions, at the ritualistic level, certain priests perform rituals, not all. If Hindus were so bad as you say, they would not be living in peace with Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and others.
Yes Hindu society has many problems, no doubt, but Hinduism allows for difference of thinking, and even allows for those that do not believe in the authority of the Vedas–they became Buddhists at one point…and live in harmony with their fellow Hindus.
And while Hindu society has problems like any other, it is a work in progress, and it has lasted till today, despite the colonialism, despite the lootings, and despite the ravagings in history and despite all the problems it has today.
The questions I asked were out of curiousity and sorry if it is offensive to some.
At the end of the day, do Hindus try to make you a Hindu? No.
There are plenty of things I do not like about Evola. His use of our caste system to justify heirarchy–caste is not heirarchy in the sense Europeans understand it. I do not like it when people use Kali Yuga in the sense that it is not meant in our religion and I dislike the use of sanskrit concepts and other Eastern concepts completely out of context. I do not like the use of the word Aryan out of context and so on.
At the end of the day, just stick to your Christianity, that is what the West has, do not lecture others on their religion, and do not use their symbols out of context when you have to sympathy for those religions in the very least. Have at least that much respect for others. Hindus do not use your symbols and teachings out of context do they? So do the same.
Goodbye…
Mrs. Kadambari, if you choose not to read Gornahoor, I suggest you start your own blog rather than use the comments section as your personal soapbox. We have pointed out many times over that the early Christians relied on personal experience of a transcendental nature; they also justified things with Greek philosophy. As for using scriptures, there are four levels of interpretation, the historical being just one of them. You may consider calling that “perverse and disgusting” as a sign of your sophistication; others instead may see as a sign of rudeness and ignorance.
Does not Hinduism justify everything by scripture? Each of the six orthodox schools bases its authority on the Vedas.
Isn’t Hindu society itself static, nepotic, and irrational? Tell us about the petty rituals that a Brahmin has to perform daily, or what slights offend him, behaviours a Westerner would consider puzzling at best. What is the basis for all that, if not the Vedas as revealed scripture?
34.GF,
Also I find that Christians often are at a disadvantage in that they have to constantly use the scripture to justify everything–why certain things are not to be tolerated, for example, we say this is just perverse and disgusting and goes against our civilizational propriety and is not acceptable, Christians have to use scripture to justify why these things are not appropriate and so on…
GF,
Also I find that Christians often are at a disadvantage in that they have to constantly use the scripture to justify everything–for example, we say this is just perverse and disgusting and goes against our civilizational propriety and is not acceptable, Christians have to use scripture to justify these things and so on…
GF,
I myself in many ways could be considered antiquarian.
As to your question, I think the term I used was probably not correct enough. I should have put, indo-european soul and solar spirit. Where does one of the differentiated type find this solar spirit? Well, one has to look no further than the deepest region of being. And if the Spirit is free, its certainly no given for a people, so Will it as the saying goes.
If you want to know more about what I think of Christianity in detail, you can search my comments in the Three Amigos article on here. To give a short, general summary, I think pre-sectarian Christianity is an approximation to Tradition, but not exactly in accordance with it. I think the Medieval Roman Church, Gothic Christianity, and the Orthodox Church are even closer approximations, but nonetheless, are still approximations.
I personally would be favorable to starting a western metaphysic for this present time with Eastern Orthodox theology instead of Thomism, but I don’t know how successful that would be.
Matt: I think that Christianity is adequate for the homely players of the final acts of Western history. Even so, perhaps my interest is slightly antiquarian. Where do we find the noble indo-european spirit, now that it has shrugged off the encumbrance of Christianity?
GF,
And please do not think I am an enemy of religion. I have seen the lifestyle of friends without religion in their lives, and clearly they seem impoverished to me.
People say the enemy of tradition is communism, socialism, marxism, materialism, leftist doctrines and atheism. I too do not take stock in any of these doctrines. I am simply trying to understand why these doctrines arise, what is it in a society that feeds these things?
“You may have noticed that the fabled Roman magnanimity did not extend to “co-existing in peace” with other nations and religions.”
I do know the ancients never waged wars over converting people, but for land and to expand, this was natural…
So that when the territories were conquered, civilization spreads by assimilation gradually, which does not threaten the heart of the broad ideals on which a civilization is based.
Again, if you read my comments, I have never said co-existing in “peace with other nations”, I said co-existing in a religious sense, where despite some difference, there is not question as to what comprises spirittual authority. No nation has always existed in peace, but some nations have allowed differences of thought to co-exist without threatening the nature of the overall culture, and it is by allowing this to the extent it does not threaten the overall structure that you have civilization. This is what I understand by allowing freedom of ideas, not freedom of licentiousness, and not multi-culturalism as you understand it…It is a delicate balance and a civilization contiues when it strikes the right balance…And it was in this respect the ancients were tolerant…not the way in which you accuse me of thinking…
GF wrote, “The question is whether Christianity as such is a petty religion. And it is not, as anyone who sees an old cathedral, or listens to chant, or reads the olds books, or studies the old saints, can plainly tell.”
Christianity may not be an inherently petty doctrine, but does that mean its inherently noble? I’m not one for the typical short sighted anti-christianity of neo-paganism, but with that said, I lean towards the position of someone such as Evola or even Reghini in that I doubt Christianity is an inherently noble doctrine.
Sure, I for one definitely admire old cathedrals, chants, the writings of certain esteemed mystics etc., but one has to ask, are these things inherent to Christianity, or are they inherent to the noble attributes of the indo-european spirit that were reawakened under a Europeanized (for lack of a better word) Christianity? I would go with the latter.
Far from seeing late Roman tolerance as magnanimity, I see it as a merely expedient decision, in a ‘multicultural’ and unstable Empire, and in an age of growing superstition. And where was this fabled Roman magnanimity when the Christians came?
If Christianity had presented itself to the Romans, and the other Europeans, as just another cult, it could not have accomplished the restoration that it did. It had to assert its exclusivity and universality, or risk being lost somewhere in the thousands of other minor cults.
This had side-effects. There were wars. Men were oppressed, tortured, and killed. The European soul is not a peaceful soul. You may have noticed that the fabled Roman magnanimity did not extend to “co-existing in peace” with other nations and religions.
As for your next question: I do not know how to save my people. At the moment my efforts are individual: I seek to improve myself and those around me, through persuasion and example.
Also GF, I realize what happens when people have no religion in their live and how impoverished their lives become.
People are concerned with immigration and justifiably so if they feel that it disrupts their culture from a political point of view. But are not forces like atheism, communism, socialism, marxism, are these not Western constructs, also corrupting the entire world, as people follow the West? It is difficult for people in our regions to really be atheists in the sense understood here, as religion is not found on belief, people become atheists when they copy materialism and leftist doctrines from here and think they are liberated.
Why are intelligent people straying from the Church, why do very few people I see attend Chruch regularly these days?
Also GF, when I see some of my friends, I understand very well what lack of religion does to people and how impoverished peoples lives are who have no religion…something is clearly lost when this happens…
Now atheism, marxism, communism, capitalism, are they not Western ideologies, and are they not corrupting the entire world as people follow the West? It is impossible for people in our part of the world to be atheists in the Western sense as religion is not built upon belief, people become atheists when they absorb Western materialism, socialism and leftist doctrines…
Now while it is true that unwanted immigration and what not poses problems for Westerners and they are completely justified to worry about this politically, does not atheism, excessive rebelliousness towards religion not arise when a religion becomes inflexible or somehow does not connect to people? Why are otherwise intelligent people not going to Church anymore is a question to ponder…why are they so dismissive of religion?
Again I meant to say petty in that does not co-exist in peace with religions in history, and this is a common Mid-East trait when it comes to religon; that is does today and is benign so is a modern phenomenon, because there can be no inquisitions anymore. I more than understand what you are saying about saints and cathedrals they are the religious expression of a peoples, people like William James have written on why they benefit society and only a fool would deride them.
As for the effects of Christianity on Rome, Gibbon is a source and would disagree with you.
Anyway, Christianity is the religion that has come to be in the West and has come to be the spiritual heritage of the West without it they do not have an alternative as their older traditions are not living traditions, just as there are no alternatives for Central Asians, as their religion is now Islam, whatever spirituality they have will be colored by this religion.
How do you propose to get your people back to the Church without a change of essential teachings? I would like to see Westerners with some religion, the ones I meet happen to have no respect for religion altogether or think that their religion has a monopoly on the truth, and I wonder if the rebelliousness might come from the structure of their religion?
It is apposite to point out that Plato’s perfect city was one in which people slept on beds of yew and myrtle, ate barley loaves (served on clean leaves) and drank wine, went barefoot, crowned in garlands, and hymned the gods. Such was the great Athenian’s perfect, primordial city; Philosopher-Kings, great learning, and refined civilization, were second-best.
Regarding the victory of Christianity over Rome, two common mistakes here are, first, to postulate that Rome, in the first to fifth centuries BC, was in its religious and political prime; and second, to hold Christianity responsible for the fall of Rome. The fact is that Christianity won because Rome was disintegrating, and most of whatever of Rome was preserved, rebuilt – such as its laws, its writings, its architecture, its political structure, its very spiritual authority – was preserved and rebuilt by Christians, in Byzantium, in Rome, in the monasteries, by the Goths, by Clovis, by Charlemagne, and so on. Positing an opposition between Rome and Christianity, especially as the noble against the ignoble, is a Niezschean theme, and like so many of his themes, is worth next to nothing.
Jesus Christ was the Son of God, receiving the chrism of Kings from His father’s side. That doesn’t strike me as humble or petty. Yes, He was born in a manger, but perhaps this only reveals the corruption into which the world had fallen, that God was treated this way.
*All* transcendent wisdom has a non-human origin; in other words, is revelation, and is a gift for the worthy. The idea that wisdom is not given, but is solely a human achievement, is known in Tradition as Titanism. The Titans are the truly conceited ones. If I were you, I would rethink my position. What you’re saying is *not* Traditional.
*Faith* in God has been universal since the Fall from the primordial state, for very few men have the qualification or the time to achieve knowledge. Faith is a heuristic for the people, and there is no call to denigrate it simply because we feel it is lowly.
Christianity was in its beginnings sometimes the religion of outcasts because, like modern corrupt authority figures, the Roman aristocrats were often outcasts of soul, and the true ‘Brahmans’ were often to be found among the lowly. Probably many of the first Christians were petty-souled men: most men have petty souls, and any large group will of necessity be composed mostly of petty souls. The question is whether Christianity as such is a petty religion. And it is not, as anyone who sees an old cathedral, or listens to chant, or reads the olds books, or studies the old saints, can plainly tell.
And is it a coincidence that these three religions, do not not only disagree with themselves and are constantly at war with each other, but do not agree with other religions as well?
I do believe, however, that Romans became petty after becoming Christian, before that they were magnanimous and large in a way that is difficult for me to explain, something changed in their nature …There is a certain pettiness associated with these semitic religions (that is how it appears to us). Has anyone noticed that they all have extremely humble origins? Christianity was the religion of outcastes at one time, offering rewards in heaven to compensate for a hellish existence on earth. Islam was founded by a man who was not even lettered and Judaism was the religion of slaves in Egypt.
This is not to say that people do not need the consolation of religion; man clearly cannot do without religion in some form or other. William James in Varieties of Religious Experience (although I do not find his attempt to reconcile religion and philosophy satisfactory) writes of saints, why they are good for society, even though most of them are of ordinary intelligence and even feeble minded…He was an extremely kind man and recognized the need people have for a religion like Christianity and he recognized the extent of human suffering and the reality of evil which is a fact no religion can ignore. But what of religions borne out of strength, that arise not from relevations and faith in miracles, but from a search for wisdom, which do not rely on miracles, but are clearly articulated for those willing to learn if one only takes care to study the doctrines, which show light not as arising out of the irrational and revealed doctrines, but are built on clarity and honest striving towards the truth and stress individual responsibility and striving for the attainment of wisdom?…Whose founders are sages? While I respect all religions in the sense that only a stupid person defiles that which is sacred to someone, that a religion needs to be “revealed” from above above is a semitic conceit…
The only chruch that is appealing to a non Christian is the Orthodox Chruch, which has perhaps been the most benign and without the proselytizing maina of the Catholic Church. I remember going to a service, and the abundance of imagery (Byzantine connection), the insense and the priest reciting almost made me feel as if I were inside a hindu temple…
I wonder if the Chruch did not do itself a disservice by stamping out all the heretical sects, when you become a monolith, and the monolith evidences decay, the whole structure is in danger if it does not renew itself…Back then as a monolith, the Chruch could just have an inquisition and get rid of dissent, it seem like today that is hardly the case…
You can say by example of our part of the world that the Persia that Islam conquered was somewhat in decline; however, you do have conquests by people who do not necessarily represent a superior order of civilization, one just has to look at the case of Mongols and so on, who represent nothing but barbarism. Why tradition continued in the West is largely due to the fact that while the Romans regarded the Greeks as “chatterboxes” they looked up to Greek cuture, copied it in their own fashion, so they did not do away with Greek culture but continued it in a Roman form to a certain extent. In the case of Persia, the entire Persian culture was annihilated, the invaders had no love for the high civilization found there. Similarly, in India, Islam tried to do away with the native civilization, but people did not easily convert, and conversion was not total as in Persia. India had other invaders such as Huns and Scythians, but they were gradually assimilated into the native culture from a civilizational point of view, just as the barbaric Mongols were absorbed by the Chinese civilization and their damage to China was gradually reversed. In the case of barbarian attacks on Rome, the unlettered barbarians copied Roman culture which was of a more superior order of civilization, and continued the Roman senatorial tradition and looked up to the culture of Romans, constrast this with the nihilism of the invaders from Arabia and their attitudes to more superior orders of civiliazations whether it be in Europe or Asia.
However, there are instances in which a culture might be in decline and it is overpowered by barbarians, such that there is no continuity in civilization, the case I can come up with is places like Afghanistan which has been reduced to a civilizational wasteland over the centuries. Panini (sanskrit grammarian) speaks writing near the Kabul river and a great deal of our mythology is from there. Look at it today after centuries of Islamic extortion and tyranny…
It seems to me that the source of fragmented thinking are the semitic religions.
A more sublime vision representing the older widsom of mankind was contained in the outlook of pre-Christian Greece, Rome in that it preserved Greek culture, pre-Islamic Persia, and pre-Islamic India. A study of language shows similarities in these civilizational outlooks.
Unlike the Huns and Scythians that were gradually absorbed by civilization, the unlettered Turko-Mongols were only made more violent by Islam and their rule is characterized by extortion and complete tyranny. Unlike the Huns and Scythians, their culture was not assimilable and they did a lot of damage, which is why till today, there is a religious problem in the region.
You can say by our part of the world that the Persian that Islam conquered was in decline; however, you do have conquests by people who do not necessarily represent a superior order of civilization, one just as to look at the case of Mongols and so on, who represent nothing but barbarism. Why tradition continued in the West is largely due to the fact that while the Romans regarded the Greeks as “chatterboxes” they looked up to Greek cuture, copied it in their own fashion, so they did not do away with Greek culture but continued it in a Roman form to a certain extent. … In the case of Persia, the entire Persin culture was annihilated, the invaders had no love for the high civilization found there, in India, they tried to do away with the native civilization, but people did not easily convert. India had other invaders such as Huns and Scythians, but they gradually assimilated into the native culture, so from a civilizational point of view, they were absorbed, just as the barbaric Mongols were absorbed by the Chinese civilization and their damage was gradually reversed. In the case of barbarian attacks on Rome, the unlettered barbarians copied Roman culture, and continued the Roman senatorial tradition…
However, there are instances in which a culture might be in decline and it is overpowered by barbarians, such that there is no continuity in civilization, or the civilization takes on a completely different form, the case I can come up with is places like Afghanistan which has been reduced to a civilizational wasteland over the centuries…A Panini (sankkrit grammarian) Kabul speak of the Kabul river and a great deal of our mythology is from there. Look at it today after centuries of Islamic extortion and tyranny…
It seems to me that the source of fragmented thinking are the semitic religions.
A more sublime vision representing the older widsom of mankind was contained in the outlook of pre-Christian Greece, pre-Islamic Persia, and pre-Islamic India. And it is not without saying that a study of language shows similarities in these civilizational outlooks.
Unlike the Huns and Scythians that were gradually absorbed by civilization, the unlettered Turko-Mongols were only made more violent by Islam and their rule is characterized by extortion and complete tyranny. Unlike the Huns and Scythians, their culture was not assimilable and they did a lot of damage, which is why till today there is a religious problem in the region.
There was a break, but it was smaller than external historical events would make it appear. The Greece that Rome conquered was in decline; the Rome that Christianity conquered was as well. In both cases there was a revitalization of Tradition under a new aegis, with a different emphasis. Still there was continuation.
And I am not alone in this thinking. My Zoroastrian friends say the Muslims cannot really “understand” their world veiw…
Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but was not something lost of the sublime contemplative civilization of the Greeks after being conquered by Rome? The Romans had a mania for Greek culture and art and admired it, but as administrators and the best engineers of the ancient world, they never quite reached the sublime philosophic heights of the Greeks, even as far as literature is concerned. I wonder if something has not been lost already here? And then after Christianity, the Greek outlook changes further…My analogy for this is in our regions. The Hindu converts to Islam are cut off from native culture, and cannot really understand it as they view the world from a different veil, even though they might speak the same language and be from the same region. Similarly, the Greeks were conquered by the Romans, then became Christians. So the modern day Greek would seem a far cry from the Greek of Plato’s times with the sublime metaphysical reasoning and outlook, this tradition seems to somehow have broken resulting in fragmented understanding which imbues the world, contributed to by the “one book, on way” Mid-East reasoning.. I have no doubt that these influences must count for something. Why would Julian’s friend say otherwise upon his death: “Gone is the glory of good, the company of the wicked and the licentious is uplifted. Now the broad path, the great doors lie wide open for the doors of evil to attack the just. The walls are down?” I think such views have been suppressed…
Having been brought up in our tradition, the Greeks are the only people who make sense to me, even the Romans are difficult to understand…
So a fragmented world view is corrected by going to the sublime visions of the Greeks and others…
The West was lucky in that the barbarian peoples who attacked Rome, modeled themselves on Romans, unlike in our parts the barbarians brought civilization down to their own level and engaged in nihilistic destruction…there has only been healing occurring when civilization has gone back to its native wisdom in some parts…
“What is required is a group effort to define and implement the task.”
This is exactly why I ask you about Catholicism. If I’m reading you right, the outline of your plan would be the development of an order, which, like the Fransiscans and the Jesuits Tomberg cites, would replenish the Church from the outside. I gather that ultimately you are indifferent to the Church: if it can be bent to Traditional ends, use it; if not, forget it. So much for the Church: what of Christ Himself?
I’m looking forward to the new translations.
In his commentary on Vatican II — an event which was pretty much pointless — Evola proposes his own program to reform the Catholic religion. I’ll have to make time to translate it soon. Suffice it to say that I read Tomberg in that light, in particular the way he understands Bible stories. Evola concedes that St Clement of Alexandria’s distinction between the gnostics (knowers) and believers was behind his own conception of “those who know and those who believe”.
Guido de Giorgio is a figure, close to both Guenon and Evola, who unfortunately remains unknown. While Guenon was turning East and Evola remained staunchly in the West, di Giorgio developed a synthesis of both. Like Gornahoor, he sees a continuity, not a break, from the ancient world through the Medieval period.
Sorry I make so many mistakes typing on this screen…Here it is properly, and sorry to use up so much comment space.
I benefited from reading Maritiain’s “Dream of Descartes”. Certainly, the removal of final causes has caused a lot of mischief by removing the traditional connection with metaphysics, although science in its practical applications has become precise as a result. How can some kind of final causation be again a part of the scientific outlook? Clearly, science is not an end in itself.
As for the equating of Hinduism and Taoism, I find little agreement, the two stem from different philosophical world views. The Hindu and Buddhist systems, when properly understood, are highly logical systems which end in metaphysics. I fail to see the connection with the mysticism of Taoism…The Chinese while having a unique culture, have a philosophy with little metaphysical content, and is more humanistic in nature such as Confucianism…I think it is a Western error (of more recent scholarship) to even equate Taoism with Hinduism…
Who above is “how” –typo
A recent development as far a scholarship is concerned–I meant to say above, because the fashion is to try to understand Buddhism via Japan and East Asian countries, which are hardly Buddhist in the traditional sense, and not go to the root of the development of Buddhism, which is ultimately Hinduism….and which ultimately involves understanding this world view in depth…
I benefited from reading Maritiain’s “Dream of Descartes”. Certainly, the removal of final causes has caused a lot of mischief by removing the traditional connection with metaphysics, although science in its practical applications has become precise as a result. Who can some kind of final causation be again a part of the scientific outlook? For clearly, science is not an end in itself.
As for the equating with Hinduism and Taoism, I find very little agreement. The HIndu and Buddhist systems when properly understood are highly logical systems which end in metaphysics, I have always failed to see the connection with the mysticism of Taoism…The Chinese while having a unique culture, have a philosophy with little metaphysical content, and is more humanistic such as Confucianism…I think it is a Western error to even equate Taoism with Hinduism, and it seems a more recent development….
Yes, Dionysus, whom Aquinas quotes some 1200 times, is among the Alexandrians. I would regard the Aristotelean and Platonic perspectives as two darshanas, or perspectives. We are well past the time for worrying about being “impolitic” about issues related to these topics since the era of persecution, at least in this area, is over. There is no need to convince anyone. This writer was driven from a self-described traditional Catholic forum for promoting Dionysius, so I wouldn’t waste time in a futile debate.
What is required is a group effort to define and implement the task.
One of the very interesting things about Dionysius is that he claims his written work is informed only by the ‘Oracles’ (Old and New Testaments) – and yet how different it is than sola scriptura Protestantism. So much depends on the atmosphere in which one lives. – In case you didn’t know, James, Dionysius was Bishop of *Athens*.
I might never have heard of Guenon were it not for Watts. He follows a familiar path … try to reform one’s own “tradition”, get frustrated and turn East. And then fall into the confusion that Tomberg describes.
Yes, I suppose it comes down to that. St. Bernard himself, whose praises Guenon sung, had only contempt for the verbiage of philosophers and theologians. Though if a theological ‘ornamention’ must be added, St. Thomas would be valuable.
Again, oddly like Watts, who indeed began with Dionysius, published a translation of the Theologica Mystica whilst in the seminary in 1944 [!] and later republished it in his full hippie period, saying something like “Here had been the opportunity for Western theologians to close up shop and become schools of contemplation of the nameless, but instead they just kept chattering.” From 1 to 3, skipping 2?
Dionysius also has a conception of esoterism. So my ‘counter-proposal’ is this:
1. Begin with Dionysius
2. Integrate with Thomism
3. Integrate with spiritual practise
Your steps 2 and 3 are basically eliminated, and the represented order is more accurate (Thomism, being lesser, comes later).
How Watts went astray: searching and ‘finding’ analogies btw esotericism and what would become the New Age, he confused the Taoist Sage with the stoned hippie or hot-tub psychologist:
“…SERIOUS PLAY [a very Wattsian idea] contains at the same time a serious warning: there is Play and play, there is the Magician and the magician; this is why anyone who confuses lack of concentration with concentration without effort…will necessarily become a CHARLATAN.” — Meditations on the Tarot
Why not begin with Dionysius the Areopagite? He already has fully developed arguments on Non-Being and gnosis, and at least an implied understanding of tripartite nature. Do you include him among the Alexandrians?
Which makes me think: If the finished doctrine is supposed to combine (Alexandrian) Hermetism with Thomism, as an admittedly superior leaven, isn’t it truer to say that one should begin with the Alexandrians? As in fact Gornahoor has been doing?
But I see you say “for our time”: and I understand why *appearing* to begin with the Alexandrians would be impolitic in our time, at least among Catholics.
Perhaps I was just recalling ideas hidden in the unconscious from when I read those books many years ago.
I know someone who, as a young man, managed to get to San Francisco from Chicago in order to meet Mr. Watts. On his arrival, he looked up Watts in the phone book and called. His wife answered. There were noisy children in the background and the wife made some disparaging remarks about why Watts wasn’t home … in particular referring to his drinking. Disillusioned, the young man left San Francisco, not having met Watts.
Oddly enough, that 5 step program reminds me of Alan Watts’ intellectual journey [see his Beyond Theology or In My Own Way] although he may have gone a bit astray on the last step…