An old nun in hospital had a good deal of trouble in digesting the fact that I wasn’t Christian, no I wasn’t; thank God, I wasn’t a Protestant, but I wasn’t a Catholic either, and I wasn’t a Jew, I believed in a more ancient and classical system with a place for Zeus and Apollo. To which with infinite gentleness, [she said]
“C’è tutta una religione.”
“Oh well, it’s all one religion”
~ Ezra Pound
Attila, I recently visited Istanbul, where my first proper conversation (with someone other than drivers, hotel staff, waiters, etc), was with a Sufi called Jesus who reminded me of the simplicity of true faith and said that all my sins would be forgiven!! He managed not to attempt a conversion to Islam, which was somewhat extraordinary under the circumstances, but nevertheless I share your admiration for the way of Beauty even while I am a Christian. Brothers and sisters of one God.
Very though-provoking.
The most beautiful – and accessible tradition I know of is Turkish and Iranian Sufism. It’s got everything — metaphysical speculation, exquisite music – and most of all – is a LIVING tradition.
Excellent statements, Kadambari. My applause to you.
Actually, Cologero, you statement is in agreement with my point. I am not trying to say that there is not a relationship between Christianity and paganism whatsoever, but only that they did not “borrow” these practices. These were perrenial practices that we should expect to find in any valid religious practice. Even theoretically non-ritual religions, like Taoism, still developed rituals, statues, and oramentations because this is part of the role religion plays. But nothing in their background from Lao-Tzu necessated the creation of any ritual at all. I was not trying to prove that Christians did not share these practices with pagans, but rather that there is no evidence to conclude that they merely “stole” the idea, which I think Grim is implying. There are certainly other sources, closer to home, that Christianity could have derived from. Of course we know Christians continued Roman practices and derived some of their detailings from Rome, like the chasuble, dalmatic, and stole, all of which had been part of Roman culture. The offering of incense had been common to Jews and Romans. The traditional church layout derived from the Roman basilica. So of course Rome found her continuity in the Christian world (Pontifex Maximus, anyone?). But to imply Christianity is an amalgam of Jewish and Roman practices adopted for the heck of it, this is untennable, and it is this idea I am opposing, not yours Cologero.
But yes, this idea defenitely calls for further discussion, because I think it may be a key point of understanding.
Grim,
I think you make unfair statements. Christianity became the religion of a civilization, so has to be seen in this respect. I am interested in it because it became the religion of Rome and you cannot understand the West without understanding it. Also, if you do not only consider Christianity in its institutional apects alone and do not take everything literally, it can also be a powerful means of bringing about “inner” change. This is why Christianity has been able to produce plenty of mysticism and great souled people such as in literature, philosophy and in the arts. Moreover, many Westerners are living in a post-Christian age, yet they still would naturally identify with it because it forms a part of Western civilization in its development and as it is currently unfolding.
As for Judaism, I see it as a religion of a group and that group would be justifiably interested in it and understand as it arises from their historical experiences, and of course, they should be allowed to practise it. From what I understand, the Jewish people have lived trying to preserve their identities scattered throughout history, so it is hard for others but them to relate to their religion; it is not a civilization in itself but a part of a larger civilization. I think Westerners could learn from the Greco-Roman aspects that have been preserved in their tradition, and you see this civilizational influence not just in Christianity, but in the larger context of Western Civilization. When you see the great Christian cathedrals and art, it is the expression of a civilization, just as when you see Hindu-Buddhist-Jain architecture, it is the expression of civilization.
Now to your remark about the Vedic tradition not being pure according to certain “books”. According to what books? As far as I understand, the doctrines are preserved intact, and amongst the priestly orders, by the very descendants of those who created the doctrines in the fist place. They are very clear and the philosophical schools are set out with clarity for those who wish to learn, there is really nothing voodoo or illogical about them. So there is no question of pure and impure here. What has happened is that the civilizational unity in which the religious ideals flourished is broken, that civilizational unity is expressed by an example of the caves of Ellora in which the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain monks together expressed this large unity. This is something unique to our region. This civilizational unity ended with the destructions beginning in the Middle Ages, by foreign conquests which could neither understand nor appreciate this unity and wanted to impose something different by force. If anything has to be recovered, it is this unity, where the Indic religions existed and interacted in harmony with each other, and even today continue to do so…
Perennial, you are having two unrelated conversations at the same time, so I’ll stick to one point. Where you see “borrowings”, I see continuity. Your point seems to be that ancient Christianity owed nothing at all to contemporary pagan practices, but is solely an alien development from Judaism is not only unsupportable, but it not even the self-understanding of the Christians at the time. The Prologue to John, with the Logos, tied Christianity at its root to pagan thought, while at the same time forced a break with Judaism… but this is more than can be developed in a comment.
Cologero,
It could not be said that some of these were borrowed from Paganism.
– We know at least from Maccabees that Jews prayed for the dead, and that this was a universal (i.e. perennial) custom until the protestants condemned it almost from nowhere.
– The use of statues is also not unique to any particular pagan practice. We again know from the Old Testament that God ordered statues to be placed in the Temple, and seraphim to be placed on the Ark of the Covenant. Again, these were perennial practices.
– The use of relics has a mixed history, although in this case not related to paganism at all. The practice of saying Mass on the tombs of the martyrs, to recall and bless their mighty deeds, became abbreviated to taking relics to say Mass on, and only about 700 or more years into Christianity did the idea of venerating relics alone (outside of an altar) become widespread. We would see occasional use of relics connected to Christ personally(Constantine had a Crucifixion nail, allegedly, and St. Helen brought the Holy Cross relics to Rome) prior to this, but as a custom it blossomed only after paganism had declined.
I still never understand this confused argument. Christians hated pagans, destroyed anything pagan, and suppressed pagan beliefs, but then readily employed pagan practices? This argument makes not sense, one cannot have it both ways.
I will also follow, Grim, that your argument is a non-sequitor, at least the one presented here is. Modern decadent Christian esoteric groups follow syncretic practices therefore Christianity is false? How does this argument make sense? Surely you must have more than this. I would also suggest that your take on the vicarious atonement only matters to those Christians who accept the doctrine of the vicarious atonement. It is certainly not the only view of Christ’s acts on the Cross.
With regard to persecuting pagans, if you study almost all cases of persecution, the primary reason these pagans (or whoever) were persecuted by the state is that they were often viewed as a threat to the civil order, not just because of their personal practice. After Constantine’s toleration edicts, notice there were no persecutions? Yet the biggest persecutions occured after the rule of Julian the Apostate, who renewed the fears of Christians. This, along with pagan revolts in Alexandria, helped solidify the view that paganism was unreliable. Again, the state’s reaction was mixed. Temple worship was forbidden, but the temples were protected by law from Christian vandalism. The same was true for their cemetaries and monuments.
All of this keeps with the Western religious policy from Rome on down. Roman persecuted Christians, Jews, and certain sects before they became Christians and turned on pagans. Why? Again, because their practices were deemed a threat to the state. My example of Hypatia was to point out an example of a “Christian” mob that killed a pagan for their belief alone, and not merely for state stability.
This was true of Charlemagne, Olav, and all the medieval kings, who were protecting the integrity of their realm and of their feudal lords. The practice may be frowned upon now, but I think you will find that only a minority of pagans were persecuted merely for their faith alone. Evola was right on when he stated that being as the duties of kings were sacred, and their power had a religious dimension, they also had a duty to defend the religious fiber of the nation from dissolution. It was a part of their duty to uphold the sacred character of the nation. They you would have us believe, Christians wontanly killed pagans for the heck of it, indiscriminately and without scruple. I believe history, as you say, hardly shows this to be the case. The example of Lollards, the Peasant Revolt, the Albigensians, the Waldensians, and the Anabaptists cleary shows the state had every right to fear new religious movements, and that they often reacted accordingly.
“My question is: Grim, are you able to see beyond your tradition?”
I dont adhere to a single tradition, although one of them should be obvious from my name. I’ve had the opportunity to be involved with some “disparate” ones, and observe what goes on, and *which are most effective initiatically* . I can assure you everything I type is not strictly theoretical.
There are no absolutely “pure” traditions, even the Vedic (depending on which historical theory you ascribe to)…reread everything I typed, although not articulated splendidly, Ive already responded to everything you state regarding christianity and the kabbalah (note- Im speaking of the kabbalah, not exoteric judaism as a whole).
“I think one has to be a part of a civilization to see those points as they mostly have to do with civilizational reference points and transcendental qualities…”
well I do agree, and it would be myopic to deny teh manifest faults of our materialistc age. I do think there’s a bit of romanticism involved in the whole affair however, and most importantly…as individuals, we work on our own in whatever era we exist in, and , although most of the more authentic initiatic chains have been broken, in any case *a group can not liberate you, no matter how authentic*. It is always up to the individual. At present there is enough decent information freely available to open the doors to initiation on one’s own, and then one proceeds from own’s own inner initiative, or if one is fortunate, from higher sources that take an interest in one.
Perennial, christianity is a false religion, in my view. This is easily seen in christian esoteric groups…they just take from the kabbalah, greek teachings, yoga, anything…nothing of their own to offer. They take from others (while distorting and watering it down), all the while proclaiming the absolute superiority of their own doctrine. There is NO such thing as vicarious salvation, it’s all a sham from the start.
As far as christian suppresion of Pagans? I’m somewhat astounded by your skepticism…just read some history. Theodosius made paganim a treasonable offense in 392. Christian mobs burnt temples and murdered many….of course, we could discuss Charlemagne or the disgusting King Olaf of Norway….or even the witch trials… I mean, come on
RE: “a religious practice or belief Christianity nuanced or even borrowed wholesale from any contemporary source”
For your consideration, these practices from the ancient Roman religion: veneration of relics, use of statues, prayers for the dead, perhaps even purgatory as the intermediate state of the dead (not yet celestial)
At any rate, practices abandoned by the Protestants on the grounds that are insufficiently Jewish.
Grim, I find your analysis shallow and unconvincing. As I have said elsewhere, could you, like, cite stuff regarding your claims?
A few points:
– There is minimal historical evidence to indicate Christianity borrowed significantly from any religion save Judaism. I would like you to cite a valid example of a religious practice or belief Christianity nuanced or even borrowed wholesale from any contemporary source.
– From the perspective of the Perennial philosophers, such as Guenon and Schuon, the fact that religious tradition have similarities is rather evidence for the underlying Tradition within them, not of incessent borrowing. Who could say where it began? This was the conclusion of Woodrow in “The Babylon Connection?” He states that the similarities drawn between religions can become so ridiculous as to be absurd. He, for example, points out that author Alexander Hislop claimed veneration of the Virgin Mary has been influenced by the worship Amaterasu in Japan(!). Now we know this to be nonsense. How do people subscribe to these ideas?
– Last point I will make here is aside from the murder of Hypatia, I can think of few pagans who were actually mudered for their paganism, let alone for being pagan practioners. Can you elaborate on this point also?
As much as Evola I find has some things missing, he makes some compelling points, I think one has to be a part of a civilization to see those points as they mostly have to do with civilizational reference points and transcendental qualities…As for whatever Christians might have done in the past and so on, I do not see how that is relevant when many of them at present are able to understand traditions apart from their own. My question is: Grim, are you able to see beyond your tradition? As for Kaballah, my point was that much of the mysticism also seems to be influenced from outside in Judaism so your point aganinst Christians is not entirely fair, Jewish people took a lot from the Pesians and Greeks and other civilizations without properly referencing them either, making these thoughts appear sui generis as well…You yourself made the point that Judaism is not a pure tradition…
The Christian can have transcendental qualities and this is I think ultimately is of importance whatever reference point he may start from…
Grim,
I’d like to continue this discussion with you, as you bring up some interesting points, but not in this comment section. I think the res publica section of the forum is good for this, so I’ll give you my response in there.
Kabbalah was a relatively late development, and Greek , not Persian influenced- ie Franke scuttles what we know about the Sefer Yetzirah now, based on more evidence. As far as the Neoplatonic influence, that is along the lines of philosophical and theological frameworks, rather than *specific initiatic techniques*, at least as far as all documentation available. Regardless, Jews never tried to shut down Neoplatonic schools or convert anyone by force, or suggest they be shut down, or anything of the like.
Again, CHRISTIANS BANNED (AND MURDERED) ESOTERIC PRACTITIONERS OF ALL PERSUASIONS CENTURY AFTER CENTURY–not isolated incidents here or there,but a consistent pattern over and over, spanning sects. Consider the deeper implications of this.
heh ok, now I am really done
Grim,
But there is no memory of where they came from in Judaism or any attribution to these sources and influences; so there is just as much supression of historical memory in Judaism as well, it is just done in a different manner…
“I am not trying to say everything comes from Persia, but there are heavy borrowings in Judiasm from older cultures just as there was in Christianity…So you cannot single out a single tradition for negatives…”
We can parse this till the cows come home…Of course Judaism borrowed from earlier things…who said it didnt?
but the fact is Christianity has had a consistent history of suppressing true esoteric movements, right on down the line, even while cherry picking from them.
Alright, I think I am done with this
Kadambari, you appear to know little about this topic, and are working from assumptions… Find more up-to-date scholarship. And yes, there are other (earlier) streams of Hebrew mysticism than Kabbalah, any elementary text will outline those.
Matt, perhaps, as I am wont to do, I didn’t use the best phrasing. Certainly what is actually valuable (in my opinion) in Evola is apart from Theosophy. But his work suffers from the same sort of specious, fantastical, even glib, interpretations of scraps. I showed just one example above with his ahistorical interpretation of the kenning “enemy of gold”.
“I don’t think all the Emperors were realized adepts, but I dont think thats what Evola was saying in his writings either. Rome, in Evola’s mind, tried to manifest an idea. It didnt always perfectly live up to it, but that is the case with contingent forms.”
Well, if the emperors were not fully realized beings, the entire enterprise is putting the cart before the horse, no? They are supposed to be the bridge to heaven, the Rex Mundi, etc.
This entire top-heavy esotericism he fantasized about strikes me as an elaborate sort of “Dungeons and Dragons” schema.
Individuals, and small groups of initiates, then as now, will work towards Liberation. Whomever is governing is irrelevant to this.
above it’s and not its
Grim,
I am not trying to say everything comes from Persia, but there are heavy borrowings in Judiasm from older cultures just as there was in Christianity…So you cannot single out a single tradition for negatives…
I would not dismiss Franck just because his book is old. Its a well known fact that many ideas were Persian before they became Jewish as Persia was a civilization, and the Hebrews were never significant historically as a culture, so the latter borrowing from the former to me is highly plausible…Also the Persians were a highly mystical people, whereas the Old Testament does not strike me as mystical in any way…If a peoples has mysticims has a part of their nature, it will express itself in more ways than one…is there any other source of Hebrew mysticism other than Kabbalah?
Grim,
Thats an example of the root race influence, which we both agree. But to say Evola’s though is intangled in Blavatsky’s theosophy would mean there would be significant influences in areas besides race. So do you have examples of that?
I don’t think all the Emperors were realized adepts, but I dont think thats what Evola was saying in his writings either. Rome, in Evola’s mind, tried to manifest an idea. It didnt always perfectly live up to it, but that is the case with contingent forms.
“Every beneficent (astral and cosmic) action comes from the North; every lethal influence from the South .”
Who wrote that? Evola or Blavatsky? heh
I think Evola’s bifurcations (North, South, Male, Female) in terms of “metahistory” are ridiculous.
Was his beloved Roman empire actually “solar”? Or was it actually “telluric”, exhibiting an endless need for material expansion…I mean were the emperors realized adepts? I think not. So, we are left with a vague idealism and a bunch of symbols.
Franke’s work is, to my understanding, out of date (he was writing in the 19th century without benefit of later research). This is not my area of absolute expertise however, and I’d need to read the whole thing (rather than browsing google books)
Grim,
Above I mean Aryan in the sense of Avestan and Rig Vedic and ideas contained in these where you have the term in actual use in the first place…What do you make of Alphonse Frank’s book? It is interesting to me because Alberuni writes that no foreigners were allowed into Kashmir but Hebrews were allowed, I have wondered why and the reason for this reference of the Hebrews in Kashmir in Alberuni….
68.Grim,
What do you think of this book? I do not have time right now to read it…But the Hebrews could have picked up these ideas when they were in Babylon (part of Persia back then) and then added other things to it as they lived in different regions later, adding to the core ideas…But it points to an interesting influence…as to pure esoteric traditions, the Vedic one is still a living tradition…Zoroastrianism, while it still has some adherents who are shrinking in numbers, is truncated from the original as most of its holy books were destroyed after the conversion of Persia…although a some have been preserved…
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pr067482/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B000N873M2&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=12D3KTREV0HHK1868FS7#reader_1605067482
Grim,
What do you think of this book? I do not have time right now to read it…But the Hebrews could have picked up these ideas when they were in Babylon (part of Persia back then) and then added other things to it as they lived in different regions later, adding to the core ideas…But it point to an interesting influence…as to pure exoteric traditions, the Vedic one is still a living tradition…
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pr067482/re
f=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B000N873M2&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=12D3KTREV0HHK1868FS7#reader_1605067482
Grim,
Remember that a significant amount of what Evola writes about on the races of the earth fall under what can be termed meta-history. By first impressions, you seem to have some interest in the esoteric, so maybe you have come across the notion of meta-history…..and maybe you haven’t.
I don’t doubt that theosophy played some degree of influence on Evola’s thinking (as seen with the root races),but its another thing to say that his thought is “too tied up” in theosophy. Care to provide some examples showing this?
Adolphe Franck who was a Jewish scholar seems to think that much of the philosophical ideas of Kaballa came from Zoroastrianism. I myself have not read this book. So you can have here a set of Aryan ideas ( Avestan is the sister language to Rig Vedic, if you can understand the latter it is not too hard to read the former with some knowledge of linguistics). My hunch is that Kabbalah might be corrupted Aryan ideas later mixed with other ideas, as the Jewish people moved and settled elsewhere…
Finally, Ill just add Iamblichus, Porphyry, Proclus and other prominent Neoplatonists were opposed to Christianity, and made it clear in treatises (only fragments of which remain).
You can read history books regarding how Christians banned the Pagan Neoplatonists from teaching (or sometimes murdered them)
Sure, I certainly would never claim Judaism as a “pure” tradition (whatever that is). However, what you can cite are basic theological concepts, not any sort of mystical or initiatic streams that pass from Zoroastrianism into Judaism. At different points in time advanced Kabbalists developed teachings on their own, from their own visions and esoteric experiences.
Grim,
Has it occurred to you that many of the Kaballah concepts were taken from Zoroastrian ideas? The latter had a great deal of influence of Judiasm. So the same accusation could be made against the Kaballah as well?
oh boy…try and follow…
Christians *bastardized* from other traditions, then turned around and minimized the very people/traditions they stole from— and cajoled or used force to try and convert them. Learn some history. That isn’t influence, it’s theft and misuse.
The context of this is this—christians had no true access to higher initiatic streams on their own. NOTHING HAS DEVELOPED FROM CHRISTIANS. Connect the dots. It’s a “false” religion. Why do you think they were so excited to pretend pseudo-dionysus wrote in the first century AD? The crux is what they pass on is not authentic, they have nothing to pass on–an imaginary saviour and no initiatic techniques. It’s total bs, sorry.
Christians and their rabid intolerance severed the chains. They weren’t benevolent inheritors of what came before, they were maligners and distorters.
Christian initiatic groups in Europe use, again, watered-down Kabbalah, and the faintest distorted echoes of Theurgy, meanwhile all the time proclaiming the absolute superiority of their imaginary saviour. We’d have much clearer teaching if not for christianity. Christ (heh), think how many texts had to be written in CODE out of fear of christian persecution?
#55: Since nobody owns the truth, the notion of theft is inapplicable. You mention Neoplatonism. Did Numenius ‘steal’ his doctrine from Plato? Plotinus studied in Egypt; did he ‘steal’ his doctrine from Ammonius Saccas?
Why would Jews be fooled by a “watered-down, non-initiated version” of Kabbalah, when presumably they, being Jews, would have had access to real Kabbalah if they pleased? Do you think if I hacked up a trout I could convince the Japanese that it was authentic sashimi?
Who did you steal this critique from? Where is the ‘painful detail’ you were telling us about?
btw, Hyperborea was most likely actually Britain.
Archaeology is not really backing any of these Evolian fantasies. I mean, does Gobekli Tepe really seem like some sort of “Solar Primordial Aryan” site?
It’s by far the oldest thing found
Theosophy? It’s been quite a while since I read Revolt, but I recall him discussing “root races” and such…straight out of Blavatasky.
Theft is quite applicable. Christians stole the Kabbalah and presented a watered-down, non-initiated version as a tool to convert Jews. Christians took the (theoretical, not operative) fruits of Neoplatonism while deriding the “Pagans”. This is all historical fact.
You want something effective, forget Christianity.
Feel free to explicate, though we prefer to think in terms of a single Primordial Tradition, so the notion of theft has no applicability. Rather, we look for continuity and are not so concerned with exterior forms.
Interesting observation, Grim, since Evola does not often explicitly reveal the influence of Theosophy in his published work. One exception is Saggi sull’Idealismo Magico, as we pointed out. “The Individual and the Becoming of the World” was originally delivered as lecture series to the Theosophical Society in Rome. He co-authored a book, “Esoterismo e poesia” with the Anthroposophist Arturo Onofri. Nevertheless, the ideas of Hyperborea and Atlantis pre-date Oera Linda.
As far as christianity, one can easily dispense with it, from an esoteric perspective.
There are NO valid initiatic routes present in christianity. anything in there has been stolen from other traditions.
Northern tradition – Runes, obviously
Jewish tradition – Kabbalah (arguably influenced by neoplatonism in a general sense, but possessing its own very powerful techniques)
I will explicate in much more painful detail if anyone wants
´The Scandinavian counts called their leader “the enemy of gold,” since as a leader he was not allowed to keep any gold for himself”
Evola is incorrect here. He’s confusing a poetic device with an anthropological fact. They certainly kept plenty of gold and, while generosity was praised, wealth was a large obsession.
In a broader sense, his thought is way too tied up in Theosophical fantasies (which themselves can be traced to the Oera Linda fraud)
G, could you clarify your Evola quote? I do not see how it relates to what I said.
Exit, G.’s point, as I saw it, was that if one is holding out for a pure Aryan Tradition in material and social fact, one is destined to be disappointed. Pursue this ideal on the level of consciousness, and avoid the obvious trap of neo-pagan ressentiment.
Mark, I see now what you mean now about the feeling of being a creature. But again, this seems to be a case of you comparing the theology and social fact of modern Christianity, inevitably disappointing, to a metaphysical ideal. Some of us are trying to point out that (a) this is apples and oranges and (b) esoteric Christianity possesses the solar ideal.
Back to the creature issue. Metaphysical Christianity holds that Christ is True Man. Since Christ is uncreated, it follows therefore that True Man is uncreated. As simply as that, that particular criticism of yours is refuted.
they* have. Serves me right not spell checking before I post.