Tradition cannot be understood from the human, all-too-human, perspective.
One criticism was based on something called “owness”, as though we pick and choose our gods on the basis of their suitability to our human condition, instead of rising above and seeing our human condition sub specie eternitatis. A second criticism arose from the discussion of the I. The critic could only see subjectivity in this and the workings of an arbitrary will. Instead, it must be seen in the light of the One of Plotinus, the Atman of the Vedas, the True Self of Meister Eckhart. This fundamental misunderstanding led him to flee, following some unkind words.
Lately, we seem unable to understand matter from the super-human perspective shown in the obsession with the human body. There is no point in debates, rather the goal is to “see”. There is a superior form of knowing (gnosis, episteme, intuition), that is more akin to “seeing”, properly understood, than to debating. There are forms of meditation, such as Hermetic meditation, and conditions for Hermetic initiation that are unrelated to any book-learning. There are three trials which are only the preliminary steps. Has anyone attempted them? Nothing here will make sense until they are at least attempted.
I call your attention to the Foreward to Revolt (which is actually Evola’s Introduction to the third Italian edition. Evola writes: (beginning with a response to his critics, who are bringing in the same accusations 40 years later. What irony!)
In my perspective there is no arbitrariness, subjectivity, or fantasy, just as there is no objectivity and scientific causality the way modern men understand them. All these notions are unreal; all these notions are outside Tradition. Tradition begins wherever it is possible to rise above these notions by achieving a superindividual and nonhuman perspective; thus, I will have a minimal concern for debating and “demonstrating”. The truths that may reveal the world of Tradition are not those that can be “learned” or “discussed”; they either are or are not. It is only possible to remember them, and this happens when one becomes free of the obstacles represented by various human constructions… in other words, one becomes free of these encumbrances when the capacity for seeing from that nonhuman perspective, which is the same as the traditional perspective, has been attained.
So to anyone who wants “proof”, I can only say, “Take a look and see for yourself. Then you may remember what you have forgotten.”
Again, Kadambari, I applaud you and your words. You and I may not always see the world same, but we both appreciate the ways of eternity, and I value your comments and your perspective. Excellent work.
I too have exhausted this site, and only wanted to comment when people had peculiar interpretations of Eastern religions, and it is time for me to go as well. This site has some good things to say, but what our tradition teaches is already found in traditionalist ideas which strike me as stating nothing new, this is why there could be a plurality of religions in our region without any conflict among religions, except in the case when one religion tried to do away with another or tried to extinguish the other as in the case of Middle Eastern monotheisms which entered the geography much later and caused damage in terms of destroying sacred geography. As for Buddhism, in India, it had became concentrated in monasteries which were large centers of learning when they were destroyed and it was not a religion for lay people but monks, but Buddhism was a part of the sacred geography of India and the non-Buddhist laity often were supportive of monks and the monks dependent on the laity and the rulers for partonage. Buddhism was a religion just as Jainism and Sikhism were religions, a part of the larger organic whole which constituted civilization in the area; so Indian Buddhism is quite different from Tibetan Lamaism or Sri Lankan Theravada where it arrived as the first scriptural tradition to arise in these areas and in many parts of South East Asia with the exception of China, and even there Buddhists also interacted with Confucianists and Taoists. Hindu and Buddhist were not exclusive identities in India; being Buddhist for the laity other than monks did not preclude allegiance from the community religions and the laity were taught to support all holy men. Early Buddhism did not have a political dimension and was an organic part of a larger civilization, so to view it in the prism of national identities which is a later phenomenon cannot really do it justice. Buddhism spread without a national agenda, without force or violence due to the dedication of monks who travelled and taught and spread its ideas without regard to nationality so to politicize it is already to do it an injustice…That kind of dedication one saw amongst those monks who could see beyond themselves is lost in my opinion as the civilization that produced that vision became fragmented…
Anyway, good luck to everyone here and all those who try to live according to what they understand to be tradition!
@Mark
I for one enjoyed reading your comments, some of the things that you raise are interesting, perhaps you can put them on a blog for people to read about? The church marked the sacred geography around which the traditional society would revolve, for clearly the traditional society is based on the notion of shared civilizational ideals, exemplified by the sacred geography. In the Western context, can one even be a traditionalist without being a Christian, is this even possible when much of Western history is tied to it? Can you identify with land and people without partaking in sacred bonds that tie people together? Was it not for this reason that even the Greek philosophers would partake of community worship at the temple regardless of their beliefs? So while some individuals can transcend their immediate society and can even see beyond it, it would be difficult for a society to be cohesive without some kind of shared sacred geography…How are sacred geographies recovered when there is a general desacralization of society?
@Mark
I recall a while ago you had posted some items for me to read. I was unable to respond to your comments because it took me a while to read what you posted. I enjoyed reading your articulate comments. Regarding the questions about Christianity you put forth, I am aware of a great deal of its history, I am aware that the Lithunians were converted by the Tuetonic Knights, that a great many bloody battles were fought to bring people under its sway. I too dislike its proselytizing and evangelical aspects. However, I am unable to dismiss Christianity. Unlike in our regions, where monotheism never gained a stronghold, most of Europe took up this religion, whatever may be the historical reasons. So it is tied to European civilization, tied to its history, and it forms the spiritual psyche of its peoples. Also I of course cannot fully understand Christianity not being Christian, but I see it is the genuine Christians who protect certain ideals: they still remain a bulwark against materialism, promiscuity, they advocate the simple high minded life, ascetic ideals and so on, and value the monastic life. There needs to be an institution to constantly to protect such things. I am sure people who reject it also as individuals can show all the above ideals, but there needs to be an institution in society which stands for these things, I do not see the newly formed pagan groups with the same kind of organization, austerity and civilizational history. So I would hope that whatever defects that are found in it would be gradually sorted out within it, that what has been lost and forgotten would gradually come forth to light again…such a thing happens slowly for it is a civilizational issue and does not happen all at once….
Actually, I was just asked as to why I don’t comment anymore from someone who reads your blog. It seems as if they find my comments helpful. I wrote this comment purely with the intention to edify, and not attack. Yet it was you who attacked me. Don’t be a jerk.
I had assumed, Mark, that you stopped commenting because I had asked you politely to exile yourself. And the reason for that request is that you confused, and still do, philosophical dilettantism and polemical animosity with “the precise, rigorous, and objective knowledge of the Primordial Tradition.” (Evola)
You have demonstrated none of that knowledge and you refuse to engage any of the topics on Gornahoor as they are presented. Where have we shown interest in such “ontic” facts, other then to contrast doxa (which is what you mean, despite the “jargon”) with episteme? Are you unable to follow a logical discussion? What would “help”, Mark, is if you could explain why “we” (who is we?) have forgotten those primordial truths. Then you may show some understanding of the race of the soul and the race of the spirit, (I will post Evola’s explanation within a week or so.)
You seem to forget that you come as a guest to my Hall; if what is served here is not to your taste, then move on.
I was asked as to why I stopped commenting on your site, so I will clarify what I believe to be a misunderstanding. The concept of “ownmost”, not “owness” was in reference to Heidegger, and since that is the case, I would like to explain his idea of the ontic and ontological. If I was to make a statement like, “my car is black”, this would be ontic, in that it deals with a “mere fact”, a being. When I state something the like the paticca-samupadda of Buddhism, then this is ontological in the sense that it explains what it means for us to be, our very Being. We crave (tanha) and cling (upadana) for example. Here we have a metaphysics of what it means for us to be. When I look at the religion that is prominent within Europe and America today, it is clearly ontic. It deals with statements of fact, “did Jesus die and rise from the grave”, it also is imbedded in our social institutions where people discuss the work week, and who will win the game. We have lost these “primordial truths” that explain our very Being, and thus we need to get that back. This will be just my interpretation, but let me separate “ownmost” into “own” and “most”.
What is our “own”, and what is our “most”? Is it our “own” to take the route of Guenon, and become a Sufi? Should our “own” be that which is our “own”, the Indo-European Tradition? Is it our “most” when ideas are ontic, and do not express ontological truths? Should these ideas also explain our ontology, like what the Buddha has done in the paticca samupadda?
I hope this helps.