I don’t know if the following review by Rene Guenon of Revolt against the Modern World has been published anywhere, but it is worth including here for the issues it raises. Like Ananda Coomaraswamy, Guenon’s primary objection is also the emphasis of regality over the sacerdotal caste. Those who would take Evola’s position seem to do so because they object to the word “supremacy”, and then interpret the relationship between priest and king as a one way, rather than a mutual, relationship.
Evola’s case is weakened by his misunderstanding of the rite of the purohita. Evola simply pulled the relevant reference to the Aitareya Brahmana from subsequent editions of the book, but continued the same theme as though it had never existed. This makes Evola’s discussion on that topic suspect; besides, he offers many historical examples, but is short on demonstrating the principles that would support his case.
In his review of Coomaraswamy’s Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government, Guenon delves deeper into this topic, from the point of view of principle. As Mr. Shankar has pointed out in a recent comment, this needs to start with the principle that unites priest and king rather than on what divides them. Furthermore, as the exterior is a reflection of the interior, we need to discern the roles of priest and king in our inner life.
First of all, Evola misrepresents the role of King in the Ancient City as documented by Fustel de Coulanges. It wasn’t the case that the King had priority; rather that the roles of both Priest and King were held by one man, and thus were united. The regression of castes, then, occurred with the rebellion of the aristocracy, who split up the roles of the Priest-King, stripping him of his kingly function, leaving him as the High Priest of the city.
In that case, the understanding of the relationship between the spiritual and temporal makes little sense in Evola’s scheme. The King’s role is always in the temporal realm, or manifestation, which is the reflection of the spiritual, and the unmanifest, the province of the Priest. Again, this is necessarily a mutual relationship, so the question of supremacy is irrelevant. As for the King standing in for God, as Evola claims, this is a partial picture. In the Medieval system, Christ is both Priest and King. Hence, the King is God ordained, but that does not exhaust that claim. For the High Priest is likewise the Vicar of Christ in his own domain.
The King rules by edict, that is, the word; spiritual authority, however, comes from the idea, or thought, to which the word is the reflection on the plane of manifestation. Hence, the King lays down the law, which is supreme in his realm, but infallibility has never been claimed by the King; that is a quality of the Priest.
Guenon points out that, viewed from the microcosm, these roles appear as the two atmas, i.e., the Self and the Ego. Establishing their proper relationship within, is part of the spiritual task, or “Holy War”. Coomarawamy writes:
The outer, active, feminine, and mortal aspect of our nature subsists more eminently in its inner, contemplative, masculine, and immortal side, to which it can and must be ‘reduced’, that is to say, brought back or reunited.
Guenon comments:
For a king, autonomy consists in not letting himself be ruled by the multitude subordinate to him, and likewise for each person, in not letting himself by ruled by the inferior and contingent elements of his being. Hence the two meanings of the ‘holy war’ for the establishment and maintenance of order in both cases.
By fighting this war within, the Priest and King are united in a common battle. As Coomarawamy pointed out in his review of Revolt Against the Modern World, Evola tends to absolutize this issue, categorizing things in absolute dichotomies of masculine/feminine or solar/lunar. However, these are relative terms. The King is masculine in respect to his realm and his subjects, but feminine to the spiritual and transcendental. To deny this is to make the King something he clearly is not; it also has deleterious consequences to one’s inner spiritual life.
The following review was originally published in Le Voile d’Isis, Paris, May 1934.
In this new work, the author opposes traditional civilization to modern civilization, the former having a transcendent and essentially hierarchical character, and the latter founded on a purely human and contingent element. He then describes the phases of spiritual decadence that has led from the traditional world to the modern world. We will have some reservations to make on some points: so, when dealing with the original source of the two sacerdotal and regal powers, the author has a very definite tendency to put the emphasis on the regal aspect at the expense of the sacerdotal aspect. When he distinguishes two types of tradition that he relates respectively to the North and the South, the latter of these two terms appears to us as a little inaccurate, even if he does not mean it in a strictly “geographic” sense, since it seems to pertain especially to Atlantis, which, in every way, corresponds to the West, not the South. We also fear that he sees in primitive Buddhism something different from what it was in reality, since he praises it in way that is not absolutely encompassed in the traditional point of view. On the other hand, he disdains Pythagoreanism in a manner that is poorly justified. We could also point out other similar things.
This must not prevent us from recognizing, as is right, the merit and interest of the work as a whole, and to bring it in a particular way to the attention of all those who are concerned with the “crisis of the modern world”, and who think like us that the only effective means of remediating it would consist in a return to the traditional spirit beyond which nothing truly “constructive” could be effectively undertaken.
An article on the historical relationship between Pythagoreanism and Buddhism, which later flowered into other ‘divine man’ faiths:
Pythagorean philosophy in India
http://historyhuntersinternational.org/2012/05/28/pythagorean-philosophy-in-india/
@HOO: Guénon’s own mistakes or mis-understadings (of Buddhism, towards which he changed his attitude after Coomaraswamy) do not relate to his right understanding of Evola’s mis-representation of the relationship between royalty and pontificate. I personally agree with Mihai’s understanding of the issue.
In discussing ‘The Hermetic Tradition’, I think it is good to understand that the royal path of alchemy is more cosmic and psychic than universal and “beyond cosmos”. This makes it suitable for hermeticists and for the royal caste, and the relation that Evola makes between ‘the white phase’ and ‘the red phase’, making the latter superior to the former, is right only in its own context. Yet, tt should not be made a general principle, since it relates to the supra-individual concept of ‘coming back to earth’ (descending realization) and not into the relationship between sacerdotal caste and the royal caste.
@HOO: I am afraid that when discussing Evola, things tend to degenerate from rational debate to name-calling and one-sided blind arguments rather quickly, sometimes resembling arguments fought over football teams.
The problem is that it is nearly impossible to completely exclude the individual equation as long as one is still human, so a degree of partiality, no matter how small, is normal- in all these thinkers.
My take on this subject is like this: a king, as long as he embodies both spiritual authority and temporal power- that is he exercises both vertical and horizontal power- is an image of the Divine, of the Center. However, the spiritual aspect in him- the vertical dimension- is superior to his warrior aspect- the horizontal one. As a function, the king is the synthesis of both priest and warrior and as such he rules over both.
Where Evola makes a mistake is where he tries to make these two aspects- warrior and sacerdotal- as being equal, with no importance in which of these holds the higher place.
Furthermore, I think this site is quite respectful and well inclined towards Evola, the only place where it has reservations are some of his more controversial aspects.
Evola’s mistakes and mis-representations are too serious not to be pin-pointed and repeated. As in the case of Nietzsche as well, his personal life is the best proof that there were some black holes in his thought and “philosophy”. I see no “obsession” in Cologero’s points, but I do see a fundamental mis-representation and mis-understanding of Evola in many other mansions of the anglosphere.
“Even an infant king must not be despised, (from an idea) that he is a (mere) mortal; for he is a great deity in human form.” [The Laws of Manu, 7:8]
This website has to be among the greatest defamers of Evola in the anglosphere; specializing in misrepresentation of his work by selecting bits to attack, one at a time, rather than taking into consideration his whole body of work (as is e.g. always done at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evola_as_he_is/ ). And then the misrepresentations are used to ´prove´ some point Cologero is obsessed with.
How he repeatedly use 19th century historian’s Fustel de Coulanges book, merely one of Evola’s many sources, in this purpose is very amusing.
We do not worry about the workings of this website. Only those so predisposed (because of their adulterated soul) will take seriously any of the misrepresentations here. No loss in losing what was already lost. Depending on the predisposiont of the reader he will be able, or not, to take the following evidence into account and see how it relates, or not, to Cologero’s polemics.
“Most scholars today assume these words for ‘king, lord, god’ are related to the Hittite verb has-/hass- ‘beget, engender, produce’, from *ho/ans-. Ferdinand Sommer as early as 1922 noted the parallelism of Hittite has-/hass- ‘engender’ beside hassu- ‘ing’ from a single root, and the family of English kin etc. beside the family of English king (Getmanic *kuningaz) from another single IE root *genh-, also meaning ‘engender’. The ruler was looked upon asthe symbolic generator of his subjects; the notion is still with us in the metaphor ‘fatherof his country’, translating the even clearer Latin figure pater patriae. Other IE words for ‘king’ make reference to other semantic aspects of royalty and kingship. The old root noun *hreg- is found only in the extreme west (Latin rex, Irish ri) and extreme east (Vedic raj-, Avestan berezi-raz- ‘ruling on high’). The noun clearly belongs with Greek orego ‘stretch out’, Latin rego ‘rule’, Vedic raj- ‘stretch out straight’, and a whole set of formsbuilt on the metaphor ‘straight, right’ and ‘rule, ruler, regulate’. The Old Avestan derivatiove razare is variously translated as ‘ordinance’ (Bartholomae), ‘order’ (Kellens), even ‘prayer’ (Humbach-Elfenbein-Skjaervo). We may observe yet another metaphor for guidance or governance in Y.50.6 ‘(we should instruct Zarathustra) to serve as charioteer of my ordinance/prayer’. The metaphor of the ruler as driver, charioteer recurs in the Old Irish text Audacht Morainn 22 and frequently in the Rigveda….The designation of the reins rests squarely on a metaphor: the “reins” are the “rulers”. It is just the inverse of the metaphor which calls the ruler “charioteer”, “helmsman”.” [Watkins, How to Kill a Dragon]
Yajna stands for an action that effectively ‘creates’ [“valuing is creating” (Nietzsche, TSZ); the Aryan values the Self]; the ancient Aryans thus distinguished the ‘other’ as those who did not revere Sacrifice – ‘a-yajvanah’. These were the mlecchas, the Dasyus, the ‘dark’-ones;
“The dasyus are… called a-yajvanah sanakah ‘impious old men’ who have no worship [‘worth’-ship] (Yaj-), with whom there is no covenant (a- vrata-)” [How to Kill a Dragon, Watkins]
[Cf. RV., 7.6.3]
KING MEANS SACRIFICER [PRIEST], you fool.
We repeat, “Other IE words for ‘king’ make reference to other semantic aspects of royalty and kingship. The old root noun *hreg- is found only in the extreme west (Latin rex, Irish ri) and extreme east (Vedic raj-, Avestan berezi-raz- ‘ruling on high’). The noun clearly belongs with Greek orego ‘stretch out’, Latin rego ‘rule’, Vedic raj- ‘stretch out straight’ …” [How to Kill a Dragon, Watkins]
“The basic characteristic of yajna [sacrifice] seems to be that of an action that reaches where it intends to reach, that really and truly offers something, that stretches out and extends itself.” [Raimon Panikkar, The Vedic Experience]
“The tradition of the invaders, centred on propitiatory sacrifice at a fire altar, deified the forces of the sky – the ‘Unborn’ Varuna, through whose navel grew the Tree of Life, was supplanted by the storm god Indra who separated ocean, earth and heaven and released the sun to generate the Cosmic Cycle. Indra was rewarded by being nominated King of the Gods and kingship stemmed from his delegation of power to the first terrestrial ruler.
Indra’s weapon is his thunderbolt (vajra) or pole (yashti), the standard of his imperium (dhvaja), the Cosmic Pillar (stambha) with which he established the Law (Dharma) of the universe.”
[http://www.ellipsis.com/history/05/02a.t.html#02a]
“The Yagna was central to life in Vedic times. It had not yet become a ritual then.” [http://www.hindutva.org/practices2.html]
“…Agni or Indra is raja or pati krstinam or carsninam IV.17.5, and V.39.4, etc., and these expressions amount to the same things asvispati elsewhere; Varuna is raja carsani-dhrta, king and supporter of the folk, IV.1.2; Agni takes his seat in homes as grhpati’ for thesake of the Five Kindreds’,… Agni is himself visva-carsani, V.23.4;the Buddha speaks of himself as kassaka, SN, text I, p.172.It has often been observed that no trace of a caste system can berecognized in the Rgveda. For example, the Creator per artem (Visvakarma, Tvastr) is what would now be called a sudra, andalthough the four charaterictic functions of priest, ruler, farmer and craftsmen are distinguished, one and all of theseare ‘ploughmen’. What this implies is a state of affairs in which theindividual of a given type is still in full possession of all the possibilities of being in the mode of that type. A caste system on the other hand reflects a posterior condition in which the individual realizes in himself only a part of the potentialities that are proper to the type generically, priest, king, etc. are now specific determinations, the names alluding to the one and only function which the individual can properly fulfill, and which is his ‘vocation’. …” [Coomaraswamy, Perception of the Vedas]
[Cologero]´Evola tends to absolutize this issue, categorizing things in absolute dichotomies of masculine/feminine or solar/lunar. However, these are relative terms.´
“Sun and Moon is the fundamental hermetic duality.” [The Hermetic Tradition]
“…there follows, in particular, a relation of the Gold principle Sun, Fire, Niter, etc–to everything that is individual and corporeal, in the sense of a signature having the stable imprinting of a power: and of the Moon principle to everythingthat is “volatile” and unable to grasp the “vital spirit,” the subtle energy of transformations. In the literature tve find a multitude of allusions confirming such relationships–Frozen Waters and Flowing Waters: forces indlvidualized and [ixedby the Solar principle, and forces in the elemental state. in Aristotelian terminology, we can say that in general the Sun is “form” and the power of individuation, while the Moon which preserves the archaic Mother and Woman symbols expresses the “material” and universal: to the undffferentiated vitality, to the cosmic spirit or ether-light, corresponds the feminine. Everything, on the contrary,that opposes it as specialization, qualification, or concrete individuation reflects, then, the masculine solar principle.” [The Hermetic Tradition]
[Cologero]´The King is masculine in respect to his realm and his subjects, but feminine to the spiritual and transcendental.´
“The figure of well and tree is sustaining not simply of its own structure, but in the process of growing INTO ITSELF; it is in a constant state of SELF-ENLARGING transformation.” [Bauschatz, The Well and the Tree]
Now why do I mention a tree?
“…the tree also represents for us rbe personificationof the Divine Mother, of that same general type as tlnosc great Asiatic goddesses) of Nature: Ishtar, Anar, Tammuz [sic], Cybele, and so forth. We find, then, the: idea of the feminme nature of the universal force represented by the tree. This idea is not only confirmed by the goddess consecrated to the Dodona oak–which, besides being a place of oracles, is also a fountain of spritual knowledge–but alsobv the Hesperides who are charged with guarding kine tree, whose fruit has the same symbolic value as the Golden Fleece and the same immortalizing power as that tree, of the Irish legend of Mag Mell, also guarded by a feminine entity. [ETC.]” [The Hermetic Tradition]
“This quick glance at the stuff of religion, which we could expand indefinitely, is enough to establish the permanence and universality of a tradition of vegetable symbolism expressing the universal force, predominantly in feminine form. This vegetable symbolism is the repository of a supernatural science, of a force capable of giving immortality and dominion, but at the same time warns of a multiple dangerthat complicates the myth in rum to various purposes, different truths and visions. In general, the danger is the same anyone runs in seeking the conquest of immortality or enlightenment by contacting the universal force the one who makes contact must be capable of withstanding overwhelming grandeur. But we also know myths in which there are heroes who confront the tree, and divine natures (in the Bible, God himself is hypostasized) that defend it and impede access to it. And the result, then, is a battle variously interpreted, according to the traditions.” [The Hermetic Tradition]
As chief [king] of the Devas, Indra himself, in turn, had appropriated amrira front lineage of anterior beings having characters sometimes divine and sometimes titanic; the Asuras, who with amrita had possessed the privilege of immortality. Equally successful were Odin (by means of hanging himself in self-sacrifice from the tree), Hercules, and Mithras, who after fashioning a symbolic cloak from the leaves of the Tree and eating its fruits, was able to dominate the Sun. In an ancient Italic myth, the Khig of the Woods, Nemi, husband of a godess (true woman), had to be always on guard because his power and dignity would pass to whomever could seize and kill him. The spirtual achievement in the Hindu tradition is associated with cutting and felling the “Tree of Brahma” with the powerful ax of Wisdom.”[The Hermetic Tradition]
[Guénon]”On the other hand, he disdains Pythagoreanism in a manner that is poorly justified.”
So did Guénon towards Buddhism, and reportedly his understanding of Alchemy was quite incomplete.