{"id":3788,"date":"2012-02-20T22:51:41","date_gmt":"2012-02-21T03:51:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gornahoor.net\/?p=3788"},"modified":"2020-02-22T06:23:04","modified_gmt":"2020-02-22T11:23:04","slug":"action-and-reaction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/?p=3788","title":{"rendered":"Action and Reaction"},"content":{"rendered":"

Although we have addressed the issue about the relationship between the spiritual authority and temporal power over and over, we may as well address it again with the hope and expectation that future commentators will offer more than links to other web sites. Evola’s words will be marked by a blue bar<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\nIn fact, such a thesis expresses the brahmanical-sacerdotal point of view of an Oriental, which, as we have already exposed and regardless of what Guenon may think, is but one of the possible points of view and by no means can pretend to have an absolute and exclusive value.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Obviously, Guenon is expressing the brahmanical point of view which, by its very nature is incomprehensible to other castes due to their differing inclinations and functions<\/a>. Of course, this “point of view” is more than an opinion, it is something that, according to Guenon and Tradition, can be absolutely and exclusively<\/em> known.<\/p>\n

\nIf that were the case, it would seem obvious that the Guelf thesis of the subordination of the State, as temporal power, to a spiritual authority monopolised by a sacerdotal caste, would be correct. But it is precisely the premise of this thesis that is not only erroneous but unacceptable because unilateral. Thus we must, in these circumstances, start again from zero.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here is the source of Evola’s confusion. Apparently he objects to the idea of “subordination”, but that would be accurate only by confounding the notion of spiritual authority with temporal power. The brahmin caste does not exercise power in that way. The Traditional analogy is to regard them as the two wings of a bird, not as a relationship of subordination. That relationship is not at all unilateral, but accepted by both sides, hence it cannot be erroneous by Evola’s argument. We have given the example, which Evola was certainly familiar with, of the Spartans and Romans at war<\/a>. The military caste waits for the priests to announce the auspicious moment. So even if we start again at zero, we still end up at the same place.<\/p>\n

\nThis is for us a certain point which, among other things, clearly reveals the possibility of a spiritual significance of royalty, in virtue of which it can absorb and transcend in itself the sacerdotal function and be, beyond a temporal power, a spiritual authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n


\nWell, yes, royalty can combine both functions as we have documented in the Ancient City<\/a>. In the essay that Evola is critiquing, Guenon himself admits the possibility of the priest-king, since the two functions draw on a common higher principle. We take pains to point this out, as we recently did in regards to Buddha<\/a>. Closer to home, Christ has always been regarded as both Priest and King. So rather than refuting Guenon’s “point of view”, Evola talks like a man who just yesterday discovered sliced bread.<\/p>\n

\nFrom the purely metaphysical viewpoint, we do not speak of ‘principles’ to know but of spiritual states to attain, of transcendent contacts to achieve owing to forces that, ultimately, do not cease to belong to the integral being of man.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Once again, we do not understand this objection. the attainment of spiritual states is identical to knowing those states; there is no distinction between knowing and being, a topic that we may have to address at another time. We disagree that all forces ultimately belong to the integral being of man. There are certainly forces that transcend the human state. We previously quoted Guenon:<\/p>\n

Action, no matter of what sort, cannot under any circumstances liberate from action; in other words it can only bear fruit within its own domain, which is that of human individuality. Thus it is not through action that it is possible to transcend individuality.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is in perfect agreement with Evola, since Evola agrees that action is restricted to the integral being of man.<\/p>\n

\nIn the metaphysical and concrete sense, ‘tradition’ — we have sufficiently repeated over and again — is nothing more than the presence of such superior realisations as a continuity established from generation to generation by a chain of superior individualities. Wherever the royal tradition, defended by the warrior castes, has been correctly understood, it never had any other sense but that one. ‘Tradition’ reduced to a doctrine, to a tradition of ‘teachings’ and of ‘principles’, is, in most cases, nothing but a caput mortuum<\/em> — the ‘letter’, much more than the ‘spirit’. And it is precisely on such grounds that ‘churches’ flourish, whereas the experience of heroism and of self-control is something which is far more engaging for it to give place as often to such ambiguities and to such falls of tension.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a valid point, as far as it goes. When a tradition is reduced to a set of doctrines to be accepted in an extrinsic sense rather than an intrinsic knowing of them the tradition is dead. Unfortunately, the royal and warrior tradition dies with it. We see that in the decline of the Roman Empire, when the aristocracy no longer understood their own rites and traditions. Evola gives a strong defense of the Kshatriya perspective, bearing in mind that it is a perspective not a refutation of other perspectives. Since very few men, and fewer in the West, are called to seek Deliverance from all states, Evola’s path is more appropriate as we have defended in The Cosmic Value of Human Action<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nSince [Guenon] understands correctly (insofar as it has always been the traditional teaching) that ‘knowledge’, in the metaphysical sense, and ‘realisation’ (action) are one and the same thing and inseparable elements in the simplicity of an act, Guenon should not have any difficulty admitting that action — symbol of the warrior castes — can constitute a path just as metaphysical as ‘knowledge’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Once again, it seems that Evola is simply ignorant, since there is no argument about multiple paths. Guenon writes about the Path of the Gods (devayana<\/em>) and the Path of the ancestors (pitriyana<\/em>), where the goal of the former is the transcendence of all individual states. That is simply not the path of the warrior. In the Vedantic tradition, there is jnana yoga (knowledge), karma yoga (action) and bhakti yoga (devotion). So, obviously those are paths, but isn’t it obvious to everyone that those who follow the path of action are not those who maintain knowledge of the tradition? In the Ancient City, the knowledge of the traditional rites was kept alive for centuries, but not necessarily by those who performed them.<\/p>\n

\nAnd perhaps should we remind Guenon of the Bhagavad Gita as an example of glorification of the warrior action that has nothing to do with the glorification of something material and temporal?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, Guenon refers to the Bhagavad Gita pretty often, himself. Nevertheless, did not Arjuna have to be convinced of the rightness of that warrior action? Krishna, the representative of the Brahmin caste, was Arjuna’s teacher, so proper knowledge precedes right action. To regard the Gita as merely a text on the glorification of war rather than as a metaphysical teaching, is to greatly miss the point.<\/p>\n

\nAnd does not the very concept of ‘unmoved mover’ used by Guenon as characterising the pure spiritual authority and defined as “the thought of thought”, does it not refer to a modality of action, through this very notion of ‘mover’?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, but what is the point? This unmoved mover<\/strong>, or Self, is precisely that which is unaffected by action, since it is unmoved. Yet as we pointed out in Salvation, Deliverance, Action<\/a>, even the enlightened being appears at a certain place and time, and hence appears to act. As we quoted Lama Govinda: <\/p>\n

He is no more a slave to law, but its master, because he has understood and realized it so profoundly. Through knowledge we master the law, and by mastering it, it ceases to be necessity, but becomes an instrument of real self-expression and spiritual freedom.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is compatible with Evola’s point of view as he has expressed it on many occasions. So the rupture he sees with Guenon is more apparent than real.<\/p>\n

\nIt is not about a conflict between a spiritual authority and a rebellious temporal power but, on the contrary, a conflict between two distinct forms of authority equally spiritual and yet irreducible. Here again, we cannot repeat ourselves. Our readers know what we are talking about.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No, we don’t know what he is talking about. Originally, the Ancient City was ruled by a priest-king. Then the temporal power revolted, stripping the kingly powers from the leader. This is historically documented in a work known to Evola (i.e., The Ancient City<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\nThe cause cannot reside in the upper hand that, at a certain point, temporal power took spiritual authority. How can such a thing be possible in the first place? Should the hierarchy of which Guenon speaks thus be conceived as something so abstract, to the point of admitting that the superior does not also have the task of being the strongest? And if this were not the case, how could the inferior have imposed itself on the superior and thus paralysed the irresistible power of spiritual authority and supplanted it with temporal power?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Good question, and how could the warrior caste and landed aristocracy be taken over by merchants and bankers? And how could the plebes create a council in the heart of Rome, and later destroy the monarchies of France and Russia? Does it begin with the decline of spiritual authority, or the rebellion of lower castes who no longer support that authority? The idea that a warrior caste alone can unify an entire nation or Empire apart from a “sacerdotal” caste is impossible, both metaphysically and historically.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Unfortunately, the overall tone of Evola’s essay is polemical, rather than reasoned. Properly understood, there is ultimately little to choose between two points of view, which, as such, cannot refute each other, but should instead enhance each other. Evola is too eager to bring in irrelevancies such as the so-called “sacerdotal” caste, or lunar and solar traditions, a classification due to Bachofen, not any traditional writer. A case can be made for a Hermetic tradition and an heroic path. After all, in the Middle Ages both were living options and the warrior caste had its own initiatory path, separate from the “sacerdotal” caste. Nevertheless, the former accepted the spiritual authority (though not the “power”) of the latter.<\/p>\n

We can well understand the emotional power of Evola’s vision. Every man can envision himself as a warrior, hero, or alchemist, but it is much more difficult to see himself as a yogi or priest. That is because he thinks he understands what it takes to be a warrior, but it is less clear what it means to be a yogi, or someone who has transcended all states. The temporal power can never assume spiritual authority, it can only lose it. It will then lose itself in the bargain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Although we have addressed the issue about the relationship between the spiritual authority and temporal power over and over, we may as well address it again with the hope and expectation that future commentators will offer more than links to other web sites. Evola’s words will be marked by a … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-evola","category-guenon"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3788\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}