Virgin Spring is a 1960 film directed by Ingmar Bergman. Loosely based on a medieval Swedish legend, Bergman develops it into an examination of the relationship between the new Christian religion and the old Norse religion which it was supplanting. We are not interested in the many moralistic interpretations of this story, but rather in what it reveals about the struggle in the consciousness of the Western mind between two opposing world views or spiritual impulses. This struggle continues unresolved to this day and repeats itself in various formulations, often expressed polemically with a strong emotional element. Its partial resolution in the Western world unfortunately embodies the worst aspects of each impulse.
Tore was a prosperous landowner with an estate that supported his wife Mareta and beautiful daughter Karin, as well as Ingeri, a young woman under his care. Tore was a Catholic, of noble birth, strong character, with a commanding, yet paternal, presence. Karin was blonde, pretty, outgoing, devout and virginal. In short, they were the perfect family.
In contrast, Ingeri was private, dark, and bitter. She was pregnant with a bastard child and was resentful of Karin. Ingeri was a witch, using a frog to cast a spell on Karin. On the occasion of a feast day to the Virgin, Karin and Ingeri set out on a trip to the village church. Along the way, Ingeri met a practitioner of the pagan religion and joined him in a ritual. Karin continued alone. Passing by some goat herders, she offered them some of her food. They broke bread with her, then raped and murdered her. When the crime was discovered, Tore killed them all, in revenge.
Tore and his family exemplified what we would call “solarity”, that is, solar characteristics; nobility, strength, beauty, virtue. They represented the Christian consciousness.
On the other hand, the pagans were seen as unsophisticated country bumpkins, driven by resentment, lust and greed. In this story, the pagans represent the lunar element.
The obvious objection is that the legend was slanted by its Christian originators. But this makes no sense for three reasons:
- It implies that the Christians understood solarity and consciously sought it.
- The story would make absolutely no sense if the roles were reversed.
- But the most damning is that the neopagans of today actually embrace the values of the pagans in the legend.
- To be fair, the neo-christians of today would not see Tore in such a positive light. They would embrace the goat herders as the underclass needing assistance programs, and would reject the justice exacted by Tore.
Herein lies the criticisms of Evola against the neopagans: rather than embrace an authentic solar paganism, they adopt the Christian caricature of pagans. Their lustiness simply results in the unwed motherhood of Ingeri. Their intellectual isolation keeps them away from the centers of power, as was the case of the Odinist in the country hovel. The goat herders embodied an amoral “might makes right” policy that seems to be popular among neopagans. And the final irony is that the pagans — Ingeri and the goat herders — were drive by a resentment that a Nietzsche ascribes to Christians.
This perspective is obviously far from the best of the pagan past. Instead, we need to understand this as a battle for the soul of Western man, although its true nature has been obscured by many masks over the course of history.
In the Middle Ages, a balance was established, more or less, between the two tendencies. The pagan and Christian elements were kept in balance. In practice, this shows up in the Traditional conception of the doctrine of Two Powers: Spiritual authority and temporal power. Spiritual authority can be experienced in one of two ways:
- As a call to transcendence, to life on a higher and creative level
- As an obstacle to the complete fulfillment of animal appetite – sex, greed, lust and so on
Temporal power, therefore, must either adhere to or reject spiritual authority. Man is driven by three forces: the drive to the transcendent (nous), spiritedness (thumos), and appetite. Thus thumos can be the motive power to a transcendent life by sublimating the appetites. Or else, it can focus on the Sisyphean task of satisfying the appetites while forgetting the transcendent.
The Reformation was the rejection of the Medieval synthesis. Thinking it could purge the pagan element, it overemphasized the transcendent, making it effectively an unreal factor in the world. It brought back the uneasy tension of the ancient Gnostics: Either an unrestrained libertinism, since all sins are forgiven for the saved. Or else a rigid asceticism, that served to demonstrate one’s salvation rather than to serve as a means to it.
To the neo-christians (which includes Vatican II Catholics), we quote Tomberg: “Love your pagan past.” To the neopagans, we say “Honor your father and mother.” This is a task that requires integration, not a pitched battle. For example, despite his many references to and appreciation of the pagans, Carl Jung still claimed that a man’s task was the creation of a Self, an archetype that is represented by the Christ figure.
46.“My point was Buddhism is now far beyond a Indian phenomena, being worldwide, just as Christianity is not just practiced by former Jews.”
Again I doubt your comparison holds true, as Buddhism without the Indian background is but a shadow of what it was, and what is Buddhism today is different, more like local culture of certain countries without the rigor, discipline and dedication that characterized the early Buddhists. In fact, if you take out the Indian context there is virtually nothing left. The same cannot be said of Christianity which by virtue of having universal characteristics, in my eyes is a great improvement to the Old Testament.
It is best if people stick to traditions they know and not try to compare apples and oranges…
Really, the New Testament can be seen as having no connection to the old? Then why have Christians not done away with the old if it is so superfluous to Christian religious observance?
Besides, “my view” as you put it, is not my view at all nor can I see how it could be construed to be. The Old Testament is a good historical reference, but the New can certainly survive without it. The Old Testament no longer holds currency as a source of religious observance, at least in the Christian sense.
Who even mentioned Hinduism, I mentioned India. Perhaps my comparison would have been more clear if I had said Israel and not Judaism, although I meant Judaism in it’s cultural and not religious sense. Again, I think my point was clear, and I do not see why you insist on misunderstanding it.
“My point was Buddhism is now far beyond a Indian phenomena, being worldwide, just as Christianity is not just practiced by former Jews.”
If one is to take your view that the Old Testament without the New is the body without the head, I am simply trying to say that the analogy does not hold for Buddhism and Hinduism.
Kadambari, I am sure you realize that was not my point at all. My point was Buddhism is now far beyond a Indian phenomena, being worldwide, just as Christianity is not just practiced by former Jews. Surely my point was clear.
Will,
Also I realize it would be a mistake to label it as the political right, because it is different from what is generally understood from the “right” in the West, so the label does not do it justice.
Will,
In our part of the world at least, Buddhism has a future if the political right comes to power, as it is staunchly traditionalist, this is the only way in which traditionalism can have a revival in our regions, as all the native religions flourish if the power structure is one that respect’s the land’s traditions. For example, Tibet was lost due to the shortsighted policies of the Nehruvian government…
“Tibetan Buddhism has been steadily growing in Europe and North America. We have already discussed our differing opinions on the Tibetans, and I don’t wish to get into that with you again, but I think you have to at least give them credit for this.”
I do not see much in this other than a more or less new age phenomenon. Buddhism became a world-wide phenomenon when monks who were the smartest men of their times were dedicated to working for Buddhism. The same with Christian monks. This religion only has a future if the most intelligent and serious men again contribute to it, which is not really the case today, and I see it more as a fringe movement. I dont see the genius that is capable of making Buddhism relevant to today’s times, rather it is being perverted with all kinds of corruptions…
Similary, in politics, unless those in power are swayed by traditionalism, I do not see how it can have a manifestation in the political realm…
I think what people are forgetting is that Christianity universalizes what is exoteric and contingent, while in the mainstream at least denying what is truly universal and metaphysical.
Kadambari, I don’t think your assessment of the Mongols’ ability to make Buddhism “more than a local phenomenon” is accurate, considering that Tibetan Buddhism has been steadily growing in Europe and North America. We have already discussed our differing opinions on the Tibetans, and I don’t wish to get into that with you again, but I think you have to at least give them credit for this.
There’s even a good joke about it: How do Tibetans make money? They get some robes, and a passport.
Also your comparison is not correct because the Buddha made popular philosophical ideas that were already in existence at the time, which is why Hinduism and Buddhism have a relative harmonious co-existence until it is interrupted by the Islam…But even now educated Hindus readily absorb Buddhism without seeing it as distinct, and as opposite to their religion…just as they co-exist with the sister religions of Sikhism and Jainism. However, they do not see Christianity or Judiasm or Islam as a “sister” religion.
“Just like Buddhism is hardly India’s now, Christianity certainly does not belong to Judaism…”
Buddhism very much is Indian, its degeneration after it became divorced from the Indian aristocracy after Islamic invasions is evident. You have nothing worth reading if you take out the Indian component, with the exception of one or two sutras written by Chinese monks…But all of the intellectual content and form is a work of Indians, again Hindus do not see Buddhism as non-Indian, rather the current forms of Buddhism in existence have very little to do with early Buddhism and are more characteristic of the Mongolian nations that have adopted it…And I doubt that their culture is such that they can make it more than a local phenomenon…
“Just like Buddhism is hardly India’s now, Christianity certainly does not belong to Judaism, and has not since at least the First Council of Jerusalem in the year 50.”
This is a shallow comparison. Buddhism is very much in India, Hindus just think Hinduism encompasses Buddhism, the latter being a sub-category, but the latter cannot encompass the former. Christianity and Judiasm are entirely different in spirit. And FYI Buddhism is growing in India, the same cannot be said for Christianity in the Middle East…
Perennial, Funny you should mention the contrast of the Spirit and the letter, because I’ve been working on a post entitled just that. I’ll look forward to your comments on it.
It seems like one of the things which marks the traditions that have emerged in the last 2500 years – Buddhism, Christianity, Islam – is their appeal to universality, whereas most prior traditions have more exclusivity and are more local. Maybe this has something to do with the nature of the age; a response to ‘globalization’ in the sense that beginning around that time, ideas and people began to spread out into wider areas. Also the social and political dissolution of the Kali Yuga was being increasingly felt. Evola wrote of Buddhism and Tantra as methods particular to the Kali Yuga. Maybe these ‘global’ religions are also responses to it, since in many cases it is no longer possible to have recourse to local traditions. For example, in America, the local traditions would be those of the indigenous tribes who lived here for thousands of years and were rooted to the land. But those traditions, assuming they are even still alive, are probably not viable for people of European descent, though it seems there are always a few exceptions where people from other lands have some strange connection to a seemingly foreign tradition. The race of the soul or spirit not corresponding to the race of the body I guess.
Mark, I’m sympathetic to your view of Christianity being foreign to Northern Europeans, but I’d like to know your opinion of what other tradition(s) is left. From what I know, a great deal of the Germanic heathen traditions were destroyed by the Christians, such that modern day pagans are basically faced with the task of reconstructing a lost tradition. You can get around this lack of historical continuity to some degree if you subscribe to the metagenetic idea that the heathen gods live in the blood, and thus nothing else need have been preserved. But still, where are the practices and the paths to realization and transcendence? I mostly hear about Northern heathenism as an ethos, which is great, but a Tradition in the Evolian-Guenonian sense has to have esoteric practices able to bring an initiate to realization. We’ve slowly been uncovering these kinds of practices connected to the wider Christian-Hermetic-Philosophical-Artistic Western tradition here in our posts and discussions. But I’m not aware of any such practices in heathenism. I’m not saying they weren’t there historically – the surviving texts strongly hint that they were. But have any been preserved that are practicable now?
Yes Matt, I would say it is. Just like Buddhism is hardly India’s now, Christianity certainly does not belong to Judaism, and has not since at least the First Council of Jerusalem in the year 50.
It is a matter of perspective To myself anyway, Catholicism is the “universal” Tradition. It “belongs” to no one. Europe adopted it, made it’s own (As Belloc points out in Europe and the Faith), and made it integral into itself. It flowered in Europe when Israel was apart of the Roman Empire (and indeed apart of the Eastern Empire until the Turks took it) and has always been a European Faith, centered in Rome, with the European nations as it’s base. No one thinks of the glories of heathenry (outside of Rome and Greece) when they think of Europe, Europe grew in greatness under the Christian Faith. Heavens, even when the Muslims speak of Europe, they speak of it as Christian, which is hardly true now. If Christianity is not European, what is it?
Now in relation to Christianity, let me pose this question to all of you. If Chrisitanity was originally not our (we Europeans) tradition, could it be valid to say that we made it ours?
Will,
I never thought of it that way in relation Buddhism. Good point.
Let me see if I understand you, Mark:
By ownmost, do you mean to say that Christianity is not our most “authentic” Tradition, but rather a half measure to the true roots, which is found in the more pagan traditions? If I misread you, then please explain.
Also, I disagree with both Schuon and Guenon for choosing Islam, not because Islam would not be “valid,” but rather because of whether it is right. I think if we are to choose a path which is authentic, we must necessarily choose one which is “ours.” How can one authentically follow a foreign path? Is Tradition not in the blood? The soil? Are the roots of our traditions not also our roots? For this reason, and I think Evola would agree, we cannot just choose any path, even if valid, because it would not be “ours.” An American plug may transport power, but that does not mean it can fit in an African outlet! So any path we may choose must be our own, and authentically so. I think however, Christianity is our own, and if we want to use power as any justification, then by the Middle Ages the heathens were the “losers” of history, and yet this did not stop the flowering of a true and authentic traditional society. Why would this be? Why did “the gods,” so to speak, not favour the strong? Was Charlemagne “inauthentic” as a man? Were the knights equally “inauthentic?” It would seem not, and I would be interested to see, Mark, what foundation you recommend by which we rebuild the despoiled West, if not by the Christian Middle Ages.
Thank you for your point, Cologero. I was mystified as to how modern philosophers related to a Thomistics analysis of Tradition.
Fascinating proposition, Will. The Christianity of the Middle Ages did indeed have a source deeper than the plain Gospels. But then nowhere did Christ say that we were slaves to the pure Gospel, and indeed, emphasized the Spirit over the letter. Perhaps an issue anti-Christians overlook? At the end of the day, Christ said that the development of Christianity was in the hands of His Church, and that the Church can “run with the ball” however it likes, it has His blessing. So to say that Christianity is “just this” or “just that” would be like saying we should only read the Pali Canon, dismiss all the writings of later Buddhist scholars and saints, disregard local variants like those in Tibet, and look only at what Siddhartha Gautama did in the confines of India. But certainly, Buddha himself nowhere said to do this, and would probably be puzzled by a desire to do so. Tradition grows and evolves, and if we Christiasn want to find the Perennial roots in the Catholic Tradition, then we have every justification to do so, “For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.” (St. Luke 12:2-3)
We draw our inspiration thus:
“Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (St. John 14:17)
Notice He does not say “Ye shall follow His rules to do as He sayeth, thus only to the Pure Gospel” as Calvinists would have it. Rather, “He that heareth you heareth me.” (St. Luke 10:16) If we find Tradition through Christ and His Church, that is not a contradiction, but rather a fulfillment of mission.
And of course: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (St. John 8:32)
Cologero,
Learn some discourse ethics , and don’t pontificate.
You either did not understand or chose not to deal with existential in the way that I used it, and I will not address your points till you address mine honestly. The way I used existential was that a “decontextualized metaphysics” has problems, and that we need to understand metaphysical concepts from within the “existential” outlook that they are in. I stated that a Platonic metaphysics in a solar context is different from that of a lunar context. Also, when I used concepts from Heidegger’s philosophy like “Being-towards-death” it was to elaborate the idea of “ownness”. That what is Primordial for us is just as important as what is Perennial. That was the point. I stated that if you wanted the Perennial outlook that someone like Guenon and Schuon had then you could become a Sufi, since it is about the metaphysical principles that inform all valid traditions. So, if Sufism was traditional then it was a valid choice to become a Sufi. What I stated was that I also took into consideration as to what is Primordial for us as well, which was stated as historically determined, and part of our history from when the “wellspring of Being” revealed itself, so this makes certain choices authentic and certain choices inauthentic. You did have a question that dealt with my points and that was
“So here is the second question: was Medieval Europe “ours”? If not, who was minding the store at the time?”
For me to first answer this, I want to make sure that you don’t frame the debate where it becomes reduced to polemics. I do realize that the extreme majority of people on this site are more favorable to your pro-Christian viewpoint rather than my Christianity is not our tradition, so polemics will get people behind you, but it is a dishonest tactic, and does not address the debate. So, let me put my positions.
Based upon the article of the Perennial vs, Primordial, a certain distinction was elaborated, and that was the Perennial position which focuses only on the “eternal truths” and not the historical context where the “wellspring of Being” revealed itself to a particular people, which is stated as the Primordial. I have stated that if you take a Perennial position than that is fine. This is the reason that I do not claim Guenon and Schuon as influences because they have this position, but I do claim Evola, since I do regard him as a sort of “Champion of the Indo-European Tradition”. The Indo-European is “ours”, so the Primordial element is there.
Do we hold that the “Primordial” element is important as well, if that is the case, then what is “ownmost” is important along with “universal” principles behind them?
If the answer is yes, then it is, Is Christianity our ownmost, I would say, NO
I feel as if I am repeating myself, but this is where the stasis of the debate should be, and I will just ignore any diverting away from it.
Matt, The counter-argument would be that Buddhism emerged as a kind of rejuvenation of the esoteric Vedic tradition, and was not meant to be its own separate “-ism.” The Buddha himself said that he had re-discovered the path of the ancient rishis. But when it did become, in a sense, its own separate tradition, it developed an exoteric side (such as in Pure Land Buddhism or the various South Asian folk religion aspects of Theravada).
What’s interesting about this in relation to the present discussion is that it speaks to the possibility of an esoteric tradition “acquiring” an exoteric aspect at a later time, and so also perhaps of an exoteric tradition acquiring its esoterism later. That may have been something like what happened in the merging of Christianity and various, initially non-Christian, esoteric strains such as Hermetism and Greek philosophy.
It would seem that the esoteric takes precedence in any tradition, since that is the actual link with the transcendent and as such, is the core of the tradition, without which it withers and dies. But is it possible that Christianity was adopted as the exoteric side of a pre-existing Western esoteric tradition, and that this combination was what the religion of the Middle Ages was about?
Exit,
Yes that is a point to keep in mind. But with that said, it can be argued that Buddhism was originally completely esoteric, and if one regards it as traditional, than the idea that the esoteric cannot be separated from the exoteric comes into question.
Guenon’s turn to Sufism may not be as treacherous as it seems to some. Peter Kingsley notes that certain Sufi lineages trace themselves back to Empedocles, the pre-Socratic philosopher, whom they consider a “great shaikh.” (Kingsley’s work is an interesting complement to Heidegger, since both look to Parmenides and other pre-Socratics as key figures in the Western tradition.)
It may be that Guenon thought that there were elements of the Primordial Tradition which were still present among the Sufis, but not elsewhere. He doesn’t seem to have found what he was looking for in the Church or among any of the Masonic or magical groups he had contact with.
Hermetism is Greco-Egyptian, and as Guenon says is not a complete tradition. While truth is universal, and religions are unified at the transcendent level, the path that leads to the truth is not. The esoteric cannot be separated from the exoteric. All of this has huge implications on worldview, behavior, etc. It seems that the Christians here are creating their own Christian esoterism devoid of any exoteric aspects which invention all the traditional authors opposed as anti-traditional. The exoteric does matter as well as the spiritual methods or lack thereof which may be used. Since Christianity lacks suitable methods it is not the best tradition for those interested in realizing spiritual states, which is the main reason I think traditionalists abandoned it.
Hermetism = Odinism. I’ll leave it to the readers.
I see now your perspective, Mark, and that you come to us in bad faith. You deceptively use the term “Tradition” when you intend something different from what we intend, and you claim Guenon and Evola as “influences” while simultaneously rejecting their fundamental claims. There are several dozen articles on Gornahoor yet you seem to have either not read or understood any of them. You prefer to debate positions that Gornahoor does not even defend. To any probing, you and the one you consider an ally, refuse to respond to specific questions other than with jargon, propaganda, or ideology. Existentialism is a late arrival from a particular decadent period of European history. It is not the philosophy of our ancestors. As a system of thought it is inadequate to what we are doing.
The “project” of Gornahoor is to inject new life into Traditional thinking, which has become moribund since its initial impetus some 90 years ago. Guenon and Evola may be challenged, indeed need to be challenged, but it must be done with intelligence and sound reasons. So the first question you need to answer is this:
Do you understand the distinction that Guenon makes between philosophy and metaphysics, properly so called? Why do you reject it?
Then there are two other issues that you need to immediately drop. The first is that Gornahoor has never relied on the issue of faith or belief in our articles; that would be disingenuous since we are only concerned with gnosis and the possibilities of its attainment. We’ve tried to use the more neutral terms — Roman Tradition or Romanity — in order to avoid such obvious misunderstandings. We have defended the continuity of life and thought between the ancient world and the medieval world in many places. Find one of them – that would be a suitable topic for discussion or debate. However, we are not at all interested in debates over Christian dogmas, myths, or theology, that is, unless you are competent to reveal the metaphysical foundations that dogmas, myths and theology conceal.
So here is the second question: was Medieval Europe “ours”? If not, who was minding the store at the time?
The other issue is that we have criticized Guenon for abandoning the West, so your protests are a waste of our time. Therefore, we have been attempting a reconstruction of a Western tradition, although the compass point refers to our current situation in time, not the historicity of the tradition. We have begun in the Northern regions, the proposed original home of Indo-European man. Using ideas from Wirth, Tilak, Guenon, Evola, we then trace its migration to areas where the Vedic civilization took root. And so on … do you have any specific comments about that?
We also use a phenomenological method, though much more advanced than Heidegger since it takes into account the Traditional conception of Western man’s interiority. Thus we have described the Primordial State and its historical developments. Any comments on that? Specifically, for example, we have described being-toward-death, and how it has changed since the Primordial State. Are you willing to discuss that? Being-toward-death is not a metaphysical concept as it changes over time; therefore, unfortunately, it is inadequate for the development of a philosophical system.
That suffices for now. Language may be the house of being, but don’t make it the prison of your mind. If you want to engage in dialog, expect to be challenged as perhaps there are things your philosophy has not yet dreamed of.
Perennial,
Modern Philosophy developed out of a strong focus on epistemology. Look at the “founder” Descartes. His method was to find a starting principle which could not be denied (cogito ergo sum), then build up from there using reason. This strong focus on epistemology pushed the Christian faith further and further into a corner which it found hard to get out of. Take a look at Kant, his rational religion greatly alters Christianity to the point of it just becoming a “moral deism”. The way that this gets dealt with is for Kierkegaard to posit a religious mode of existence which is a teleological suspension of the ethical, and it is the ethical sphere where reason dominates.
I am not clear how philosophy “undoes” Christian revelation. It depends on your view of the purpose and nature of Divine Revelation. Is it God speaking to men in simple terms, for reference and knowledge, or is it the Divine Rule Book? If you accept the latter, then yes, Christian revelation cannot be taken at anything other than face value (protestantism). If the former, however, then philosophical method becomes an integral tool, and not a bludgeon, by which to take the Sacred Knowledge in. Aristotle (The Philosopher) was but a tool from before the Christian Age from whom we find knowledge, for “All True knowledge comes from the Holy Ghost.”
Cologero,
I liked that lecture on Heidegger. I would have a few questions for him.
For the Fourfold (das Geviert), why did he use the words: Earth, Sky, Religious Structure, and Death instead of Earth, Sky, Gods, and Mortals? Is there something to the words “Gods” and “Mortals” that his Orthodox perspective cannot “metabolize”?
Starting from, “Language is the house of Being, in it man dwells”, besides “gods”, and “mortals” are there other words that cannot be appropriated by the Christian understanding. Can a Christian have the same type of Thaumazein that the Greek pagan did, can the Christian also have Megin?
In the same way that Heidegger believed that we need to go back to the Pre-Socratics and the way that they viewed Being, should we go back to a “pagan” perspective since this might be the best way to create a renewal? What I mean is that we cannot have the “decontextualized metaphysics” anymore. It does not see viable to just take Plato and Aristotle, and make the Good or Pure Form into the Christian deity, and just defend it from a “philosophical perspective”. One of the ideas that I think was adumbrated in that lecture was the idea that existentialist outlook adds that context. A “solar metaphysics” understood through Platonism will not be the same as a “lunar one” for example. This is why modern Protestants like to claim an authenticity when they say that they are getting back to that Kerygmatic approach of the early apostles, and that is the correct existential outlook of Christianity.
Hermeticism would be our “ownmost” if we consider our “ownmost” as the any part of Indo-European tradition.
link
Perennial,
Aquinas took Greek philosophy and combined it with Christian Revelation, and if we accept the view of Pierre Hadot, it was just the discourse aspect of Greek philosophy. This would eventually lead to the philosophical method gaining primacy over revelation, thus becoming the undoing of Christian revelation. I think given the situation that we are in now, the philosophical approach must be different.
Improving my second sentence, Truth is universal, otherwise it wouldn’t be truth, and manifested Truth is Power; however this Power does not manifest equally.
I find points in this discussion are being *repeatedly ignored* and thus it’s going in cycles.
Truth is universal, otherwise it wouldn’t be truth. Power however is not. We agree, as I have already said, the races are not equal thus their traditions are not equal nor are their individual practitioners so. But I see Christ means ´one who is anointed by the spirit´, and that, judging from the stories of them, this applies to Indra and Jesus as it does to Wodan or Perun.
In the end ´This science is not aquired through books or reason—others affirm—“but by action, by an impetuosity of the spirit.” ´ and I follow ´The “royal” initiatory tradition,´ which according to Evola, ´in its pure forms, can be considered the most direct and legitimate link to the unique, primordial Tradition.´ [Introduction to “The Hermetic Tradition” pp. XVI- XVII]
´Our work will not be directed toward convincing those who do not wish to be convinced. But it will supply firm points of support for anyone who reads it without prejudice. On the other hand, anyone who is in accord, be it only with a single one of our conclusions, will not fail to recognize its entire importance. It is like the discovery of a new land whose existence was previously unsuspected—a strange land, alarming, sewn with spirits, metals, and gods, whose labyrinthine passages and phantasmagoria are concentrated little by little in a single point of light: the “myth” of a race of “kingless”[*] and “free” creatures, “Lords of the Serpent and the Mother” to use the proud expressions of the same hermetic texts.´ [Evola, J. introduction to “The Hermetic Tradition” p. XIX]
*Whatever you call the god(s) ´The true man is above them [the celestial gods], or at least equal to them. For no god leaves his sphere to come to earth, whereas man ascends to heaven and measures it. Let us dare to say that man is a mortal god and a celestial god is an immortal man.´ [“The Hermetic Tradition” p. 10]”
an* objective/rational. I ask this in all seriousness by the way, and not mockingly. Evola stated in Revolt Against the Modern World that the accuracy of his historical analysis did not affect it’s validity, which may have something to lend to it. I will also add that having studied Guenon I am mystified that a cultured, Western man would choose a path alien to his own culture, Christian or otherwise. This does not seem the “traditional” way, if I may say so.
Mark,
I gather that a St. Thomas Aquinas/Summa approach to Tradition would also not fit your conception of Tradition. This is to say, and objective/rational approach. I gather from what you say that whether Christianity is true is irrelevant from whether it is Primordial, in your definition of the term. Could you acknowledge Christ, if His Way was shown to be true? Or is this not important in the system you acknowledge?
Is Hermetism part of our “ownmost”?
By the way, here is a lecture on Heidegger, same assumptions, different conclusion:
Martin Heidegger
My mistake, I meant to say, this is where me and EXIT divide from the rest of you.
G,
Don’t get snippety, I am just trying to have a discussion. I am also being honest about my point of view.
Perennial,
I was reading an article in the Tyr Journal by Michael O’ Meara, where he compares Heidegger and Evola. Guenon is also in there as well. The title is interesting, “The Primodial and the Perennial”.
Let me take two quotes to start things off
“As a case in point, the radical traditionalists associated with TYR oppose the “abstract but absolute principles” which the Guenonian school associates with “Tradition” and instead privilege the European heritage.” The implication here (other than what it implies for biopolitics) is that there is no Perennial Tradition or Universal Truth. whose timeless verities apply to all peoples everywhere — only different traditions, linked to different peoples in different cultural epocjs and regions.”
“Heidegger saw origins — the inexplicable outbreak of Being which brings what is “ownmost”, not universal, to Dasein into existence”
Lets take these two concepts “ownmost” and universal. Guenon and Schuon stress the Perennial theme to such a degree that all options are available as long as they are “Traditional”. We can see this in both Guenon and Schuon in the sense that they became Sufis. If you base yourself upon this, and wish to become a monk, Sufi, etc., then go ahead, I wish you the best.
Now, here is where both me and EXIT(please comment if I correct or not) divide. What is “ownmost” has great importance as well. Think of how Heidegger views death, it is Dasein’s ownmost, I can only die my death, and not others for me. So, from this perspective there is a great deal of inauthenticity in the path that Rene Guenon took. Thinking of this in Heideggarian terms, by him choosing Islam, he is part of “the they self”, and not “the authentic self”.
So, if you are Perennialist, and believe in a transcendent unity of all relgions, and wish to become a Sufi, or even something like Voodoo, if you believe it gets you initiated in the Greater Mysteries, then go ahead. But, if you also believe in the Primordial, that authentic choices are also conditioned by historical factors as well. I was born as person X, and people X have a tradition where Being has revealed itself, and I can only have an authentic tradition by returning to these roots, then your choices are limited, though limited in what I believe is a good way.
The question arises, Is Christianity part of our “ownmost”?
I would say, NO
“he gods are symbols or manifestations of principles.”
Just to expand on this, in light of what followed, though not as the last word but rather to stimulate.
The gods are symbols, or arcana to meditate upon. Principles are not mere abstractions, but are living and active forces in our lives. We meditate on the symbols and myths to recognize their corresponding principles in our consciousness. The principles are hierarchical, we experience them as forms of thought, our worldview; as such, our spirit is formed.
So they are active in relation to man, but passive in relation to the earth. The task of Man, as intermediary between Heaven and Earth, is to bring the principles into manifestation.
When man has forgotten and no longer hears the gods, his thought becomes chaotic, the playground for any forces at random. He becomes passive in relation to the earth, thus becoming just another object in the world. Only his animality and the satisfaction of its desires is of interest to him.
The gods are symbols or manifestations of principles. In the end they adhere to the Supreme Principle, purpose of any spirituality is to provide an experience that is not limited to the “dead” or “common” aspects of the Elements. Metaphysics: beyond the physical.
God is a Germanic word, like Icelandic Guð, and it’s neuter like the Latin “numen”. ´´By far more than the sacerdotal title of ‘saint’, it is that of Lord which, of all times, was used by all people to designate ‘God’ – as symbol of the highest metaphysical state in which the human being can integrate.´
Christ comes from Greek khriein “to anoint,” from PIE base *ghrei- “to rub.”
Anointed with what?
A ´particular energy, this kind of magic power, this fluid or life force´*, called the blood of God by me, also, as the supernatural, and brahman or soma, for example.
[*”The Doctrine of Awakening” p. 24]
In the end we this is about the ´process capable not only of establishing contacts with the ranscendent world, but of imposing itself upon supersensible forces and, through their mediation, eventually influencing even the natural forces.´ [“The Doctrine of Awakening” p. 23-4]
Þór reached the magic land of enlightenment and eternal life by bathing in a river filled with the menstrual blood of ’giantesses’ — that is of the Primal Matriarchs, “Powerful Ones” who governed the elder gods before Odin brought his Aesir out of the East. Odin acquired supremacy by stealing and drinking the ’wise blood’ from the triple cauldron in the womb of the Mother-Earth, the same Triple Goddess known as Kali-Maya in the southeast Asia.
V.I.T.R.I.O.L.; hmm? “Visita Interiora Terrae Rectificando Invenies Occultum Lapidem” (Pass through the bowels of the earth [“the body”] and by rectifying thou wilt find the hidden stone)!
Odin’s theft of menstrual magic paralleled that of Indra, who stole the ambrosia of immortality in the same way. Indian myth called the sacred fluid Soma — in Greek, “the body”, because the word’s eastern root referred to a mystical substance of the body.
Þór, Óðinn, Indra, Mithra, Buddha, Christ — christened with the blood of the divine, all bearing the Solar halo. All Aryan Lords of Light — all manifestors of Tradition — the Divine.
Rather than trying to deny the chrism of the symbol of Christ, and thus denying any Traditional validity to over a millennium of Hierarchic or Traditional Europe, we’d better embrace what in it was Solar or Imperial.
Between the Aryo-Germanic Tradition and the Aryo-Roman Tradition there is no opposition to the degree to which both are branches of the Pre-Aryan Tradition: the Urnordic Tradition.
If you want to reject Medieval Europe for being ´Semitic´, no one is stopping you, but please allow us to continue thirst for the Grail, recognizing the beauty and being inspired by such traditions and periods as described, for example, by these words:
´The Scandinavian counts called their leader “the enemy of gold,” since as a leader he was not allowed to keep any gold for himself, and also “the host of heroes,” because of the pride he took in hosting his faithful warriors, whom he regarded as his companions and equals, in his house. Even among the Franks prior to Charlemagne, participation in a particular mission occurred on a voluntary basis; the king invited people to participate, he appealed to them; at times the princes themselves proposed a course of action – in any event, there was neither “duty” nor impersonal “service,” since everywhere there were free and highly personalized relationships of command and obedience, mutual understanding and faithfulness. Thus, the idea of free personality was the foundation of any unity and hierarchy. this was the “Nordic” seed from which the feudal system arose as the background to the new imperial idea.´[“Revolt Against the Modern World”]
You will excuse me if I appreciate this art more than some gay “Vintersorg” songs.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/gub/AJ5be4dobrFu0b6qbDlOlKSpsppEXKitnj3PoNwVo4BEKcSPXgFfxuxwhZdc/image00778.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=1C9REJR1EMRZ83Q7QRG2&Expires=1295426390&Signature=uv5NaAlwmAdwwhUikYMWLW%2Bj1BM%3D
🙂
No need to be defensive, obviously you have potential being here discussing this, rather, by all means, tell us about elvic sense of beauty you tell us you have as an internalizer or activator of Indo-European archetypes. But to persist in accusing us of lacking it, and selectively ignore what we put forward, and you might find yourself as what will be ignored here. But there is no need for that. Just rather forgive us for appreciating Semitic angelology, and appreciate us for appreciating Aryan mythology.
Just realize that most self-proclaimed pagans have almost no spiritual understanding of the traditions they claim their own. Yggdrasil, and Óðinn as Alfaðir, for those who actually get the symbology, represents a monotheistic quality:
1. Luna | Midgard (Middle Enclosure)
2. Mercury | Niflheim (Realm of Frost Giants)
3. Venus | Muspelheim (Realm of Fire Giants) & Helheim (Realm of the Dead)
4. Sol | Alfheim (Realm of Elves) & Vindheim (Realm of Wind)
5. Mars | Jotunheim (Realm of Rock Giants)
6. Jupiter | Vanaheim (Realm of Vanir)
7. Saturn | Asgard (Realm of Æsir)
´Eventually, along that path the knowledge of the self and the knowledge of the cosmos intersect and season one another, until they become the one and the same marvelous thing, the true goal of the Great Work. As above, so below, as in spirit, so in nature. Within the human organism, as outside it, are present the Three, the Four, the Seven, the Twelve; Sulfur, Mercury, Salt; Earth, Water, Air, Fire; the Planets; the Zodiac. “The Furnace is unique”—affirm the Sons of Hermes enigmatically—“unique the path and unique, as well, the Work.” “There is but one Nature and one Art…..The Work is all there is, and beyond it there exist no other truths.”´ [Evola, J. “The Hermetic Tradition” p. 26]
I hope you know how to appreciate the occult information I am giving you.
Well put Mark. However, you will acknowledge that all analysis is in retrospect, even your own of the pagan traditions. Liberals often claim we are “glossing over” or “whitewashing” by adding our own points of interest to historical analysis. But the fact that Tradition is living, cannot be put in a box, and is beyond the mere parochial traditions, legends, and myths of the ages, should be for us a reassurance of the eternal in all legitimate systems, including Christianity, and should be rather a point of agreement, not division. I still have not seen anyone address the issue of how Christianity was able to inspire the Middle Ages, or what exactly is so “Jewish” about Catholic or Orthodox practice (other than what you have “forced” on them).
Graham,
The point was the integration of different aesthetic / numinous experiences into a certain worldview. For many, the mythic symbolism that exists in the “Aryan pagan” system seems to come from a completely different region of Being than what is in Christianity. My position is that the process of reflection, creative imagination and interiorization of Indo-European myths and symbols will lead the person to reject Christianity.
“If you think that you can know Perun as St. Elijah, then you do not know Perun”
This is where I will go a little more Heidegger than Evola, but what I think is happening is that those who wish to integrate Christianity and the Indo-European systems are operating in a present-to-hand perspective where you have your “understanding” that you force on Being, and therefore that is what you get back.
I do think that this type of “understanding” will veil the true meaning of the Indo-European spirituality from you. You have not opened yourself to the gods, but wish to put them in your mental box.
“So, the point was that certain experiences or events are understood differently depending on the idea that you use to understand them. We could then state that the idea that one has is a product of their “fidelity” / unconscious. Thus certain numinous experiences could not be integrated into one worldview, as they could in another.”
Here you’re speaking, literally, of conditioned experience.
“The folk-lore of the Serbians is re-echoing to this day with religious sentiments and rites from their pre-Christian days. Some of the Serbian students of the Serbs (like Professor M. Milovanovich of Belgrade in Serbia) are sorry that the Christian monotheism spoiled the beautiful phantasy or imagination of the Serbians in the formal shaping of the tribal mythology.”
Now you’re speaking of folklore.
Interesting topics, to be sure, but don’t pretend that these are valid metaphysical criticisms. Anyway, I would place the blame for ‘disenchantment’ on the cosmic cycle, and the loss of the sense of the sublime on the regression of castes, rather than on Christianity.
Álfar og rúnir, you say. Ever heard of angels & glyphs? 🙂
Mark, G.,
Yes, I should not have overlooked that.
As far as the “phallic” vs “vaginal” manhood, are there some people who gravitate to paganism because of how modern day Christianity presents itself. I would say that can be a factor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZHWx8ShOnY
Considering the feminine nature of the average American male, a “phallic” masculinity is going in the right direction. There are Christians who wish their was a “phallic masculinity” in Christianity
Was this was supposed to be the analysis of why the “Northern” people have rejected Christianity based upon their pagan unconscious?
I was expecting something a little more “academic”, not a movie review.
Take this for example, I was reading an academic article that dealt with the theory of the sublime in Kant and Schopenhauer. At one point in the article, it was articulating a position by Kant where he stated that where some people only see the “terrifying”, others see the “sublime”. It had to deal with the concept that the idea of a just god makes terrifying circumstances sublime because you realize the idea of a justice that overcomes the fear of a loss of life.
So, the point was that certain experiences or events are understood differently depending on the idea that you use to understand them. We could then state that the idea that one has is a product of their “fidelity” / unconscious. Thus certain numinous experiences could not be integrated into one worldview, as they could in another.
It could be that certain experiences cannot be integrated in the “Northern” perspective with Christianity that can be in the South.
I Den Trolska Dalens Hjarta (In the hear of the magical valley)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhKeR0a6i8o
Can there be magical valleys in Christianity?
När Alver Sina Runor Sjungit (Where the elves have sang their runes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWMwvBxRE8&feature=related
Can their be a place where elves sing their runes in Christianity?
If we broach this issue about the “Pagan” / Christian divide amongst certain people, then we need to focus on the key issue, and that is incompatibility of certain “Pagan imaginations” with Christianity.
Here is a good quote
“The folk-lore of the Serbians is re-echoing to this day with religious sentiments and rites from their pre-Christian days. Some of the Serbian students of the Serbs (like Professor M. Milovanovich of Belgrade in Serbia) are sorry that the Christian monotheism spoiled the beautiful phantasy or imagination of the Serbians in the formal shaping of the tribal mythology.
Just as Semitic Christians have idealized a form of vaginal manhood.
´not only does Catholicism no longer need to be destroyed, since, objectively looked at, it is destroyed already, and Christianity has returned to its pre-Catholic origins, but also, it is not Catholicism as such which these influences wished to destroy, but the Nordic-Aryan elements within Catholicism, which had rectified it to a certain extent from the beginning of the ‘Middle Ages’ onwards.´[Evola, “Matriarchy in J.J. Bachofen’s Work”]
Gornahoor is about this rectified Catholicism. Aristocratic Christianity, Imperial Christianity.
´Christianity was significantly “Germanicized” as a consequence of its adoption by the tribal peoples, while at the same time the latter were often “Christianized” only in a quite perfunctory and tenuous sense. Contrary to simplistic models put forth by some past historians, this book illustrates that conversion was not any sort of linear “one-way street”; a testament to the fundamental power of indigenous Indo-European and Germanic religiosity lies in the evidence that it was never fully or substantially eradicated by the faith which succeeded it. As Russell shows, a more accurate scenario was that of native spirituality and folk-tradition sublimated into a Christian framework, which in this altered form then became the predominant spiritual system for Europe.´
[Review of http://www.amazon.com/Germanization-Early-Medieval-Christianity-Sociohistorical/dp/0195104668%5D
Gornahoor is for the religion not of Jehova, but rather of the Lord. Christ the Conqueror, Christ as the King of Kings, is one manifestation of the Imperial Principle.
This is just it. Many neo-pagans, even Evolians, have despite themselves idealized a form of merely phallic manhood. Is that the term Evola uses? I can’t remember.