The Truth begins to dawn on us

Only today, now that almost the whole world has succumbed to ape-nature — right up to the Germanic countries which have not been fully spared either — does the truth begin to dawn on us, that we are lacking a certain divine humanity in a general flood of ape-men. But it will not be long before a new priestly race will rise up in the land of the electron and the Holy Graal, which will play new songs on new harps, and as before, on the first feast of Pentecost, when the spirit descended in tongues of radiation on the apostles, so will the electrical swans of the gods come once more to the great Pentecost of mankind.

  • Great princes
  • Strong Warriors
  • God-inspired priests
  • Singers with eloquent tongues
  • Bright eyed cosmologists

will rise up out of Germany’s ever-holy soil of the gods, put the Sodomite apelings in chains, establish the Church of the Holy Spirit, of the Holy Graal anew and make the earth into an Island of the Blessed. The temples of the pastors and ape-dealers will collapse, the Graal-castle and the Church of John will, however, abide until Christ comes again.

~ Joerg Lanz von Liebenfels, Theozoology

78 thoughts on “The Truth begins to dawn on us

  1. “In the struggle against the apes of Sodom each one must begin within himself, especially in the choice of his wife, then he can fight against the apes of Sodom which surround him”

  2. Thank you, Perennial, though it seems that some readers don’t quite comprehend “cease and desist”. William Blake claimed that “If a fool persists in his folly, he would become wise.” Apparently, there is an exception and he has been noticeably present here lately.

    Anyone interested in persisting in this rather foolish line of debate is invited to continue it at the Utopian Race blog. There you can do all those cool pagan things, like shag a wench or brag about how tolerant and multi-culti you are. You can also complain there about how deluded and blasphemous your father was, and your grandfather, and your grandfather’s father, and your grandfather’s grandfather, and so on. Because only Semitic religions command you to honor your mother and father.

  3. I yield the floor, Cologero, and no more need be said by me at this time.

  4. Furthermore, since when has “tolerance” become a traditional virtue, and not just one virtue among many, but the one that trumps all the others? Are we supposed to be envisioning some neo-pagan utopia where druids, witches, and odinists dance around the maypole together?

    Now, the Viking used to sell Slavs into slavery to the Arabs and raid convents and monasteries along the coast of England. Is that OK since, apparently, it wasn’t done for religious reasons? The Romans hunted and killed many pagans in the name of Empire, just as its successor, the Holy Roman Empire, continued to do. There is a life lesson, there, that the weak will get eaten up, pagan, christian, or atheist alike.

  5. Exit wrote: “As Julian and others had pointed out, calling God “a jealous God,” as the bible does, is an offensive blasphemy that has lead to the exclusivist position found only in Semitic religions.”

    Every god is a jealous god. To wit:

    • Socrates was condemned to death for not believing in the gods of Athens
    • In the Golden Age, a man who neglected his duties to the gods was exiled, a fate considered worse than death.
    • In the Ancient City, the gods of one city were distinct from the gods of the other city. The worship of on was incompatible with the worship of the other.
    • In war between cities, the victor would totally destroy the vanquished city, man, woman, child, animals and so on
    • Poseidon was jealous of his domain and protected his dominion from the other gods.

    There is no point to continue. This nonsensical discussion is an example of the demon of dialectics, magnified by elements of gross ignorance, and is far from our purposes. Least of which because we do not hold to the idea of Sola Scriptura, so hurling bible quotes around is a task for the less than intelligent.

    Please cease and desist. If anyone has anything to say about tradition, please do so. But arguing about what gang colors to wear puts you in a certain undesirable class.

    E.g., what is immutable, what causes motion, how do the Ideas become manifest, what is Cosmos, what constitutes Chaos.

    Just proclaiming oneself a “christian” or a “pagan” is window dressing and impresses no one except your fellow true believers.

  6. EXIT, two points: Apparently, you forgot post 51, where you explicitely say millions of pagans were killed. Further, if you do not believe yourself to be a neo-pagan, then you should clarify what you consider yourself. Trying to revive older traditions, pagan, heathen, or otherwise makes one the “new” version of it (since you have no connection to the “old” version, by succession or otherwise). Thus you would be a neo-whatever. “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.” (Apocalypse 3:15). Declare thyself sir, and make bold your intentions. In any case, you state most people accept that the Church did this or that. Well, that would make most people wrong, would it not, as they would be on almost any other subject. Your appeals to democratic knowledge alas are not evidence. I also challenge you to show where I said the Church did not harm ANYONE. Not so, I am simply saying it was not on the scale, to the degree, or on the level that it is generally wrongly, and inaccurately, claimed to be. So if I am using straw man arguments, you have yet to show what they are. This is not us and them. But it is right or wrong. You are free to believe what you wish, but you are not free to justify on falsehood. Be a heathen, if you are, but do it because you think paganism is right, not because you think Christianity is wrong. I would not have difference with you if you did not demonize Christianity, falsely. Fight for your cause, just do not denigrate mine. Otherwise, foresee a challenge, sir. It is only just to expect.

  7. Perennial, I understand what you mean about history now. My comments were largely autobiographical (in reference to fundamentalists).

  8. About history, historical events can be seen as expressions of principles or lack thereof, for “by their fruits you shall know them” as the gospel says. Thus principles, in this view, are only as good as their application in the real world. If one wishes to determine if the Middle Ages were traditional he would have to look at history. Otherwise the Middle Ages is simply a myth.

    Perennial, I don’t recall writing that the church killed millions of people. This seems to be a straw man argument for you to keep on denying that the church killed anyone. Most people accept as fact that the church wiped out entire cultures which were at their very heart spiritual, and this type of behavior is out-and-out anti-traditional. As Julian and others had pointed out, calling God “a jealous God,” as the bible does, is an offensive blasphemy that has lead to the exclusivist position found only in Semitic religions.

    Attacking neo-paganism is another straw man of yours. I am by no means a neo-pagan. You seem to think that reviving the old traditions automatically makes you such; that is false. You choose to see the situation as us and them, Christian or pagan, believer or unbeliever, black or white, without any shades of grey or different colors.

  9. Ouranos asked: “Even though I acknowledge that you’re not given to stating anything in definite terms but what do you think the new spirituality will be (leaving aside modernity and with the understanding that traditional residues cannot be revived)?”

    You really shake my confidence, Ouranos, since isn’t that what I’ve been doing for over 400 articles? Try reading some, at least the ones that don’t suck. But I will tell you this:

    You can’t shop around for a tradition as a women shops for a dress: “Does this one make me look fat? Is the hemline too short? Does this color go with my skin tone?”

    So, no, I don’t predict since a tradition is the creation of a man-god. All we can do is prepare ourselves to recognize it when it arrives. That is why we engage in the greater battle, to empty our minds to form a clearing for the god to appear.

    This tradition will not come from effete, epicene bookish types who arrange their thoughts neatly in order like a housewife who arranges her knickknacks on the wall. It will not arise out of aporetic debate, the idle chatter of intellectuals, who gossip like women at the river washing their clothes, enslaving their minds to group-think.

    No, instead, it will be messy, emotional, inconsistent, impossible to completely express it in words, that is, an obstacle for the intellectuals.

    It will appear as popular devotions, processions for the Goddess, prayers and sacrifices to the lesser immortals for illness, abundance, lost causes, lost loves. This will provide comfort and spiritual nourishment for the masses, the serfs, the slaves, but unity for the group as a whole. The more talented will find in it something appropriate to their mentality, a teaching to develop their personality beyond the plane of the merely human. This inner path is much more difficult and can only be known by traversing it.

    Hence, to the outsider, it will look absurd as he can only see vain and ineffective rites, the religion of slaves, the opiate of the masses. The inner core will be inaccessible to him, since you can’t eat a banana without first pealing the skin. Few are willing to do that, despite their spiritual hunger.

  10. Ouranoi, I cannot but disagree, but since I think it is useless to carry on this conversation. I feel that any Tradition, if it is a serious one at all, should be founded a mixture of verifiable and unverifiable fact. Perhaps I am too rationalist for Traditionalism. I think myths and legends are the seedbed of any good Tradition, but that there must be something more somewhere. I think the men of Europe have spent centuries fighting their legacy, and I believe that if the Church is destroyed traditional life will follow shortly after. You can cite Evola and Guenon to show their lack of enthusiasm for the Church, but as already noted their words against the modern pagan movement were at least as strong. If they were not sourcing the Church for revival, they were not too keen on paganism either. What then to do? I suppose it is for us to find out. I personally disagree with Guenon and Evola regarding the Church, largely because I think there was so much ground they did not cover regarding it. At least, they did not cover it in their writings. However, they are merely my guide, not my god. As Chesterton said “Christianity has not been tried and founding wanting. It has been found difficult and not tried.” You may dismiss what I am doing as flogging a dead horse, but you have nowhere demonstrated where you are doing much better. I have not seen any evidence that a living tradition exists in neo-heathenism other than predjudice in it’s favour. Nothing of what I wrote was actually addressed except to dismiss it. This is not an argument. I say again, if the neo-pagan movement wishes to be taken seriously, they need to start bringing some compelling stuff. Tearing down Christianity will not raise paganism to a higher level. You want to neatly tie Christianity into a box and judge it from the box you put it in. It has yet to be demonstrated how neo-paganism and heathenism is actually linked to Tradition, and not merely a parody of it. But ultimately the quest is for Truth, which Tradition is merely in the service of. All of us should be exploring the total Tradition, in the quest for Truth, and not vice-versa.

  11. Ouranoi, my wording was perhaps unclear on one point. When I wrote “You, as EXIT does,” I should have put “One.” I was not trying to imply that you were saying millions were killed, only that one could not hold 2 positions which do not coincide.

  12. Perennial, your straw man arguments are getting tedious, attacking positions I don’t even take. Where have I stated “extermination” and “millions of deaths” in the lingo of the oppressed? When I wrote about Pagan and Christian heads of state I was referring to Cologero’s statement on persecutions meted out by both parties on their dissenters and how they differed in tone.

    It hardly needs to be said, but I am no more interested in modern forms of new-age or neo-spiritualist currents than you are in modern Christianity. The fact remains that the most traditional civilizations in the west and ones that arguably influenced the entire structure of Catholicism in its most virtuous parts, were Pagan – the imperial ideal/ Empire, neo-Platonism, the heretical high mysticism of Eckhart, the Grail mythos, the aristocratic hierarchies, knights orders (manner bunds) and caste systems and so on so forth. They existed in form and structure up until the “Enlightenment” period. We still see their residues cindering today but they are dead inside and we should not cling to them.

    You stated before that you would rather strive into battle on the horse you are riding on than to go looking for it. The problem it appears is that your horse is dead and you are flogging it.

    Evola made it clear to not hang onto traditionalist residues and stated that the church should not be propped up (Men amongst the ruins) rather to let it pass while something more virile takes it over – in the form of a true spirit rooted in tradition. Despite saying (with a hint of humor) that a secular humanist is better off under a Catholicism – which would be true as a safety measure to their own profaneness but not recommended to those of a natural yearning for transcendence – because they won’t find it in the Church institution. Therefore the Church has had its day and I’ll be glad to see the end of its cycle behind us in the wake of the nightmare it has left behind. Looking back, it was the admixture of two incompatible civilizations which would eventually plant the seeds of modernity itself – an alien spirit with that of indo-European culture which flowered for a brief moment in history but could never last. It began as slave revolt and will end with it. Even Guénon saw nothing in the revival of the west through Christian means (even as he wrote “Insights into Christian Esoterism” where he refers to how the church had some traditional scaffolding) he saw no reason to revive it and fled to Sufism instead. Had a form of Buddhism (instead of a form of Judaism) taken hold in Europe at that time (and fused with platonic ideation) then our past up to this point would be radically different. Had these energies of Alpha Europe been put into a spirit more congruent to its transcending character two thousand years ago then the heavens would have truly opened for millennia. Anyway we should have thought about hindsight at the falling of Earth Base One.

    Christianity was an historical narrative that based itself in time as a linear progress from creation to judgment; hence the seeds were planted for modernity, when eventually it [Christianity] would degenerate. As a religion it was never truly consistent in doctrine and we can witness such from its inception onwards. It only “converted” the Vikings a thousand years ago and even then the newly Christianized Normans were the main driving force for it across Europe and the crusades, which led to the entire downfall of Europe. Looking at it from an impersonal and a-historical objective point of view it makes perfect sense despite any colorings you wish to impose on it.

    Yes, I can acknowledge Gornahoors (or Cologeros) concern in respecting our ancestors honor, this is important, but there were two parallel histories if one considers that platonic idealisms, structural ideations of Empire and forms of Indo-European peoples never died running alongside and propping up the enthusiasm of the “faith”. The hermetic tradition, the spiritual and racial vigor of Indo-Europids, the Graal amongst other metaphysical principles still influences us and will again radically revive the west when the time comes for the next “Reich” (and yes, to please all, we respect “our ancestors” past upon acknowledging there was a first, even if nominally Christian).

    To C : Even though I acknowledge that you’re not given to stating anything in definite terms but what do you think the new spirituality will be (leaving aside modernity and with the understanding that traditional residues cannot be revived)?

  13. Comment 60. is entirely logical. Yet how is this comment even offensive?: “History will always be disputed by those who can’t see, hear, or feel, but yes. Let them have the true myth.”
    If one sits above all currents they’ll see it for what it truly is.

  14. Just lost a longish further clarification; I spent half my life ignoring what was in front of my face because I thought I understand what “history” was, a “fact” which can be used to destroy a traditionalist of any stripe, Christian or pagan. Why should we beat each other with this blunt sword? It’s rampant in the Christian camp, and an ideology will warp its study every time, in favor of the bias of the observer. Cologero is using an existential “fact” (Christian Europe) as a jumping off point for experiential study – this is definitely not quite the same thing. I wasn’t intending to jab venom at anyone who is struggling with the modern mindset.

  15. Hmmm. Re-reading the context, I can see how you might construe it that way – my apologies for phrasing. I was referring (actually) to those of my own camp (thinking along the lines of my latest post), who are always throwing church history in my face. I’d appreciate the benefit of the doubt, here. The neo-pagan camp I know absolutely nothing about, and can only leave that to the true self.

  16. [Logres:]´History will always be disputed by those who can’t see, hear, or feel, but yes. Let them have the true myth.´
    What does this mean? Seems like a venomous jab on a level I wasn’t expecting to see from you Logres.

  17. History will always be disputed by those who can’t see, hear, or feel, but yes. Let them have the true myth.

  18. Good post, Logres. I will add, however, that if we can use history to buttress our narrative, so much the better, I would think.

  19. Cologero wrote (a long time ago):
    “I want to take this opportunity to address some recent comments. Gornahoor has made it very clear and very often that we are interested in principles rather than contingent historical events. Also, we choose topics first of all to elucidate the Roman Tradition and secondly to protect the honour of our ancestors by demonstrating their understanding of Traditional principles from Ancient time through the Middle Ages and beyond. We are not trying to save “Christianity” per se, which, in any case, does not need any defence from us. First of all, in out day it is an utterly meaningless word. Similarly, “pagan” likewise a meaningless word; it was originally a pejorative used by Christians against the practitioners of the old religions. Nowadays, it just means non-Christian….”
    From Egypt to Eire

  20. EXIT, from what I have read, I do not believe you are qualified to determine who is or who is not a heretic, material, formal, or otherwise. Nor do I think your knowledge of the perennial fathers qualifies you to judge their inner sentiments. I just have not seen that type of pedigree.

  21. [To Exit: I am responsible only for what I write, not for what everyone may have thought or written in the history of the world; that is all I intend to address. What you demonstrate is not only the inability to “make a point” but also the lack of comprehension to even “get the point”.

    “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Cologero: “I don’t recall even mentioning creation ex nihilo on this web site, yet somehow you get the impression that I support that view.”

    That’s not what I was implying. My point was that the perennial fathers did not fully support Catholicism; indeed, they criticized more of it than they defended. As one cannot pick and choose what part of the doctrine they wish to believe, if any part of it is denied then it is as if it all were denied, and one is a heretic all the same. So if we put all of this into context I would say that they were at heart anti-Christian.

  22. Charlotte, I think most of us here share your serious concerns about Vatican II. Any other shady events you would have to say specifically, if any rectification in your concerns were to occur. I am glad to be of service!

  23. Ouranoi, your point puzzles me. Again, the neo-pagan position remains inconsistent. On the one hand, Tradition is incompatible with Christianity by nature. On the other, the Middle Ages were traditional, but only in ways which were not specifically Christian. My friend, this is an oil and water argument. You cannot, as EXIT claims, say that Christianity exterminated MILLIONS of opponents (a fantastical number, since there were only about 25-40 million inhabitants in all of Europe from the 700’s to the 1300’s. Even the modern work Drawing Down the Moon, by Margot Adler, a book written by a neo-pagan about paganism, concedes that modern scholarship can only find evidence of 20,000 to 100,000 pagans being killed in all European history, including during military campaigns, such as Charlemagne’s. (Levack, Barstow, or Hutton for citation). And this is still on the high end. In addition, the absurd claim is put forward that Church squashed all opposition to itself (no evidence of this offered, of course) while at the same time accepting the opposition’s beliefs and practices to enhance itself. Meanwhile, Nazis exterminated Jews in order to adopt Judaic practices in German society. Yeah, right. Not only are these claims ludicrous and contradictory in the extreme, but I have yet to see any of the advocates of these views cite ANYTHING to subtantiate themeselves. Where is the beef? I also like, Ouranoi, how you state non-chalantly that heathenry declined on a cyclical basis, yet state that Christianity was merely “returning to it’s true-self” after World War II, after a hiatus of, oh, 1600 years or so. So Christianity was exempt from the cycles that brought down paganism? The machinations of Revolution that built up during this cycle naturally had nothing to do with the subversion of Christianity, as it did with paganism. Of course not. You also fail to understand my statement regarding myth. Paganism in itself is more than myth, yay, and far more. But the glorious esoterism, praxis, and methodology assigned it by modern neo-paganism is all myth, with no foundation on existing documentation. We have only fragments of that tradition. For people to claim that they “know” and “understand” a tradition for which only the most rudimentary knowledge is even now being rediscovered, cultivated, and examined, and further to claim they know it well enough to practice it, is a boldness no real pagan would have claimed. Gornahoor is trying to sift the sands of Tradition to establish firmly once again the foundations of traditional esoteric Christianity, lost in the modern world, but still very much current in terms of literature, sources, and texts. Even with all this, Gornahoor still does not claim to know all, to have fully revived the esoteric Faith, much less to have established knowledgable practice. For neo-pagans to say they know the old heathen ways well enough to know it is the future of Europe, to be formidable against the Church, and to know with certainty Christianity has no hope, are only fooling themselves, and they are selling on spec. They cannot possibly know these things, and they claim to do so at our, and their, spiritual peril. If you want to challenge Christianity, you should at least have a consistent narrative with some foundation to build off, like textual evidence and citations, not inconsistent speculations.

  24. Well, Ouranoi, I’ll toss the challenge your way. If you went away and read Benoist’s book, you wouldn’t need to waste your time and ours with Gornahoor anymore.

    But I will apologize to you, too, Ouranoi, for our evident inability to write a coherent paragraph. When you find on Gornahoor our claim that “the new spirituality is in need of Christianity” then I will retract it.

  25. Because, Exit, I don’t tolerate debate at all (been there/done that), I don’t believe anything in particular except for pragmatic purposes, I have no desire to convert you to anything, and we are trying to avoid the “demon of dialectics” on this web site to be a living example of how men of tradition discuss things.

    I offer my apologies to you, Exit, for my inability to express myself clearly. I don’t recall even mentioning creation ex nihilo on this web site, yet somehow you get the impression that I support that view. I’ll work on my writing skills to avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

    Apparently you continue to object to our characterization of the Middle Ages as a traditional civilization, despite the concurrence of Guenon, Evola, and Coomaraswamy. We have attempted, obviously unsuccessfully, in dozens of posts to justify that view. Yet all you can see is an attempt to evangelize you to some theology that you can only assume we hold. I’ll make it perfectly clear: it ain’t so. You disagree with that assessment, without even a flimsy reason as far as I can tell, so I’ll leave it at that.

    I refuse to insult my ancestors who created a grand civilization buttressed with sound metaphysics, poetry, art, architecture, all based on traditional principles. To me they remain a living presence. You can insult, humiliate, or ignore them at your own risk.

    That is no “flimsy” excuse, and everyone can consider this discussion closed.

  26. Why are most of my posts being deleted? What have you to hide? Can you only tolerate a one-sided debate? That, and nothing else, has been the problem ALL ALONG! I respect what you and others believe, but what I cannot respect is that you shut out every other opinion based on some flimsy excuse.

  27. There is so much to cover that a few simply words couldn’t do justice to what has unfolded here. Exit has some very valid points if there are eyes to see them. Please refer to “On Being a Pagan” by Alan de Benoist. If you simply went away and read that book for the weekend then half your commentary would instantly fall flat. Christianity was not needed then and is not needed now to revive the West, it simply got the upper hand in antiquity due to the revolts of the masses (now largely Asiatic in Rome), i.e a proto Bolshevism . When it was later appropriated by Roman hierarchy and Germanic vigor, it flowered briefly but did not last long due to the eneregies of the race it could not contain, nor did Christianity allow for a higher mysticism to be tolerated by its exoteric dogmatism. Evolas’ praise was short lived for it too and not without good reason. At their height The great Vedic and Roman civilizations allowed for such free flow and thus these “pagan” civilizations lasted far longer and with more influence, due to their closeness to tradition. Some here may say too that Nordic heathenism was on the way out, and needed an idea to revive it. The fact of the matter is, that at the fall of the Roman empire, Buddhism among other spiritualities were contenders for the throne to the European spirit. However their lack of exoteric fanatical resentful hatred and missionary zealotry was not not popular amongst the lumpen cosmopolitan liberated slaves of Rome.

    Yet again Perennial has forgotten that what is considered best about (even the great medieval) Christianity are elements that are not reducible to it not even monotheism. In fact it was only after the fall of Europe (i.e, Indo-European race) in WW2 did the Christian faith finally atavistically come back to itself in its universalistic, feminine and anti-Aryan socialist forms.

    Paganism is not simply based on myth, but all Christianity is full of it too, because myths are the drivers of great civilizations and supra-human deeds. The difference between persecution by Christian heads of state and Pagan heads of state, is that Pagans do not make it a religious act of duty to hate and murder the non-believers, which is a semetic trait of resentful hatred stuck in a linear-historical tragic vision of history as gods will, i.e dualism. Pagans considered (in the Roman sense) a dignity and acknowledgement to other manifestations of the divine in hierarchal terms, thus not in need of a missionary zeal to convert the “other” to make it as ones own. Romans acknowledged difference and were content to do so as long as it did not clash with state doctrine in an immediate way. Christians on the other hand with paranoia and zealotry could not tolerate any divergence from the dogma.

    The new spirituality (not religion) is not in need of Christianity, despite acknowledging it happened will not be in need of it come the revival. Chesterton was wrong too; the Graal is Europe, and Europe is the Graal.

  28. Moderator wrote, “Exit, “Christianity” did not steal anything, after all, it is just a word and a word cannot act. Your point seems to be this: Germanic pagans who called themselves Christian “stole” elements from their pagan background (how do you steal from yourself?), but only after having exterminated millions of those pagans who refused to call themselves Christian. Maybe so, but I doubt it.

    Where you see “theft”, we see continuity. Where you see distortion, we see adaptation. The rest of your post is irrelevant since it seems to address a theory that we have never proposed. Rather than wasting our time attacking positions that Gornahoor has not defended, please explain to us how Evola, Guenon, and Coomaraswamy are so mistaken about the traditional nature of the Middle Ages.”

    Sir, the blog is not reserved for individual debates, that is why the comments section is disabled. However, to answer your points with respect, Christianity did not begin as an Aryan (Europid) religion, but was only supposed to be Jewish. It was Saul who later came up with the idea to convert gentiles. Since then it was only a political conspiracy devised by Jews and their gentile dupes to overthrow the world, for as it says in the Talmud that the Jews must seek to rule over the gentile world. Why was it that only Judaism was the accepted non-christian religion in Europe? Not even the fellow Semites, the Arabs were that stupid to fall for the Judaic deceptions. Let us also recount what the Egyptians and Romans said of the Jews and early Christians and their “gods”, i.e., that they were liars, lepers, diseased, outcastes, rabble-rousers, etc.

    As for the perennialist authors, are they not heretics in the eyes of Christianity, having proclaimed theology absurd? For instance, Guenon wrote that creation out of nothing was absurd and impossible and Schuon wrote that it was as almost as false as pantheism! They were hardly Catholic in spirit and in all honesty had effectively pronounced theology a heresy. If Christianity was as good as it is perceived at Gornahoor then Guenon and Schuon would have been Christians rather than Muslims. We must read between the lines a bit and take certain attitudes with a pinch of salt for there is no black and white when concerns these profound issues.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2013 Gornahoor Press — All Rights Reserved    WordPress theme: Gornahoor