This is the concluding part of an essay originally published by EA, or Julius Evola, under the title “Esoterismo e Mistica Cristiana” from the third volume of Introduction to Magic. Here he discusses the the cult of Mary, the initiation of the Fedeli d’Amore, and then comes to a not unexpected conclusion.
⇐ Part 4
Moreover, according to patristics, man as microcosm comprises the entire creation, through which the dominating power possessed by man over himself is manifested likewise in the macrocosm: the dominion of man over nature is the prize of the complete victory that man brings back on himself: the hierarchical relationship established between the powers interior to man are transferred into the relationship between man and the world [TM, 84]. It is through such a way that an unlimited power over creation had been promised to the saints, according to the words of Mark 16:17-18.
And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.
It is unnecessary to point out that the premises just noted are the same as in high magic or theurgy: Agrippa and Paracelsus did not express themselves any differently. Finally, as the third prerogative of the adamic state, there is the gift of immortality, athanasia, “corporeal immortality being a sign and proof of the interior presence of God”. For that reason, “a restoration of the primordial state would also include the reacquisition of immortality”. [TM 82-4]
At the origins of Christianity, there was, as an echo, the ontological ideal of deification—assimilation to God and participation in his nature—as an effect of the earlier mystery tradition and it still predominated over the morality of faith, love, and the merits that carry essentially their fruits into the afterlife. Therefore, there were still half-closed perspectives of the type that, once the dross has been separated, tends toward a world higher than that of mysticism, and of which the world of mysticism is only a weakened and rather humanized echo.
One final point. We know the part that Mariolatry, i.e., the cult of the Virgin as “Mother of God”, has in Christianity. If this cult, in its most external aspects and from the historic point of view, gives evidence of the influence that gynocratic views had in Christianity, i.e., the pre-eminence of the feminine divinized principle (Magna Mater, Gaia, etc.), as in the archaic, pre-Indo-European Mediterranean cycle, then only an esoteric assumption of it is possible. A rather unique thing, it is suggested by the same Catholic author, to whom we referred repeatedly, when he says: Mary is “the highest ideal of the ascetic”, because “the ascetic tends to form Christ in the soul, to make it become the Christ bearer and the Mother of Christ” [AC 192].
Although this symbolism, itself attributable to the scope of initiation, at its base contradicts the principle of passivity characteristic of the Christian mystical way and as emphasized by the conception of the indispensability of grace (i.e., of the activity of a force that psychologically is experienced in terms of grace) for every supernaturally efficacious effort. If in Christian symbolism the Virgin is only fecundated—by the Holy Spirit—according to the initiatic symbolism the “virgin birth”, it is, more precisely, the birth that has no need of external help, the endogenesis due to a pure and intact force. Kumari, the Virgin, is the “power of the will”, according to a Hindu text.[1]
Another mystical interpretation of the “Mother of Christ” is that which makes her the representation of the Church, the mother of supernatural life. [AC, 193] That is, in relation to the supernaturalizing influence that would be connected to its tradition, to its organization, and its rites.[2] Usually, such a point is, however, in connected with the exclusivist claim, a characteristic of Catholicism.
Mysticism considered as a development of the experience of the insertion of the individual, effectuated by the sacraments and above all by the Eucharist, into the current of divine life, and the Church, understood as the mystical body of Christ, as the bearer of this current, is the obvious conclusion that there cannot be true mystical life if not in the Church [TM 77]; and that Non-Christian mysticism, being less than union with Christ (which, evidently, is considered along the lines of an historic personality conceived as the Redeemer, not of a superhistoric and universal role model to imitate), is in fact naturalistic, if not the result of demonic influences. In such a way, we end up presuming that in the non-Christian Mysteries, there could not have been any question of true deification, but only of more or less contingent psychic states. [61-71]
The well-known principle Extra ecclesiam nulla sulus [no salvation outside the church] sanctions, in general, the idea that only Christian redemption could result in liberation from diabolic power, expressed as the breaking of the circle of the demonic force that surround us, while helping us to doubt its power, and that making us think that redemption in the sign of Christ and the Church is superfluous, would be the most dangerous victory that Satan can attribute of his activity [66].
We previously said that all that can only have value for Catholic “internal use”; likewise, we noted that these views have an exclusively practical justification, no different from that of exclusively analogous views that are encountered in outer, exoteric forms of most other traditions: but they still lack every foundation beyond the sphere of the jurisdiction of each tradition.
In relation to that, we can pose, as the last issue, the question of the extent in which, for those who have an initiatic vocation, it is useful to adhere to and join a religious tradition—specifically, to Catholicism in the case of a Westerner.
As the conclusion of the preceding examination, it seems clear the Christianity, as compared to other traditions, has a particular character. In fact, from one side it is not, like ancient Judaism or orthodox Islam, a pure religion of the “Law”, but that inner experience is important to it. On the other hand, it does not know the experiential, esoteric, and initiatic plane, so that its level is inferior to that of traditions where this plane is adequately taken into consideration. This intermediate nature of Christianity can be characterized by defining it exactly as an essentially mystical religion, which has absorbed and adapted some esoteric elements into its mysterico-sacramental form.
Now, a current that is defined in such terms has a predominantly psychic and collective, rather than a spiritual and metaphysical, character. In every way, that seems rather noticeably what Catholic tradition has become in our time, so that it leads us to think of one of the cases of entities, from which, through involution, the influences that are truly from above have in a good measure receded. But since psychic entities of that type conserved their vitality and strength through inertia, uniting itself to it, for those who have an initiatic vocation, it can serve more of a bond than as the basis for higher development. We come back to a “chain”, from which it is difficult to free oneself and whose subtle influences are difficult to control. So through the doctrinal side, there is something characteristic that even those who sincerely live out the Christian faith sacramentally and mystically are the most “taken”, the most fanatic, the most incapable of recognizing and respecting anything which is anterior and superior to their tradition and that has been realized in other equally legitimate forms in the world and in history.
In every respect, in the case of Christianity, it must be judged that the relations between the outer religious way and the metaphysical way are minimal and that one can immerse oneself in the mystical-devotional current to the point of reaching relatively high levels without perceiving anything of the initiatic and metaphysical order. With its character of a closed system in its own way, with elements which represent only a formal, reflected image of the mystery of transformation and of deification, we would almost say “lunar”, Christianity is perhaps, among the traditional forms, the one which is least recommended to those who want to enter the “direct way”.
Bruno, I cant speak for Gornahoor but I would love to read more of your thoughts at full length in an article.
I’ve only read snippets of The Sufi of Rome but perhaps should invest and purchase it.
Apology for the typos, but I have complete certainty that is the truth, it has been revealed to me
Thank you for the effort but no. I was thinking of solar symbolism in the figure of Christ himself, as in sun of righteousness, and I may be wrong but it was perhaps De Georgio who persuaded him of this point.
As to a restoration of Tradition this is in the article “against the neo-pagans” (my God Greg Johnson is a stupid man!)
And this enormously important and I am quite certain that he did write something to that effect. It is so enormously important because
a) the solar element is the true nature
b) given (i) Evola’s “obsession” with solar symbolism and (ii) his refusal to practise an eastern tradition it indicates that he saw himself as a Roman Catholic and nothing else, who worshipped the Sun of Righteousness, but did not speak of it.
You are quite right to say that it is was peculiar and erroneous for him to admire the Middle ages and reject its spirit, but I have ample reason to believe he was reconciled to the faith.
There is so much in Christianity that is totally compatible with Aryan values and Evola give’s extensive hints to this effect.
Given that he greatly admired Eckhart, Dante, St Bernard, Joachim De flore William Blake, etc there that he did not admire Christ is most unlikely
Particularly revealing are a few remarks in the otherwise misguided book “the Sufi of rome” where he says he would only happy being a priest of Set, i.e of the red ass, that force he identified as present in Christianity (and unleashed by supra-human christ).
Equally the fact that he established the correspondence Shiva and the holy spirit means he was reconciled to its destructive “anti-traditional character”, and Early Christianity was “anti-traditonal”, it largely destroyed the degenerate religions of the time
Regarding Evola and Christianity, one always has to read between the lines and see what he is getting at, much of what he says in this regard self-evidently has a “Koanic” character.
For example, are we truly believe that he despised the miracles of Christ and really cared what Celsus said? No he is hinting “Why do you admire the supra-normal powers of Gurdjieff and Crowley so much. Clearly Christ’s are vastly more extensive” or ” stop concerning yourself with phenomena,”magic”etc and focus on more doctrine, realization”
Evola was raised a devout, Roman Catholic, he never attempted to refute its dogmas, was unconditionally roman and unconditionally catholic i.e universalist.
You may find this all very difficult to believe, but you have to bare in mind that he was a Sicilan and liked decieving people. Furthermore all his books after his injury arent polemic to Christianity, they just use a rather haughy idea.
I apologize for going on at such length but I question of Evola’s attitude to Christianity is far more complex than most people realize. The way to understand a man’s writing is to understand his character and not vice versa
In any case his own injunction “be who you are” basically means “I was born a Roman Catholic and will die one” and Ride the Tiger he even defends the dogma of original sin, but referring to Calvin (who he hated ) rather than the Church “to bury the dog deeper” to use Gurdjieff’s phrase.
Perhaps one can say it this way?: Christianity preserved what is best in the “Tradition”, but only on condition that it continues to incorporate and preserve what is best in those Traditions preceding it. Certainly, at the least, this has to be the attitude of the traditional Christian, surely. Christianity (if I am being objective about it) preserves and extends the union with the Divine (theosis), but has a tendency to lose the hierarchies and richness which preceded it, and to degenerate (when it does) into a sentimental idea of immersion into God, thus losing not only its own unique and crowning contribution, but also everything that preceded it. In Ouspensky’s terminology, “to whom much is given, much is required” (and I think he borrowed this from somewhere?), so that the possibilities of enrichment increase under the dispensation of the avatar of avatars, but so do the possibilities of corruption (corruptio optima pessimi). This dynamic explains the extreme tension found between neo-pagans and the average Christian: each one possesses “Truth”, but neither is capable of doing justice to the other.
Extending the analogy along these lines, the Absolute is like fire, which nothing can resist or quash (what can escape or limit the bounds of the Infinite?). Beings appear in the fire as metals, their natures separate and variable like the diverse constitution of metal elements and alloys (multiple Selves), but all equally shapeless molten blobs here (Unmanifested).
Emerging from the fire and upon the anvils (Manifestation), the metals are instantly met by the hammers of countless smiths (Lords of the Worlds), each appropriately equipped, who forge them into specific tools and objects in accordance with their metallic properties (descent into appropriate contingent states).
And even further:
Stored in sheds that over decades become leaky (cyclical degeneration), the once new and shiny tools are now caked with rust and grime. In one town, from the West emerges a craftsman, who offers to restore old tools to new life, removing superficial rust, sharpening blades, and oiling hinges. From the East comes another, gathering unwanted tools and melting them down in a furnace, removing dross, and extracting metal ingots and billets, many of which are reforged into new tools.
Yes, I understand your concern.
Here is the link, everyone : http://www.gornahoor.net/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=47
It is available now in the forum and a link to it is on the left side of the page. After the attack on this site a couple of months ago, I had to tighten up security; hence, it may be a little awkward at first until new users are approved.
I am inclined to uphold the distinction between Salvation and Deliverance elucidated by Guenon, with the former and latter corresponding to theosis and moksha respectively (though always remembering that every man retains the possibility of realising the full potential of the this state, no matter where he starts). There is no contradiction between the two, and there is nothing to reconcile, unless we adopt a particularistic stance.
The Christian commenters’ emphasis on perfection and exaltation of true humanity in their spirituality is consistent with Guenon’s description of Salvation as a preservation of the being in non-corporeal and hierarchically ordered extensions of the human state, up to the limit of this world’s duration.
To avoid the impression that I’m asserting ‘hard’ limits here, I will note that aspects of theosis can be taken to be consistent with Deliverance, and that the possibilities of spiritual asceticism are always more dependent on the constitution of the aspirant than any formal categories.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia’s ‘Theosis’ article that is susceptible of application to both Deliverance and Salvation:
“A common analogy for theosis, given by the Greek fathers, is that of a metal which is put into the fire. The metal obtains all the properties of the fire (heat, light), while its essence remains that of a metal.”
Given that we already understand how it applies to Salvation, it can also apply to Deliverance if we remember that even the delivered being does not thereby become the Absolute (Infinite) as such, but rather returns entirely to Self, his own nature (the metal, purified by fire).
So as to not hijack this post with off-topic discussions, I’ve written a post in the forums about this. Apparently it is awaiting approval. Its purpose is to make us all think a little deeper about some things which can be easily taken for granted.
Once it is posted I’ll provide a link here so everyone can see it.
How can classical theism be reconciled to Advaita Vedanta when it cannot, in principle, accept the realization of the Supreme Identity? Is not the distinction between creator and created, divine and mortal, supernatural and natural a basic hallmark of the theistic traditions. Nevertheless, should the difference between theosis and moksha be understood fundamentally as a difference in “style”?
Perhaps you can start withOrientations: Point 11, where Evola wrote:
Under those conditions, and only under those conditions, he would accept Catholicism as the basis of a traditional restoration. That ideal still exists, even if only virtually, so we don’t have to wait for George to do it. However, Evola suggest we all wing it on our own, but that sort of individualism is the opposite of a spiritual community.
In The Great Divide and our Ownmost we quoted Evola:
Are these what you had in mind?
I know this is a bit off topic though it certainly concerns Evola, Christianity and esoterism, but there are a couple of articles I am pretty certain that i read on this website which I found absolutely fascinating. I maybe imagining things, but in the first Evola acknowledges that there is a solar element in the figure of Christ and in the second where he rejects the idea of abolishing Christianity, as the basis of a traditional restoration but instead recommends (and the precise phrase escapes me) incorporating the highest traditions of our Aryan race, or something like that.
Do you know of what I speak, or am I imagining this. In any case browsing the archives I was unable to find it, but I am pretty certain I read them here. In any case if you know could you tell me the precise titles or link them.
I’m glad that my little critique became the occasion for such an interesting (if too brief!) comment. Thanks also to the others who attempted to clarify Evola’s meaning. I don’t entirely buy it, and think Mihai understood my point better — probably better than I do myself!
“WHO is the one who achieves liberation ?”
Good question Mihai. Yet the answer is very simple. It is You. Your subjective experience is really the only true certainty that you have, no? And this makes it your objective world. Whatever can and should happen in my life will be centered around me, and in your life around you. It just so happens that we (as in, some derivative beings inspired by our true Selves) are now both on this world, where we can share some things.
Though the attainment of Liberation is not incumbent upon anyone; each will find his own paths and his own future somewhere. As the Muslims say, Allah knows best.
Santiago’s comments under the preceding installment of this series mentioned this.
I believe that the problem here discussed (Evola’s views on the ‘destruction’ of human nature) come from two sources.
The first one is completely profane and hence completely devoid of interest- that is Nietzsche’s idea of the destruction of the human in the name of the illusory superman. The nietzschean concept of superman was wholly reject by Evola, but he did maintain the negative attitude to that which is human.
The second of these is clearly related to Oriental metaphysics, which are very focused on becoming God to the extent that they place no importance on human nature, which is seen as an obstacle to be left behind. More moderate views are expressed in platonist and neo-platonist thought, although they too retain a hostility not towards human nature as such, but towards corporeal existence.
The reason for this is that these doctrines do not have a clear distinction between that which is the essential in human nature, and that which is accidental and a result of the fall. From a Christian point of view, it is not human nature which needs to be cast away, but the corruption which is the result of the progressive degeneration that followed the fall, and which obscures the real humanity. Even corporeal existence is not an obstacle, but the primordial body is a means which is completely suitable to be permeated and integrated into the Divine. (although I admit that even in Christian writings, this distinction is sometimes lost from sight).
Following this, it is not in spite of human nature that we become divine, but because of it. This is clearly expressed in the dictum ” God became man so that man may become god”.
Under such considerations, human nature does not disappear following theosis, but it is integrated in Divine nature, without becoming confused with it.
To end this by clarifying some of the points I made in the other post: the above is the reason why I regard the Christian doctrine of theosis to be incompatible with non-dualism, for whom anything but the Principle is illusory, devoid of any reality from an absolute perspective, which disappears following the achievement of liberation. Under such consideration and given the anthropology exposed by Guenon in his Man and his becoming… and The symbolism of the cross, on thing is very questionable: namely WHO is the one who achieves liberation ?
Other than this: I have to say that Evola’s criticism cannot be simply ignored, because some of them are spot on regarding some negative aspects that the institutional Churches exhibit nowadays.
Perhaps I will write something, after a some reflection, regarding some of the challenges which Christianity faces nowadays and which are handled very poorly.
Following the posts above clarifying the meaning of ‘destruction’, I would answer that he too recognised the superiority of intellect and was not satisfied with remaining at the level of purification and perfection of the restored human (even though the intellect is already predominant at this level), insisting that beyond this point lay the deconditioning path of ‘vertical’, ascending realisation.
His apparent contempt is probably just the expression of distaste, natural to his vocation, over resting at a point of partial realisation.
I agree Matt. ‘Destruction’ seems to be suggesting to many readers a pathological collapse like that which occurs with infrahuman usurpations.
It should be understood as a transcendence that integrates the human nature into something greater, necessitating the removal of its individual bounds. To use an image, consider a grain of salt that is ‘destroyed’ when pulverised, because it is crushed into incoherent multiplicity, versus a grain that ‘transcends’ its limits by being dissolved in a glass of water and attaining a new integrated life in solution. In both cases the original grain no longer exists.
That both processes can account for certain kinds of external manifestations may explain the frequent attribution of a suspect darkness to Evola’s character.
I’ve always considered Evola’s statements on the destruction of human nature to be read in the Shaivite sense; human nature/human state isn’t “destroyed” but transcended.
Now deep down Evola might not have meant that, but at least from reading his writings, that seems to be what he meant.
Hopefully I will have more time to engage this essay soon. The first thing I find noteworthy is that Evola’s evaluation of Catholicism here is more favourable, and far more nuanced, than that of some of his contemporary followers. Evola evidently deems Christianity rich in esoteric symbolism, connected at its origins with genuine initiation into the greater mysteries, and calls it a traditional form (if with qualification). This is all very far from any ‘strong Nietzschean’ readings of his works.
Otherwise, I still think it’s possible that Evola suffered a certain spiritual pride that affected his notion of deification, entwining it with a wicked fantasy of the ‘destruction of human nature’ (and didn’t Mircea Eliade remark the same thing?). Self-evidently, then, anything that smacked faintly of ‘sentimentalism’ or ‘mere humanity’ – such as the theological virtues, the devotions of certain mystics and saints, or perhaps the Johannine symbolism of God as Love – was taken by him as proof of spiritual inferiority. While fully accepting the superiority of intellect to feeling, might this contempt not be the projection of a man, preoccupied with erasing his humanity, onto a type that instead sought its purification and integration – devotion, sentiment and all?
Very accurate observations, truly belong to a master.
Another classic article on this site.