Destroy a man’s illusions and you destroy his happiness ~ Hubert van Zeller
Metaphysical Errors
I recently stumbled upon an article on an obscure blog titled “Common Metaphysical Errors”, by a writer apparently unaware of the oxymoron involved with that expression. Rather, it is a collection of carefully selected opinions gleaned from unrevealed sources followed with a pithy counterpoint.
Of course, there can be no metaphysical errors. Metaphysics is not a collection of beliefs or opinions, but rather it derives from exacting and precise intellectual intuitions. False beliefs and opinions will prevent use from understanding metaphysical truths, but the error itself is not a “metaphysical error” as it is on a totally different, and lower, plane.
The proper term, then, would be “misconception”, not “error”. However, at this time, we will leave unexplored the wisdom of counteracting one misconception with another.
The Swallows at Capistrano
The swallows always seem to find their way back to Capistrano every year on March 19th. That is because they are in possession of three things: a destination, a tradition, and an initiation. They know the truth, for them, is in Capistrano. There is a tradition that reliably leads them there. And the young swallows are initiated into the intricacies of that navigation by their elders.
What He Said
In his critique of Christianity as a still valid tradition, Julius Evola brought up many good points. Just to highlight some, there is the question of a valid and continuous succession, whether there is still knowledge of the mysteries, the role of external influences on the tradition. I propose that the same standard be applied to all claimants to be the valid Tradition in the west.
We can start with the neo-pagans, the Druids, the Nietzscheans. Is there a continuous connection that goes back to an originary supernatural revelation? Do they lead a man to salvation or deliverance? Or are they a figment of someone’s imagination?
Moving on, we can then ask if Evola’s Buddhism meets that standard. Does it actually exist anywhere or is it one of Evola’s brilliant literary creations?
Another point is the alleged egalitarianism of Christianity. Compared to what? Tantric sects are open to all, irrespective of caste or sex or nationality. But, as Emerson says, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
. Can there be a wise consistency?
Necker Cube
Everyone, presumably, has seen the Necker Cube, whose ambiguity fools the mind into projecting the cube into either the left or the right direction. Some will debate the issue; others will have a conversion experience from one viewpoint to the other. Yet others will be more conciliatory and try to see “both sides of the issue”. The scientist will describe the diagram by enumerating the line segments along with their lengths, origins, and slopes. It will be precise, but the feeling won’t leave that they left something out.
So by Buddhist logic, the cube points left, it points right, it points both left and right, and it points in no direction. All points of view are relative. To transcend them is to see it sub specie aeternitatis. Either that is possible or no search for truth is possible.
The Search for Truth
There can be no search for “truth”. Someone once said that America needs a good five cent cigar. Now I can embark on that search because I know what a cigar is and I know what a nickel is; I even know what a good cigar is. But how can a man seek the truth unless he knows the truth first? And if so, why would he bother to seek it?
Having a bad start, or not knowing the right direction, will likely not lead anywhere. Anyone who has ever been lost in the woods knows that a random walk bring him back to near the same spot. That is a mathematical truth. But we all know that guys hate to ask for directions.
False Beginnings
In a recent interview, the Traditional writer Seyyed Hossein Nasr said that you cannot come to Tradition by starting with Martin Heidegger. Yet some readers were disappointed when Gornahoor pointed that out a few weeks ago. They said we do not understand Heidegger. Our retort is that they do not understand Tradition. Or else both are true and neither is true.
The Method of Depth
Those men whose primary focus is the spiritual life have more in common with each other both across nationalities and even across different traditions. Valentin Tomberg called such men Hermetists, although they may not be so explicitly or formally. That is because they are not united by their knowledge of external things, but rather by their common spiritual exercises and experiences. That is the method of depth.
The Case of Thomas Merton
An example of this depth that we can point to is Thomas Merton, the American Trappist monk, who famously said he had more in common with a Zen monk than an ordinary worshiper in a pew. I haven’t mentioned him much, probably because I gave away my library of Merton books to a priest over a decade ago. Merton was quite familiar with the perennial philosophy and either knew or corresponded with the second generation of Traditional writers who followed Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon. (I don’t recall him ever mentioning Julius Evola.) The Sufi Seyyed Hossein Nasr respected Merton and mentioned him several times.
Toward the end of his life, Merton developed an interest in and appreciation for Sufism. Through his own contemplative practice and his study of Asian religions, Merton came to realize that the spiritual techniques still alive in Zen and Sufism had however been lost to Christian mysticism. Nasr describes Merton’s insights:
Since the Renaissance, much of what survived of Christian mysticism became in fact mostly individualistic, sentimental, and passive. While Merton understood the value of this type of mysticism on its own level, his gaze was set upon the great medieval Christian contemplatives whose vision was not limited in any way by the individualism that was one of the characteristics of the Renaissance. The Sufi path, in which the adept plays the active role as wayfarer upon the way that finally leads to the Beloved, like the hero in quest of the Holy Grail, while remaining passive before the grace of Heaven, was certainly attractive to Merton who was himself moving in this direction. He also thirsted for the kind of structure mystical life which the Sufi path offered in which the active and passive modes of the mystical life could be balanced on the basis of a reality that transcended the accidentality of individual existence.
Merton’s understanding of the degradation of Christian mysticism is not unlike that of Guenon or Evola. However, he did not accept that as a limitation and a reason for abandonment, as did those latter two thinkers, but rather as a motivation to learn from other traditions and incorporate what he could into his own spiritual practice. Unfortunately, Merton died before he could meet and study with Nasr personally. The task he started is languishing.
I suggest that Guenon’s thinking was guided more by Sufism than by the Vedanta, if for no other reason that he understood Arabic, not Sanskrit, and actively pursued the Sufi path. His knowledge of the Vedanta was indirect and was used more for its linguistic precision. That may throw some light on the recent discussions regarding salvation and deliverance.
“…to learn from other traditions and incorporate what he could into his [Merton’s| own spiritual practice.”
Some of the “Perennialists” seem to have warned against the transference of methods and other concrete spiritual forms from one tradition to another on the private initiative of a practitioner. It is perhaps associated with certain dangers of individualism and possible delusions arising from self-guidance on the path? It is a difficult question, of course, and I tend to think it may be done by some persons under the right circumstances, while others might be laid astray thereby, but my opinion counts for little.
Did Merton in his day know about Hesychasm, which would have largely conformed to his desire for a more structured system of practice of high mysticism?
I read recently about something that might interest you. This Catholic father Piso has travelled to Tibet and studied the so-called “rainbow body” phenomenon of the Vajrayana. He thinks certain practices could well aid in the rebirth of high contemplative discipline and, if you will, metaphysical positivism in the West. One may not agree with all his views, but well worth looking into, perhaps even getting in touch with him.
http://www.francistiso.com/
https://m.youtube.com/results?q=francis%20tiso
The problem with Christianity, by which I mean modern day practice, not the doctrine, is that there is no warrior form of the religion. In the past there was, as the writings of St Bernard clearly show – but who today in the Church defends the crusades and advocates for establishing new chivalric orders ? Because of this many warrior minds today have abandoned the Church for neopagan dead ends………..
also think that the idea that Guenon always remained essentially a monotheist in his outlook is basically correct. Although I would argue, based on my impressions, that this was due to his Catholic background, not the later Muslim influence, which, if anything just reinforced his earlier beliefs. But there is a strong monotheistic undercurrent in all of Guenon’s work, even when he is discussing the Vedic tradition. As such I can see why someone who wishes to follow traditionalism to its logical conclusions would choose a monotheistic path. I also find a great deal of inspiration from Sufism, which I regard as far superior to present-day Christianity in any form, although personally neither agrees with my “personal equation.”
That was quite a funny retort Constantine Aetos.
Indeed, in certain Western cities, Chinese are the largest non-European minority, with a very established cultural and economic presence, and historical roots. I recall reading a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in one such Western city, which complained about the scant attention paid by the newspaper to Christian festivals, compared to colourful, full-page spreads and numerous articles covering Chinese New Year celebrations. The editor’s response was a lukewarm defence, basically just stating that Christian festivals were also covered.
In response to Jason-Adam, I would suggest that he clarify his questions. What is the connection between Evola’s personal practices and Christianity or the social structure of European society? There is no need to replace Christianity if we are talking about restoring the West to regular social organisation; the Church is still here, and some people still go to Church. What is still not quite on the horizon are the beginnings of an apparently spontaneous and widespread reorientation and rejuvenation amongst the layfolk; this is what is needed.
That was quite a funny retort Constantine Aetos.
Indeed, in certain Western cities, Chinese are the largest non-European minority, with a very established cultural and economic presence, and historical roots. I recall reading a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in one such Western city, which complained about the scant attention paid by the newspaper to Christian festivals, compared to colourful, full-page spreads and numerous articles covering Chinese New Year celebrations. The editor’s response was a lukewarm defence, basically stating that Christian festivals were also covered.
In response to Jason-Adam, I would suggest that he clarify his questions. What is the connection between Evola’s personal practices and Christianity or the social structure of European society? There is no need to replace Christianity wholesale if we are talking about restoring the West to regular social organisation; it is not as though Westerners have shown a mass tendency to seriously adopt another traditional form as an active rejection of Christianity. The Church is still here, and some people still go to Church. What is not quite yet on the horizon are the beginnings of an apparently spontaneous reorientation and rejuvenation amongst significant numbers of the layfolk; this is what is needed.
“At least because Chinese and Japanese culture is so distant from ours, there is no risk of our becoming Japanese by adopting Zen, ”
David Carrdine did such a good job at synthesizing the European race with Asian culture. In 10 years from now, there will be more whites than Asians in Chinatown.
Good sir, if calling Saladin an ‘Eastern guy’ constitutes a judgement, I stand condemned. Moreover, he didn’t contradict Guenon – some of Guenon’s later works acknowledge the extensive Westernisation of ordinary orientals – though he did fail to consider Guenon’s assertion that these Orientals are not the ones who matter, and this is why I doubted the depth of his scholarship. I am always ready to reconsider my assessment in the light of new offerings, but as it stands, he just offered an observation, and I responded with some of my own, for the sake of balance. No added judgement (why are some Christians obsessed with judgement?).
As for having a conversation with Guenon, it is perhaps possible that he has ‘seen’ me on the subtle plane and is taking advantage of my access to modern computer technology to defend himself against posthumous online slander. Maybe that is his way of passing the time while he waits for this world to be dissolved, his adherence to salvific religion constituting a strategic entrapment in the ‘Prison of Paradise’ so he can find out what happens at the end of a great cycle. Of course, this is unlikely, and a joke; I wonder though, is it really a possibility?
As for ‘cherry-picking’, I do no such thing. I quote minimally, when necessary, as an aid to my representations, not a substitute for them. Since no-one has posed a question about the necessity of exoterism recently, I have not discussed this; in fact, in previous comments I have applauded your adoption of a congenial faith, and expressly endorsed regular religions. I am entirely aware of what Guenon expressed on the question of the necessity of exoterism, but our recent discussion has been about metaphysic. Once this discussion concludes, we may discuss something else, if you please.
I will let the reader decide what, if anything, he wishes to think about me, and let my contribution to discussions spiritual stand on its own. Though it must be said that I would rather risk sounding like a ‘parrot’ most of the time over the strain of forcing myself to offer some regular novelty in the absence of inspiration, at the risk of confusing, misleading or simply wasting the time of readers. On the other hand, there is not much room for innovation in metaphysic.
If there were anything to be gained from publishing my own self-reflections and personal speculations, I would do so, but at this stage there is not. Some of you are very open about yourselves, and this is admirable; but I am inclined to remain discreet for now, enjoying a habit of secrecy, for which I must beg your pardon.
“it seems neither of you have really studied Guenon’s work in depth. ”
It is absolutely hilarious that you judge Saladin’s study of Guenon from a single phrase he wrote in which he contradicted Guenon on his views of the West. I have not the slightest idea what the depth of Saladin’s studies are, but the fact that you would judge him because of the slightest deviation from the words of Guenon he made , shows the kind of mentality that you have.
Ever since I made the mistake of beginning these discussions with you I actually have been having a conversation with Guenon, whom you parrot to the letter. Now I really haven’t the time to listen to parroting; if I want Guenon’s view on something, I can read it myself.
By the way, I have a question for the scholastic guenonian that you are: why do you cherry-pick from his excellent work ? If you’d have studied his work on initiation you would have seen that the mental understanding of the unity of all traditions is by no means an excuse to not practice yourself one of the traditions. And that even exoterism is a necessity for the aspirant to an esoteric path and even after receiving initiation and practising one’s esoterism it is not acceptable to let go of the necessary exoteric counter-part.
Yet, it is obvious from your answer to my question on this and from the way you are going about how you are above all traditions and points of view that you give not the slightest attention to these things.
You are either an already deified being and spiritual master, or just another talker of non-sense who litters the internet, trying to sound like an expert on spiritual doctrines, when in reality he has not the slightest idea of what he’s talking about.
Now unless you can contribute with anything other than parroting I have nothing further to say to you.
A brilliant post. Indeed, we can criticise Christianity all we want but what can we replace it with ? There is no pagan today who can show that he can trace his succession back to Antiquity which is why Evola did not practice paganism nor recommend reviving it – you simply cant revive a dead religious form, man does not make forms, God reveals them.
I would like to learn more about Evola’s personal practices, did he have a regular system of disciplines he performed every day ? I would say his Buddhism is valid, and existed or at least existed in the recent past, in Japan. While a western man can learn much from the Buddha, for myself the form is still too distant from my heritage.
Merton interests me because in taking the best from Zen and using it to inform Catholicism, it may be the key to restoring ourselves.
Evola destroyed Heiddegerian thinking in Ride the Tiger – it boggles me how the minds of some crazed Russians and some deranged Germanophilic Frenchmen can imagine a synthesis of Heiddeger with Evola. Whatever his errors, Evola is still so great a mind that it defames him in my view to compare him with materialistic minds like the existentialists.
While Sufism has many profound insights, I think in the exterior world it is dangerous to endorse Islamic forms because it threatens to destroy what’s left of our identity as Europeans. At least because Chinese and Japanese culture is so distant from ours, there is no risk of our becoming Japanese by adopting Zen, but Islam is very close to European tradition and thus a greater danger. Remember even Evola did say that for the exterior man, Henri Massis claim of defending the West from oriental thinking was correct.
Refer to the quote above. You said Guenon et al. critique of modernity had “nothing” to do with non-duality, yet he took the latter to be the basis of Hindu spirituality (especially for the elite), and criticised (Western) modernity in a book on Hindu doctrine. Most of you have heard of Ananda Coomaraswamy and his influence.
What was doubted by Guenon was the presence of open centres of true intellectuality in the modern West, not in the West generally, always and forever, past and future.
I don’t entirely share your or Saladin’s view about the East, and my response to his comment need not be repeated; it seems neither of you have really studied Guenon’s work in depth. Am I supposed to take the word of some Eastern guy on the internet to be the final verdict on the Oriental centres? It reminds me of a woman who used to post here, and her story of discussing Islamic esoterism with kebab vendors in Istanbul. I may as well look up the Lord of the World’s phone number in the Yellow Pages.
Do you think a spiritual elite would twiddle its thumbs under colonisation, or would it influence the nation to arm itself with all the material benefits that opportunity could bestow, playing the long-term game of defence, consolidation, preservation, restoration? And if the latter, how could you tell the difference between superficial material modernisation and ‘Westernisation’?
As for the forum, my reply should be online shortly; take special note of a challenge that I have proposed therein.
I don’t understand what you mean.
I said that in the Introduction…. he has made some unacceptable over-simplifications and generalizations regarding the West, in which he goes so far as to deny that there was any “true intellectuality” here, minimizing the role of everything, from Christianity to Platonism.
Also, if you are referring to the predictions at the end of the book, then they have utterly failed. He explicitly said there that it is absurd to think that Easterners will succumb to the same mentality as the West. Obviously, the whole world is one big West today, and, like Saladin already told you, Guenon’s view of the East had more to do with his romantic vision of it and less with the actual reality of what’s been going on there.
Like I said on the forum, “true spirituality” is not reducible to non-dualism, nor is it a private monopoly of the orientals.
Speaking of ‘Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines’, this is a good time to challenge the value of your opinion expressed under an earlier post, which read thus:
“[The Perennialists’] edifying critique of modernity has nothing to do either with impersonalism, nor with non-dualism, which, in some respects, stand quite in spite of the said edifying critique.”
Tell us, if your assertion is justified, why would Guenon have published the first and most condensed notes of his critique of modernity, the predictive conclusions about the fate of the West which later works on the modern crisis explained, in his first book, ‘Introduction générale à l’étude des doctrines hindoues’, on Hindu doctrine? See gornahoor.net/?p=35
I hope others will not fail to see the connection between the impact of true spirituality on Western minds and the Perennialist view of modernity.
Notes to Cologero: In the linked article, you have the publication date of the book as 1925, but it was published in 1921.
Also, I mistakenly submitted my 05:56 comment below under Avery’s comment, please un-nest it if possible.
I am glad Cologero has offered these reflections on the recent discussions.
That Guenon’s thinking was guided primarily by Islam is quite likely, but this is not to imply that his perspective on other Eastern doctrines was distorted by this (au contraire). After all, Islam was relatively accessible in his time; and has there been another revelation since then? The integrative effect of its emphasis on One God extends from the most basic exoterism to the complete development of esoteric realisation, even expressly endorsing other religions. What more does this world need, for those with eyes to see? Nothing, and that is why nothing more is forthcoming.
“Does it actually exist anywhere or is it one of Evola’s brilliant literary creations?”
A good opportunity to remind all concerned that the only standard by which to judge a spiritual exercise is by its results; beliefs are secondary here. It is Your life.
“All points of view are relative. To transcend them is to see it sub specie aeternitatis. Either that is possible or no search for truth is possible.”
One might ask, what is a ‘point of view’? I will enliven the discussion with a controversial assertion. All religions are points of view, they exist in time and in (for) human minds, and can therefore be transcended. There is only one Truth, and only one Religion, with no points of view – one either has it, and Everything, or he is partial, even though he may be tending toward the True.
The wolf can smell those who make the error of imagining metaphysical errors!
” if for no other reason that he understood Arabic, not Sanskrit”
I’m not so sure about this. At least in the Introduction to Hindu Studies I received the impressions that he knows sanskrit.
A master (let’s call him G*rd****f) sat in the forest with three students. He took out a stick and placed it in front of him, saying, “Without calling it a stick, tell me what this is.”
The first pupil said, “You couldn’t call it a slop-bucket.” The master hit the student with the stick and ran away.
The second and third students were actually rocks that the pupil had mistaken for students, because it was getting very dark. Suddenly, the pupil felt alone and afraid.
In the distance, a wolf howled.