Gornahoor has often emphasized that spiritual questions, or debates over the superiority this of that tradition, can be resolved neither by personal predilections nor by empirical and historical considerations. These issues can only be addressed from the understanding of metaphysical principles. Gornahoor finds it curious, though symptomatic of the contemporary human situation, that everyone feels competent to opine on spiritual and political matters, although they would not dare to say anything at all about quantum physics or algebraic topology, topics much simpler to understand.
One such principle is that knowledge is being, “to know is to be”. In order to know something of spiritual depth, one must become deep oneself. Schuon wrote a book titled The Transcendent Unity of Religions; although on the human plane, different religions may diverge widely, at the level of principle, they must needs converge. Thus, for example, the Catholic monk Thomas Merton can rightly claim that he has more in common with a Zen monk than with the average Catholic in the pew.
Hence, Gornahoor has always emphasized the importance of spiritual practice. This is what separate the Metaphysician and the Hermetist from the ordinary philosopher. The great Hermetist of the 20th century, Valentin Tomberg, in the Meditations on the 22 Major Arcana of the Tarot makes this clear in the following passage: (p 122, my translation)
The goal of spiritual exercises is depth. It is necessary to become deep in order to be able to achieve the experience and knowledge of deep things. And it is symbolism which is the language of depth — so that these are the arcana expressed by the symbols that are the means and the goal of spiritual exercises, from which the living Tradition of Hermetic Philosophy is composed.
Common spiritual exercises create the common link which unites Hermetists. It is not common knowledge which unites them but rather spiritual exercises and the experiences they entail. If three people from different countries who had used Moses’s Genesis, John’s Gospel, and Ezekiel’s Vision as the subjects of spiritual exercises for several years were to meet, they would do it as brothers even though one knew the history of humanity, the other had the science of healing, and the third was a deep cabbalist. What they know is the result of personal experience and direction, whereas the depth, the level that they have reached — without regard to the aspect and extent of the knowledge that has been gained — is what they have in common. Hermetism, the Hermetic Tradition, is first of all and most of all, a certain degree of depth, a certain level of consciousness. And it is spiritual exercises that safeguard it.
I understand well what Coomaraswamy is trying to say. I myself have benefited immensely from reading Christian writers such as Augustine, some Aquinas, Pascal, the moderns such as Kierkegaard, Henry James (a very kind man), modern theologians such as Tillich and the list goes on… I do not doubt I have been greatly enriched by reading them.
My point rather was that the essential Christian doctrine rests on articles of faith and one has to “believe”. This is difficult for non Christians. Also we are unable to relate to the mythology in the Bible.
I am also at a loss to see how a religion which rests on articles of faith and miracles, can still keep the core of its essence while adapting to the modern situation, this is really the question. It is ridiculous to expect the West to be Hindus or Buddhists in the manner of Easterners, how does it propose to get back to its religious tradition when most Western Europeans are living in a post Christian age?
Can Christianity admit of other points of views without changing the core on which it is based?
As for the lay public, I think it better that they be Christians than adopt all kinds of European pagan sects, which do not have a rigorious tradition either in terms of morality nor in terms of tradition: if they did the memory has been wiped out in the process of conversion, so it will be difficult to recover. There has to be a certain heirarchy and spititual authority.
This is what I am trying to get at.
Hindus also join all kinds of sects which are dubious in terms of the teacher, but they are grounded as far as the family is concerned in terms of what is acceptable in terms of lifestyle. One might say that this is changing, but I think the essential family unit will sill remain extremely close knit.
Try this for starters on Evola and Christianity: A Justified Pessimism.
For the way an educated Hindu views Christianity, read this about Ananda Coomaraswamy: Vedanta and Western Tradition.
This site has put up something by Evola on Christianity. Perhaps this speaks for itself (I have to find the quote you want, I don’t have the book with me unfortunately, but will get it when I am back home in a few weeks). http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/evolamedtrad.html
Can you please explain to me the gist of Evola’s views on Christianity?
This premise of the fundamental unity of religions seems flawed: I have to read Guenon to be able to see where he is coming from. Just because there might be mystics and saints in all religions, does not mean that they are all based on universal principles, especially in the case of heavy borrowings. Hinduism recognizes several paths towards the truth: Christianity is akin to the Bhakti path. Religions solely founded on faith and based on miracles seem limiting to me: HInduism regognizes paths of the philosopher and the path of the man of action in addition. It is perhaps cultural: the myths in the Bible do nothing for me. The Greek myths on the other hand are amazing! I feel that if I had not read Plato and Aristotle, I would miss something, but if I had not read the Bible, what my religion teaches me would readily fill in the gaps!
I would like to know what Evola thought about Christianity. My understanding of what he thought of it is from only reading two or three of his books.
On a lighter note, Mark Twain has a good essay on his trip to the holy land which is worth reading!
Again this is not an effort to denigrate a tradition, but to come to an understanding of what Evola thought of Christianity.
I believe it is somewhere in Ride the Tiger. I will try to find it for you and let you know but I don’t have my copy with me now so do not know the exact page…
Either there are universal principles, or religions stem from different worldviews. You can’t have it both ways.
Where did you find that Evola quote?
Also I think it was Schopenhauer who noted that Christianity was like a graft on the Western world, imported from the Middle East. Scholars say that had not the Arabs conquered greater Persia which gave Islam a real tradition and culture, the Arabs would have succumbed to Christianity from which Islam borrows greatly. The same way perhaps with Christianity–despite its humble Semitic origins in the Middle East, it was able to latch itself on to civilization: the Greco-Roman, which ensured it of being able to develop a tradition around it…What would have happened if none of the Semitic faiths had crept up? Buddhism would have been the main contendor…come to think of it, Buddhism interacted harmoniously with the Hellenic world in Bactria ( the Hellenic-Buddhist civilization in Afghanistan after the coming of Alexander which was a harmonious though short-lived civilization was later destroyed by Huns, we have beautiful art left of it)…So perhaps in this manner the Western World would have had a religion which is Aryan in its essential nature…Just some though experiments of mine…Also I am not denigrating any of the Mid-East traditions in any way…
Evola himself gave up on Christianity; did not see that the Church would have the same authority as in the Middle Ages again. The Church would need another inquisition; I do not think that is feasible anymore. These days only mediocre people enter politics because only the blandest personalities can stand the media scrutiny of every facet of one’s life. So conservative movements are bereft of leaders not only in the East but also in the West.
In India, it was a period of material prosperity that (asceticism arises in plenty not poverty) entire generations of upper castes were inspired to follow the Sakyamuni and leave their home. Where is this kind of leader today? These days one can form friendships with like minded people who are scattered everywhere. Wittgenstien puts it well in the introduction to the Philosophical Fragments and his characterization of the fragmentation of culture of his times, applies equally well today, if not more. He writes: this book is written for those who are in sympathy with the spirit in which it is written. This is not, I believe, the spirit of the main current of European and American civilization. The spirit of this civilization makes itself manifest in the industry, architecture and music of our time, in its fascism and socialism, and it is alien and uncongenial to the author. This is not a value judgment. It is not, it is true, as though he accepted what nowadays passes for architecture as architecture or did not approach what it called modern music with the greatest suspicion(though without understanding its language), but still, the disappearance of the arts does not justify judging disparagingly of the human beings who make up this civilization. For in times like these, genuine strong characters simply leave the arts aside and turn to other things and somehow the worth of the individual man finds expression. Not, to be sure, in the way it would at a time of high culture. A culture is like a big organization which assigns each of its members a place where he can work in the spirit of the whole; and it is perfectly fair for his power to be measured by the contribution he succeeds in making to the whole enterprise. In an age without culture on the other hand forces become fragmented and the power of an individual man is used up in overcoming opposing forces and frictional resistances; it does not show in the distance he travels but perhaps only in the heat he generates in overcoming friction. But energy is still energy and even if the spectacle which our age affords is not the formation of a great cultural work, with the best men contributing to the same great end, so much as the unimpressive spectacle of a crowd whose best members work for purely private ends, still we must not forget that the spectacle is not what matters.I realize then that the disappearance of a culture does not signify the disappearance of human value, but simply of certain means of expressing this value, yet the fact remains that I have no sympathy for the current of European civilization and do not understand its goals, if it has any. So I am really writing for people who are scattered throughout the corners of the globe.
Also there is something uneducated about lumping traditions together, which displays no real study of the different traditions. Hindus and Buddhists realize their religions stem from different world views, which is why they cannot see much that is new in the semitic faiths–they find them quite alien indeed, especially on their insistence on the monopoly on the truth. Which explains why all three are losing adherents–they blame it on other forces outside the religion, but as Evola noted, as soon as one leans about other cultures, these religions no longer seem universal, and crumple up on their own due to lack of universal principles…
continued from before
Also it is clear we are living in a period of upheaval. But sometimes such periods can also lead to better things, and the individual still finds a way to find his worth somehow. Most of the problems faced by the East and West are not all that different. Many political movements of the right around the world are centered around the right ideas, just lack effective leaders and an effective base on which to spread their ideas. Especially today, the media just rips anyone of worth apart, so only mediocre people go into politics everywhere. One has to look at movements like Buddhism. At a period of plenty and prosperity in India (people forget that asceticism arises out of plenty, not poverty), entire generations of upper castes who were not lacking in anything, were impelled to follow the Sakyamuni…
Anyway, in the introduction to the philosophical Fragments, Wittgenstein says how one must make friends with similar minded people, who share similar ideals:
“This book is written for those who are in sympathy with the spirit in which it is written. This is not, I believe, the spirit of the main current of European and American civilization. The spirit of this civilization makes itself manifest in the industry, architecture and music of our time, in its fascism and socialism, and it is alien and uncongenial to the author. This is not a value judgment. It is not, it is true, as though he accepted what nowadays passes for architecture as architecture or did not approach what it called modern music with the greatest suspicion(though without understanding its language), but still, the disappearance of the arts does not justify judging disparagingly of the human beings who make up this civilization. For in times like these, genuine strong characters simply leave the arts aside and turn to other things and somehow the worth of the individual man finds expression. Not, to be sure, in the way it would at a time of high culture. A culture is like a big organization which assigns each of its members a place where he can work in the spirit of the whole; and it is perfectly fair for his power to be measured by the contribution he succeeds in making to the whole enterprise. In an age without culture on the other hand forces become fragmented and the power of an individual man is used up in overcoming apposing forces and frictional resistances; it does not show in the distance he travels but perhaps only in the heat he generates in overcoming friction. But energy is still energy and even if the spectacle which our age affords is not the formation of a great cultural work, with the best men contributing to the same great end, so much as the unimpressive spectacle of a crowd whose best members work for purely private ends, still we must not forget that the spectacle is not what matters.
I realize then that the disappearance of a culture does not signify the disappearance of human value, but simply of certain means of expressing this value, yet the fact remains that I have no sympathy for the current of European civilization and do not understand its goals, if it has any. So I am really writing for people who are scattered throughout the corners of the globe….”
I have not really read Guenon but he is certainly on my list now.
This reminded me of something I read by Wittgenstein, who also falls under the seer category, I think, although he was a logician. A lot of Europe’s malaise perhaps stems from the war, which destroyed the best and brightest (among the 50 million) and European high culture–it usually takes generations for civilization to really recover after such traumas…Also as Evola says, the forces that subvert tradition are everywhere (in the East and West) destroying all sense of higher authority, tradition, rootedness to (motherland or fatherland), any conception of honor, loyalty…Today we have the reign of merchants everywhere. The ideal is to be financially successful, does not matter how…The East is not as innocent and rooted in tradition, although it still retains it somewhat…It is hard to say where societies like China are headed–it has gone from an imperial society to atheistic communism to capitalism in fifty years. Perhaps the old Chinese values where the scholar was valued over the merchant will win over. In India, you have the rule of the merchant classes and their values, and the current government the most corrupt since independence. I have no illusions about the need for a society to be prosperous and the importance of trade and commerce, but when the mercantile values are begin to reign supreme…Today everything is evaluated from the point of view of economics. I recall the following by Wittgenstein as quite prophetic:
He writes: There are problems I never get anywhere near, which do not lie in my path or are not part of my world. Problems of the intellectual world of the West that Beethoven (and perhaps Goethe to a certain extent) tackled and wrestled with, but which no philosopher has ever confronted (perhaps Nietzsche passed by them). And perhaps they are lost as far as western philosophy is concerned, i.e. no one will be there capable of experiencing, and hence, describing, the progress of this culture as an epic. Or more precisely, it just no longer is an epic, or is so only for someone looking at it from outside, which is what Beethoven did with prevision (as Spengler hints somehwere). It might be that civilization can only have its epic poets in advance. Just as a man cannot report his own death when it happens, but only foresee it ans describe it as something lying in the future. So it might be said: If you want to seen an epic description of a whole culture, you will have to look at the works of its greatest figures, hence at works composed when the end of this culture could only be foreseen, because later on there will be nobody left to describe it. So it’s not to be wondered at that it should be only written in the obscure language of prophesy, comprehensible to few indeed.
Here is Rene Guenon’s take on it:
The Prophecies of Rene Guenon (1)
and
The Prophecies of Rene Guenon (2)
Also in the West, I have noticed that people these days grow up without religion in any form which is dangerous for children, it is better they go to Church than grow up with nothing and no exposure to religion. When they are older they can assess religion and be critical as they have been brought up with the correct habits in childhood. Westerners join all kinds of exotic sects as a substitute having lost faith in their own tradition, but often there is no rigor in terms of morality or tradition in many of these sects they join…so people are wont to get even more confused… and this becomes an excuse to lead whatever lifestyle one desires…
There are difficult questions, even in our part of the world people are veering away from tradition, copying the fad here…
I wonder what do people see as solutions?
Aljebraic topology is best discussed by mathematicians–there is no discussion in mathematics, only proofs. It is good for people who have only studied liberal arts to study this subject as it disciplines the mind, in my experience. I respect the rigor in the sciences, where only those who are scientists debate the issues. As Wittgenstien said: Whereof we cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Generally it is a good idea to discuss what we know and be humble about that which we do not know. Everyone agrees on this. Everyone knows that like mathematics in which considerable practise is required to attain proficiency, it is the same in spiritual matters.
However, we live in societies where our environment influences us and the quality of lives we lead. If we are apathetic about the contiditions which create the conditions for our being able to philosophize, those conditions might be destroyed by forces which be might be able to do something about in our small capacity: this entails a healthy interest in the world around us and in political matters in the societies in which we live and interact with others.
Religion still causes a great deal of mischief in the name of “spirituality”; although this might be the institutional aspect of religion, it is an aspect nevertheless. This should be questioned and looked at critically when it causes harm to society in the name of spirituality. Nothing is beyond question. Having a healthy, critical mind does not have to entail having disrespect for the sacred. Great men have questioned traditions: Montaigne, Voltaire, Nietzsche, even the Buddha. I see no reason not to study how the different traditions are different from each other–this just increases our understanding and does not reduce them to “one” in a superficial fashion.
What Schuon says is nothing new. The Hindus have always realized that the approach to spirituality is plural because people understand and percieve differently and are on different levels of understanding. So their approach to spiritual matters will be different as well…This does not imply relativism but simply recognizes the fact of human nature.
In the three “monotheist” religions, you have to believe in the book, if you do not “believe” in the revealed truths, you are not an adherent.
Moreover, in the case of the intolerant religions, I think they have begun to have to rethink themselves because they realize that “one book”, “one way”, is no longer appealing to many of their own adherents…which is why when you listen to their theologians these days, they seems to not always stick to ‘the book’…