This is a post we had no intention to write and it was not on our schedule. Nevertheless, it seems necessary at this time to summarize several months of efforts. First of all, one must resist the urge to debate, since our goal is gnosis, wisdom, or knowledge. Hurling platitudes across a barrier will never lead to knowledge; that should be verifiable in your own experience. This is not to deny the value of informed discussions that ideally lead to clarification, precision and depth. The difference is that a discussion requires shared presuppositions and a shared goal. I’ve been told that in Internet lingo there is a creature called a “troll”, whose only purpose is to disrupt such discussions. However, in traditional terms, a guest who arrives uninvited and then feels it his right to set the tone and agenda is merely rude and vulgar.
Any discussion about whether some spiritual movement is traditional or not must be based on specific criteria, some of which will be listed below. Please try to apply these criteria to all such discussions.
It is important not to be fooled by words without a specific reference to a concrete time and place. For example, as a word “Christianity” means very little; on the other hand, it is fruitful to discuss Western Europe from the time of Charlemagne until the Reformation. Note, too, that Guenon went to Egypt not to Albania; there is a reason for that.
Hierarchy
- Is the society hierarchical?
- Is it caste-based (spiritual, warrior, skilled and servile workers)
- What is the position on spiritual authority?
- How is temporal power exercised?
The Elite and Initiation
- Is there an elite who knows and understands metaphysical principles?
- Is there an initiatic path to lead suitable candidates to such knowledge?
- Is the foundation of thought based on transcendence or simply material concerns?
- Are there dogmas, symbols and rites that the lower castes can accept that are consistent with the knowledge of the elite?
Cycles
- Is there an awareness of understanding of cosmic cycles?
- Is there knowledge of a Primordial state and a fall from it?
- How is the decline and ultimate repeat of the cycle understood?
Ownness
- Does the spiritual system define the society?
- Does it recognize boundaries (e..g, saved/unsaved, clean/unclean, etc.)?
- Are such boundaries preserved and protected?
To give an example, it is quite clear that in Medieval Europe, the spiritual system was felt and experienced as “one’s own”. Those who opposed it, whether internal or external, were treated as enemies of the state. Nowadays, no one fears excommunication from the church. However, at that time, that it was much more serious since it also implied excommunication from society and the consequent loss of all civil rights.
Decisionism
In a hierarchical society, each layer pledges loyalty to those above him, and then ultimately to the Emperor who embodies both spiritual authority and political authority in the same man. As such, his spiritual authority is infallible and his political authority is absolute. In making law, the Emperor has no theoretical restraints. Evola wrote about this in Pagan Imperialism prior to (I believe) Carl Schmitt’s writings on decisionism, which amounts to the same thing.
Therefore, when, for example, an Emperor Constantine decides to change the state religion, he is acting within his rights and his loyal subjects will go along. Similarly, over time, the various kings made the same decision. Those who see an injustice in this reveal their latent modernism. Evola did not seem willing to recognize this as a logical consequence of this view.
Perennial,
Deal with my argument, and don’t just spout irrelevant comments. Since the Gornahoor site uses the Traditionalism of Evola and Guenon as sources for knowledge, that is what I have based my arguments off of.
1) We are in a state of complete decadence that has lost Tradition (based upon Evola’s writing)
2) Focus on “Race” is a means to attain what is lost during a time like this
“When it comes to this point, the only force that can be relied upon are those of the blood, which still carries atavistically within itself, through race and instinct, the echo and trace of the departed higher element that has been lost; it is only in this way that the “racist” thesis in the defense of the purity of the blood can be validly upheld — if not to prevent, at least to delay the fatal outcome of the process of dissolution. It is impossible, however, to really prevent this without an inner awakening.”
3) A “blood” religion will connect us with these “archetypes”
“Blood and ethnic purity are factors that are valued in traditional civilizations too; their value, however, never justifies the employment, in the case of human beings, of the same criteria employed to ascertain the presence of “pure blood” in a dog or in a horse — as in the case in some modern racist ideologies. The “blood” or “racial” factor plays a certain role not because it exists in the “psyche” (in the brain and in the opinion of the individual), but in the deepest forces of life that various traditions experience and act upon as formative energies. The blood registers the effects of this action, yet it provides through heredity a material that is preformed and refined so that through several generations, realizations similar to the original ones may be prepared and developed in a natural and spontaneous way.”
4) “Paganism” works off of the “blood” as an exoteric component
5) Christianity does not have the “blood” as an exoteric component
You make your own conclusions from this.
they say*, and
EXIT,
Fine, if you think your knowledge of a given religion is superior because you read a handful of articles on-line, rather then actually knowing it first hand, then all power to you. I however, simply see this as further evidence of the state of the modern world, believing you can know reality virtually rather than through actuality. So I suppose, following your logic, that if some Methodist preachers were feminists, that makes the whole organization ipso facto feminist? You are essentially saying that if some parts of the LCC are inspired by Theosophical beliefs, the whole LCC is therefore Theosophical. Show where this is not your reasoning.
All I know is this: “What opinions or beliefs an individual holds is considered to be his/her own affair. The mind that is free is in the best condition to grow. Growth into spirituality enhances the perception of truth which each one must discover for himself/herself and in his/her own way. Anything less than full mental freedom is thought to retard progress. Thus, the difference between The Liberal Catholic Church and all other Catholic and Protestant Churches lies in the fact that with the ancient sacramental worship have been associated the widest measure of intellectual freedom and respect for the individual conscience.” (What is the LCC?)
This what they, and this what they do. What else is left?
Perennial, I must here disagree with you, partially because I no longer trust anything you say, and partially because you told me to look it up and I found dozens of sites all saying similar things to the wiki articles. I would add that Liberal Catholic is an oxymoron because catholic means universal whereas liberal means intellectual anarchy both of which cannot coincide but fits quite nicely with theosophist notions. The LCC mixes Roman Catholic and Anglical ritual forms with a theosophical theology and the LCC is just a means of spreading theosophist ideas and influence.
Mark,
I must take difference with the direction you are taking your views. What the Roman Catholic Church is today, and what it was in the Middle Ages, is irrelevant to our analysis. If we accept this view, and Catholicism is beyond redemption, then so is Europe and Europeans. Europe is the source of all modern evils. Marxism, Fascism, National Socialism, Socialism, Revolutionism, Environmentalism, Feminism, and protestantism, etc. Europe’s people, cultures, and blood stock have become among the most decadent, perverse, defiled, and ignorant in the modern age. If Catholicism is a “lost cause,” then so is European civilization. If Catholicism, however vague and lingering a cultural force it still is, cannot revive Europe to liberation, then a long forgotten paganism with freshly-recalled values is not going to be any more convincing. But perhaps you can give an example of why Christianity created the Middle Ages but could not somehow today.
Mark, as it is clear that neither you nor EXIT belong to, or familiar with, the Liberal Catholic Church, it is probably best that you not discuss it in any degree. I think this is only fair. I believe that myself, my priest, and my fellow parishioners know what Theosophy is, and I think we would recognize if it was the doctrine of our Church. If the Theosophy was a required tenant of the Liberal Catholic Church, then I would not belong to it. Write to any legitimate LCC priest and he will tell you we are not a Theosophical Church. I could care less what Wikipedia says.
EXIT, I belong to the original LCC, which still ordains only men (one of the reasons I belong to it). However, this is an example where Wikipedia is wrong. Our clergy (and laity) are not required to believe in anything, with the exception of bishops, who must believe “within their measure of understanding” the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. But that it is. Therefore, I and the Subdeacon, for example, reject reincarnation and Theosophy. Our priest rejects Theosophy. No member of the clergy I have ever met either abstains from alcohol or meat. It is true that Bishop Pigott wanted to make the Church more Theosophical, but after the schism this effort died off and has never taken hold since. Although I did not want to take this discussion into my personal religious views, I think it does help establish, at least somewhat, where I come from.
Perennial,
The point of the book was to show that Hegel borrows from Hermetic concepts in his metaphysics. So, if you understand certain aspects of Hegel it would help you to understand certain aspects of Hermetism / Hermeticism.
doctrines from Hermetica
1)God requires creation in order to be God
“If you force me to say something still more daring, it is [God’s] essence to be pregnant with all things and to make them.”
“God’s activity is will, and his essence is to will all things to be”
There are other quotes from the Corpus Hermeticum that elaborate upon this point, and it is also seen in this aspect of Hegel.
Hegel holds that God’s being involves “creation”, the subject matter of his Philosophy of Nature. Nature is a moment of God’s being.
2)God is in some sense “completed” or has a need fulfilled through man’s contemplation of Him.
“For God does not ignore mankind; on the contrary, he recognizes him fully and wishes to be recognized.”
This is also from the Corpus Hermeticum
Hegelian view
2)Hegel holds that God is in some sense “completed” or actualized through the intellectual activity of mankind: “Philosophy” is the final stage in the actualization of Absolute Spirit. Hegel holds the “circular” conception of God and the cosmos I referred to earlier, involving God “returning to Himself” and truly becoming God through man.
Also, your organization does not seem Traditionalist in any way, as EXIT has stated it is Theosophy.
Us “pagans” are Traditionalist from the “blood”. The “blood” is an adequate exoteric aspect. Evola has stated it very well
“Blood and ethnic purity are factors that are valued in traditional civilizations too; their value, however, never justifies the employment, in the case of human beings, of the same criteria employed to ascertain the presence of “pure blood” in a dog or in a horse — as in the case in some modern racist ideologies. The “blood” or “racial” factor plays a certain role not because it exists in the “psyche” (in the brain and in the opinion of the individual), but in the deepest forces of life that various traditions experience and act upon as formative energies. The blood registers the effects of this action, yet it provides through heredity a material that is preformed and refined so that through several generations, realizations similar to the original ones may be prepared and developed in a natural and spontaneous way.”
Now why “Indo-European paganism” over Christianity
“When it comes to this point, the only force that can be relied upon are those of the blood, which still carries atavistically within itself, through race and instinct, the echo and trace of the departed higher element that has been lost; it is only in this way that the “racist” thesis in the defense of the purity of the blood can be validly upheld — if not to prevent, at least to delay the fatal outcome of the process of dissolution. It is impossible, however, to really prevent this without an inner awakening.”
If we are at the dire situation that Evola talked about that was the context for the second paragraph that I quoted, and even if I assume that Medieval Catholicism had a fully Traditional principle imbuing it, this is no longer the case. It is removed from history by hundreds of years, and the present day Catholic Church is not Traditional by any means, then what religious outlook would act upon the “blood” in the best way to reawaken these ancient forms and principles again.
Also, for the Gornahoor members, I know that I am using the “inferior philosophical” method of giving arguments and reasons based upon evidence, and that I don’t have this “gnosis”, so could you please come down to my level.
Differences of various branches, according to Wikipedia: The (original) General Episcopal Synod of The Liberal Catholic Church worldwide requires its clergy to believe in such Theosophical tenets as reincarnation and the ascended masters. It encourages its priests and its bishops to have a vegetarian diet and to refrain from using tobacco as well as alcohol. Significantly it also continues to require deacons, priests and bishops to be male.
The (new) GES of the Liberal Catholic Church (Dutch, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Sweden), retains the emphasis on the tenets defined by the founders of the Liberal Catholic Church, but practices the ordination of women to the Holy Orders, including the episcopate.
The Liberal Catholic Church International does not as a group require any belief in theosophical tenets, while it continues to accept them if they are the personal choice of the individual. Since 2004, the Liberal Catholic Church International opens the ordination of women to all Holy Orders up to and including bishop.
The Reformed Liberal Catholic Church began facilitating the ordination of women to all orders before other branches of the Liberal Catholic Church. It doesn’t emphasize theosophy but holds that theosophy is a lens through which we can gain a deeper and broader understanding of religion. Clergy and laity are free to accept or reject this, but are expected to accept those who have differing views.
The Church of Saint Thomas Int. Ordination of women to all orders. There are no barriers to holy orders for any qualified individual. It doesn’t emphasize theosophy but holds that theosophy is a lens through which we can gain a deeper and broader understanding of religion. Clergy and laity are free to accept or reject this, but are expected to accept those who have differing views. CSTI does concentrate on the teachings of the founding Bishops of the Liberal Catholic Church in the training of Clergy.
The Universal Catholic Church, like the LCCI, does not require any belief in theosophical tenets, leaving that to the individual. It practices the ordination of women to all Holy Orders, including the episcopate.
According to wikipedia, “In 1941, there was a schism in the Liberal Catholic Church in the United States, surrounding a controversy involving Bishop Charles Hampton who, while he was himself a Theosophist, wished to keep adherence to Theosophical tenets optional for the clergy. This was in keeping with what was taken to be the original intent of the church’s founders who, although they were Theosophists, wanted the church to remain primarily open to everyone.” Whether “Theosophical tenets” are required or are open (which really means open to not against) seems to be splitting hairs. Theosophism operates with an inner and outer circle, the latter which are gradually brought into Theosophist teachings. Moreover, that one need not have a required belief or doctrine has always been one of the top tenets of Theosophism. Wikipedia adds, “The Liberal Catholic Church (LCC) is a form of Catholic Christianity open to theosophical ideas and even reincarnation. The title also is applied to various separate and independent denominations throughout the world holding many theosophical ideas in common.” Perennial, can’t I call a spade a spade?
It is not Theosophist. It is a Church founded by Theosophists, but what makes it Liberal, as I stated, is that there is no pre-requisite confession of belief to partake of the Sacraments or belong to Church. Thus, it is not the Theosophical Catholic Church, but the Liberal Catholic Church. Google it, there is plenty of info on it.
P., you wrote “I am member of the Liberal Catholic Church. It was founded by the Theosophist Bishops Wedgwood and Leabeater.” Then you say “I am not a Theosophist.” Interesting, you can belong to a Theosophist church and not be a Theosophist.
I am not a Theosophist, and I view Theosophy as a curruption of authentic Tradition. How the Theosophists I know reconcile it to themeselves I do not know.
Cologero, you have at times defended/supported catholic doctrine so in that sense you have included the church. Others have as well.
Perennial, how does one reconcile Theosophism and Perennialism? Or for that matter Theosophism and Catholicism?
Matt,
I too am from a Roman Catholic background, which my wife still is. But that story is for another day! Just so there is no misunderstanding about me, the name means Liberal as in “free-thinking,” not “feminine spiritual, environmentalist, ecumenical, new mass” kind of liberal.
Thank you, Cologero. I thought it was just me. It has been my understanding from reading Guenon, Evola, & Schuon that Tradition is not only harmonious in the symbolism of cultures holding substantially similar roots, but also that these interpretations, to be Traditional, must necessarily be narrow. If the eagle were interpreted to symbolize the Church as well as the Empire, then the symbol would become relative and essentially meaningless. The risk is the same here. If we are to catalogue and discuss Hermetic analysis, we must first agree as to what is Hermetic. Otherwise, we will construe the wrong things to be so. Crowley, for example, said he was Hermetic, but his Hermeticism was hardly the “Royal Art.” It was Cthonic, decadent, and arguably lunar (we need only analyize the Gnostic mass of Liber XV and the role the priestess played to see this). So perhaps we should first agree as to what is Hermetic, in the Traditional sense, before we seek to plumb the depths of that path. Otherwise, our discussions will make no sense, being built on different foundations.
Mark,
Forgive me, but though Hegel may be construed to be Hermetic, I am hard-pressed to see where is views are Traditional- and therefore as something which we should consider. It is my understanding that in the traditional societies, something is or is not, it is higher or it is lower. To find synthesis does not seem to fall into any traditional analysis- certainly, it did not cause Hegel to come to any traditional conclusions. I am unclear as to how Hegel’s analysis, even if Hermetic, would relate to Perennial thought and moreover to Traditional culture. Hegel would seem rather a road we would want to avoid. Do you see Hegel as contributing to Traditional thought?
I can understand that “speech” needs to be defined, so I will paste the appropriate section from Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition
“In the Corpus Hermeticum we find a kind of “bridge position” between Egyptian occultism and the modern Hermeticism of Hegel and others. Instead of conceiving words as carrying literal occult power, words come to be seen as carrying a kind of existential empowerment. The ideal of Hermetic theosophy becomes the formulation of a “complete speech” (telesis logos, “perfect discourse” or perhaps “Encyclopedic discourse”, which means of course “circular” discourse). When acquired, the complete speech, which concerns the whole of reality, will radically transform and empower the life of the enlightened one.
Did people see the title of the book, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition.
Understanding Hegelian philosophy makes both 1 and 2 easily understood.
“God” / “Logic” is the first part of the system, it has the quality of pure thinking, it is Being in itself. It starts out as the concept of Being as immediate, but then as indeterminate, so it is Nothing, then the two synthesize into the concept of Becoming. The mechanics of the dialectic is not important here, but the idea of “God” as Nous, or pure thought thinking itself.
Now, to go back to the dialectic. Since there is this process of negation and synthesis, Pure Thinking has to negate itself in its other, which is Nature, then it comes back to itself in Spirit, which is man, then man will rise up to higher and higher levels of knowledge to Absolute Knowing.
Being-In-Itself must become Being-For-Itself
So, for 1, the idea is that it is a necessary part of the nature of “God” to create, just as Pure Thinking must “negate” itself in nature
For 2, The process must go full circle when Man, who is part of Spirit attains Knowing, and thus the synthesis of Logic and Nature have been synthesized.
Perennial,
Oh okay. My background is Roman Catholic, so I was confused on what you meant by that.
As for point 2, I was reading it with the thought of the One and the experience of privation, still Individual before Universal. But yes that point would be perplexing if one is speaking of Universal Subject. No?
Perennial, 1 and 2 make no sense, since he is using a word “god” without any definition. Obviously, if God is Infinite, the usual understanding, the God does not “need” or “require” anything; this is clear once you grasp the concept of “Infinite”. Does God “need” man for his Will to be done on Earth? We have alluded to this, though have not written an article on it. (See Guenon’s Great Triad).
As for the rest, what is “speech”? Is he referring to Logos, or to actual words? If the latter, how can the Infinite be comprehended in a finite number of words? Are you familiar with Godel’s theorem? In maths, this means that mathematical truth cannot be captured in a finite number of words. How much less so, then, can the Absolute be so represented.
In sum, this list is opposed to Hermetism. It actually denies gnosis, confusing it with dianoia … there are several articles dealing with this.
We will deal with these things in more detail in S::I. As for Borella, we simply can’t comment on everything, especially a long dense book. For a simpler critique of Guenon from an Orthodox Christian perspective, check out Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition.
As for Guenon’s views on Christianity, see his book on Christian esoterism, Lord of the World, the esoterism of Dante, and Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power. There is nothing to debate, rather plenty of material to discuss. We have mentioned over and over, as has Guenon, that we are not referring to the current state of the catholic church, its leaders and priests. It shouldn’t be necessary to repeat something to an intelligent man; it is futile to repeat it to a fool.
I am member of the Liberal Catholic Church. It was founded by the Theosophist Bishops Wedgwood and Leabeater. Although TS influence is waning, it is still present even now.
Matt, if that is how you read 2, then all power to you, but perhaps you could elaborate? I do not think I am reading it the same way you are.
Perennial,
What do you mean by Liberal Catholic, and are you saying that your parish is a Theosophic Society?
As for point 2 in Mark’s list, one can draw its parallel with the numerous statements on Gornahoor of the Will to move from being unconscious to conscious and in more specific relation to Evola, the “I” overcoming privation and the fulfillment of being Universal Subject.
Fair enough, EXIT. But understand that your doing the same will not garner you much sympathy.
Perennial, I do not bother to give sources, etc., because this site is far from a serious academic journal. If you read the articles here there is a long tradition of making wild claims without providing examples, details, or supporting evidence.
By the way, I could not help but see the book you cited is on Marxists.org. Should this concern me?
All I can say to this Mark, is that you are not familiar with my Church. My priest is a Hermeticist, and we often find ourselves in opposition with the majority of the parish (which is Theosophical Society). The only Hermetic idea you suggest which I am not familiar with is 1 and 2. Does Evola discuss these in The Hermetic Tradition, or do you have something more specific in mind? I notice you cite a book above, could you share more about it?
Go to your priest and state these Hermetic Doctrines.
Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition by Glenn Magee p. 13
1) God requires creation in order to be God.
2) God is in some sense “completed” or has a need fulfilled through man’s contemplation of him.
3) Illumination involves capturing the whole of reality in a complete, encyclopedic speech
4) Man can perfect himself through gnosis: he becomes empowered through the possession of the complete speech.
5) Man can know the aspects or “moments” of God.
6) An initial stage of purification in which the initiate is purged of false intellectual standpoints is required before the reception of the true doctrine.
7) The universe is an internally related whole pervaded by cosmic energies.
Ask him about 1, 2 ,4, and 6.
My guess will be, he will say this is not Catholic teaching, and it never was, and this is in no way an esoteric core of Catholicism.
Cologero, Jean Borella has some interesting insights on Christian esoterism. Are you familiar with his work? If not, you should read this! I had only read a couple of dry articles of his before, but this is on a whole different level. Good stuff.
I just read that, and it all makes perfect sense to me. But there again, this is already the attitude of the Church I belong to (Liberal Catholic) and therefore the esoteric level of the Christian faith is emphasized by us as an integral part of our Faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi. I do think there is an initiatory tradition in the Christian Faith, I just do not believe we have completely rediscovered it yet. But we would be open to finding it again in my Church, and I plan on sharing our discussions with my priest so that we may consider integrating more Traditional aspects into our praxis. I am glad we are having these discussions.
Perennial,
The view on the Grail is at the end of the section that I gave a link for.
“The legend of the Grail is not, then, to reveal the existence of an extra-apostolic hierarchy (besides, Joseph received the chalice from the hands of St. John), nor the existence of an extra-sacramental ritual (Joseph is celebrated as the first priest to celebrate Mass). Its function is to teach the knights of the Celtic tradition that the fullness of the time to come, and the Church is henceforth the keeper of the loftiest mysteries, and that they have been called to participate in them.”
In the same page is his conclusion
“The Church is only one”, and here is an interesting paragraph
“There are not, then, two Assemblies [==Churches]: one exterior and the other interior. There is only one Assembly, whose exterior is known by many. And yet those who are of the interior do not have sacraments, Books, or secrets other than those that dwell on the exterior, but live by them and are transformed by them.”
I have not made up my mind in any fashion. I simply want Cologero to share why he thinks Borella is wrong. I personally find his points interesting, only I am not following his views on the Grail. How do you interpret them, Mark? It would seem he is saying Guenon has an incomplete picture somewhere. But I agree, I think I too shall acquire the book to see if maybe I can better follow his views, they seem fascinating from what I have read so far.
Perennial, I just found, and I am liking what I am reading. Also, considering his background in Traditionalism, and that he is a Christian philosopher and theologian, he is definitely an authority
http://books.google.com/books?id=vgQQw6O7ucMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Gu%C3%A9nonian+Esoterism+and+Christian+Mystery&source=bl&ots=KSwRk4-4HU&sig=Ca1tHBc8P0z1Th2roncXGSRVorM&hl=en&ei=N1QTTOqAMITWNoSi0OML&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=a%20feeble%20imitation&f=false
Click on the first box, “A Feeble Imitation: The Grail Legend”
“As we will see, neither the history of early Christianity nor the history of the ensuing centuries, know anything of this extra-apostolic initiatic hierarchy. Besides, it is quite characteristic of Guenon to mention incontestable proofs of Christian esoterism only between the approximately the twelfth century (The first Arthurian text appeared in 1135) and the fifteenth century approximately. There he finds himself, if you will, “in familiar territory”, the symbolic climate of this period agreeing with his sense of esoterism. Of the thousand previous years he tells us almost nothing, seeming not to perceive therein the least trace of esoterism, if his silence tells us anything. He does not cite a single esoteric teaching from any of the Church Fathers who have explained and perpetuated the Christian Tradition. Let Dante allude to the Veltro and the numeral DXV — that is esoteric; but let Saint Gregory of Nyssa lead us to the Mountain of Theognosia — that is not exciting for someone fond of hitherto undeciphered enigmas. Apparently we had to wait until the twelfth century, and to read certain versions of the Holy Grail (as interpreted in the twentieth century by Guenon) to learn of the extra-apostolic initiatic hierarchy, a possibility excluded by St. Dionysus the Areopagite himself!”
Perennial, it seems as if you made up your mind already that Borella is wrong, and you want Cologero to tell us where he is wrong. This is not the way that you should approach things. Read Borella’s arguments, see what he sources, and then make up your decision. It seems like a good book, I plan on getting it.
This getting good. Cologero, could you elaborate on your analysis of Borella? Where do you think Borella lost track?
Mark,
Interesting post, and thank you for sharing. I am familiar with Jean Borella, he is one of the more noted contemporary Perennialists. I agree with your analysis about plasticity, because almost all the Perennial Traditionalists (with the exception of Schuon) condemned the mixing of traditions as the worst syncreticism, and not at all traditional. You may be onto something there. What do you make of Borella’s thought?
There is no notion of a “plastic” religion, nor syncretism. Tradition manifests in different forms at different phases of the cosmic cycle. There is an inner reason for that. We have evidence from Church fathers up to Fr Manning that attest to the self-understanding that Catholicism is the Primordial Tradition, not to mention the prologue to John’s gospel.
Evidence takes many forms, not necessarily the paper trail that Borella is looking for (just as Alan Watts did). The evidence is indirect through symbols, myths and so on. If Borella rejects the Grail legend tout court, then of course he will find nothing. His is just an opinion 800 years after the fact.
For an opposing point of view, compare what Tomberg writes concerning the Church of Peter and the Church of John.
I see this conversation is still going, so I would like to add something of interest.
There is a book that I just came across called Guenonian esoterism and Christian Mystery by Jean Borealla.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vgQQw6O7ucMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Gu%C3%A9nonian+Esoterism+and+Christian+Mystery&source=bl&ots=KSwRk4-4HU&sig=Ca1tHBc8P0z1Th2roncXGSRVorM&hl=en&ei=N1QTTOqAMITWNoSi0OML&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Some of the chapters have interesting titles
III. Introduction: The Christian Religion Speaks of Itself
This seems to contradict the position of Gornahoor where Christianity is a “plastic” exoteric religion which you can add any esoteric tradition from Yoga to Hermeticism to the Grail Mysteries.
The description of the man is interesting
http://www.sophiaperennis.com/books/christianity/guenonian-esoterism-and-christian-mystery/
“Jean Borella taught philosophy at the University of Nancy until 1995. He has written extensively on theology, religious ideas, and symbolism. His key writings have been compiled, edited, and translated by G. John Champoux under the The Secret of the Christian Way: A Contemplative Ascent through the Writings of Jean Borella. A Platonist by formation, he has been strongly influenced by Guénon and Eastern metaphysics. But his deepest inspiration derives from unceasing meditation on the Christian faith, which led him to undertake the present searching critique of ‘Guénonian Christianity’. A religious philosopher, he strives to hear the reverberations awakened in human thought by revelation.”
Here is an interesting read
http://books.google.com/books?id=vgQQw6O7ucMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Gu%C3%A9nonian+Esoterism+and+Christian+Mystery&source=bl&ots=KSwRk4-4HU&sig=Ca1tHBc8P0z1Th2roncXGSRVorM&hl=en&ei=N1QTTOqAMITWNoSi0OML&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=Holy%20grail&f=false
If I really took my audience for fools, I would not have shown them where in the book to look up the citation! They can draw their own conclusions.
I really don’t have the time or interest for this childish nonsense.
Sedgwick wrote that the entire set of rites were created by C-L “out of memory” as a way to stop people from converting to Islam. You obviously are hoping that what C-L said was true to prove some great initatic tradition in Christianity, but you are really just taking your audience for fools.
EXIT, this is not what Sedgwick said, and I think you know it.
Mark Sedgwick, Graham, wrote a book called Against the Modern World, and it is an overview of the Traditional School. It is primarily a gloss of the subject, but an interesting intro for those who have no background knowledge of the subject.
Sedgwick speculates that some of the Cavalier’s practices were dreamed up late by Charbonneu-Lassay, and were not original. For the context, see here:http://books.google.com/books?id=GcUFmQ-NF_0C&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=Fraternite+des+Chevaliers+du+Divin+Paraclete&source=bl&ots=QxzYV-GydS&sig=noPYqU3Av6wQoFFBMFFAecsOY4Q&hl=en&ei=Gio_Ta7MNIO8sQO9xfmaBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Fraternite%20des%20Chevaliers%20du%20Divin%20Paraclete&f=false
Again, Sedgwick is speculating, and he says so, as he has no proof of anything. So he is not saying it is a fraud, but that he thinks it might be. That is a big difference. Also, he does not question whether Etoille was legitimate as organization. This is why I wanted someone to analyze the source material, to see if it may shed some light on these mysterious organizations. I believe this is why we are here, to study and understand.
EXIT, I feel no need to respond to your posts now. It is obvious you have no interest in citations, source material, or scholarly legitimacy, you merely wish to make personal pronouncements. You cannot even make a decent rebuttal to my arguments: i.e. you say I twist your words and then fail to say how. Perhaps you mean well and have not studied proper debating. In any case, I welcome your view if you have something to back it up. If it is just your speculation, there is already plenty of that in the modern world, and it is not needed here. Give us the roots of your ideas, and we can work with them. It only seems fair.
Who is Sedgwick, and what does he say?
Charbonneau-Lassay created a hoax, as Sedgwick pointed out.
On correspondance between Guenon and Charbonneau-Lassay. They both were involved with Regnabit, an extremely reactionary journal.
http://www.cesnur.org/paraclet/guenon.html
In his letter of 1946 to Abbot Gircourt he praises Guenon’s ‘Symbolism of the Cross’ but has misgivings about Guenon in general, whose theories he fears could “lead to results that are sometimes appalling… to regrettable deviations of spirit.”
I’ve had a look at these three letters. Although they are short they contain some extremely interesting information. Msr Charbonneau-Lassay refers to the order not as l’Etoile Eternelle (Eternal Star) but as l’Estoile Internelle. I didn’t recognize either of these words, but they seem to mean, literally, “deep six-pointed wavy star”. Estoile was an heraldic image. First row, second column: http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/90014078.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921CC759DF4EBAC47D0C9F219A90993BC5E839D003DB4E22C224678D98923AA5824
I will look into this more this evening.
Perennial, the only dishonesty here is from you and your tactics and illiterate misdirections. It is rather ironic that you continue to deliberately twist my words and then accuse me of being intellectually dishonest.
G, where do you get the idea that I am antichristian? What is Christian? At the least I am against blind faith Christians who have a false sense of reality. But if you are looking for the true antichristian then look no further than the church, i.e., organized christianity, and all her dupes who blindly defend it.
And by the way, I find almost no material on Eternal Star. Apparently it was a very secret order with only a dozen initiates, whom I believe were all noble or Catholic hierarchy. The initiate named his successor, and a new member was only admitted on the death of a current one. Obviously, this material impossible to obtain. However, the Chevaliers apparently dated to the early Middle Ages and had no member limit. It however, declined in fortune after the fall of Vichy and the advent of the Fourth Republic, and was suspended (as Action Francaise did around the same time).
Matt,
As you can see, I have the same dilemma. The CESNUR website has primary source material, but it is almost all entirely in French, a language I do not know. The translations vary in quality from Google translator. The subject is glossed over in Sedgwick’s book, but it really lacks the meat I am trying to find. If anyone knows French, the sources are primary letters from a Cavalier notable named Msr. Charbonneau-Lassay, with apparently some from Guenon. If you look up Charbonneau-Lassay on Google, it should come up on the CESNUR website. Please share if anyone gets anything good!
Perennial,
Do you know of any good reading material on the Eternal Star and the Cavaliers to recommend?
EXIT, you are anti-Christian yet also anti-occultist. You’re anti-racist too, right? What are you about anyway?