Currently reading

"If our contemporaries as a whole could see what it is that is guiding them and where they are really going, the modern world would at once cease to exist as such..."

Silence as a shattering of ego

 

"Silence is the cross on which we must crucify our ego" - St. Seraphim of Sarov

I came across this quote at a perfect time, when feeling slightly wronged by another, with the cortisol-dread feeling in my chest that I should confront them, but not really looking forward to it. Right away, the words were a salve to my tensed up heart, and it got me thinking...particularly about silence as a response.

Intuitively, this felt right and like the more transcendent, more Godly, patient, gentle approach. As I thought more about it, though, I did come upon a couple of caveats. One is that yes, certainly many issues do need to be talked through, and we do need to hold ourselves and others accountable for behaviors. Confrontation shouldn't be avoided at all costs in favor of submissiveness, but sometimes it might be best to be silent, and to let this silence be its own prayer, a lesson from God straight to us.

Another caveat about choosing silence as a response when we feel defensive or as though we've been wronged is that this silence must not be a pregnant silence, meant to punish or convey upset, disappointment, anger... instead, if we choose this method, we should focus on an internal cleansing in that moment, via prayer or song perhaps, that we may truly let this perceived slight go, and to release trying to control others thoughts, responses, beliefs, or attitudes toward us.

If we feel ourselves emotionally triggered, or if there is enough of a discrepancy in comprehension and emotional intelligence, a solution-oriented conversation is probably not likely, and the exchange will deteriorate rapidly into a fussing of egos, dueling monologues.  

I have found recently that this technique is humbling and helps me feel closer to God, while also training me to detach from this endless cycle of human reaction.

Traditionalism vs Perennialism

Traditionalism and Perennialism- the two words are often used interchangeably, even by myself, though this might not be the most accurate as they do have precise meanings, with distinction. 

Perennialism aims to point out that there are similar veins of truth amongst all religions, so much like a perennial flower will have various blossoms, below the surface lies the root from which all those flowers come. Just as simply, it can be compared to language, where we have different words across cultures to convey the same idea.

I believe it's correct to say that the Traditionalist thinkers believe this to be true as well, so where do they differ? While there are numerous similarities between the two, there seems to be one main difference.

The main distinction, as far as I can tell, is that Perennialists might pick and choose ideas they like, or that resonate with them, from different religious traditions, a la carte style, to form their own path to God. This rubs up against New Ageism quite closely, and even blurs the line at times, with some perennialists fitting into that New Age category. This is actually a postmodern approach to transcendence or union with God, very much individualist, assuming that down here at the lowliest levels, we as nafs, as lowercase-s selves, as egos, might be able to trailblaze a new path up the mountain that is somehow better than, or more true than, the hundreds of thousands of lives and years before us were able to carve out. 

While a Traditionalist would hold that a particular path must be followed, and that the path up the mountain is there, and is so well worn, because it works, because it is true. Therefore, the primary distinction between Traditionalism and Perennialism is that the latter is more self-directed, picking and choosing--even kleptomaniac--while the former is established, disciplined, clearly laid out, and includes the larger scale such as social order and community. 

This is a tough one for me.

I have felt that in this age, perhaps no priests, no gurus or sages, exist out there that I could trust enough to follow on such an important path as the one to Truth, to God, to the immortality of my own soul. Therefore, I've resolved to discover it on my own through personal study of the old texts and prayer, consulting God directly. When it comes to study though, we only have so much, so far we can go back, with the Rig Veda being the oldest text of this category. The Abrahamic approach does feel too modern and corrupted for me, and intuitively... not correct- like a newer modern religion in contrast to, say, Sanatana Dharma. Yet, following this path as an American is very difficult as it so easily gets tangled up in Orientalism and of course the God fabric around me is stamped with Christianity as the way to relationship with God, usually through a Protestant lens which feels very far from the truth, with little to no asceticism, no inward ontological restructuring, more externally focused, where prayer has been shamefully reduced to asking for favors.

So, for now, I continue to pray to the oldest name of God I can find--Narayana--and to replace as many of my profane thoughts with thoughts of Him, praying to be guided to Truth, to know it when I come across it, and guided away from distractions or knowledge that is not aligned with Truth. I learn as much as I can to discover the proper way to behave, to think, to be.

Jaya Srimannarayana.

The fifth Veda?

Pulling from the ideas in my last post on transcendence in the Kali Yuga (if it's truly possible in an era where we are so attached to the physical reality, especially these dense bodies), transformation was suggested as a companion approach, rather than relying on transcendence alone as the path of relationship with God and survival of the soul at death.

In his Yoga of Power, Evola offers one specific technique for transforming the dormant energies in the body:

"...the Tantras have claimed for themselves the dignity befitting a 'fifth Veda.' that is, a further revelation beyond what is found in the traditional four Vedas. To this they added a reference to the doctrine of the four ages (yugas) of the world. It is claimed that the teachings, rites, and disciplines that would have been viable in the first age (the Krita or Satya Yuga)\,the equivalent of Hesiod's 'golden age') are no longer fit for people living in the following ages, especially in the last age, the 'dark age' (Kali Yuga, the 'Iron Age,' 'the age of the Wolf' in the Edda). Mankind in these later ages may find knowledge, a worldview, rituals, and adequate practices for elevating humans over and beyond their condition and for overcoming death (mrityun javate), not in the Vedas and in other strictly traditional texts, but rather in the Tantras and the Aganas. It is stated therefore that only Tantric practices based on shakti (shakti-sadhana) are suitable and efficacious in our contemporary age: all the others are considered to be as powerless as a snake deprived of its poison."

With Tantra, action replaces contemplation. Much like Yoga requires determined practice, Tantra calls the initiate onto a path of direct experience. 

However, at least in the West, Tantra is [likely mis]understood as some kind of orgiastic event, delighting in sensory pleasure, probably due to commercialism and the sweeping contemporary watering down of all attempts at divinity and union, but I'm not yet sure.

My knee-jerk concern is this: would this approach not be to further bolster the self, the ego, activating the sensory pleasures and steering away from self-purification? If this transformation is to unlock the dormant energies the body possesses, absorbing and transforming them into personal power, how does this contribute to union with God? Is it self-focused like so many of the modern/digital spiritualities this article so elegantly calls attention to?

Though it does seem if this path were to be taken, the power it could unlock in the individual would require as a precursor, a properly initiated person, who could wield the power wisely, that is- for transcendence, otherwise the approach is dangerous.

I don't have an answer yet; much more to learn.

Michelangelo's Dream. Painted by Joseph Noel Paton (1821–1901)

"It is therefore not enough to abide by the theory of the identity between the deeper self (atman) and the principle of the universe (brahman) and 'to remain idle,' vaguely thinking of the conscious ether.' The Tantras deny the value of knowledge to this. In order to obtain true knowledge, one must be transformed by action..." - Julius Evola, The Yoga of Power

Transcendence in a dark age

I've come across a new perspective recently which struck me as very reasonable and possible; this is the notion that the teachings for transcendence of antiquity might not suffice for you and I here in the midst of a dark age, dense in our materiality. 

"It is claimed that the teachings, rites, and disciplines that would have been viable in the first age (the Krita or Satya Yuga, the equivalent of Hesiod's 'golden age') are no longer fit for people living in the following ages, especially in the last age, the "dark age" Kali Yuga, the 'Iron Age,' the 'Age of the Wolf' in the Edda)." -Julius Evola, The Yoga of Power

Evola goes on to highlight essential features of the Kali Yuga we find ourselves in now, one of which is that:

"... mankind living in this age is strictly connected to the body and cannot prescind from it; therefore, the only way open is not that of pure detachment (as in early Buddhism and in the many varieties of yoga) but rather that of knowledge, awakening, and mastery over secret energies trapped in the body. 

So is a transcendent path enough during a time when debauched living is a societal norm that we've all grown up around? Can we even recognize our low standards amidst such debased living reflected in the world around us? Is it even possible in the degree that would be required to make the Olympian leap, for the soul to survive death? Is devoting our hearts, our thoughts, our wisdom-seeking toward God, behaving righteously, and singing or chanting our devotional songs as many times each day as we can manage... is it substantial, in this era, for any save the very exceptional tucked away in monasteries?

Evola goes on to respond that it isn't, and that transformation is also necessary.

"The second characteristic is that of the dissolution typical of this age. During the Kali Yuga, the bull of dharma stands on only one foot (it lost the other three during the previous ages). This means that the traditional law (dharma) is wavering, is reduced to a shadow of its former self, and seems to almost be succumbing. During Kali Yuga, however, the goddess Kali, who was asleep in the previous ages, is now fully awake. [...] This symbolism implies that during the last age elementary, infernal, and abyssal forces are untrammeled. The immediate task consists in facing and absorbing these forces..."

Are we capable of that, I wonder? Of interacting with unseen and strange forces, not grasped by modern man, enough to be able to absorb and victoriously transform them, thereby elevating our own ontological nature?

Certainly such a process would require proper Initiation first, and can a true guru be found in this age? Is self-initiation possible? If so, I believe it would be vital still to maintain ones daily devotional rituals to God together with this approach, staying prayerful and centered when encountering such forces, and especially if ever absorbing them into your own being.

Morning sea fog dance