I think I found Kincaid's Cave...

 ...but have run into Google Maps trickery.

In this video, an account from a contracted explorer for the Smithsonian Institute in 1909 tells a fascinating tale of what he found in a cave deep within the Grand Canyon, high on the banks (well, cliffsides) of the Colorado River:

G.E. Kincaid wrote:

So not only did this man find Egyptian artifacts, hieroglyphs, and mummies, but he also notes there were Vedic artifacts, such as a Buddha-like statue and lotus symbolism. 

The implications of this are large, if you study ancient history and have considered the blue-eyed Egyptian and Vedic society relationship, which is far too dense to go into here.

Anyway- I wanted to know where this "Kincaid's cave" is located, so I went on a little hunt. Judging by certain accounts of mile markers, directions of currents, and descriptions of landscape, I think I've honed in on the general area, within 5 miles at least of where this mythical cave opening could be found. Of course, it's almost impossible to get to, and exists in an area of the Grand Canyon where no visitors are allowed, apparently not even park officials--ya don't say!?--not to mention, it's bordered or even within Navajo territory.

But, as for where it is:

Head over to Google Maps and search for "Nankoweap Granaries" (North Rim, Arizona). Scroll down (southward) along the Colorado River there until you see the LCR Confluence Overlook on the right of the river.

Just north of that overlook, you'll notice that a strange artificial looking line seems to have been overlain on the aerial image, almost as if the true landscape is being covered or hidden from view by a similar, but false, image. 

I thought that was a little... odd.

The line just so happens to fall right around the area I estimate Kincaid's Cave is located, to the right, or eastern, side of the Colorado River there. 

Did you know that most of the monuments in the Grand Canyon have Egyptian names? Interesting, yes? Watch this video for more fun facts.

Revolt Against The Modern World, Chapter 2 - Regality (Notes)

As I make my way through this book, you can find previous notes here:

Summary & Preparation

Foreword

Chapter 1 - The Beginning

___________________________________

Photo by Tiffany Davidson

Notes: Chapter 2 - Regality

In this chapter, Evola discusses how kingship was viewed in the pre-historic world of Tradition. He also provides various descriptions of what constituted a good leader, and what still constitutes a good leader if you believe these principles to be axiomatic and enduring.

This chapter can be difficult, or triggering, for the modern mind which touts democracy as the most superior form of governance. We are accustomed to living in an age that worships the common man, where decisions are made by the whims of the masses. 

But hierarchy is dharma; it follows the natural way of the universe.

It's also worth mentioning that according to the cycles of the ages, we're currently living in the Kali Yuga, which is characterized as an age when humanity degenerates spiritually. So kingship in a fallen age is certainly difficult to imagine in any non-corrupt virtuous form. ("modern monarchies merely imitate the past, they wear the dress but lack the inner constitution")

But in pre-historic societies, kings were loved and revered and viewed as a source of true inspiration and as a link between the physical and metaphysical. It was essential the king have a strong connection to the Transcendent in order to be a respected ruler that the people could trust to act as a bridge, or pontifex, between the material and spiritual realms.

I've selected some passages from this chapter (in italics), paired with my own notes (non-italics), to help illuminate the ways in which regality was viewed in Traditional societies.
___________
________
_____

"Every traditional civilization is characterized by the presence of beings who, by virtue of their innate or acquired superiority over the human condition, embody within the temporal order the living and efficacious presence of a power that comes from above."

In understanding the nature of a true King, it's of paramount importance to grasp that it was the inner nature of a man which brought about his regality. We aren't speaking of a kingship that is simply handed down through a bloodline. The position was very much earned.

A king could not expect to achieve victory in the external world without first having achieved it internally.

"Pontifex means 'builder of bridges,' or of  'paths' connecting the natural and supernatural dimensions. The pontifex was traditionally identified with the king. Servius, a late fourth-century commentator on Virgil's works, reports: 'The custom of our ancestors was that the king should also be pontifex and priest.' A saying of the Nordic tradition reads: 'May our leader be our bridge.'"

"Thus, real monarchs were the steadfast personification of life 'beyond ordinary life.' ... These influences [of the monarch] permeated people's thoughts, intentions, and actions, ordering every aspect of their lives and constituting a fit foundation for luminous, spiritual realizations."

"Traditional civilization, unlike those of decadent and later times, completely ignored the merely political dimension of supreme authority as well as the idea that the roots of authority lay in mere strength, violence, or natural and secular qualities such as intelligence, wisdom, physical courage, and a minute concern for the collective material well-being. The roots of authority, on the contrary, always had a metaphysical character."

"In an ancient Indo-Aryan text it is written: 'The dignity a god enjoys on earth is splendid, but hard to achieve for the weak. Only he who sets his soul on this objective, is worthy to become a king.'"


In a sense, the King was the idyll- an ultimate role model, a motivation for people. It didn't matter a person's place in society, they devised a noble path for their own role, rather than aspiring to be something else or something more. This is a side tangent, but I do think it's worth thinking on- that is, the notion of desire. Today, we desire to climb the ladder and to become something more, always looking to some future point when we will be more, have more. Hindus value the caste system, and this was a system common in pre-historic cultures too. This sort of system, knowing one's place in society, helped rid the mind of desire, and individuals were free to pursue a path of transcendence whether they were king, butcher, priest, milkmaid, monk, or blacksmith. Contrast this with the striving for material gain so common now in the modern world.

"The ultimate aim [of a Traditional community] would be to achieve a society in which every individual was living in a state of high vibration."  (source)

Moreover, a nations fortune or misfortune was thought to be dependent on the kings behavior and inner metaphysical state:

"The common assumption was that the fortunes or misfortunes of the kingdom, as well as the moral qualities of his subjects (it is the virtue in relation to the being of the monarch, and not his actions, that carries positive or negative influences on them), secretly depended on the monarch's behavior. The central role exercised by the king presupposed that the king maintained the aforesaid triumphal inner way of being."

The power of the king was only given to him so long as he maintained his inner equilibrium and transcendent nature. If he failed to do this, the force would be transferred to someone more worthy.

Contrast this to modern times when we feel rulers should be help accountable by the people. In Traditional times, it was thought that the King was held accountable by God (note that by using this term I'm not referring to a Christian God, but God as the divine foundation from which all physical and metaphysical spring. I'll be able to elaborate on this in the future after I've spent more time studying the Vedas).

"The king, empowered with a non-terrestrial force, with its roots in something that is 'more than life,' naturally appeared as one who could eminently actualize the power of the rites and open the way leading to the superior world. Thus, in those traditional forms of civilization in which there was a separate priestly class, the king, because of his original dignity and function, belonged to this class and was its true leader."

Mere physical force is nothing compared to spiritual might, this is why the ultimate king is not of the warrior caste, but the priestly caste.

________________

"We yearn to live in harmony with the natural order, to be connected to the great source once again, and we long for a divine leader. When he holds steady the center of the wheel of Dharma, society is imbued with grounding force."

"wheel of Dharma" images were found on Google and are not owned by me

Revolt Against The Modern World; Chapter 1 - The Beginning (Notes)

As I make my way through this book, you can find my previous notes here:

Summary & Preparation

Foreword

Notes: Chapter 1 -  The Beginning

Throughout the book, Evola will be focusing on contrasting Modern civilization and the world of Tradition (always with a capital T, it's important to understand that tradition is not being used here to mean wear dresses and bake bread).

He starts Chapter 1 off appropriately by distinguishing between the two:

"In order to understand both the spirit of Tradition and its antithesis, modern civilization, it is necessary to begin with the fundamental doctrine of the two natures. According to this doctrine there is a physical order of things and a metaphysical one; there is a mortal nature, and an immortal one; there is the superior realm of 'being' and the inferior realm of 'becoming.' Generally speaking, there is a visible and tangible dimension and, prior to and beyond it, an invisible and intangible dimension that is the support, the source, and the true life of the former."

So modern civilization is characterized by: physical, mortal, inferior becoming, visible, tangible

Whereas, Traditional civilizations are: metaphysical, immortal in nature, superior being, invisible, intangible. Evola states that the true Traditional mind saw the metaphysical realm as the source of the physical realm. Obviously this strongly contradicts the modern mind, which is prone to Materialism and judges knowledge and truth by sensory [physical] experience and measurement. 

"Anywhere in the world of Tradition, both East and West, and in one form or another, this knowledge (not just a mere 'theory') has always been present as an unshakable axis around which everything revolved."

Here Evola is emphasizing that these were key components of reality that ancient Traditional people knew, not theorized, to be true. 

"As difficult as it may be for our contemporaries to understand this, we must start from the idea that the man of Tradition was aware of the existence of a dimension of being much wider than what our contemporaries experience and call 'reality.' Nowadays, after all, reality is understood only as something strictly encompassed within the world of physical bodies located in space and time."

"Certainly, there are those who believe in something beyond the realm of phenomena. When these people admit the existence of something else, however, they are always led to this conclusion by a scientific hypothesis or law, or by a speculative idea, or by a religious dogma; they cannot escape such an intellectual limitation. Through his practical and immediate experiences, modern man, no matter how deep his 'materialistic' or 'spiritual' beliefs may be, develops an understanding of reality only in relation to the world of physical bodies and always under the influence of his direct and immediate experiences."

So, many modern people will claim to believe in something metaphysical. They attempt to break through the physical barrier, into that other superior realm. The important distinction here is that modern people try to escape this inferior physical realm through belief. They believe, but they don't know. Whereas Traditional humans knew. Modern man will attempt to believe in something non-physical and eternal, but only through religious dogma, scientific hypothesis, or their own speculation. These are all paths of the temporal, the intellect, what Evola calls the intellectual limitation of Modern men.

"The worst type of materialism, therefore, is not a matter of an opinion or of a 'theory,' but it consists in the fact that man's experience no longer extends to non-physical realities."

Evola maintains that one cannot know the metaphysical by coming from the physical, just as Traditional knowledge was that the physical sprang from the metaphysical, and not the other way around. 

Keep in mind, this Modern influence started a very long time ago (recall that Evola considers all of history to be modern).

"The experience of Traditional man used to reach well beyond these limits, as in the case of some so-called primitive people, among whom we still find today a faint echo of spiritual powers from ancient times. In Traditional societies, the 'invisible' was an element as real, if not more real, than the data provided by the physical senses. Every aspect of the individual and of the social life of the people belonging to these societies was influenced by these experiences."

So, because we are of Modern minds, very much attached to the rational, the physical, the so-called scientific... is it even possible to push out of our physical box over to a metaphysical vastness where we know, and not merely believe?

Here in Chapter 1, Evola points toward a potential path, which I'm sure will be discussed much more in-depth throughout the book, that is the path of the Ascetic. 

"...The experience of asceticism was regarded as the path leading to the other region, or to the world of 'being,' or to what is no longer physical but metaphysical. Asceticism traditionally consisted in values such as mastery over oneself, self-discipline, autonomy, and the leading of a unified life. By 'unified life' I mean an existence that does not need to be spent in search of other things or people in order to be complete and justified."