Holy grail traditions

And try to read this if you're interested- a very illuminating book. I think the Holy Grail traditions, any access we still have to those primordial teachings, is important and--as of now--rings the most bells in my spirit.
 

The 'trad' movement

It is a shame that the recent 'trad' movement has taken the name of Traditionalism, further blurring its meaning, the same as the likes of Aldous Huxley and the theosophists did some decades ago. Now we must further distinguish what is meant by the term, most often using agitating phrases like "capital T Traditionalism" to differentiate meaning. 

Often, in the right-wing trad subculture, we see the following:

• from males: a focus on going to the gym and eating a specific diet, on being the financial provider for their family (so they say, I actually don't see many living examples of this, unfortunately those who espouse the idea are usually keyboard warriors who aren't responsible for any family whatsoever), some may fixate on hobbies they [read: their social media peers] have deemed manly such as gun collecting or mountain climbing
  
  
• from females: a focus on "being feminine" which they address by wearing certain clothing and taking on hobbies such as baking and sewing, going to church (usually very new to any religion), also a focus on reproducing and other Demeter-oriented activities

I applaud the above activities, as most of them are personal preferences and hobbies of mine and my husband as well. But this is not the point. The point is that the lower case trad types begin and stop here. Their fixations and focuses rest primarily on the external, on the doing, on the becoming, and again- in the archetypical Demeter and Warrior roles (if you don't yet grasp these archetypal roles, it is very useful to click the links and learn).

This is a form of 1950's [t]raditionalism, a roleplaying of Leave it to Beaver. And this should not be mistaken with or equated to true Traditionalism. 

The above and other mentioned hobbies and outward activities may indeed end up being natural by-products of a true man or woman of antiquity, i.e. Tradition, but what we see in the modern trad movement is these outward activities coming first, without the inner state as the foundation to inform action, which is why there is a sense of roleplaying, a loss of real essence.

Tradition is not an intellectual system, because it cannot be fully understood without having undergone a change in one’s being. -- Gornahoor, The Experience of Existence

I write this today because I do feel a sadness when I come across online profiles of women with "home, family, tradition" proudly written out in their bios.  Is this a huge step beyond most modern women? Probably. But I wonder, "what exactly does she mean by 'tradition'?" Is she merely referring to gender roles? Does she mean going to church? Wearing dresses? The problem here is that a truly life-changing path of Traditionalism is getting missed altogether, being understood and misrepresented as this 1950's path of externals, of which Puritan imagery becomes the defining aesthetic.

But Tradition is the transcendent path of inner change. It is altogether transformational on an ontological level for the one walking it. Curling your hair and baking bread matter not in such a realm. 

"The “greater holy war” is man’s struggle against the enemies he carries within himself, that is, against the elements in him that are opposed to order and unity. There is however no question of annihilating these elements, which, like everything that exists, have their reason for existence and their place in the whole; what is aimed at is to “transform” them, by bringing them back and as it were reabsorbing them into unity. Above all else, man must constantly strive to realize unity in himself, in all that constitutes him, through all the modalities of his human manifestation:

• unity of thought
• unity of action
• and also, which is perhaps hardest, unity between thought and action" - -Rene Guenon, Symbolism of the Cross 

So much esoteric meaning has been lost to us, and I worry that people--even some I know and love--are LARP'ing some role which will not lead them down a path of true fulfillment or spiritual growth/union with God. We cannot focus on the wife, the house, the job, the church building only and expect gratification. Eventually, externals will fail you.

This loss of meaning extends into every realm. Think of archaeologists who unearth ceremonial artifacts, only remarking on the physical attributes and the physical activities these objects implied. They can't possibly fathom the potential power, danger even, that they hold in their hands because the world has been reduced to only knowing "truth" through the senses. Our epistemological empiricism and rationality, even our own scientific method, assumes that the physical layer of reality is it. 

And we have such a difficult time escaping this paradigm, as we've all grown up in it, our very thought will always be influenced by it, no matter how hard we try. We see this even in the 'trad' movement, which I honestly find more and more insufferable these days, steeped in ego and self-righteousness, and unfortunately, still so fixated on biology and the physical in general. I just wish they would have chosen a different term to define themselves; using 'traditionalist' is contributing to subversion.

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..."

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.

Currently reading

 

Sanctify

We all generally want to feel "happy". But when you reflect on your life, when did your big spiritual growth spurts happen? Usually deep growth comes from hardship and strife, from those dark nights of the soul. I think many humans rob themselves of a rich life experience by succumbing to the assembly line of quick distractions and comforts- TV, gossip, scrolling social media, overeating, partying, alcohol, drugs, pornography... the multitude of balms we rub on ourselves, and they are plentiful. Left unaware, we become slaves to sense gratification.

I think it's crucial that we make ourselves present for life, all of it, rather than distract. We must understand why we're here in this human form, which is for spiritual realization, not just a happenstance universe explosion as Materialists would have you believe (and had me believe for a good portion of my life). In this way, you can reinterpret suffering and not be a captive to the finite material world, the body you're in, and what it's currently enduring. 

Hone your mind. Connect to the Divine through daily devotion. Build up a sanctuary in yourself. Fortify what is eternal in you.

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."

Revolt Against The Modern World: Foreword (Notes)

I first jotted notes down about the book I'm currently studying in this post. Now, before continuing on into Chapter 1: The Beginning, I wanted to jot down my notes from the Foreword. I'm really trying to internalize, sort out, and understand Evola's teachings and this feels like one way to fully digest the information I'm consuming.

Notes from Revolt Against The Modern World: Foreword



> ..."there are causes that have been active for centuries that have contributed to spiritual and material degeneration. These causes have not only taken away from most people the possibility of revolt and the return to normalcy and health, but most of all, they have taken away the ability to understand what true normalcy and health really mean."

> "The only thing that matters is the silent endurance of a few, whose impassible presence as 'stone guests' helps to create new relationships, new distances, new values, and helps to construct a pole that, although it will certainly not prevent this world inhabited by the distracted and restless from being what it is, will still help to transmit to someone the sensation of the truth--a sensation that could become for them the principle of a liberating crisis."

> "...reference to the spirit of universal civilization, on the ruins of which everything that is modern has arisen..."
Here, Evola is speaking to principles that were found throughout all ancient cultures, despite the geographical location, race, or specific religion. My opinion and thought at this point is that Vedic philosophy is one such example -- the most ancient spiritual/philosphical worldview that is known of today, an oral tradition which was first written down in Sanskrit, and which is the source of all other religions worldwide. If we look back to things such as this, Evola posits that we find foundational principles and therefore truths. It's also worth mentioning that Veda was a worldwide view, there are remnants of Vedic philsophy in Ireland and Russia, though many modern people associate Vedic philosophy with Indian Hinduism alone, this is not accurate.

> "...the first forces of decadence began to be tangibly manifested between the eighth and the sixth centuries B.C., as can be concluded from the sporadic and characteristic alterations in the forms of the social and spiritual life of many peoples that occurred during this time."
Here, Evola is defining what he means by modern, essentially everything in recorded history is modern. So the distinction between Traditional and Modern is the distinction between pre-history and history, between mythological and scientific, between non-linear time and linear time, all respectively.

To study and try to understand this work, I need to radically change my method and mentality, which is heavily influenced by Modernity.

"...the whole body of traditional civilizations, is characterized by the feeling of what is beyond time, namely, by a contact with metaphysical reality that bestows upon the experience of time a very different, 'mythological' form based on rhythm and space rather than on a chronological time."

So the emphasis on the distinction between metaphysical and physical cannot be overstated when distinguishing between the relationship that Traditional civilizations had with reality, versus Modern civilizations.

>"...wherever a civilization is manifested that has at its center and substance the temporal element, there we will find a resurgence, in a more or less different form, of the same attitudes, values, and forces that have defined the modern era in the specific sense of the term; and that wherever a civilization is manifested that has as its center and substance the supernatural element, there we will find a resurgence, in more or less different forms, of the same meanings, values, and forces that have defined archaic types of civilization."
Again- Modern versus Tradition is about principles, not linear timelines. Temporal represents Modernity, Supernatural represents Archaic/Tradition.

>It needs to be made clear Evola's stance on science and epistemology (how we know what is true):
"The above remarks will suffice to show how little I value all of what in recent times has officially been regarded as 'historical science' in matters of religion, ancient institutions, and traditions, nor do I need refer to what I will say later concerning the origin, the scope, and the meaning of modern 'knowledge.' I want to make it clear that I do not want to have anything to do with this order of things, as well as with any other that originates from modern mentality; and moreover, that I consider the so-called scientific and positive perspective, with all its empty claims of competence and of monopoly, as a display of ignorance in the best of cases."

Though Evola does not deny that science and modern means of accruing information are altogether useless-
"I certainly do not deny that from the detailed studies of the 'scholars' of different disciplines what may emerge is useful (though unrefined) material that is often necessary to those that do not have other sources of information or who do not have the time or intention to dedicate themselves to gather and to examine what they need from other domains. And yet, at the same time, I am still of the opinion that wherever the 'historical' and 'scientific' methods of modern man are applied to traditional civilizations, other than in the coarser aspect of traces and witnesses, the results are almost always distortions that destroy the spirit, limit and alter the subject matter, and lead into the blind alleys of alibis created by the prejudices of the modern mentality as it defends and asserts itself in every domain."

"...from the perspective of 'science' what matters in a myth is whatever historical elements may be extracted from it. From the perspective that I adopt, what matters in history are all the mythological elements it has to offer, or all the myths that enter into its web, as integrations of the 'meaning' of history itself."
Evola goes on to provide an example to illustrate his meaning: "Not only the Rome of legends speaks clearer words than the historical Rome, but even the sagas of Charlemagne reveal more about the meaning of the king of the Franks than the positive chronicles and documents of that time, and so on."

>"Those who begin from a particular traditional civilization and are able to integrate it by freeing it from its historical and contingent aspects, and thus bring back the generative principles to the metaphysical plane where they exist in a pure state, so to speak-- they cannot help but recognize these same principles behind the different expressions of other equally traditional civilizations. It is in this way that a sense of certainty and of transcendent and universal objectivity is innerly established, that nothing could ever destroy, and that could not be reached by any other means."

I like this because Evola reiterates that we are looking to Tradition for principles, and that as we start to see the same principles span different times and cultures, we can use these universal principles to hone in on truths. This makes a lot of sense to me.

>Evola clarifies that he will pull from Eastern and Western traditions, depending on which best illustrates the point. This does not make him of that belief, but is merely being used as a tool. This deserves to be clarified as many people will quickly associate an author with a certain spiritual or religious group, and then write them off as believing in something other than they themselves do if that's the case. Again, Evola will use a myriad of spiritual and religious cultures and beliefs to illustrate fundamental principles.
"In the course of this book I will refer to various Eastern & Western traditions, choosing those that exemplify through a clearer and more complete expression the same spiritual principle or phenomenon."


>"In the first part, I will trace directly a kind of doctrine of the categories of the traditional spirit; I will indicate the main principles according to which the life of the man of Tradition was manifested."
"The forms and the meanings indicated should not be regarded as 'realities' proper... but rather as ideas that must determine and shape reality and life, their value being independent from the measure in which their realization can be ascertained, since it will never be perfect."
Here, Evola seems to be almost reassuring us that the realization of the value will never be perfect, assumingly meaning were we to endeavor for it, but the value or principle remains as the goal, the truth.

Revolt against the modern world

I've just started a long-awaited book: Revolt Against The Modern World by Julius Evola. An esoteric and oft misunderstood piece of work, I am seeking to sincerely study, not just blow through, what I think is a very important text that I hope will address some things that have been on my mind for several years.

To prepare, I've been listening to a series on Youtube, which I'll link to below. Here are some initial notes.

The degeneracy of the modern world-- frenetic energy without purpose.

What is the aim of modern man? To create an exact replica of himself (AI) with no soul as his crowning achievement? This in itself is a symptom of the plague of modernity: no higher purpose, dogmatic attachment to the physical.

What is meant by modern? To Evola, we can begin seeing the forces of modern decadence around 8,000 BC, with a second phase occurring during the Roman Empire with the advent of Christianity, and a third phase during the feudalism of the Middle Ages. From there, a rapid downward trajectory began.

If modernity encapsulates all of this time, then where do we find Tradition?
Evola says we must look to pre-historic civilizations; the mythological.
According to Evola, to understand we must imagine our way out of linear time, as pre-historic civilizations would not have had the same kind of linear relationship with time that modern civilizations do, due to the daily connection they had with the metaphysical, which is on a different dimensional plane than our physical one. This linear experience of time is a key feature of modernity.

When looking for the world of Tradition, it's imperative to try to understand time through this pre-historic lens.

Disconnect from the metaphysical, from the transcendent, is a large part of the degeneracy of modernity. Epistemological Materialism is everything to modern man. Even our own Science stumbles upon the quantum world, finally!-- Materialism brushes up against the Metaphysical and yet it's called one of the most controversial "problems" in modern physics. Having many possible quantum states, as wave functions do, seems to point to a non-linear nature of time.  (To learn more about quantum physics, which might be our first true observation of metaphysics, however paradoxical that sounds in language, this is a good starting point as is the book The Quantum Enigma).

How to revolt against the modern world? Not through protest or reaction, but action from an inner dimension which testifies to a principle or center. True Tradition is not mimicking the past, but orienting toward these inner principles. Recreate the original. Make an art of living.

Evola states he will be drawing from Eastern and Western traditions to find the best examples of concepts of Tradition possible, though this Traditional method is more abstract and ephemeral than rational. 

We will transition from deductive reasoning to inductive.

My hope is that this book will become a roadmap to rediscovering the world of Tradition.