A few thoughts on this conversation

Click to listen to the debate

I think that both of the men in this debate have common ground in that they are hopefully seeking truth and purity, and I wish only the best for both of them. These are just some thoughts I had while listening.

Isn't man being under illusion also akin to the Orthodox perspective of man being now fallen? So if we are going to pick apart how one can know something while in a state of Maya, or illusion, mustn't we ask the same about how fallen man can come to Truth? If the response would be "by the word of God we can know Truth, despite our fallen state" then the Bible is no different from, say, the Vedic canon in that regard, in that they're both the proclaimed Highest Wisdom.

But, I don't translate being in a state of Maya to mean Truth is thereby unknowable. Through wisdom accumulation, prayer, devotion, self-awareness and awareness of the illusory state I do believe we can pierce through the veil, at least periodically. This is important because it was the primary hang-up Jay seemed to have. I'm not sure why Aarvoll didn't address this in a straightforward way. 

To say that the Perennialist view of God is an impersonal one isn't correct- both Islam and [keyword] authentic Sanatana Dharma, for example, believe in a personal God and are both spiritual traditions that a Perennialist might choose to commit to, since it's usually believed that despite accepting that most religions seem to have key beliefs in common one should still select and adhere specifically to the practices of one. 

I think it's important that a worthy text be arranged and compiled which aims to explicitly outline the perennialist views; what are those core truths that religions have in common throughout time?

***

Either way, we shouldn't get too caught up in the debate of it all. For the past month or two, I have allowed that intellectual part of myself who is so hungry for gathering wisdom to rest, and instead I've simply focused on thinking of God, prayer, meditation, all through the day, loving others, treating everyone with respect, lifting them up, and being a living example in my daily interactions with others rather than finding the morsel of what's incorrect to swoop in and refute. And this approach has brought me closer to the Ultimate Good, I am sure. 

Currently reading

 I am striving to give back the Divine in myself to the Divine in the All. --Plotinus

The inner fire

 

This documentary intrigued me, especially the convent that claims to be the only one still teaching and practicing the secret yogas. One they mentioned was "magic fire" which I believe refers to Tummo meditation, which is basically the meditation technique Wim Hof has introduced to the West. I got into this a bit some years ago, certainly making myself dizzy and hyperventilated many times, but I'm going to enroll in his course again, now armed with a lot more esoteric understanding and purpose. 

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.

Stalker

I don't spend much time watching movies at home, I find I'd rather spend that time reading or working on a project, so I use my cardio time at the gym to watch things. Today it's Tarkovsky's "Stalker" which is right up my alley (but definitely not for everyone). This has been on my to-watch list for quite some time now, but a recent Gornahoor blog post compelled me to bump it up the list.

Currently reading

 

Lunchtime, the beginning of a new book, and my favorite warm beverage of late: Ayurvedic spiced milk with Ashwagandha root, velvet bean seed, Shatavari root, Burdock root, cinnamon bark, cardamom seed, and Haritaki with a touch of maple sugar- very nourishing and grounding, especially for anyone with an imbalance in Vata.

Thoughts on hierarchy and hunting

Most people will admit that hierarchy exists. 

In our world today, it's become a dirty word- hierarchy = bad, oppressive, with a proposed solution, or better way, being egalitarianism (a very modern notion, which can only be truly realized if we bring everything down to the lowest common denominator).

But many have not gone so far as to consider that hierarchy is not just a human thing, but characteristic of the cosmos Itself, as natural law, or in Sanskrit what would be called dharma. According to the teachings of antiquity (held by isolated cultures across the globe, not just some 'imperial' group), far from being evil, hierarchy is actually right behavior. In hierarchy, we can find order, and even the detachment from desire that allows for liberation. 

The caste system is a more modern degeneration of the varna system of old. It's important to understand the difference between the two: in a caste system, your physical birth and the the family you're born into are the basis for your judgment and place in society, so if you're born into a farming family, a farmer you shall remain. Often in a caste system, people at the lower levels are barely granted any sort of human rights. But in a varna system, an individual is placed moreso based on their individual nature. To understand this better, it's helpful to understand the three gunas of the Vedas: Tamas, Rajas, and Sattva. (Gunas can translate as qualities or attributes of a person especially to describe more subtle aspects of them, so speaking more of their beingness or spirit than the color of their hair or how loud they talk, though there is a relationship here, but that would be a digression). So the three gunas are:

Tamas - the qualities of laziness, ignorance, lethargy, heaviness; associated color would be black

Rajas - qualities of passion, ambition, active intellect, busy; associated color would be red

Sattva - qualities of clarity, serenity, wisdom, balance, lightness, associated color would be white

Each person contains all of the gunas, but in different proportions- some of us are almost entirely weighed down by tamas while others are primarily sattvic. 

The varna system divided individuals based on these qualities of their unique individual nature: Brahmins (deep thought, wisdom; priests, teachers, philosophers), Ksatriyas (courage with intellect; warriors), Vaishyas (intelligent but more focused on basic/simple needs of life; farmers, merchants), and Sudras (ignorant, driven by sense organs, undisciplined; no specific talents so acted as laborers and aids to other classes). 

So, in a nutshell, the main difference between caste and varna is that you are born into your caste and have very little wiggle room if any, while your varna is dictated by the qualities of who you are. Within the varna system, these classes weren't necessarily viewed as higher or lower, but as each having a part to play for the order of society. 

Hierarchy must not imply oppression as the contemporary narrative would have us believe.

___________

This all applies to something I've been thinking on lately after making the decision to hunt. 

There is a common notion today, especially in the super-grocery-West, that hunting is bad.

But most people are okay with killing some living thing, right? Be it a snake, a spider, a wasp, a possum... yet those same people will be against deer hunting, turkey hunting, etc. And those same people will argue that hierarchy does not exist, that all should be [somehow] equal. Yet their very actions and tendencies prove otherwise and only serve to highlight that an innate hierarchy very much does exist, naturally. 

This should be considered when proclaiming it is immoral to hunt. And that's not to mention the death that is caused from mass-scale so-called 'vegetarian' food production, so to ever think you are somehow living without anything dying for you to live, should really be allowed more thought before forming an opinion or speaking on the matter.

Hierarchy is imposed on us by natural law, not just locally here on Earth, but cosmologically. Fulfilling our human predator/prey role is not only not 'bad', but unavoidable. Our need to eat must be met, and because if you are reading this you are human, and not a blade of grass, you have specific requirements for this particular incarnation. 

That said- frequent consumption of animal meat is not ideal due to its Tamasic nature. The degree to which a person requires it has to do with their individual constitution and karmic load. 

I think its best not to judge what another person eats, but whether or not they go about obtaining it in a principled way (assuming you feel the need to judge these things at all). Of course, that requires first sorting out ones principles... which means turning the focus back toward yourself.

A new hat

My first foray into cabling. This Calder Beanie is a pattern by ROWAN, using their pure wool superwash worsted. Heaps of thanks to Fruity Knitting for the clear instruction.

Who should 'fix' the West? Men or women?

In response to the right's narrative that women have caused the demise of modern society and therefore it's up to them to fix it:

I'll begin by saying I understand the frustration men have with modern women- their lack of commitment, their promiscuity, their choosing of degenerate partners, and so forth. 

But lessons of antiquity can offer us a helpful perspective if we really want to shine light on the origin of these problems.

Men are the solar principle, women the lunar; we reflect the light of men (and therefore the lack of light).  As a visual: the stone pillar of the bridge (Shiva) must be stable enough to handle the thrashing water (Shakti).

I would argue that in these times, while it's true that women hardly ever bring a real feminine principle to relationships, neither are men possessing a true masculine spirit. When men do, women will reflect that light. 

In the Vedic literature it is mentioned that a sign of degeneration was when women began to breed with men of lower caste (sidenote: I prefer the varna perspective, which I understand to be like caste but earned, rather than merely born into as the modern caste system operates). But we have to ask: how had the solar principle degenerated to lead to this?

Either way, I do not expect any large-scale changes in men or in women in modern times, especially in the West. Because of this, as a female, I choose to develop the solar principle within myself as much as possible, while making sure to also nourish and keep it balanced with the lunar principle inherent to my nature. It is similar to the idea of self-initiation in a time when truly holy and divine gurus and spiritual teachers cannot be found. So, we take on more of the work ourselves, as individuals. Does this have an inherent disability? Yes. But it's the Kali Yuga and we adapt and do what we must. There are forces at play, and those of us who are qualified to identify, absorb, and transform them should do so.

How long have humans been around? The case of the Olduvai skeleton.

In 1913, at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, a fellow by the name of Hans Reck, a paleontologist and geologist at Berlin University, found a reasonably complete human skeleton that was anatomically modern. This skeleton was buried in Upper bed II at the gorge, which is 1.5-1.7 million years old. 

Olduvai gorge; image from Wikimedia Commons

Debate about this finding went on for decades, until finally, in the 1970's, a professor at Frankfurt University named Reiner Protsch, claimed to have tested the skull from the same skeleton discovered by Hans Reck back in 1913, and had come up with an age of 10,000 years. 

So if this skeleton is only 10,000 years old, why was it unearthed in a layer of earth one-and-a-half million years old?

Most evolutionists will challenge, with an air of snarky self-assuredness, as I myself regrettably have in the past, "To disprove evolution, you just have to find one fossil out of place!"

My first thought was: maybe this person was buried long ago. In archaeology, this is referred to as intrusive burial. The problem with that hypothesis is that, as you would imagine, there would be evidence of disturbance surrounding the burial, especially directly on top of it. In this case at Olduvai gorge there were no signs of intrusive burial.

It also turns out that Reiner Protsch, the Frankfurt professor who dated this skull to be 10,000 years old, ended up resigning after a Frankfurt University committee revealed numerous radiocarbon dates he had falsified. (Quick digression: one has to wonder what the incentive would be to do such a thing, no? I mean, why do that?)

The theory of evolution claims that modern humans, people who look like us, evolved around 300,000 years ago. Though the influences of the time we live in shape what we passionately defend to be true, and the average person possesses a strong normalcy bias and fears social ostracization above all, at this point in all I've read, I would warn anyone against thinking of Darwin's theory as a fact. 

The above is only one small finding to ponder, there are many more which I'll share soon.

Amusing ourselves

At first, the attraction to arcana is born of curiosity and intrigue, and probably boredom. Ones ordinary life gets injected with a newfound glimmer, feeling secrecy and mystery now surrounding him. This is only an initial, immature phase of esoterism; and we mustn't linger there.

In the West, fascination with phenomena and mystery keeps one trapped at a lower level-- nevermind the fact that the experience of 'phenomena' certainly doesn't point to having experienced anything of a higher level whatsoever. Your own nature determines whether you stay at this level or are qualified to rise higher, out beyond ordinary life. The trappings of awe are such that they keep us in the psychic realm of amusement-seeking, which is inferior to a truly spiritual domain.

"...how could they affect one who, seeing all things in their principle, knows that no matter what the appearances may be, they are ultimately only elements of the total order?"