> In relation to this discussion, not in a direct reaction, I'whould
> The core of what Traditionalism is about are the eternal principles -
> essences that stay the same, regardless the form it temporary takes.
> The more then I'was astounded to read in Traditionalism by
> that Islam is seen by several as the final revelation in Kali Yuga.
> There is no doubt that it is a revelation.
> But to say the final, is that not making a temporary dogma to an
> principle ??
If metaphysics can be said to be the core of Traditionalism, then, yes,
the core of Traditionalism pertains to eternal principles. These
principles must manifest themselves in some way, and one of the most
direct modes of their doing so in this physical plane is as revelation.
To say "physical plane" is to say "space-time". Space is location and
extension. Time is duration, which implies a beginning and an end.
Therefore it should not be too difficult to see that, of the individual
revelations that arise in order to manifest eternal ('outside time')
principles, one will have to be ythe beginning and one have to be of the
end - and this only on the material plane without in any way affecting
the metaphysical plane from whence they derive where there is neither
beginning nor end. Also, each of these manifested revelations will have
to have their point of location (geographical centre) and extension
(geographical circumference). It so happens that, and all the
traditional authorities and documents affirm this, the last revelation
of this cycle was the one that was revealed in Arabia, and which goes
under the name Islam. And moreover, this has happened providentially.
> At last I'could get copies of the Reign of quantity, and the symbolism
> the cross.
> The criticims on theosophy gets clearer, and correcter: in that it
> and wants to be "scientific", which is nonsensical as science changes.
> he cites theosophicals that thought to have seen atoms and other
> But several other ideas and even principles one finds with
> and further only with theosophy.
> (like concepts of manvantara etc.) And with other principles he is a
> theosophical ... (like his occult anti occultism etc.)
The only areas one would be likely find the teachings of Guenon to be in
line with those of theosophy (as described by Blavatsky, et.al) would be
those areas which derive specifically from traditional doctrines. The
doctrine of manavantaras is an excellent example of this, for this
doctrine has its origin neither with guenon, nor with theosophy, but it
goes back to antiquity; they were mentioned in the Purana Vedas and the
Upanishads, where they are already spoken of as being a very ancient
teaching. Guenon's genius was in describing the truths of traditional
ideas, and in applying these to the modern world. There can be no
question of him coming up with any "new" doctrine, and still less of him
aligning with anything new in the teachings of those modern, yet
pseudo-traditional, groups that he would have been the first to
> The principles of anti tradition in the sense that it is a a woolf in
> clothing is clearer, it is a tradition adjusted to modern principles
> trhough that an anti tradition.
> But still I'wonder if it is not to, the principle correct, but
> if one can consider all the aspects he gives as a part of it?? Are not
> part of "modern" apearances valid, as long as it tries to adheres,
> extreme seldom, to the eternal principles, or it can give experinces
> are valuable?
This is a difficult question and one which, I think, would be hard to
generalise on. It is clear that we cannot go back to the middle ages or
to some convert the world (both East and West) into some traditionally
oriental society. What can be done is to try and trace the traditional
doctrines back to their metaphysical roots, and thence try and apply
them anew. Each aspect of modernism would have to examined individually
in the light of this.
Moreover, it is not the "modern appearances" which are in question, but
that what underlies the appearances that matter. This is perhaps what
you mean when you say "the principles of anti tradition are a wolf in
sheep's clothing". We need to be clear here. Not everything that is
modern is anti-traditional, else we, who are moderns, would not be
having this conversation. The principles of anti-tradition themselves
are a wolf, full stop; they only put on their sheep's clothing when they
dress themselves up in appearances. But this danger has existed since
this plane of manifestation began ('for ever'). The 'wolf in sheep's
clothing' is the very principle of 'Maya', and it is just that at this
point in cycle of manifestation takes on a particular hue.
> Because then (if indeed, 99.99999 % is anti tradition) there is
> one can do, except being passive. Or may be (a possiblity Evola gives
> the revolte) making the situation worse to speed the end?
This, specifically, is the domain of the black magician, which domain
may have a romantic attraction to those in whose nature it lies as a
tendency, and which they may or not be able to resist. But in the end
such efforts will only serve to destroy the perpetrator in the worst
possible way. As the Gospel says, "Evil must be brought about, but woe
unto him who brings it about". If Evola really does recommend this
possibility, it confirms my suspicions of him as have certain diabolical
tendencies which are the very opposite to the metaphysical stand that
was taken by Guenon and Schuon, though in the reversal of their poles
they gain the appearance of similarity ("The devil is the ape of God").
- Nasser G
"Nasser G___" <nassergazi@_____