Though I already briefly touched upon this subject, given everything that has been written, as well as some of the messages I have received from certain people, it needs to be revisited. To put it succinctly, it is interesting that among the things Rene Guenon misrepresented, Buddhism and the Tantra are at the forefront. It is also funny how those who idolize him try and excuse these errors, ascribing them to things that are apparently out of his control, such as the sources he was working with. The problem with this perspective is that it invalidates the connection Rene Guenon had to Agarttha and to his knowledge of the archetypes of each "orthodox tradition" as they are within the "Primordial Tradition", before they finally receive their development within a certain time, place and for a certain people. If the certainty to R.G.'s corpus is tethered to profane sources, equally within the reach of all, then those who take this position denigrate him to the level of a mere" researcher", akin to Eliphas Levi.
As these articles have shown (1,2,3), the truth is, an inner realization does not automatically render one impeccable when it comes to every affair. Given the restricting and chaotic influences in the Kali Yuga, beings born in these conditions have some sort of defect, however slight or pronounced. Thus unless an inner realization is accompanied by a marked external projection of said realization, all sorts of errors can still persist. This is manifest in the many health problems R.G. faced in his life, for example, in spite of his inner realization. The easiest of these errors to solve are conceptual; in fact, these can be solved without having undergone any significant inner realization. In spite of his inner realization and his connection to Agarttha, R.G. still had a few biases and problems and it is these that are present in his treatment of Buddhism and Tantra. But what is their chief reason for existing?
I will not delve into them in detail, but the alleged issues he had with Buddhism were its revolt against what he saw as authentic priesthoods (these priesthoods had degenerated immensely at the time. Here is an example of what can happen to degenerate priesthoods) and also, its treatment of the concept of Atman as opposed to Anatta. Most try to water-down his protests, but one need only see his letters to grasp the animosity he demonstrated, especially to Evola, whenever the subject of Buddhism was brought up. Later in life, he tried to claim that it is Shankaracharya and not he, that ought to be blamed for misunderstanding Buddhism:
"
It must be recognized that, on the question of Buddhism, it was impossible,
before the work of Coomaraswamy, to say anything other than what I said
about it, which in any case still remains true, if not for original Buddhism
itself, at least for certain more recent schools: otherwise one would have to
admit that it is not I who am wrong, but quite simply Shankarâchârya, to
whose authority I have referred in this regard!"
[Rene Guenon, letter to Frithjof Schuon,October 5, 1950]
In this regard, R.G. states that he refers to both Coomaraswamy and Shankarachaya's authority, yet it's rather confusing, since elsewhere, regarding the origin of "orthodox traditions", this is one of the many things that is usually said:
"
...This brings us directly to the second role of the ‘guardians' of the supreme center, a role that consists, as we have just said, in assuring certain exterior relations and above all, let us add, in maintaining the link between the primordial tradition and the secondary, derived traditions. To this end each traditional form must possess one or more special organizations constituted, to all appearances, within that form itself, but composed of men aware of what lies beyond all 'forms', that is to say of the one doctrine that is the source and essence of all the others, and that is none other than the primordial tradition...
"
[Rene Guenon, Insights into Christian Esotericism, Chapter 3, "Guardians of The Holy Land", page 30.]
And:
"
...In order to complete our consideration of this subject we still must speak of the spiritual centers from which all regular transmission directly or indirectly proceeds, centers themselves connected to the supreme center that preserves the immutable deposit of the primordial tradition from which each traditional form is derived through an adaptation to particular circumstances of time and place. In a previous work we indicated how these spiritual centers are constituted in the image of the supreme center itself, of which they are, as it were, so many reflections; we will therefore not return to that here, but will limit ourselves to examining certain points more immediately related to our present subject.To begin with, the link to the supreme center is clearly indispensable for the continuity of transmission of spiritual influences from the very origins of present humanity (or, rather, from beyond these origins, since what is involved is 'non-human') and throughout the entire duration of its cycle of existence. This is true for everything of a traditional character, even for exoteric organizations, religious or otherwise, at least regarding their point of departure, and it is all the more true for the initiatic order. In addition, this link maintains the inner and essential unity present under diverse formal appearances, and is consequently the fundamental guarantee of ’orthodoxy' in the true sense...
"
[Rene Guenon, Perspectives on Initiation, Chapter 10, "Initiatic Centres", page 60-61.]
It is therefore based on this, that R.G. considers something "orthodox" or "heterodox" and not based on the counsels of Coomaraswamy or Shankaracharya. If there is to be any consistency, then the test for orthodoxy is an identifiable attachment to the supreme centre: marked by a structure that reflects the supreme centre itself and marked by men who are physically present within it and maintain a physical link between it and the supreme centre. There is nothing wholly symbolic about this, it is a literal thing that has a symbolic aspect to it.
Even in 1950, R.G. still insisted that Buddhism, either the original kind or "certain recent schools" failed this test. In fact, in a letter to Evola, he stated that original Buddhism was a revolt that was nonetheless, due to its growing influence, rehabilitated when men connected to Agarttha "added traditional elements into it"(another instance of manipulation...). Coupled with his general bias against Shakti and a spiritual pursuit unhampered by traditional structures, Guenon thus derided Buddhism, seemingly unto his death. (R.G. hesitantly embraced the notion that Shakyamuni might have been the ninth avatara, or part of it, if it had split into 2, its activity being directed to the "mlecchas"/outsiders. This is because in order to be a mleccha, Shakyamuni would have had to be of Scythian origin, born into a group known as the Shakas).
The MicroCosm and the MacroCosm
 |
| All things are in Man |
The rigidity that R.G. creates regarding spiritual realization as has already been stated is linked to the idea and necessity of manipulation, given a discrepancy that exists between beings that agreed to take part in the limited experience of the cosmos and also, the discrepancy between the beings that agreed to be part of it and those that did not. That has been referenced here. An interesting thing about certain buddhist and tantric lineages, is that they offer technical possibilities of spiritual realization seemingly without any attachment to anything. But how is this possible?
According to R.G., the transmission of a spiritual influence, that, as has been quoted, traces itself ultimately to the supreme centre of this earth is necessary for men born today to achieve anything spiritually. Emissaries from Agarttha are always present whenever a genuine initiatic order is being formed, in order to aid in facilitating this transmission from the supreme centre to the particular secondary centre under formation. For a man to awaken spiritually, he requires an attachment to one of these centres in order to receive this influence.
This however, is simply one way of achieving spiritual development. As I have already pointed out elsewhere, the "spiritual influence" is really just that which vivifies a set of symbols (and this vivification is two-fold, the symbol can then be used externally or internally, a mantra is an example of this). These symbols then work to modify man's consciousness, upon which he is able to attain incorporeal states and ultimately, to transcend all states entirely. They are however not the only thing that can bring forth this change. In order to control and manage outer-humanity in general, this particular way of approaching things is convenient, since it ensures that specific societies have harmony and stability and independent action (such as for instance, that of Genghis Khan, when he tried attacking the King of the World...) does not erupt the harmony of these societies which are, with varying adaptation, modeled after Agarttha. Through this particular system, Agarttha's will can easily influence and direct outer-humanity, an example being, for whatever reason, the insistence that nobody ought to use or make a display of any kind of "super-power"...
Based on the principle of correspondence, man possesses within himself all things, including Agarttha, which is really the "Word" (AKaTha), as R.G. himself admits:
"
...By analogy, the 'Centre of the World' is, from a cosmogonic viewpoint, the original point from which the the creative Word is uttered, and is also the Word itself...
"
[Rene Guenon, Insights into Christian Esotericisim, Chapter 3, "Guardians of the Holy Land", page 28].
I already gave clues regarding the solution to the enigma of "Agarttha" in this prior article, so I will not delve into it again here, for brevity's sake. I will however point out that, in the same chapter, R.G. talks about labyrinths, which are connected to the symbolism of stones and consequently, of serpents. In the centre of the labyrinth is Minos, who is Manu, the King of the World. Further the Word and the Serpent are one and the same, or, the Word is a lesser reality that emanates from the Serpent, which is itself Transcendent to all things. This bodes well with what I earlier pointed out in the aforementioned article. Since man is a microcosm of all things, Agarttha, wherein lies the "non-human spiritual influence", is already within him, just as it is in the macrocosm as well. There are different techniques that bring this "non-human spiritual influence" within man into play and when this happens, man's consciousness undergoes transmutations that precede a final transformation, using these two terms as R.G. explained. This "non-human spiritual influence", deep within man's own earthly cavern, is Kundalini, according to the Tantra.
Thus, based on the nature of reality itself, there are different ways of approaching a spiritual development. One can seek the attachments born of spiritual centres, or one can directly awaken the Transcendent Serpent within, Kundalini, whose increasing yoga-power leads ultimately to complete Freedom. For now, I still must be intentionally vague, to a point. However, this is something to ponder on, for whoever is reading these words, if they can understand what is really being said here...
Peace Friends,
ReplyDeleteMy brother is an "Early Buddhist" monk that attempted to live properly "out into homelessness". It worked for a good few years here in Australia, much aided by Indigenous primordial tradition resonant spirits here, we believe. His physical and mental being saw important regeneration while on the road, despite following his strict asceticism faithfully and walking thousands of kilometres barefoot, eating once a day only on food given to him by strangers.
I did feel the call to join him before being as established in stable householder life. Contradictorily, that call to leave all behind has been returning of late, by way of seeing it may be the only way to further deepen that householder basis at this time (by properly connecting it to the Centre?). My brother used to say that the normal Buddhist story of Prince Siddharta leaving his family behind in the middle of the night must be either forgery or missing important context, in that the psychic residue this act would leave behind would make balanced spiritual progress all but impossible. The way to leave would be to have everything closed off properly, like Imam Al Ghazali did before his long soujourn, which meant he was able also to complete a return journey to his old life, renewed.
This complete ascending and descending arc is perhaps non-optional these days, if one is not to "realise" only to contribute to the further the degradation through one's nama-rupa biases. Latent "puritanisms" must be allowed to fall away.
Salaam.
The technical point of this article, is to show why and how it is possible to have a spiritual development without necessarily fulfilling the rigid conditions that people like Rene Guenon have set up.
DeleteThese conditions, which were part of a necessary manipulation, were set up to make it easier for Agartthans to deal with outer-humanity.
As the subheading "The MacroCosm and the MicroCosm" indicates, whatever is outside of man, is also within him. Thus the "non-human spiritual influence" that Rene Guenon states must be gotten from secondary centres (macrocosm, outside man) can however be approached from within (microcosm, within man) and that has been identified as Kundalini. This is neither a belief nor an opinion, it is a certain fact, a fact that Rene Guenon did not explore.
Please let us keep the essence of the discussion relevant to the subject matter.
Regards.
Peace Man,
ReplyDelete"Technical emphasis" is important. Still, perhaps it too is not the only way to approach Kundalini as simple fact. Acceptance of this may assist one away from exasperation at what actually manifests.
At this Hour, playing the man seems to yield much more useful results than just playing the ball. A Feminine specialty.
Salaam.
I will say this with utmost politeness, but these articles are not for you. Please leave them alone as it is clear you do not understand their content.
DeleteI hope that you find whatever it is you are looking for, but you clearly will not find it here.
This is the very last time I will interact with you.
Regards.
Peace Man,
ReplyDeleteGuenon's "East and West" has an excellent overview of precisely what "politeness", utmost or otherwise, constitutes in relation to a person's instantiation of self consistent and coherent Principle. This is that which Guenon believes the West (with rare exceptions of course) lost contact with long ago (p.86):
"The Easterners, who have all a great regard for politeness, are shocked at the unseasonable proselytism as at something grossly vulgar; coming, as it does, to make itself felt in his own country, it amounts even to what is still more serious in their eyes, a breach of laws of hospitality; and Eastern politeness, let it be well understood, is no vain formalism such as the keeping of the entirely outward customs to which the Westerners give the same name: it has, underlying it, far deeper reasons, since it reflects the whole of traditional civilisation, whereas in the West, these reasons have disappeared with the tradition, what remains is strictly speaking no more than superstition, quite apart from the innovations simply due to 'fashion' and to its unjustifiable whims, which amounts to mere parody."
For example, do you perceive that what you write here, whatever you believe about what you or I believe, in any way can be considered "giving face"? Victorian flavoured etiquette has very key differences to Eastern understandings. The necessity of veils.
I truly had no intentions to disrupt what you wished to do here and I do encourage you to continue. I pledge to you that I will no longer write on here publicly just in case it is any disruption to your project.
Salaam.