We think that if a Western tradition could be rebuilt it would be bound to take on a religious form in the strictest sense of this word, and that this form could only be Christian; for on the one hand the other possible forms have been too long foreign to the Western mentality, and on the other it is only in Christianity—and we can say still more definitely in Catholicism—that such remnants of a traditional spirit as still exist in the West are to be found. Every ‘traditionalist’ venture that ignores this fact is without foundation and therefore inevitably doomed to failure; it is self-evident that one can build only upon something that has a real existence, and that where there is lack of continuity, any reconstruction must be artificial and cannot endure. ~ Rene Guenon, The Crisis of the Modern World

As we get close to the end, it is good to emphasize Guenon’s point yet again. The whole purpose of Gornahoor is to go back down to the foundations of the Western Tradition to see how it can possibly be rebuilt. This actually involves two interrelated task:

Going beyond the outward form of the Tradition to recover its inner meaning Developing a real knowledge of Eastern doctrines

The second task serves as a corrective to the first. In other words, Eastern doctrines may serve as the key to extract the inner meanings from the first task. Moreover, “foundations” include the ancient Greek, Roman, Nordic, and Celtic elements that had been assimilated into Christianity. In particular, the Middle Ages, being closest to us in space and time, even if different in terms of intellectuality, are vital to this process of rebuilding. Although there is considerable resistance to this project, even from those who consider themselves “traditional”, Guenon is hardly sanguine about alternatives. He writes:

The least fantastic venture, in fact the only one that does not come up against immediate impossibilities, would therefore be an attempt to restore something comparable to what existed in the Middle Ages, with the differences demanded by modifications in the circumstances; and for all that has been completely lost in the West, it would be necessary to draw upon the traditions that have been preserved in their entirety, as we stated above, and, having done so, to undertake the task of adaptation, which could be the work only of a powerfully established intellectual elite. All this we have said before, but it is useful to insist on it again because too many inconsistent fantasies are given free rein at present.

Some of those fantasies, and objections, can be described as follows.

Confusion with Church Organization

Catholicism, as the Western Tradition, stands on its own. Besides Holy Scriptures, the place to find it is in the writings of the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Church, inter alia. One of the roles of the Bishops is to preach and hand down that tradition. Some may perform that role better than others. However, they do not “own” the Tradition. All too many people presume that Catholicism is just about the church organization. If a bishop is mistaken, or acts badly, that means nothing for understanding the Tradition.

Presentism

Catholicism has very deep roots and cannot be limited to the acts and opinions of Church leaders today. That is not what we, nor Guenon, are referring to. On the contrary, we should not be surprised since Guenon explicitly denies that contemporary church leadership has an in depth understanding of Tradition.

Confusion about Orthodoxy

From the point of view of the esoteric Tradition, Catholicism refers also to Orthodoxy. That is a single Tradition, even if there are now competing church structures on the exoteric level. A heresy is a break from tradition, but a schism is not.

Syncretism and Indifferentism

Guenon is not advocating syncretism, i.e., the arbitrary combining of elements from disparate traditions. Nor should one be indifferent to his own Tradition. Nevertheless, at the true intellectual level there can be fruitful interaction. This is nothing new. Gornahoor has amply documented how pagan Greek ideas influenced the Fathers. The Schoolmen were quite willing to engage in dialogue with Jewish, Muslim, and Pagan thinkers.

Paganism

There is no religion called “paganism”, so a return to it is impossible. What it means today is “non-Christian” or more usually, “anti-Christian”. Such movements are useless, fantastic ventures, with no intellectual depth. If you fantasize about creating a post-Christian Tradition, then you would still need to pick and choose those elements from the Christian Tradition to assimilate.

Turning East

Engaging with Eastern doctrines is not the same thing as “converting” to the outward forms of an Eastern religion. In almost all cases, this means adhering to the religion of your forefathers. It is a bourgeois conceit to believe that you can change your religion, something that would have made as little sense to an ancient as changing one’s sex or race would have.

False Traditionalism

[“traditionalists” refer] to people who only have a sort of tendency or aspiration towards tradition without really knowing anything at all about it; this is the measure of the distance dividing the “traditionalist” spirit from the truly traditional spirit, for the latter implies a real knowledge…

Let Guenon’s words really sink in. There are many who call themselves “Traditionalists”, as if it were no more than one philosophical, or even worse “political”, movement among many. Someone may say he “converted” to Traditionalism, or from Traditionalism to some other religion. That is impossible, like a chef saying he converted from reading cookbooks to actually cooking food. Such men know nothing at all, so stay away from them.

Tradition is the normal state of human culture, in almost all times and places. It is the “civilization of space”, as Evola put it in Civilizations of Space and Civilizations of Time. There is only the question of recognizing it or not.

Hence, the normal situation is to follow a Tradition; that is what makes a “traditionalist”. It is a state of being, not a system of thought. At some point he may discover Guenon, which helps him understand his own Tradition in much more depth.

Forgetting Being

Heidegger made one good point about the forgetfulness of Being. That means we have exchanged the idea of something for the thing itself. For example, I’ve known many who are enamored with the idea of being a Buddhist, but few, if any, who strive to purify the mind to perfectly reflect the Buddha nature. As Dogen pointed out, just calling yourself a Buddhist does not lead to enlightenment without proper practice.

This forgetfulness is the result of embracing nominalism rather than realism. For the nominalist, what matters is the “name” of things. A Buddhist is just someone who claims to be. However, the one thing needful is a real change in Being. That requires an inner transformation from a state of less being to more being. Specifically, that means the actualization of one’s possibilities. As you are now, your Real Self and True Will are only virtual and need to be realized.

Addiction to Thinking

Like sex, food, or drugs, we can become addicted to thinking. It makes us unfree, since we live a factitious life in our mind that may have little contact with reality. The lower intellect is mechanical. It responds to an idea with either a “like” or a “dislike”; for proof, just look at how popular facebook has become just on that notion.

It also works on Yes and No. If Tom says Yes to an idea, then Jerry feels compelled to say No and start an argument.

Thought is corrosive of systems whenever it sets itself up as the supreme judge. Yet, there is a knowing that transcends mere rational thinking. Is it better to be courageous or to know how to define it? Is it better to be just or to argue about it?

Purification of the mind is necessary to think well. It will never suffice to explain an idea clearly, logically, and with compelling evidence as long as “the reason is perverted by passion, or evil habit, or an evil disposition of nature”.

Religion teaches us how to transcend our passions, evil habits, and bad dispositions. It is much more than a system of thought. One’s nominal affiliation proves nothing. You can argue, if you like, about religious or metaphysical ideas. I, on the other hand, am more interested in whether you follow the (traditional) religion of your fathers, have a male priesthood, and pray for the dead. That is Being.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook



Like this: Like Loading...