Esoterism / Traditionalism / Inward Focus -- general thread

[basketweaver]

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10570319909374653?journalCode=rwjc20


hahaha holy shit, that's modern existence

[basketweaver]

gonna post some Schuon shit ITT in this post. gonna edit with more quotes later.

http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/The_Contradiction_of_Relativism-by_Frithjof_Schuon.aspx

Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is no truth as if this were truth or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true; one might just as well say that there is no language or write that there is no writing. In short, every idea is reduced to a relativity of some sort, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion nullifies itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity. The assertion nullifies itself if it is true and by nullifying itself logically proves thereby that it is false; its initial absurdity lies in the implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by enchantment, from a relativity that is declared to be the only possibility.

Be that as it may, one of the noteworthy traits of the twentieth century is the confusion, now habitual, between evolution and decadence: there is no decadence, no impoverishment, no falsification that people do not try to excuse with the aid of the relativistic argument of "evolution", reinforced as this is by the most inappropriate and erroneous associations. Thus relativism, cleverly instilled into public opinion, paves the way for all kinds of corruption while at the same time keeping watch lest any kind of healthy reaction might put the brakes on this slide toward the abyss.

A patent example of the classic contradiction in question here—a contradiction characterizing for the most part all modern thought—is provided by existentialism, which postulates a definition of the world that is impossible if existentialism itself is possible. There are only two alternatives: either objective knowledge—a knowledge that is therefore absolute in its own order—is possible, which proves that existentialism is false; or else existentialism is true, but then its own promulgation is impossible since in the existentialist universe there is no room for an objective and unwavering intellection.

This capacity for objectivity and absoluteness amounts to an existential—and "preventive"—refutation of the ideologies of doubt: if a man is able to doubt, it is because there is certainty; likewise the very notion of illusion proves that man has access to reality. It follows that there are necessarily some men who know reality and who therefore have certainty; and the great spokesmen of this knowledge and certainty are necessarily the best of men.

There is a moral relativism that is truly odious: if you say that God and the beyond are real, this shows you are cowardly, dishonest, infantile, shamefully abnormal; if you say that religion is just make-believe, this shows you are courageous, honest, sincere, adult, altogether normal. If all this were true, man would be nothing, possessing the capacity for neither truthfulness nor heroism; and there would be no one even to note the fact, for a hero cannot be extracted from a coward nor a sage from a man of feeble mind—not even by "evolution". But this moralistic bias, ignoble or simply stupid as the case may be, is by no means something new: before it was applied to intellectual positions, it was used to discredit the contemplative life, which was described as an "escape", as if a man did not have the right to flee from dangers concerning him alone and—more important—as though the contemplative life and withdrawal from the world were not instead a pilgrimage toward God; to flee God as do the worldly is far more senseless and irresponsible than fleeing the world. To run away from God is at the same time to run away from oneself, for when a man is alone with himself—even though he may be surrounded by others—he is always with his Creator, whom he encounters at the very root of his being.

Relativism engenders a spirit of rebellion and is at the same time its fruit. The spirit of rebellion, unlike holy anger, is not a passing state, nor is it directed against some worldly abuse; on the contrary it is a chronic malady directed against Heaven and against everything that represents Heaven or is a reminder of it. When Lao Tzu said that "in the latter days the man of virtue appears vile", he had in mind the rebellious spirit that characterizes our time; but for psychological and existentialist relativism, which by definition always seeks to justify the crude ego, this spiritual state is normal, and it is its absence that amounts to disease, whence the abolition of the sense of sin. The sense of sin is the consciousness of an equilibrium surpassing our personal will and operating ultimately for the benefit of our integral personality and that of the human collectivity, even though occasionally wounding us; this sense of sin goes hand in hand with a sense of the sacred, which is an instinct for what surpasses us—for what should therefore not be touched by ignorant and iconoclastic hands.

http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/The_Ambiguity_of_Exoterism-by_Frithjof_Schuon.aspx

Cathedrals often, and perhaps even always, comprise intentional irregularities signifying that God alone is perfect and capable of perfection; that human works, like man himself, are necessarily imperfect.  And this applies to the entire universe, hence to all that is not God; "Why callest thou me good?" said Christ.  It is not surprising, therefore, that this principle also includes the domain of the sacred — we have just mentioned cathedrals — and above all religions themselves; thus humility as well as the sense of reality demand that we not be scandalized disproportionately by the dissonances we may encounter in celestial ambiences on earth; that we not be shocked, for example, by particular "providential excesses."  The natural shadows, in a particular earthly beauty, do not prevent us from seeing that it is still beauty; to see it with gratitude and to sense that the earthly reflection transmits a flawless archetype.  Since he who judges is himself not exempt from imperfection and must be aware of it, by what right and with what logic would he require that other cosmic phenomena be exempt from it?  "God alone is good."

Dogmatic exoterism, as we have mentioned more than once, exhibits providential limitations determined by its mission and thus by its reason for being;  to begin with, it excludes the idea of universal relativity — of Māyā — and therefore is unaware of the diverse and at times antinomic aspects of things, as well as of the points of view which take them into account; this amounts to saying that it identifies itself with a particular point of view determined by a particular aspect.  By excluding the notion of Māyā, exoterism situates itself entirely within Māyā, the summit of which is the personal God who creates and legislates; Paramātmā, the supreme Self — Boehme's Ungrund  — could not produce a world or found a religion.  But religion could not be closed to the total truth, for God is one, and where the Divine Person is, there also is the Divine Essence;[1] the latter is accessible through esoterism, precisely, by full right and despite a certain inevitable opposition on the part of the exoteric framework.

One has to realize that outward religion is not disinterested; it wants to save souls, no more no less, and at the cost of the truths that do not serve its holy strategy.  Sapience, by contrast, wants only the truth, and the truth necessarily coincides with our final interests because it coincides with the Sovereign Good.

In descending into a collective soul, the Divine Word becomes refracted into the possibilities of this soul:  it becomes Judaized, Arabized, Hinduized or Mongolized, according to case; and in making itself human it cannot maintain, in every respect or modality, its original majesty and beauty; the human requires the little and the ambiguous and cannot live without it; but greatness, transcendence and harmony without admixture subsist always in the supernatural substance of the revealed Word.  Christ is "true man and true God"; the same is true for every Revelation;  it is this that must never be forgotten when one encounters elements that at first sight seem too human — to the point of seeming unlikely — in the variform stream of the divine Messages.

To understand, at least morally, certain apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, the following principial situation must be borne in mind:  Divine All‑Possibility, ontologically "prior" to the Divine Personification, pours into creation what is ontologically possible; it is a manifestation of Infinitude, and necessarily involves contrasting and amoral aspects because in a certain manner it includes the impossible, owing to the limitlessness of Possibility itself; whereas the Divine Personification, which hypostatically reflects the essential Goodness of the Essence, coordinates the chaos of possibilities and "desires" the good, whence precisely the half‑divine, half‑human phenomenon that is Revelation.

A typical feature of the monotheistic exoterisms is their dogmatization of theological speculations; it is the fixed prejudice that not only wishes to "dot all the i's," but to do so at the level of "faith," and hence of dogmatic constraint —  this being the role of the councils and of promulgations ex cathedra — whereas it would suffice in many a case to let the scriptural enunciations stand as they are, in a holy indetermination that excludes no aspect of truth and does not crystallize one aspect to the detriment of the others.  In fact, the evil here lies less in the existence of speculations and precisions — for men cannot be prevented from thinking — than in their dogmatic fixation; one threatens with hell not only those who doubt God and immortality, but also those who dare doubt some exorbitant theological conclusion; and this threat is all the less plausible in that one postulates the incomprehensibility of God and always holds in reserve this begging of the question that is "mystery."  The more one adds precisions ex cathedra, the more one increases the chances of scission and the risks of persecution, which would not be the case if one remained content with a level of "admissible" or "probable opinions" in varying degrees.[5]   There is no point in objecting that pure metaphysicians do as much, for it is not the action of explaining or specifying which is at issue here, but the formalistic and therefore restrictive character of the specification, and above all the constraining dogmatization that is added to it, and that in no way forms part of the intentions and functions of pure and disinterested knowledge.[6]

Given its mission, exoterism has to take into account the weaknesses of men, and thus also, be it said without euphemism, their stupidity; like it or not, it must itself take on something of these shortcomings, or at least it must allow them some room, on pain of not being able to survive in human surroundings.  Thus one must not be too surprised, nor above all scandalized, at the paradoxical phenomenon of pious stupidity; certainly, this phenomenon is far from being harmless, for it sometimes affects the canonical domain, but it cannot but exist since religion addresses itself to everyone and everyone must be able to recognize himself in it, if one may so express matters.  A climate of religious belief appeals to emotivity, and emotivity is obviously opposed to perfect objectivity, at least when it goes beyond its rightful limits; when it does so, excessive emotivity damages the power of reflection or even —  with all due reservations — intelligence itself, while plainly favoring a fundamental sentimentalism, extending from an initial biased attitude to harmless prejudices.[7]   However:  remove emotivity from religion and you kill it; moreover, a stream has need of banks in order to flow, and thus it is that exoterism, or the religious form, has need of limitations in order to be a living influence; "grasp all, lose all," as a proverb has it.

The exoterist mentality is largely the result of associations of ideas inspired by religious imagery:  for example, in Islam, the sun does not enjoy an unmixed prestige, because of the danger of becoming a rival with God and because of the sun‑worship which existed in the Near East, and this is attested to by certain symbolisms very unflattering to the sun.  Aside from this imagery, and prior to it, the Koran speaks of the sun, moon and stars as slaves upon whom God has imposed forced labor (sakhara) in the service of men, and it moreover enjoins men not to bow down to the heavenly bodies; thus it is considered advisable, whenever one looks upon the sun or the moon, to say that "God is greater" (Allāhu akbar).  Analogous remarks apply to fire:  whereas for the Indo‑Iranian, or simply Aryan traditions, fire is sacred like the sun — Agni and Surya being theophanies —  in the monotheism of the Semites it takes on a baleful coloration because of its association with hell.[8]   Christianity, which is not based upon jealous zeal for Unity, does not have such worries in relation to the sun, as is proved by the "Canticle to the Sun" of St. Francis of Assisi; for the Christian, it is all too evident that the sun is not God or that it is not Christ; thus he can love the sun in all innocence and without the least complex of guilt.  A question that arises here incidentally is the following:  would a Westerner who has serious motives for following the Sufic path be obliged to adopt the Muslim attitude towards the royal orb? — we chose this example among others — that is, should he feel obliged to experience an imaginative and sentimental reaction that he does not have and cannot have?  Clearly not, and all the more so since essential Sufism would not require it; for the confessional mentality is one thing, and spiritual realization, another.

The only plausible explanation for the theological excesses of an 'Ashari — aside from religious zeal — is the principle of "functional" truth — not "informative" truth — of which we have spoken above; what is "true" is not necessarily what gives an adequate account of a reality, but what serves a particular psychological purpose in view of salvation and in relation to a particular mentality.  From this standpoint, heresy is not objective error, it is subjective inopportuneness:  it is better to reach Paradise with a limb missing than to be thrown into hell with all of one's limbs; this principle, purely moral and mystical in the intention of Christ, becomes intellectual or doctrinal in the domain of certain theological speculations.  If 'Ashari maintains that fire does not burn by its own nature, that it burns only because God decides to bring about the burning, this is because the faithful have to be convinced that "God is without associate," despite the evidence that He surrounds Himself with Angels and Prophets;[11] and if this same doctrine goes so far as to affirm that evil comes from God, otherwise it could not occur, or that God can impose obligations that man is incapable of accomplishing, or that God can make a creature suffer — or even punish it — for no reason and without compensation, or that, being free from all obligation, He can do "what He wills" with man, and that consequently it would not be unjust for Him to send the good to hell and the bad to Paradise[12] — if the Asharite doctrine upholds such enormities, this is, at bottom, in order to wage preventive warfare against certain vicious predispositions of man, rightly or wrongly, and in the context of a particular mentality — doubtless heroic, but prone to heedlessness and insubordination.[13]

And it is normally one of the functions of esoterism, not to play the mufti or the pandit, but as far as possible to bring visible forms as well as moral behaviors back to the serenity of a Paradise lost, but still accessible in the depth of our hearts.

When two religions have to exist side by side, as in India, or in Palestine at the time of the Crusades, two things happen:  on the one hand a stiffening on the part of the formal religion, and on the other a greater flexibility and a certain interpenetration in the domain of spirituality; it is true that religions exist side by side everywhere, but what we have in mind here are those cases where there is virulent antagonism, unmitigated by habit and indifference.  A crucial truth emerges from such confrontations and reciprocities:  when a man has grasped the validity of a religion other than his own — which comprehension results from concrete experience as much as from intellectual intuition — God cannot but take into account the widening of this man's spiritual perspective and the awareness he will have of the relativity of forms as such; God, therefore, will absolutely not demand of him what he asks of believers who are totally enclosed in the formal system of their religion, yet at the same time He will make new demands.  Knowledge is not a gift that entails no obligations, for all knowledge has its price; the "minus" on the side of formal religion will have to be compensated by a "plus" on the side of non‑formal religion, which coincides with the sophia perennis.

Esoterism, with its three dimensions of metaphysical discernment, mystical concentration and moral conformity, contains in the final analysis the only things that Heaven demands in an absolute fashion, all other demands being relative and therefore more or less conditional.  The proof of this is that a man who would have no more than a few moments left to live could do nothing more than:  firstly, look towards God with his intelligence; secondly, call upon God with his will; thirdly, love God with all his soul, and in loving Him realize every possible virtue.  One may be surprised at this coincidence between what is most elementarily human and what pertains quintessentially to the highest wisdom, but what is most simple retraces precisely what is highest; extremitates aequalitates, "extremes meet."

http://omarshahid.co.uk/2013/10/18/frithjof-schuon-on-why-many-atheists-reject-god/

"Now if one proceeds from the idea that exoterists do not understand esoterism and that they have in fact a right not to understand it or even consider it nonexistent, one must also recognise their right to condemn certain manifestations of esoterism that seem to encroach on their own territory and cause "offence", to use the Gospel expression; but how is one to explain the fact that in most, if not all, cases of this nature, the accusers divest themselves of this right by the iniquitous manner in which they proceed? It is certainly not their more or less natural incomprehension, nor the defense of their genuine right, but solely the perfidiousness of the means that they employ...this perfidiousness proves, moreover, that the accusations that they find it necessary to formulate, generally serve only as as pretext for gratifying an instinctive hatred of everything that seems to threaten their superficial equilibrium, which is really only a form of individualism, therefore of ignorance."

"One may ask why so much stupidity and bad faith are to be found in religious polemics, even among men who are otherwise free from such failings; this is a sure sign that the majority of these polemics are tainted with the "sin against the Holy Ghost." No blame can be attached to a person for attacking a foreign religion in the name of his own belief, if it is done purely and simply through ignorance; when, however, this is not the case, the person will be guilty of blasphemy, since, by outraging the Divine Truth in an alien form, he is merely profiting by an opportunity to offend God without having to trouble his own conscience. This is the real explanation of the gross and impure zeal displayed by those who, in the name of their religious convictions, devote their lives to making sacred things appear odious, a task they can only accomplish by contemptible methods."

[basketweaver]

"There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one; the regeneration of the inner man.
How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself."

Tolstoy

[Bamyasi]

That was some good Shuon (chk-chk hand).

I think relativism is so pervasive because it's the easiest cop-out response to having one's cultural associations called into question (Globalism). People who are quickest to adopt it I think secretly believe the cultural fabric they sewed their identity from would survive absolute relativism at the expense of every other, i.e. relativism is intrinsically weaponized, a means of augmenting one's culture against the threat of equally relativistic claims from the Other.

It reminds me of a recent story in the news in which an American college student was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for attempting to steal a North Korean flag as memorabilia. There were a bunch of strong, independent, post-colonial Black women in the comments basically defending the NK court's decision because quote: "It's important to respect other cultures when you visit other countries." I mean obviously they're right and stealing is wrong but you'd have to be an idiot not to see that the punishment doesn't suit the crime: exactly the same reason for all those BLM protests. So it's okay when the North Korean government does it, but not the American one? Doesn't it make more sense to say it's wrong in both cases? It's mental gymnastics.

I wasn't quite sold on his logical take-down of relativism but I was by this part:

The opposite, or rather the primordial and normative, attitude is this: to think only in reference to what surpasses us and to live for the sake of surpassing ourselves; to seek greatness where this is to be found and not on the plane of the individual and his rebellious pettiness. In order to return to true greatness, man must first of all agree to pay the debt of his pettiness and to remain small on the plane where he cannot help being small; the sense of what is objective on the one hand and of the absolute on the other does not go without a certain abnegation, and it is this abnegation precisely that allows us to be completely faithful to our human vocation.

I think the only real way to combat relativism is to frame it in terms of effect, because really there's no way to rationally disprove it. Arguments against it only make it stronger imo.

I'm reminded of this quote by Eco (R.I.P):

When men stop believing in God, it isn't that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything.

The other two essays flew right over my head but I'll come back to them.