"The only point we must take with a grain of salt in the texts is the
affirmation that in individuals of all castes all possible
potentialities, both positive and negative, exist in equal measure
(Majjh., 96)." "But, Evola adds, the Buddhist theory of sankhâra,
that is, of prenatal predispositions, is enough to rectify this
point. The exclusiveness of caste, race, and tradition in a
hierarchical system results in the individual possessing hereditary
predispositions for this development in a particular direction; this
ensures an organic and harmonious character in his development, as
opposed to the cases in which an attempt is made to reach the same
point with a kind of violence, by starting from a naturally
unfavorable base." (p.35)
From p.32 to that page, Evola goes though the arguments on the basis
of which an accusation of 'spiritual egalitarianism' is levelled
against Buddhism, and he dismisses them one after the other ; whether
they are convincing or not, his considerations on this matter can
hardly be said to be casual. Some of his clarifications, however,
don't really manage to resolve what looks like a contradiction of the
teachings of early Buddhism. "The problem, Evola writes, only
concerns the spiritual apex of the Aryan hierarchy, where historical
conditions required discrimination and revision of the matter; it was
necessary that the "lists" should be reviewed and reconstructed, with
the traditional dignities being considered real only on the "merits
of the individual cases". It seems to us that this consideration, as
well as others in the same chapter, refers to the fact that in the
kali-yuga, just as, on the racial plane, the race of the body doesn't
always correspond to the race of the soul and the race of the spirit
in a given individual, so, on the social plane, not all individuals
are born in the caste in which they should be born with respect to
their vocation and their qualification ; in short, to the involutive
phenomenon of the 'castes mixing'. In this case, and only in this
case, this "discrimination" and this "revision" are fully justified.
But, then, it would seem that, instead of not "upsetting the caste
system on the ethnic, political, or social plane", a caste system
which was already 'unjust' in the metaphysical sense, early Buddhist
teachings should have called it into question.
In any case, if the doctrine of awakening is to be seen as having
promoted 'spiritual egalitarianism', Christianity was far ahead of
its time in this respect. Likewise, when it comes to the precept
of 'non-killing', Judaism was far ahead of its time. In the doctrine
of awakening, however, this precept, as you know, is not conceived of
from a moral standpoint. In Buddhism, "as in every truly traditional
teaching, ethics have a purely instrumental value and are therefore
conditioned" (p.119). Now, if it is considered as an end-in-itself
and it is applied to the social plane, its unavoidable results are
those you indicate. This is precisely why applying principles of a
spiritual order to lower orders is at the root of any
subversion : "Diabolus Deus inversus" : "evil is not so much the
result of a negation as the inversion and the perversion of a higher
order" ('Sulla storia segreta della sovversione'). This fundamental
point cannot be emphasised enough. Those who are not fully aware of
it are exposed to all sorts of confusions and mistake genuine
traditional teachings for their modern caricature.
Still in 'Sulla storia segreta della sovversione', Evola gives an
edifying example of the consequences of this process of
inversion : 'On the plane of nature, equality is a nonsense : in
nature, there is nothing 'equal'. On a higher plane, we should speak
not so much of 'equality' as of 'parity'. Once again, this refers to
essentially aristocratic values. 'Parity' had a legitimate and virile
value only among 'free-men' and 'nobles', beyond any difference of
nature (...) The democratisation and the inversion of this idea has
led on the contrary to the equalitarian 'immortal principle' as
instrument of world-wide subversion."
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "brightimperator"
<brightimperator@y...> wrote:
>
> The recent and excellent translation of the first chapter of
Evola's
> "The Doctrine of Awakening" has re-awakened certain questions in a
> seeker's mind.
>
> In the chapter, "The Historical Context of the Doctrine of
> Awakening", Evola states: "The only point we must take with a grain
> of salt in the texts is the affirmation that in individuals of all
> castes all possible potentialities, both positive and negative,
> exist in equal measure (Majjh., 96)."
>
> But isn't this innovating "spiritual egalitarianism" Evola casually
> dismisses as an insignificant error one of the central premises
> specifically characterizing Buddhism?
>
> Similarly, in discussing another central premise of Buddhism in the
> Chapter "Rightness", Evola argues that the Buddhist doctrine of non-
> killing has only a marginal and conditional value. Is this true to
> the spirit of Buddhism? Buddhism seems to have let fall the sword
of
> transcendental justice found in the Aryan Bhagavad-Gita. Wouldn't
> adopting the Buddhist ahimsa code invalidate the criminal justice
> systems of the world and lead to the dysgenic proliferation and
> usurpation of subhuman miscreants?
>
> As Evola challenges the two fundamental and innovating teachings of
> Buddhism, its spiritual antihierarchicalism and its antimartial
> emphasis, is he perhaps over-idealistic in his treatment of this
> religion?
>