Hello,
Evola agreed with most Indological scholars on this question: "This
current (Shakism), in fact, has archaic sources of foreign origin and
refers to a background of autochthonous spirituality which shows clear
resemblances with that of the proto-historical, Pelasgic and pre-
Hellenic Mediterranean world (...). In this substratum, which refers
to the Dravidian populations of India and, in part, to even more
ancient civilisations (...), the cult of a great goddess or Universal
Mother (Magna Mater) was a central motif and assumed an importance
which was completely unknown to Aryo-Vedic tradition and its
essentially virile and patriarchal-oriented spirituality. It is
precisely this cult which, latent during the period of Aryan (Indo-
European) conquest and colonisation, appeared again in Tantrism (...).
Here (in Kashmir Tantrism), the Shakti has almost completely lost its
maternal and matriarchal original characters, has assumed the
metaphysical features of the Prime Principle and is thus closely linked
to the doctrines of the Upanishad and of Mahayana Buddhism (...)."
According to Shaktism, power is the ultimate principle of the world.
Now, this is precisely the conception developed on the philosophical
plane by Evola in 'Teoria e fenomenologia dell'Individuo Assoluto', at
a time when his conceptions had already started to shift to a higher
plane, with 'The Yoga of Power', from the second edition of which these
lines are taken.
"In this essay, Evola adds, we have assumed the same method and the
same rules as we did in our other works: we will remain at the same
distance from insipid and bidimensional expositions of academic
Orientalism and from the raving of contemporary 'occultists'
and 'spiritualists'" Are these the methods and the rules of a man
fascinated by the object of his studies?
Thompkins&Cariou
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "brightimperator"
<brightimperator@y...> wrote:
> For a man who denounces the modern world for its "matriarchal lunar"
> character and whose entire 'hermeneutics' is based on the notion of
> Aryan solarity, I find Evola's fascination with Tantrism quite
> strange. The austere Indo-Europeans who invaded India had nothing to
> do with this type of debasing philosophy. All Indological scholars
> agree Tantrism represents a re-emergence of the subdued pre-Aryan
> civilization of the negroidal Dravidians resident in the south of
> India. The conquering Europids called these negroidal phallus-
> worshippers DASA. The Indo-Aryan Vedic culture thought these DASA
> were "riteless" and "slavish", and accordingly treated them with
> total contempt, mercilessly enslaving them, resulting in their
> present status as SHUDRAS, or laborers. The Dravidian philosophy and
> its barbaric Shiva cultus can be read about in the Mahanirvana Tantra,
> and other Tantrik texts.
>
> Could anyone explain Evola's rationale in allowing Tantrik ideas to
> play an important role in his philosophical economy?