On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, evola_as_he_is wrote:
> It is sufficient to be born a Jew to be a Jew ; no 'second birth' is
> required in this case.
Can you elaborate on this point? What about Anglos that adopted Judiasm
or Jews that reject Judiasm? I'm curious about the Evolian view on this
matter.
>
> It is essential to understand what is meant exactly by 'dvija'
> (twice-born) in the Hindu context. At least in historical times,
> 'Upanayana' is merely the ceremony in which a guru initiates a boy
> into one of the three twice-born castes by investing him with the
> sacred thread, and by teaching him the Brahma-gayatri mantra,
> whereupon he becomes eligible to study the Vedas under his guru.
> 'Upanayana' does start the process of second birth, but it does not
> guarantee continuity in that second birth, unless one continues to
> adhere to the principles of what is commonly called 'knowledge' in
> modern esotericist circles.
>
> Still in historical times, to be 'twice-born' does not mean at all
> what Evola understood by this, that is, a qualitative change of level
> of consciousness leading to unconditioned states of being, a change of
> level which, by definition, is irreversible, once reached. Then, how
> comes the 'Bhagavata Purana' (7.11.35) states : "If a person who has
> become a brahmin moves away from his brahminical duties, then he is no
> more a Brahmin"? How come even members of the third caste - Vaishya -
> could be 'twice-born'?
>
> As early as then, 'upayana' meant "a scheme of education framed (...)
> to initiate the young men for preparing them for full citizenship of
> the community" (
http://www.sanathanadharma.com/samskaras/edu1.htm),
> and 'nothing more'. We put it in quotation marks, since, then,
> citizenship still meant racial homogeneity. The Hindu hierarchy was
> still based on race and on racial purity. However, the (social)
> function of individuals tended to take the upper hand over their
> nature (their race in the totalising sense), while their (social)
> function no longer corresponded to their nature.
>
> In any case, ancient Aryans still remain the only people to have
> realised that the race of the body does not necessarily correspond to
> the race of the soul and to the race of the spirit, and to have taken
> steps to remedy this as far as possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I can't speak for Jews, they have their own destiny to work out.
>>
>>
>>
>> But doesn't the same apply to so-called "Aryans"? Again in Sintesi,
> Evola
>> explains that race is not simply a biological category. It is not
> sufficient
>> to be born "white" to be an Aryan; a "second birth" is also
> required, that
>> is, a spiritual realisation of one's identity on a higher plane.
>>
>>
>>
>> Men, such as they are, will mate with anyone, including each other.
> In the
>> United States a few months back, a man was even arrested for having
>> intercourse with a dead deer by the side of the road.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is why some effort at detachment from the immediacy of life is
>> absolutely necessary in order to understand anything at all. Even if one
>> manages to gain some understanding on the physical plane, without
> sufficient
>> spiritual effort, nothing positive can ever come from it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com]
>> On Behalf Of G
>> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:55 PM
>> To:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [SPAM][evola_as_he_is] Re: Jews and Japanese
>>
>>
>>
>> How would one explain the fact that some Jews wish to remain racially
>> "pure", not wanting to have a relationship/marriage with non-Jews, and
>> some having no problem having a relationship/marriage with non-Jews?
>>
>> Is this a matter of betting on a different horse, so to speak?
>>
>> --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
>> <mailto:evola_as_he_is%40yahoogroups.com> , "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> RE: "J. Evola never called himself a traditionalist."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This may very well be true since "traditionalism" represents no
> body of
>>> knowledge, nor school of thought, nor creed to believe; hence it
>> makes no
>>> sense to call oneself a "traditionalist."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> However, the word is one thing and reality another. In "Sintesi di
>> dottrina
>>> della razza", Evola writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "the precise, strict, objective knowledge of the spirit of the
>> primordial
>>> traditions must be the decisive factor" (that is, in the discussion of
>>> race).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is worth quoting the section in full:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "It is necessary to stay attentive and not fall into the
>> misunderstandings
>>> and errors that we mentioned [i.e., about neopaganism], which
>> basically only
>>> play into the hands of common enemies. In such an eventuality, a man
>> must
>>> put himself on a level where doctrinal confusion is not allowed in,
>> where
>>> every dilettantism and every arbitrary intellectual exercise is
>> excluded,
>>> where every subjection to confused, passionate impulses and polemical
>>> animosities must be forcibly fought off, where, finally and above
>> all, only
>>> the precise, strict, objective knowledge of the spirit of the
> primordial
>>> traditions must be the decisive factor." (p 137-138)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, Revilo P. Oliver is a neopagan and not at that level.
>> Caveat
>>> emptor.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>