The priestly prevarication

Expand Messages
  • evola_as_he_is
    The arguments put forward by Evola in « Action, Contemplation and the Western Tradition
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 20, 2018

      The arguments put forward by Evola in « Action, Contemplation and the Western Tradition (https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/action-contemplation-and-the-western-tradition/) to show that action is best suited than contemplation to the nature of the White man receives significant confirmation from the conclusions reached on the origin of the Brahmanic institution by the British Orientalist F. E. Pargiter (1852-1927) in a landmark study based on the examination of the dynasties listed in the Mahâbhârata and the Purânas, conclusions whose significance far transcend the question, that constituted a casus bellum for Guénon and Evola, to such an extent that the former once suspected the latter was more or less at the mercy of the forces of « counter-initiation », of whether the sacerdotal caste or the warrior caste is higher in dignity. 


      Chapter XXVI, entitled « The Ancient Brahmans and the Veda », opens with a reminder  (Ancient Indian Historica Tradition, Oxford University Press, Londres, 1922, https://archive.org/details/ancientindianhis00parguoft, p. 303) : « Something may be discovered frota historical tradition about the condition of the earhest brahmans and about the composition of the Rig-veda and the other Vedas. Here we must premise that it is futile to expect to learn the truth about these matters from the priestly literature, because that was composed after the brahmans had put forward their pretensions about themselves and the Veda. Naturally they would set out therein their own version of what they then held (and what they wished others to believe) about these matters, and would say nothing that would stultify the same, as they actually did with regard to Visvamitra. Facts or traditions that proved awkward for their developed pretensions would not be admitted, as has been pointed out with regard to Vyasa and the ksatriyan brahmans . There was nothing strange in such conduct. It was simply what priesthood has not seldom done,^ and the brahmans formed a priestly caste supreme in position and education, pride and influence. The views here put forward were not reached through any preconceived speculation, but evolved themselves gradually out of all the preceding investigation, and are all based on definite statements which are cited. They are all drawn from traditions, which could not have been fabricated in late times, as will appear, but are ancient, and of which the brahmans have been the custodians for more than two thousand years. They are a signal illustration of the fact, that the Puranic and Epic brahmans preserved ancient traditions, quite unconscious that those traditions often belied the brahmanic pretensions which were developed later. »


      The heart of the matter is swiftly reached : « Brahmanism [...] originally was not an Aila [the nominal form of « arya »] or Aryan institution. The earliest brahmans were connected with the non-Aryan peoples, and were established among them when the Ailas entered » (op. cit., p. 306). The same goes with rishis (op. cit., 312). Originally, Alia appear not to have had any priest (op. cit., p. 309), and the « Aila kings appear to have been their own sacrificers » (op. cit., p. 310). Still originally, Alia were neither hymn-makers, no hymn-singers. « The ideas, that brahmans were priests to demons, that demons themselves were brahmans... » (op. cit., p. 307) can even be found in the Rig-Veda, where Indra is often praised for slaying demons and Vrtra ; « … sufficient evidence has been adduced from Vedic and epic traditions to show that India was a bralimicide, and that his chief enemy Vrtra was a brahmana. This also confirms the hypothesis that developed priesthood was a pre-Aryan institution, and implies that all the conquered peoples were not reduced to the position of the dasas and sudras. And hence, though it is difficult to trace the origin of the brahmana as an institution, the priestly class of the Aryan conquerors may have been largely recruited from the conquered » (Ram Sharan Sharma, Materrial Culture And Social Formations In Ancient India, Macmillan India, 2007, p. 22). The Indian historian, mathematician, philologist and polymath D. D. Kosambi, drawing from Patanjali, as well as from various Upanishad, such as the Brihadâranyaka and the Chhandogya, « [proposes] the interpretation that Brahmana means a follower or descendant of Brahma, and that the entire cult is pre-Aryan » (Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, "D. D. Kosambi, Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings", http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/ddkindopartone.pdf ; see also D. D. Kosambi, Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1975, p. 94-100, https://ia800205.us.archive.org/8/items/AnIntroductionToTheStudyOfIndianHistory-D.D.Kosambi/introhisddk.pdf, in which, incidentally, it is stated that Indra, one of the very few actual Aryan gods in the Rig-Veda, « is ‘the breaker of cities’ (puramdara), but neither Indra nor any follower of his is described as builder or possessor of a city. None of them ever construct anything of masonry. » (op. cit., p. 94)


      « It is said brahmans were united {sangata) with ksatriyas originally, » (Pargiter, op. cit., p. 308), and, before we see how below, it should be stressed that what this statement also means, whether the author intended it or not, is that brahmans became connected to Alia kings through ksatriyas. who, let us make this clear right away, appear to have mixed with aboriginal peoples in early times (M. Rama Rayo, Iksvakûs of Vijayapurî, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 1967, p. 2-3), and, in fact, as early as in the times Aryan tribes supposedly lived in what is now Central Asia (see D. P. Mishra, Studies in the Proto-History of India, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1971 https://ia801602.us.archive.org/26/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.142672/2015.142672.Studies-In-The-Proto-History-Of-India.pdf) - obviously, dominant genes in the Buddha were Aryan ones.


      The earlier phase of the Rigvedic society was mainly tribal. « In such a society, land and cattle were held in common and consequently the crystallization of economic classes was only in a nebulous form. We do not find any reference to land transfer in the Rigveda, nor do we find any evidence for the existence of large landholders during this period. But this stage was shortly to undergo a drastic change as a result of the introduction of iron, and subsequently of money in the form of small pieces of metal of standard size and weight. They effected a gradual erosion in the pristine tribal structure of the early Vedic period. The later period is marked by the emergence of small social units such as Vamsa and Kula and of family proprietary right as against that of the whole community. Transition from the pastoral to a settled economy based upon cultivable land, incessant war both with the aboriginals and within the Aryan tribes themselves, acquisition of booty from the vanquished tribes— all these factors tended to create a dent in the primitive tribal structure. It is not without significance that the emergence of economic classes and the consequent disintegration of the tribal structure appeared only towards the end of the Rigvedic period when agricultural economy had become the primary basis of subsistence for the people. That there were only two social groups in the beginning is clear from the application of the word varna to distinguish the victor Aryans from the vanquished Dasas or Dasyus » (Jaimal Rai, The Rural-urban Economy and Social Changes in Ancient India, 300 B.C. to 600 A.D., Bhāratīya Vidyā Prakāshan, 1974, p. 300-1). « Incessant struggles with the aboriginals and internal strife amongst the various Aryan tribes themselves provided opportunity for the rise and growth in the power of a few tribal chiefs who, on account of their prowess and success in war, were gradually being distinguished from the common people (Vis). Cattle and land, which had become important in the predominantly agrarian economy of the age, tended to create economic disparity in the tribal structure leading ultimately to the emergence of a class of nobles distinct from the commonality. The economic distinction became more marked in the later Vedic age when the nature and mutual relationship of the economic classes came to be defined. From the study of the Brâhmanas it is evident that there were three economic layers in society — the nobility, the agriculturists and the servile class » (op. cit., p. 302-3). There was no such thing as a sacerdotal class, let alone a sacerdotal caste, at that time. 


      « There existed three classes, i.e. the nobles, the tenants, and the servile class... ». Their social status was determined in accordance with their place in the agrarian economy and the control over the socio-political context of the agrarian economy. Even artizans such as the rathakâra (chariot-maker), the karamâra (smith), the govikartana (huntsman) and the pâlâyala (messenger), who later came to be included amongst the Sudras, enjoyed high status simply because they had indispensable places in the predominantly agrarian economy of the later Vedic age » (op. cit., p. 310).


      « The process of tribal disintegration, the emergence of different economic layers and the rise of a novel concept of social competence based upon the polity and economy of land and cattle tended to give a new tone to religious notions implying supernatural forces. They gave a new complexion to the priestly class [or, to put it better, « the priestly group », as it has just been said that there existed only « three classes, i.e. the nobles, the tenants, and the servile class »] which was adjusting itself to the changing situation. The existence of the mantra and the Snta traditions, representing the sacerdotal and secular aspects, projects a dichotemy which is a characteristic feature of those days and indeed of several subsequent centuries. Long and rigid training in ritual and magic had kept the priestly class [see previous note] away from active participation in the food-gathering economy, But a gradual deviation in the role of the priestly class [see antepenultimate note] is clearly visible in the food-producing economy of the Vedic period. The gâthâs and the nârâsamsis, composed by priests to praise a generous donor, point to the changing psychology of the class. It may, however, be stated that this departure of the priestly role from the purely spiritual to a worldly life of pelf and pleasure was not liked by all. Several passages of the Vedic literature contain reproachful remarks against gâhâs and nârâsamsis. In the Kâthaka and the Maitrâyani Sambitas as well as in the Taittiriya Brâhmana we find passages which brand the gâtbâs and nârâsamsis as the lies and filth of the Brâhmana and place the acceptance of gifts from their reciters on the same level as that from a drunkard » (op. cit., p. 311-2). Perhaps « this shows that there was a section of the Brâhmanas which was trying to keep itself above worldly pursuits. (p. 312) ; meanwhile, all Brahmans had managed to keep themselves above anything worldly, their « long and rigid training » allowing them to stay « away from active participation in the food-gathering economy ».


      « The simple prayers, hymns and rituals of the earlier period were displaced by complicated and cumbrous sacrifices. The power of the sacrifices and the results accruing thereform (sic) were extolled. Sacrifices became more specialized, performed only by professional priests » (op. cit., p. 312). Moree or less ironically, priesthood, while not working, and not intending to do so, was behind what, millenia later, Smith considered as the essential condition of progress, that he could only conceive in economic terms : the specialisation of labour. «  With the increasing importance of these rituals, the priestly class grew both in pelf and power… » (ibid.). 


      «  The major purpose of the sacrifice was to achieve success in war. Consequently priests were patronized by tribal chiefs who bestowed handsome gifts upon them. Thus, with the rise of economic classes, the priest became allied with the nobility and like the latter was considered distinct from the commoners. Again and again the higher status of the priests and the nobles is mentioned, The commoners (Vis) provided the base upon which priests and nobles subsisted and the priestly class and the nobility were superior to the Vis. Thus, so far as the question of class formation goes, economic interests could give rise only to three classes. Collaboration of the priestly and the noble classes is mentioned as essential for the prosperity of both. In fact in the formation of the classes and in the disintegration of the tribal structure », priesthood « seems to be very crucial. The priest was not only instrumental in helping the tribal chiefs, through his rituals, in gaining victory over the rival tribes, his services were also utilized by the chiefs in repressing popular revolts against their personal acquisitions. The priest was therefore an important factor in providing an incentive to the growth of a new concept of proprietary right against that of the whole community or tribe » (op. cit., p. 312-3). « But while the priest helped the nobility in its struggle against the commoners, he was himself contesting for a higher position than that of the king and the nobles. In the protracted struggle for higher status, both controlled the two important factors of the later Vedic milieu. While the nobles considered themselves as the lords of the people {Vis), land and cattle, the priests had the exclusive monopoly of the Vedic rituals. Thus, in the Satapatha Brâhmana it is stated that ‘the brâhmana is an object of respect after the king’, that, ‘there is nothing higher than the kshatra, therefore the brahmana sits down below the kshatriya in the Râjasûya. In the Aitareya Brâhmana, a Brâhmana is called ‘yathâkâma-paryâpiya which means either ‘moving at pleasure’ or ‘liable to removal at will ’. But gradually the increasing importance of the sacrifices and the exclusive knowledge of the Vedic lore stood the priest in good stead and he came to enjoy a position of supremacy in the later Vedic age » (op. cit., p. 314).

      Priests, then constituted into a class, « owed [their] supreme position not to the purity of their descent but to their monopoly of the Vedic lore » (op. cit., p. 314). The passage of the Kâthaka Sambithâ which says that it is knowledge which is important and not descent could easily be adopted as a motto by those who now advocate general miscegenation. Incidentally, Foucault's concept of "pastoral power" could have benefited from those insights.


      Two factors of the later Vedic economy favoured the priestly caste : « the agrarian character of the sacrifices and the emergence of family proprietary right as against that of the whole tribe or community of the earlier age. The Sattapatha Brâhmana states that a priest must not officiate at a Soma sacrifice for a remuneration of less than one hundred cows. Elaborate rules concerning dakshinâs were framed. The priestly psychology of making: profits at the sacrifices is sufficiently borne out by the literature of this period » (op. cit., p. 315-6). « The tribal disintegration proved highly beneficial to the priestly class » (op. cit., p. 316), and it would be most interesting to check whether they may have had a hand in it. « The crack in the collectivistic economy [the term is poorly chosen, as it implies the existence of a « primitive communism » among early Aryan tribes, which was actually non existent, since « There [was] no question of everyone having equal title to all produce », D. D. Kosambi, op. cit., p. 25) was incessantly accentuated by the priest, who was all the time helping the tribal chief against the commoners and received rewards which made him economically superior to the Vis and the helots. Thus the prosperity and status of the priestly class depended, in the first phase of tribal disintegration, upon the extent to which the tribal chief had freed himself from the collectivistic [see previous note] bond of the tribe. In fact the emergence of an affluent priestly class meant the emergence of private property and the widening of the gulf between the nobility on the one hand and the producers and the servile class on the other. Later, with the increasing importance of sacrifices, there was a growth in priestly pretensions, and grandually the sacerdotal power came to be regarded as superior to the kingly power. Exclusive knowledge of the Vedic lore stood the priestly class in good stead against other classes » (op. cit., p. 317-8).


      If there were ever any doubt that members of the priestly caste, who, despite, precisely, appearances – l’habit ne fait pas le moine - still govern, are essentially parasites, as are all intermediaries, it has now been erased. The medium is the mess age.



    • evola_as_he_is
      The arguments put forward by Evola in « Action, Contemplation and the Western Tradition
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 20, 2018

        The arguments put forward by Evola in « Action, Contemplation and the Western Tradition (https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/action-contemplation-and-the-western-tradition/) to show that action is best suited than contemplation to the nature of the White man receives significant confirmation from the conclusions reached on the origin of the Brahmanic institution by the British Orientalist F. E. Pargiter (1852-1927) in a landmark study based on the examination of the dynasties listed in the Mahâbhârata and the Purânas, conclusions whose significance far transcend the question, that constituted a casus bellum for Guénon and Evola, to such an extent that the former once suspected the latter was more or less at the mercy of the forces of « counter-initiation », of whether the sacerdotal caste or the warrior caste is higher in dignity. 


        Chapter XXVI, entitled « The Ancient Brahmans and the Veda », opens with a reminder  (Ancient Indian Historica Tradition, Oxford University Press, Londres, 1922, https://archive.org/details/ancientindianhis00parguoft, p. 303) : « Something may be discovered frota historical tradition about the condition of the earhest brahmans and about the composition of the Rig-veda and the other Vedas. Here we must premise that it is futile to expect to learn the truth about these matters from the priestly literature, because that was composed after the brahmans had put forward their pretensions about themselves and the Veda. Naturally they would set out therein their own version of what they then held (and what they wished others to believe) about these matters, and would say nothing that would stultify the same, as they actually did with regard to Visvamitra. Facts or traditions that proved awkward for their developed pretensions would not be admitted, as has been pointed out with regard to Vyasa and the ksatriyan brahmans . There was nothing strange in such conduct. It was simply what priesthood has not seldom done,^ and the brahmans formed a priestly caste supreme in position and education, pride and influence. The views here put forward were not reached through any preconceived speculation, but evolved themselves gradually out of all the preceding investigation, and are all based on definite statements which are cited. They are all drawn from traditions, which could not have been fabricated in late times, as will appear, but are ancient, and of which the brahmans have been the custodians for more than two thousand years. They are a signal illustration of the fact, that the Puranic and Epic brahmans preserved ancient traditions, quite unconscious that those traditions often belied the brahmanic pretensions which were developed later. »


        The heart of the matter is swiftly reached : « Brahmanism [...] originally was not an Aila [the nominal form of « arya »] or Aryan institution. The earliest brahmans were connected with the non-Aryan peoples, and were established among them when the Ailas entered » (op. cit., p. 306). The same goes with rishis (op. cit., 312). Originally, Alia appear not to have had any priest (op. cit., p. 309), and the « Aila kings appear to have been their own sacrificers » (op. cit., p. 310). Still originally, Alia were neither hymn-makers, no hymn-singers. « The ideas, that brahmans were priests to demons, that demons themselves were brahmans... » (op. cit., p. 307) can even be found in the Rig-Veda, where Indra is often praised for slaying demons and Vrtra ; « … sufficient evidence has been adduced from Vedic and epic traditions to show that India was a bralimicide, and that his chief enemy Vrtra was a brahmana. This also confirms the hypothesis that developed priesthood was a pre-Aryan institution, and implies that all the conquered peoples were not reduced to the position of the dasas and sudras. And hence, though it is difficult to trace the origin of the brahmana as an institution, the priestly class of the Aryan conquerors may have been largely recruited from the conquered » (Ram Sharan Sharma, Materrial Culture And Social Formations In Ancient India, Macmillan India, 2007, p. 22). The Indian historian, mathematician, philologist and polymath D. D. Kosambi, drawing from Patanjali, as well as from various Upanishad, such as the Brihadâranyaka and the Chhandogya, « [proposes] the interpretation that Brahmana means a follower or descendant of Brahma, and that the entire cult is pre-Aryan » (Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, "D. D. Kosambi, Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings", http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/ddkindopartone.pdf ; see also D. D. Kosambi, Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1975, p. 94-100, https://ia800205.us.archive.org/8/items/AnIntroductionToTheStudyOfIndianHistory-D.D.Kosambi/introhisddk.pdf, in which, incidentally, it is stated that Indra, one of the very few actual Aryan gods in the Rig-Veda, « is ‘the breaker of cities’ (puramdara), but neither Indra nor any follower of his is described as builder or possessor of a city. None of them ever construct anything of masonry. » (op. cit., p. 94)

        « It is said brahmans were united {sangata) with ksatriyas originally, » (Pargiter, op. cit., p. 308), and, before we see how below, it should be stressed that what this statement also means, whether the author intended it or not, is that brahmans became connected to Alia kings through ksatriyas. who, let us make this clear right away, appear to have mixed with aboriginal peoples in early times (M. Rama Rayo, Iksvakûs of Vijayapurî, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 1967, p. 2-3), and, in fact, as early as in the times Aryan tribes supposedly lived in what is now Central Asia (see D. P. Mishra, Studies in the Proto-History of India, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1971 https://ia801602.us.archive.org/26/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.142672/2015.142672.Studies-In-The-Proto-History-Of-India.pdf) - obviously, dominant genes in the Buddha were Aryan ones.


        The earlier phase of the Rigvedic society was mainly tribal. « In such a society, land and cattle were held in common and consequently the crystallization of economic classes was only in a nebulous form. We do not find any reference to land transfer in the Rigveda, nor do we find any evidence for the existence of large landholders during this period. But this stage was shortly to undergo a drastic change as a result of the introduction of iron, and subsequently of money in the form of small pieces of metal of standard size and weight. They effected a gradual erosion in the pristine tribal structure of the early Vedic period. The later period is marked by the emergence of small social units such as Vamsa and Kula and of family proprietary right as against that of the whole community. Transition from the pastoral to a settled economy based upon cultivable land, incessant war both with the aboriginals and within the Aryan tribes themselves, acquisition of booty from the vanquished tribes— all these factors tended to create a dent in the primitive tribal structure. It is not without significance that the emergence of economic classes and the consequent disintegration of the tribal structure appeared only towards the end of the Rigvedic period when agricultural economy had become the primary basis of subsistence for the people. That there were only two social groups in the beginning is clear from the application of the word varna to distinguish the victor Aryans from the vanquished Dasas or Dasyus » (Jaimal Rai, The Rural-urban Economy and Social Changes in Ancient India, 300 B.C. to 600 A.D., Bhāratīya Vidyā Prakāshan, 1974, p. 300-1) « Incessant struggles with the aboriginals and internal strife amongst the various Aryan tribes themselves provided opportunity for the rise and growth in the power of a few tribal chiefs who, on account of their prowess and success in war, were gradually being distinguished from the common people (Vis). Cattle and land, which had become important in the predominantly agrarian economy of the age, tended to create economic disparity in the tribal structure leading ultimately to the emergence of a class of nobles distinct from the commonality. The economic distinction became more marked in the later Vedic age when the nature and mutual relationship of the economic classes came to be defined. From the study of the Brâhmanas it is evident that there were three economic layers in society — the nobility, the agriculturists and the servile class » (op. cit., p. 302-3). There was no such thing as a sacerdotal class, let alone a sacerdotal caste, at that time. 


        « There existed three classes, i.e. the nobles, the tenants, and the servile class... ». Their social status was determined in accordance with their place in the agrarian economy and the control over the socio-political context of the agrarian economy. Even artizans such as the rathakâra (chariot-maker), the karamâra (smith), the govikartana (huntsman) and the pâlâyala (messenger), who later came to be included amongst the Sudras, enjoyed high status simply because they had indispensable places in the predominantly agrarian economy of the later Vedic age » (op. cit., p. 310).


        « The process of tribal disintegration, the emergence of different economic layers and the rise of a novel concept of social competence based upon the polity and economy of land and cattle tended to give a new tone to religious notions implying supernatural forces. They gave a new complexion to the priestly class [or, to put it better, « the priestly group », as, as just been said, there existed only « three classes, i.e. the nobles, the tenants, and the servile class »] which was adjusting itself to the changing situation. The existence of the mantra and the Snta traditions, representing the sacerdotal and secular aspects, projects a dichotemy which is a characteristic feature of those days and indeed of several subsequent centuries. Long and rigid training in ritual and magic had kept the priestly class [see previous note] away from active participation in the food-gathering economy, But a gradual deviation in the role of the priestly class [see antepenultimate note] is clearly visible in the food-producing economy of the Vedic period. The gâthâs and the nârâsamsis, composed by priests to praise a generous donor, point to the changing psychology of the class. It may, however, be stated that this departure of the priestly role from the purely spiritual to a worldly life of pelf and pleasure was not liked by all. Several passages of the Vedic literature contain reproachful remarks against gâhâs and nârâsamsis. In the Kâthaka and the Maitrâyani Sambitas as well as in the Taittiriya Brâhmana we find passages which brand the gâtbâs and nârâsamsis as the lies and filth of the Brâhmana and place the acceptance of gifts from their reciters on the same level as that from a drunkard » (op. cit., p. 311-2). Perhaps « this shows that there was a section of the Brâhmanas which was trying to keep itself above worldly pursuits. (p. 312) ; meanwhile, all Brahmans had managed to keep themselves above anything worldly, their « long and rigid training » allowing them to stay « away from active participation in the food-gathering economy ».


        « The simple prayers, hymns and rituals of the earlier period were displaced by complicated and cumbrous sacrifices. The power of the sacrifices and the results accruing thereform (sic) were extolled. Sacrifices became more specialized, performed only by professional priests » (op. cit., p. 312). More or less ironically, priesthood, while not working, and not intending to do so, was behind what, millenia later, Smith considered as the essential condition of progress, that he could only conceive in economic terms : the specialisation of labour. «  With the increasing importance of these rituals, the priestly class grew both in pelf and power… » (ibid.). 


        «  The major purpose of the sacrifice was to achieve success in war. Consequently priests were patronized by tribal chiefs who bestowed handsome gifts upon them. Thus, with the rise of economic classes, the priest became allied with the nobility and like the latter was considered distinct from the commoners. Again and again the higher status of the priests and the nobles is mentioned, The commoners (Vis) provided the base upon which priests and nobles subsisted and the priestly class and the nobility were superior to the Vis. Thus, so far as the question of class formation goes, economic interests could give rise only to three classes. Collaboration of the priestly and the noble classes is mentioned as essential for the prosperity of both. In fact in the formation of the classes and in the disintegration of the tribal structure », priesthood « seems to be very crucial. The priest was not only instrumental in helping the tribal chiefs, through his rituals, in gaining victory over the rival tribes, his services were also utilized by the chiefs in repressing popular revolts against their personal acquisitions. The priest was therefore an important factor in providing an incentive to the growth of a new concept of proprietary right against that of the whole community or tribe » (op. cit., p. 312-3). « But while the priest helped the nobility in its struggle against the commoners, he was himself contesting for a higher position than that of the king and the nobles. In the protracted struggle for higher status, both controlled the two important factors of the later Vedic milieu. While the nobles considered themselves as the lords of the people {Vis), land and cattle, the priests had the exclusive monopoly of the Vedic rituals. Thus, in the Satapatha Brâhmana it is stated that ‘the brâhmana is an object of respect after the king’, that, ‘there is nothing higher than the kshatra, therefore the brahmana sits down below the kshatriya in the Râjasûya. In the Aitareya Brâhmana, a Brâhmana is called ‘yathâkâma-paryâpiya which means either ‘moving at pleasure’ or ‘liable to removal at will ’. But gradually the increasing importance of the sacrifices and the exclusive knowledge of the Vedic lore stood the priest in good stead and he came to enjoy a position of supremacy in the later Vedic age » (op. cit., p. 314).

        Priests, then constituted into a class, « owed [their] supreme position not to the purity of their descent but to their monopoly of the Vedic lore » (op. cit., p. 314). The passage of the Kâthaka Sambithâ which says that it is knowledge which is important and not descent could easily be adopted as a motto by those who now advocate general miscegenation. Incidentally, good use of those insights on the sanctification of knowledge by ambitious and greedy Brahmans could have been made by Foucault in his elaboration of the concept of "pastoral power".


        Two factors of the later Vedic ecoony favoured the priestly caste : « the agrarian character of the sacrifices and the emergence of family proprietary right as against that of the whole tribe or community of the earlier age. The Sattapatha Brâhmana states that a priest must not officiate at a Soma sacrifice for a remuneration of less than one hundred cows. Elaborate rules concerning dakshinâs were framed. The priestly psychology of making: profits at the sacrifices is sufficiently borne out by the literature of this period » (op. cit., p. 315-6). « The tribal disintegration proved highly beneficial to the priestly class » (op. cit., p. 316), and it would be most interesting to check whether they may have had an hand in it. « The crack in the collectivistic economy [the term is poorly chosen, as it implies the existence of a « primitive communism » among early Aryan tribes, which was actually non existent, since « [t]here [was] no question of everyone having equal title to all produce », D. D. Kosambi, op. cit., p. 25) was incessantly accentuated by the priest, who was all the time helping the tribal chief against the commoners and received rewards which made him eonomically superior to the Vis and the helots. Thus the prosperity and, status of the priestly class depended, in the first phase of tribal disintegration, upon the extent to which the tribal chief had freed himself from the collectivistic [see previous note] bond of the tribe. In fact the emergence of an affluent priestly class meant the emergence of private property and the widening of the gulf between the nobility on the one hand and the producers and the servile class on the other. Later, with the increasing importance of sacrifices, there was a growth in priestly prete-nsions, and gradually the sacerdotal power came to be regarded as superior to the kingly power. Exclusive knowledge of the Vedic lore stood the priestly class in good stead against other classes » (op. cit., p. 317-8).


        If there were ever any doubt that members of the priestly caste, who, despite, precisely, appearances – l’habit ne fait pas le moine - still govern, are essentially parasites, as are all intermediaries, it has now been erased. The medium is the mess age.



      • rouesolaire
        These quotations from the Upanishads speak for themselves: Brahman is Reality, Knowledge, and Infinity. (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1.3) The infinite is bliss.
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 12 3:12 PM
          These quotations from the Upanishads speak for themselves:

          "Brahman is Reality, Knowledge, and Infinity." (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1.3)

          "The infinite is bliss.
           There is no bliss in anything finite.
           Only the Infinite is bliss.
           One must desire to understand the Infinite." (Chandogya Upanishad 7.23.1)
          Delete
        • evola_as_he_is
          « God, in Aristotle, is essentially finite. For us moderns, on the contrary, Infinity is the height of Perfection and the divine attribute par excellence.
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 21 8:12 AM
            « God, in Aristotle, is essentially finite. For us moderns, on the contrary, Infinity is the height of Perfection and the divine attribute par excellence. However, this opposition of Perfection and infinity ceased, and their union began in Plotin (3rd century AD). The Bible, Philo the Jew, and Numenius had prepared this change, while Neopythagoreans and Plutarch delayed it » (H. Guyot, Les réminiscences de Philon le Juif chez Plotin ; étude critique, Paris, F. Alcan, 1906, p. v). It was given momentum by the Kabbalist philosopher Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464), with the suggestion that « the world is a sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere », a suggestion that can be traced to « Liber XXIV philosophorum », a Latin text consisting of twenty four commented definitions of « what God is », that has been ascribed to the IVth grammarian and philosopher Marius Victorinus, and described as « one of the most mysterious and Hermetic, but also one of the most important texts in the history of medieval philosophy, and indeed in the history of philosophy at all. » (Jacques Follon, « Le livre des XXIV philosophes. Traduit du latin, édité et annoté par Françoise Hudry. Postface de Marc Richir », Revue Philosophique de Louvain, vol. 87, no° 74,‎ 1989, p. 359-63). This formula, « an apt encapsulation of the Cosmological Principle, of the centerless expansion of the Big Bang theory, and of our consequent ability to map the universe fairly from an arbitrary point within it » (David H. Weinberg, "The Center is Everywhere", September 23, 2012, p. 5)
            received from G. Bruno the pantheistic interpretation it heavily suggests and lends to.

            Evola could have made the following words, that are along the same lines as Guyot’s statement, his own : « What prevails (in Aristotelian thought) is the contempt for the infinite, that rebellious, amorphous, notion. Hellenic thought only considers perfect what is complete, defined, and therefore limited ; that which forms a harmonious and organic whole. Only a few isolated thinkers, like Anaximander, spoke with veneration of the holiness of the infinite. Oriental influences would soon impose this point of view, which, with Christianity and also with some advances made by modern science, has become ours : for us, it is rather the infinite that generates the finite ; it is the latter that is a pure negation and limitation of the former. This is not the only instance in which religious, social or scientific suggestions have placed modern thought in full opposition (to the Greek spirit). » (Charles Labo, Aristote, Paris, Mellottée, 1922, p. 36-7)

            A look at (a computer generated image of) a probe travelling through infinite spaces as well as at http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html, an umpteenth (attempted) escape, in its own way, towards the infinite, gives us a very good idea of precisely what we are dealing with.
          • rouesolaire
            Indeed. It was to illustrate the subversive teachings of the brahmans. For a more comprehensive summary of this topic, you might also read pages 52, 53 and 54
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 24 3:47 PM
              Indeed. It was to illustrate the subversive teachings of the brahmans.
              For a more comprehensive summary of this topic, you might also read pages 52, 53 and 54 from https://books.google.fr/books?id=eav6AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover.
              Delete
            • rouesolaire
              Some remarks: Aristotle s opinion that there does not exist an infinite whole (and so an infinite of composition) because it is a contradictory notion seems to
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 3, 2018
                Some remarks:

                Aristotle's opinion that there does not exist an infinite whole (and so an infinite of composition) because it is a contradictory notion seems to be demonstrated by Russell's paradox : According to naive set theory, any definable collection is a set. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.
                -
                Could there be any link between the fact that the pupils of the goat are rectangle shaped and that, according to https://theosophytrust.mobi/665-saturn, "Saturn's colour, black, and his emblem, the sarcophagus, accompany the soul as it emulates the planetary god's involvement in the feminine principle." ?
                -
                It is telling that it seems that in the Sutta Pitaka the Buddha always places the brahmins in second position when he enumerates the four castes : Kshatriyas, Brahmins, Vaishyas, Shudras.
                -
                It might be said that a similar kind of subversion occured regarding to the Iranians, whose people was unified with the Medes (under the reign of Cyrus, whose mother was a Mede and father was an Iranian), who had a sacerdotal caste, that of the Magi. The Medes were according to Les peuples aryens d'Asie et d'Europe, leurs origines en Europe, la civilisation protoaryenne (https://archive.org/details/lespeuplesaryens00zabo) not Aryans. Moreover, according to the Behistun Inscription and Herodotus, a Magus usurped the kingship after the death of Cambyses, even if this account has been disputed because some assert that Darius might have invented the story to justify his takeover.
                Delete
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
              Add to this conversation...
              evola_as_he_is@{{emailDomain}}