Firstly, before continuing my problem with the inclusion of Baudelaire with the other writers cited, I must proclaim that I was at one, time an avid fan of Baudelaire and still think he ranks amongst the greatest of poets.
However, a good poet does not necessarily equate with a good thinker nor a philosopher. A poet works with the senses and the emotions; they are not by nature capable of perception outside of a limited sphere of reality nor capable of passing judgement (with the exception of aesthetics) as they cannot experience reality subjectively. A poet, in sum, is not a rational creature - therefore any judgement
passed on an external reality will be linked to the poets own experience. I do not think that this statement can be applied to any of the other writers you cited - it is purely that Baudelaire's work is one of the emotion and not of the intellect. 'Spleen and Ideal', whilst it makes a lovely motif for pathos and angst, seems far too simple to reveal anything more than a doom laden erotic sentiment. Perhaps his concept of the 'Muse' does have some relation to mysticism, and probably relates a little to anima/animus attractions, but that doesn't make it logical to project Baudelaire's 'Evil Anima' on to anyone else.
Baudelaire, as he himself states is somewhat of a 'Heautontimoroumenos', which is regardless of any metaphysical merit there may be in his works, not a pleasurable
state for anyone to be in. Therefore, as Baudelaire bequests of his reader, (Epigraph for a Condemned Book) I am quite content to 'pity him instead of receiving his curses'.
Male and female homosexuals are most certainly different I agree, though I cannot pinpoint any piece in which Baudelaire refers to male homosexuals, so I cannot see how this idea relates to Baudelaire?
Agehanada Bharati is allegedly a Tantric himself and generally relays things reliably, though as your note about the 'gay movement' comment conveys, he is somewhat of an apologist - no doubt he
added his 'disclaimer' in hopes of receiving a medal for his political correctness at the next pancamakara-sadhana ;)
evola_as_he_is <evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:
The description you make of Baudelaire can be applied to thousands of
other men, to hundreds of other artists, whose work, however, was not
quoted in 'Metaphysics of Sex', which does not deal with opinions,
but with ideas.
Considering that Baudelaire's views on women are closely akin to that
of the other modern writers we mentioned, to that of all the great
ancient European writers and philosophers, and that not all of them
were "notoriously masochistic in (their) relationships with women and
actively sought out females that would in some way either emotionally
or physically abuse (them)", nor were they all "somewhat perversely
(...) attracted to" lesbians, it may be granted that that 'opinion',
which we would rather call an 'idea', originates in something higher
than the sexual plane, it being understood that that plane does not
constitute a criterion from a purely spiritual standpoint. Basically,
the question is whether a given individual is wholly conditioned, on
the plane of action and on that of thought, by sexuality or whether
that plane is determined, ruled and shaped in him by a higher
principle which remains completely free towards it. In this case, it
is a mistake to judge his actions and his ideas according to his
sexual orientation, a mistake which is made by those who, for
instance, try to discredit Yockey's work on that basis ; that trap
Yockey didn't fall into when, in 'Imperium', he criticises with an
ill-concealed disgust Baudelaire's poetry ; had he fallen into it, he
would have made a double mistake : the first one, which he actually
made, was to consider and to dismiss Baudelaire's work as a mere
product of nihilism and decadence devoid of any positive counterpart,
a positive counterpart which Evola, as for him, has perfectly seen,
and duly highlighted in 'Metaphysics of Sex' ; the second would have
been linked to the fact that his sexual orientations seem to have
been rather Baudelairian.
This too can be considered to a certain extent as quite Baudelairian,
leaving aside sexuality and poetry : "As a negative aspect, wherever
that disposition (the natural detachment from the human) appeared
confusedly, and involved my mere individuality, it generated a
certain insensibility and a coldness of soul" ('Il Cammino del
cinabro', p. 12).
Finally, what is also Baudelairian is the fact of not putting male
homosexuality and female homosexuality on the same plane.
The male-friend of Blavatsky who tried to make his dreams come true
by going so far as to homosexualise Tantric texts was Leadbetter,
an "agressive homosexual" if we are to believe the writer who
clarifies that point : "Hindu Buddhist Tantric texts do indeed use
sexual models and analogues in their esoteric tracts, so it is quite
in order if scholars and practitioners use these texts in support of
their sexual behavior, because the support is objectively there. But
no Tantric text implies any but heterosexual relations in its corpus.
The most recent authentic presentation of the place of sexuality in
Tibetan Tantrism (1) should suffice as a document for the rejection
of the esoteric innuendos in Leadbetter's writings". Please note that
this clarification is made by someone who thinks "the Gay Freedom
movement is well taken and should succeed" (
http://www.khandro.net/Rampa.htm ).
Three heavens there are; two Savitar's, adjacent:
In Yama's world is one, home of heroes.
As on a linch-pin, firm, rest things immortal:
He who hath known it, let him here declare it.
- Rig Veda I.35 (Griffith)
Send instant messages to your online friends http://in.messenger.yahoo.com