It is sufficient to be born a Jew to be a Jew ; no 'second birth' is
required in this case.
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.
> >
> >
>