The transparency, that is, the correspondence, between thought and
action is at the root and is the prerequisite of any spiritual life
worth of the name, that is, of any organic realisatory spiritual
process ; it is the hallmark of the superhuman states of consciousness
to which this realisatory process is supposed to lead. Basically, the
unity between thought and action can be considered as the ultimate aim
of the Eightfold path, and, by action, we do not mean simply 'reason',
but 'manas', understood in the samsaric perspective of 'The Doctrine
of Awakening'. In addition to an absence of rigidity, a non attachment
to things, a perfect freedom, a thoroughly purified mind, and an
enjoyment of emptiness, non division between thought and action is,
according to Suzuki and various other authors, one of the main
characteristics of the enlightened person in Zen Buddhism.

This is precisely why R. Guénon is right to point out, without batting
an eyelid, that unity between thought and action is perhaps the most
difficult thing to achieve. What is highly debatable is his statement
that intention ('niyyah' in Islam ; 'cetana' in Buddhism) is what
matters, "since only this depends entirely on man himself and is not
influenced or modified by outer contingencies as are always the
results of action". Experience shows us everyday that intentions may
be "influenced or modified by outer contingencies", depending on how
easily influenced someone is, not to mention that, as any faculty
related to 'thought' in the broadest sense, 'intention' is more or
less conditioned, unless it arises from and it is led by something
which has, so to speak, a genotypic nature ; from the "impregnable
fortress" of which Meister Eckehart spoke.

As is well-known, 'niyyah' is uppermost in Islam, just as 'cetana' is
in a certain Buddhism - in particular, with respect to the karmic
dogma -, and the stress laid on 'intention', whilst understandable
from the point of view of an Abrahamic religion such as Islam and of
late Buddhism, turns out to be problematic from a higher point of
view. In concrete terms, for example, if you come home and
accidentally trip over the dog and hurt it, this is not intended and
has no effect. However, after a hectic day, you come home and kick the
dog, then negative Karma is generated. Admittedly, this simplistic
view means leaving the door open to any inner abandonment and to
general irresponsibility. In fact, most of the trouble which people
experience, whether in the physical or in the mental sphere, either
are caused by people who 'didn't meant to' or are the result of things
they themselves 'didn't mean' to do. To go back over the
aforementioned example, right concentration and, simply, more care,
should enable you to avoid tripping over the dog. The Buddha's advice
to vipassana students is that they should try to maintain the
awareness of Anicca, Dukkha or Anatta in all postures, whether
sitting, standing, walking or lying down, no matter the situation.
Samadhi, the control of the mind leading to one-pointedness implies
the control of the body ; the control and the awareness of time,
through thought, implies the control and the awareness of space,
through the body. When, after a hectic day, you come home and
accidentally trip over the dog and hurt it, you prove to be less aware
of time and space than the dog is, at that precise moment.

As to whether "action is contingent, (and) Wisdom is absolute", we
refer you to 'Action, Contemplation, and the Western Tradition'
(http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id18.html), especially the passage
in which it is recalled that "Just as the West is mainly stamped by
the tradition of action, the East is mainly stamped with the tradition
of contemplation. (...) There is on the other hand an opposition
between them and those who insist on the 'orthodoxy' and supremacy of
one of the two traditions, condemning the other as a deviation and an
error. This would merely produce the effect of a mental limitation.
Yet we must eliminate any cause of misunderstanding by underlining
that the supremacy of action in the tradition which corresponds to it
has nothing to do with the usurpation of temporal power, since action
always amounts here to a means of liberation and has always as its
point of reference something transcendent and supersensible."

Contemplation and action are one and the same thing, for example, in
vipassana, which takes into account the fact that man cannot but act.
The Taoist expression acting-without-acting really says is all.



--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@...>
wrote:
>
> That brief passage (see below) on thought and action begs for
elucidation.
> Guénon writes: "As we have so often remarked the starting point must
always
> be knowledge; and thus what appears to be furthest removed from the
> practical order actually exerts the most powerful influence within that
> order itself, since without its aid, here as everywhere else, it is
> impossible to achieve anything of real value of amounting to more
than an
> empty and superficial agitation." ("Some Conclusions" in Crisis).
>
>
>
> Just as Guénon cannot be reproached for failing to mention this starting
> point yet again in the passage in question, then neither can I be
reproached
> for bringing it up. To understand the relationship between thought and
> action, it is necessary to begin with knowledge. In particular,
knowledge is
> one, that is, a Unity. Knowledge arises from the intellect and, as
such, is
> beyond human individuality. Thought (or reason), on the other hand,
belongs
> to man as an individual. "Individual reason is exclusively a faculty of
> distinction and discursive knowledge, and the principles of
knowledge impose
> themselves on it as data of a transcendent order, necessarily
conditioning
> all mental activity." (from Multiple States)
>
>
>
> Therefore, thought is knowledge individuated and unity of thought at the
> level of the individual can only follow from unity of knowledge in its
> intellectual sense. As Guénon points out is that what matters is
"intent"
> --- that is why the wise man is detached from the results of his
actions;
> action is contingent, Wisdom is absolute.
>
>
>
> Thus, as intent, thought is the final cause of action, that is, it
provides
> the "motive", as a force arising from the unmoved mover. Life is the
> actualisation of possibilities. The possibilities available at any
> particular moment do not depend solely on the thought of any particular
> individual, but also on other contingent factors. Here is where the
virtues
> (from virtus=manliness) come into play: courage, prudence,
temperance (or
> detachment), justice (or harmony). So the relationship between
thought and
> action is more subtle than simple transparency.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Man must aim, above all and constantly, at realising unity in
himself, in
> everything that constitutes him, according to all the modalities of his
> human manifestation: unity of thought, unity of action, and also,
and this
> is perhaps the most difficult thing, unity between thought and
action. As
> far as the latter is concerned, however, it is important to point
out that
> what matters, basically, is intention (niyyah), since only this depends
> entirely on man himself and is not influenced or modified by outer
> contingencies as are always the results of action."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of vandermok
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 7:54 AM
> To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [evola_as_he_is] Guénon on thought and action
>
>
>
> Yes, but the specific matter was thought and action, rather than
action and
> contemplation. Of course, in 'La crise du monde moderne', 1927,
chapter III:
> Knowledge and action, Guénon wrote:
>
>
>
> "The most superficial and outward viewpoint is just to oppose
contemplation
> and action in a pure and simple way, as two contraries in the
specific sense
> of this term; but he who considers contemplation and action as
> complementary, places himself from a deeper and more true viewpoint
than
> the previous one, because the opposition is reconciled and solved,
the two
> terms balancing themselves reciprocally, in some way (...). It is
> incontestable that, in general, the inclination to the action is the
> predominating one in the West. On the other hand, we have to point
out that
> in the ancient times and in the Middle Age, the natural bent of the
> Westerners for the action did not prevent them to recognize the
superiority
> of the contemplation..."
>
> As expected, Guénon added this...: "The action cannot exist for the
fellow
> contemplating everything inwardly, since existing in the Universal
Spirit,
> and making no difference among the single objects" (R. G., Etudes sur
> l'Induisme, 1966).
>