Thought for the day

A thought, after reading a description of Schuon’s “Maryamiyya”.

There are two forms of “traditionalism” in the sense of Guénonian anti-modernism; the metaphysical reactionaries, who consider Guénon and Evola as two representatives of a large class of those with some understanding (a class that might include anyone from A. Dugin to C.S. Lewis), and the religious perennialists, who consider Guénon and Schuon as modern-day prophets. The religious perennialists frown upon Evola as a dangerous and overly political deviant. Certainly Evola dared his readers to “revolt” against modernity, while Schuon busied himself building a “refuge” from modernity. But as a point of fact, Schuon’s teachings were more deviant and dangerous in his own lifetime than Evola’s. It may at least be said of Evola that he never rubbed his naked body against female devotees. If Evola has a political influence in the future, it is only because more people find his work relevant.

Update: Rather than making a new post, I will update this post with a heartwarming account of Guénon’s strict orthodoxy and the loving devotion of his wife.

In July 1949, the beginning of Ramadan, I was invited to break the fast. I found him lying on the couch, and he explained that fasting tired him to the point that he could not work at night, the day being set aside for prayer and rest. As soon as she heard the cannon announcing the sunset, Hajja Fatima brought us a cup of Turkish coffee, which was drunk at the same time we lit a cigarette. After which, Sheikh Abdel [Guénon] conducted the prayer of Maghreb, and I followed the movements behind him. After an excellent Egyptian meal and a peaceful vigil, I took my leave of the Sheikh and his family.

Source: Jean-Louis Michon, Cheikh Abdel Wahid Yahia

Posted: March 5th, 2013 | Tradition 6 Comments »

6 Comments on “Thought for the day”

  1. 1 cheeky kunt said at 3:11 pm on March 8th, 2013:

    Off topic but relevant to your interests:

  2. 2 Ernest said at 7:39 pm on March 8th, 2013:

    I’m more inclined to the ‘metaphysical reactionaries’, although I’m planning to attend some more lectures with Temenos in the coming months, who seem to be more on the ‘religious’ side. I’ll possibly report back on the state of things there, if you like.

    Regarding Evola, have you heard of the novel that Joscelyn Godwin’s cowritten, The Forbidden Book? I found an interview on it here:

    Apparently one of the characters is based on Evola. In the interview they discuss two wings of esotericism, with the liberal Theosophists on one side and the conservative Traditionalists on other other. Godwin sides with the Theosophists.

    In this morning’s contemplation I formed the view that, roughly speaking:

    The ‘religious traditionalists’ (mostly admirably) cling to a past which cannot be recovered and will surely slip away.

    Those who subscribe to, or are swept up in, so-called anti-traditional/counter initiatory forces are actively seeking/facilitating the decline of that past. In the above interview Godwin says something like “I suppose that makes me part of the
    counter-initiation, oh well.”

    The radical traditionalists accept that the past cannot be recovered, but take inspiration from the past in anticipation of the re-establishment of the right order of things, and in the mean time are willing to pursue compromises within the conditions of the age. Some religious traditionalists appear to include the radicals as part
    of the counter initiation.

    Again my sympathies and character are with the third group, although I have mixed feelings about white nationalism. It seems to me that modern nationalism, and notions of racial purity are products of the degradation of monotheism.

    If the radicals are at all counter initiatory, then the Abrahamic religions that are favoured by the religionists are susceptible to a similar criticism, as it is largely through them that decline has manifested, even if their earlier forms had a mostly traditional character. Again, we surely realise that the decline from Tradition is itself a traditional doctrine and must occur — the Absolute is ultimately responsible.

    (This is my third attempt at posting this comment! I’m not sure how the posting works, but if it the comments wait to appear until they’ve been moderated, apologies for my impatience!)

  3. 3 Warlock Asylum said at 9:00 pm on March 13th, 2013:

    Nice article. Speaking of tradition, when are you going to investigate features of the Necronomicon Tradition?

  4. 4 Avery said at 4:11 pm on April 5th, 2013:

    I own a copy of S.T. Joshi’s biography of Lovecraft, but the Necronomicon is a fiction, not a tradition.

  5. 5 Avery said at 4:13 pm on April 5th, 2013:

    Hello, I’m very sorry about your comment. Disqus updated its system three weeks ago and started eating all my comments without telling me. Utterly unforgivable behavior.

    My feelings are not so far from you. Evola denounces nationalism, of course. I am planning to write a book for all the people who are discovering Evola and these writers on the Internet.

  6. 6 Ernest said at 6:22 pm on April 6th, 2013:

    No problem. I look forward to reading your book.