View Single Post
Old 02-01-2005, 12:10 PM
Draken Draken is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 896

(the following article is actually an excerpt from a longer essay taken from the link below. For those of you who are interested you can find this book in the library section in the "Righteous Living - Online" section)

András László’s traditional Weltanschauung has three key issues: »solipsism«, »kali-yuga«, i. e. dark age, and the »right-wing attitude«.

Solipsism does not sound too well in the European history of ideas - it is made up of the Latin solum (»alone«) and ipsum (»myself«). In fact, there are several kinds of solipsism, but all of them originate from two basic types: ethic solipsism and ontological solipsism - or, from another approach, practical solipsism and theoretical solipsism. While ethic-practical solipsism covers sort of a super-egoistic attitude, ontological-theoretical solipsism - starting from the epistemological perception that every existing or seemingly existing thing is verified by experience - comes to the following conclusion: the empirical world exists only in experience, ergo in the experiencing subject. There is one point, however, that connects both versions of solipsism - this at the same time separates them from the solipsism of András László - namely, that both have the same subject: the individuum. The subject of metaphysical solipsism is not the self-confined individuum but the Individuum Absolutum, in which the individuum separatum is rooted. This final, universal Subject - who is actually I myself - in fact happens to be God himself: i. e., God is the final Subject of each and every subject, and, consequently only by this Subject can each and every subject be a subject in its own, particular form. Thus, there is an equality sign connecting God with my final Myselfness - God and Myself are related to each other as in microphysics when the corpuscular and the wave-like nature of electrons are compared: it depends on the way of contemplation what we call it. Just as Meister Eckhart put it: »the eyes with which I can see God are the same as those through which God sees me. My eyes and God’s eyes are the same eyes, the same vision, the same cognition, the same love.« In other words, this does not only mean that - thinking in the first person singular - God is after all the final, one and only Ego of my own existence, but it also asserts that the factual Myselfness happens to be the God of my own, actual identification. This is the strange situation that made King Sikhidhvaja say - as is written down in Yoga Vasistha - the following paradoxical sentence: »I have the honour of respectfully bowing my head to my own true Self.« However, this does not only mean that the roots of God and those of the individuum are the same (autotheism), there is another point, too, namely that there exists but one Being, the being of this Absolute. Consequently, it would be absurd to raise the question of other beings beyond this one and only one (theomonism): »The true being, i. e. the existence of God, is such a being that appears as non-being, while the imaginary being, i. e. the existence of the world is such a non-being that appears as existence« - says the Sufi Nasafi of Aziz exactly in the same sense as it was phrased by Plato, who thinks that the former »exists forever, and has nothing to do with the genesis«, while the latter »always keeps on coming into being but never exists.« So, solipsism is the logical conclusion of the coexistence of autotheism and (theo)monism - and this conclusion has been clearly and quintessentially defined by András László: »The heteron (the »different«) is the unrecognized auton (»myself«)«. It goes without saying that under such circumstances there is no point in referring to egoism and not even to traditionally interpreted unselfishness either. After all - as Ramana Maharsi puts it - »if one could recognize the truth that everything he gives to others is actually given to his own self by himself, what could one say then about moral men, about those who help others?! As everybody is identical with one’s own final Self, whatever you do to somebody, you actually do to yourself.« This also clarifies the fact that metaphysical solipsism is not simply a question of philosophical viewpoint, not just a matter of intellectual comprehension, it is a living experience obtained by fully going along the metaphysical path, and this very experience is the source of all metaphysícal schools - be they the Hindu advaita vedanta, the Buddhist vajrayana, the Muslim wujudi-school or the Greek-Christian neoplatonism - that are preoccupied, either implicitly, or explicitly, with the basic issues of solipsism.

There is one point, however, that lends a unique and particular trait to the solipsism of András László, and this is that he lays special emphasis on the basic importance of the so-called own-person. It is significant because the different forms of philosophical solipsism universally took and take the view that another person has the same right to see and interpret the world solipsistically as the given solipsist has - i. e. solipsism, as far as perception and reality are concerned, has got more subjects. It is clear that such a solipsism can be taken for solipsism only in a very relative sense, since it postulates many ipsum - or rather ipsus/ipse and ipsa (masculine and feminine ipsum) - and thus, solipsism itself would be hurt in case of each and every person, i. e. every person would make a hole in the balloon of solipsism letting out its air continuously. As opposed to the philosophical solipsism, of course, metaphysical solipsism of traditions had not made this mistake, yet it was András László who, by introducing the concept of the »own person« clearly defined the connection between the person(s) and the Universal Subject. Because one’s own person is not simply one person of the many but a basically different one from all the other persons. Not in the sense that this person is mine while all the other persons are not, but declaring that all the other persons belong to themselves (since in this case the number of one’s own persons would be equal to the actual number of existing persons, and the subject of their own persons would always be different). Instead of this, he makes us understand that all the other persons are rooted in one’s own person, and only through one’s own person do they belong to the final Subject of being. Thus, opposed to both the multitude of persons - and, in a certain sense, to that of the one-and-onliness (sic!) of the Subject - there is but a single own person - or to put it differently: there is but one ego: »mine«. The other egos are actually not I but you or he - i. e. the heteron (which is of course an unrecognized auton). Like the other persons, the own person is also part of the maya (= the universal enchantedness), but that particular part through which the entirety of manifestation, including all the persons - though not according to his own identification (see aphorism 290) - can return to Himself/Myself (atma). And as in every dream where the source and the creator of the dreamworld and of its characters is after all the dreamer himself, however this creating process is effected through the dreamer’s dreaming self, and, similarly, waking up can only happen if at first the dreamworld and its characters are integrated into one of the participating persons of the dream, the same holds for the awaken world together with its numberless persons can only be generated and return back to their source of origin through the own person - i. e. through my own person. Thus, the concept of »the own person« - both in the individual dreamworld and in the universal enchantment of being - becomes extremely significant, and it is easy to note that this solipsistic theory, in its entirety, invokes such a metaphysical practice whose essence is reductio itself, in the original meaning of the word - i. e. leading back. Because, he who wants to wake up has to »come back« to Himself, and once you have come back to Yourself, everything will return to you.


The second cardinal point in András László’s Weltanschauung is the doctrine of kali-yuga, i. e. the present dark age or in a wider sense the cyclic descent. Because metaphysical tradition takes a standpoint by which the constant descent of history is declared, and that the descent has just reached its nadir. In point of fact the reason for descent is due to the beginning’s superiority; as for the superiority of the beginning, the reason is the superiority of the Source: God - for essentially and ontically the farther something gets from its ultimate Source - the Non-manifested Manifestor - the lower it descends. Hence descent is a universal law of being which concerns the totality of existence as well as its particulars (for sooner or later everything perishes, deteriorates, disintegrates...) - and against which only free and conscious will is able to initiate a counter move. That is the reason why Tradition turns towards the past: not to the past but to the Source through the past, for Tradition does not regard old things as a norm but considers that norms are manifest in old things. Obviously modern men radically refuse this thought - and in fact the refusal of this very thought makes them modern. Because the essence of modernity is anti-traditionality, that is the opposition to tradition, and the basis of this agressive praxis is the theory that considers »old things« necessarily more worthless than »new ones«. This opinion - that is the irrational faith in evolution and progress - is in fact stucturally atheist because it implies that the beginning is inferior, and if there were something which were the source of the beginning it would be even more inferior. The logical analogy or the very opposite of tradition’s Metaphysicum Absolutum is the hypothetic Physicum Nihilum of modernity, the substantial root of our world, the materia prima, the potentia passiva pura. The god of modernity is Nothingness.

When someone says that »how can we speak about descent when the age of modernity shows an incredible progress both in science and technology« by this assertion he just proves what he wanted to disprove: for he regards mere material development (science, technology) as the standard for human progress; that is he regards something which is purely instrumental as a standard and in this way its value comes from only that purpose of which it is the instrument. In this manner progress in the modern sense cannot be regarded other than satisfying more inferior needs in a more superior way - and »if we spiritually valorize the jet-plane carrying a hundred persons we must realize that it is not of more value than a merry-go-round. Rather less« (Béla Hamvas). Naturally no one has the slightest intention of querying the progress in the field of science and technology, but the traditional school treats precisely these fields as something of slight importance in respect of the true object of humanity, and in this way it does not even attach crucial importance to deciding the problem of progress. Because the real object of humanity is not horizontal expansion in the human state but the vertical transcending of it: developing from human condition towards superhumanity and divinity - and the collectivum must be ordered by such principles which does not prevent but help this vertical movement of the individuum in being. On the contrary, modern man - as Werner Heisenberg put it - more and more resembles to a ship whose compass does not point towards the North Pole but its own »iron body« (cf. human-ism) - nevertheless we know that for Tradition the North Pole, the boreal region, and the North Star representing the hyper-boreal region with its immobility and axiality, represent exactly that extra-samsaric point from which the world can in fact be turned inside out.

It is not only here that constant descent is demonstrated but also in an area which exerts even more influence on contemporary man’s views and existential niveau (which is often in reverse ratio to material wealth) than technical achievements - and this is culture. Obviously the value of culture cannot be defined from a quantitative point of view: How many books on average does someone read in a year? How many performances is he allowed to attend? How many television channels can he watch? - and so on. The value of culture and the cultural niveau of any age are defined by that inherent quality which dominantly characterizes culture, and which inevitably leaves its mark on the totality of society. If we examine the dominant influence of culture, the insignificant minority, which has superior criteria when choosing what they give a role in their life, will be of no interest to us for the very reason that the overwhelming majority of cultural intelligentsia does not even belong to this cathegory! The decisive word is on the side of mass-culture. Mass-culture is a consuming-oriented ancillary culture and this mere fact alone would be enough to characterise its general niveau on the one hand and its general tendency on the other hand. In this mass-culture which desires to satisfy every level of aspiration the culturally unambitious essentially feeds on the same things as the connoisseur, even if there is an almost irreconcilable distance between these two cultural levels in the mode and fastidiousness of formulation. While the »popular« version of mass-culture appealing to the lowest instincts oscillates between stone-hard brutality and mawkish sentimentality - taking of course much care to give a place to crime or criminality - the »high« version of the very same thing almost in its every manifestation suggests the unreality, the non-existence and the absurdity of the counter-world and counter-values of the world depicted by the »popular« version - and it does this with increasingly greater efficacy and, at the same time and from a certain point of view with increasingly firmer grounding. Since modern man is not aware of beauty and noble in the classical sense any more (because these there is no roomfor these in the pragmatical consumer-informational world indeed) starting from his own principle he thinks that in fact such values do not even exist, they have never existed, and descriptions informing us about such things are nothing other than fairy tales.

It is obvious that a consuming-oriented ancillary culture could not serve the normal purpose of culture: it cannot be a supportive culture. On the contrary, it necessarilly generates constant inflation. And for the person who is able to see the cultural tendency of thousands of years from above it is doubtless that while archaic-traditional culture and art had had an exalting character, and the following culture and art had a reflective character, modern and particularly postmodern culture and art have a destructive character - not only when we examine their popular manifestations, but often when we examine their most excellent productions.


The third point, which is highly significant in András László’s philosophy and therefore must be touched upon, is the right-wing attitude. Traditionality is a complex Weltanschauung covering all aspects and levels of human existence. Nevertheless, we may well say that tradition as the world concept of ancient people, and traditionality as the approach of contemporary anti-modern people, has two pillars. One of these is spirituality, which being an instrument, a method, and a path at the same time, renders man surpassing himself towards his own ultimate divine totality possible; the other is politics in the widest sense, which organizes people into a hierarchically social and governmental structure. Spirituality bears the mark of Freedom, for its ultimate aim is to surpass conditional bonds, that is, to make man recognize himself as the Absolutum, the unconditional totality of being. Politics, on the other hand, is characterized by Order, the terrestrial reflection and image of the celestial world, the mission of which is to secure such conditions for the human world, both at the collective and at the individual level, which enable life to harmonize with divine principles; for the terrestrial Order must in all respects adapt itself harmoniously to the celestial Order. Accordingly, the normative goal of a society or a collective must always coincide with and serve the normative purpose of an individual. And it really happens every time, for as the sacred pervades all aspects of life in the ideal traditional society, thus consumption penetrates everything in the »ideal« modern society.

In the archaic era, or generally speaking, in the age of tradition, man lived, nearly spontaneously and without objectifying of any kind, according to what we can call a right-wing attitude in the original sense of the word. That which is called a left-wing attitude today, however, is hardly older than a few hundred years; it appeared in the late period of the disintegrating Tradition and since its appearance it has become increasingly dominant, gradually shifting the relative and actual political centre to the left (the absolute centre, of course, never changes). This kind of shifting to the left is still in progress in spite of the fact that every notable political party today is almost completely leftist. That which is considered to be a right-wing attitude today, or the party which defines itself as being on the right wing, can only very relatively be considered right-wing from the traditional point of view. The same refers to the present parliamentary right wing and ultra-right wing as well as to the ultra-right-wing movements of the first half of the 20th century, since they were - and still are - contaminated with left-wing ideas to such an extent, that if we had to designate their place between the absolute right-wing and the absolute left-wing attitude, they would all rather be nearer to the left-wing extremity than to the middle line of the two extremities, which is the absolute centre (see the illustration below).

The right-wing attitude in the traditional sense, therefore, cannot be identified with that which is called the right-wing attitude today, because the former, being much more right-wing than the latter, is a maximally right-wing attitude uncontaminated by left-wing ideas. The right-wing attitude does not belong to qualities and values which are optimally ideal, but to those which are maximally ideal. Therefore, the term »extreme-right-wing attitude« is in fact contradictio in adiecto, because the right-wing attitude cannot have extreme variations. Only that can have extreme variations which possesses an optimum-point and then swings over that point. Today what is called an »extreme-right-wing attitude«, if the term »extreme« can be applied to it at all, is extremist not because of its right-wing attitude, that is, not because it over-represents right-wing values, but because of other reasons (aggressive anti-left-wing attitude, violence, populism, demagogy, etc.).


rla2 rc2 rra2 <-------------- rla1 rc1 rra1

[today] [in the past]

The relationship between the absolute right-wing and left-wing attitude

and the relative right-wing and left-wing attitude.

ARA: absolute right-wing attitude / APC: absolute political centre / ALA: absolute left-wing attitude / rra1: relative right-wing attitude in the early period of the disintegrating tradition / rc1: relative centre in the early period of the disintegrating tradition / rla1: relative left-wing attitude in the early period of the disintegrating tradition / rra2: the relative right-wing attitude today / rc2: the relative centre today / rla2: the relative left-wing attitude today / <---: the direction of the movement of the relative centre in history.

What are the criteria of the maximally right-wing attitude? Putting it negatively, it is the denial of any components of left-wing ideas:

be it democratism, i.e. the principle of people’s sovereignty which represents the dominion of quantity at the social level, and which can manifest itself in the form of bourgeois democracy (»government by the mob«-says Plato) as well as of communist dictatorship (which, owing to its lack of effect and its seemingly near-conservative nature, had to disappear from the political arena);

be it socialism which is but humanism at the social level, that is, a kind of »social narcissism« when society focuses on itself;

be it nationalism and internationalism, the aims of which are first to disintegrate the old order and then to form a new counter-order;

be it egalitarianism which disqualifies the individuals, or liberalism, the theory and practice of universal deprivation of values and ideas, which while announcing free competition among ideas maintains the position of an outside director for itself;

be it revolutionary ideology, whose fundamental principle is that if two factors are hierarchically arranged above or below each other, the one in the higher position will surely oppress and exploit the subordinate one, on account of which the latter is forced to resort to »revolutionary violence« in order to shake off the former’s yoke;

be it relativism, this par excellence samsarian theory, which aims at making every truth relative, except its own;

be it rationalism, which appears when the totally instrumental and essentially executive intellectual faculty (ratio) - knowing only the question »how?« - shakes off the »shackles« of the supra-rational intellect (intellectus), -which always considers a particle in relation to the whole, and which is only competent to answer the questions »what?« and »why?«-, and either becomes independent or directly enters the service of sub-rational powers;

be it secularized messianism, that is, utopianism (inseparable from both forms of the left-wing attitude) which the more systematically works for the sake of the »Noble Cause«, the more it tries to conceal the real nature of »the end of history« and the »woeful role of the last man« in it;

be it self-service religiousness, which, instead of lifting man up, is continually degrading the level of religion;

be it the squirrel’s-wheel of production and consumption, the only cycle known by modern man, which is forced to move at a more and more furious pace;

and finally we must not forget that both basic forms of the left-wing attitude go hand in hand with both materialism as dogmatic ideology (social democratism) and materiality as mentality (liberalism).

The left-wing attitude also manifests itself at the psychological level, for while the general aim of today is that instincts should be liberated and reach a dominant position, that inhibitions should cease, and that continuously increasing desires should search for newer satisfaction, what actually takes place is that what is supposed to stay down below and in detention is allowed to well up and rule (one of the most frightening word for a modern left-wing and post-Freudian person is »repression«). This principle having become the basis of 20th century psychology is but the invasion of the left-wing attitude into the sphere of psychology. The left-wing attitude, without exception, makes the most of the political conjuncture determined by kali-yuga, in other words, the left-wing attitude does not control changes (as is believed by certain theoreticians such as Friedrich A. Hayek), it only serves a blind mechanism. Generally speaking, the left-wing attitude - at least in its liberal, solely progressive variation - likes things to organize themselves, allowing them to follow their own ways (»self-adapting systems«, laissez faire), which of course results in continuous inflation, »nivellation« and the loss of values in every field, be it economics, culture, religion, etc. If, however, this process does not reach the desired pace, or if the given category has already reached its natural level and is expected to sink no more by itself, the left-wing attitude often tries to »organize« - but rather disorganize! - things, which process leads even to their further lowering.

Putting it positively, the pure right-wing attitude takes such a world concept as its starting point, at the summit of which is positioned God. Analogously, it tries to organize every field of life in such a way that it should be harmonious with this Principium Principiorum (cf. »Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven«), and adjusts the low to what is higher and what is higher to what is above it, continuing until it gets to the Supreme Being who is above all and ultimately determines everything. Thus, the right wing is theocratic in principle, according to which this divine dominion can only be realized by monarchical and aristocratic (feudal) political formations. At the point of intersection of heaven and earth stands the king, the man par excellence, who has fully realized the human character, not in the sense of given conditions but of possibility, and who is the embodiment of the central principle, which pervading the whole world »below heaven«, specifically manifests itself according to the given field. The right-wing attitude does not separate the State and the Church, the profane and the sacred spheres, because, essentially, they both point toward the same ultimate Point, toward their origin.

The slogan of the right-wing system in traditional society has always been Order based on a higher organizing principle (Sanskrit dharma). Tradition has always been aware of the fact that what the people or the masses need is not freedom but Order. As José Ortega y Gasset has excellently pointed out, inertia, and not the numerical majority of people makes mass the mass. The mass can always be mobilized. Knowing that, tradition has always been conscious of the fact that the people and the masses, being inert and consequently apt to sinking, have to be controlled from above. Obviously, if the maintaining power of Order weakens or ceases to be, the mass starts sinking by virtue of the force of inertia of its own weight (this is the »power« of the people: its own moment of inertia). Meeting with secular culture and civilisation, traditional people almost immediately start to go downhill and get ruined in the end, because the bonds, which have always held them relatively high up, break. This mere »reinlessness«, which was a characteristic feature of the transitional period between traditionality and modernity, has been crowned by the activation of special degrading forces in the modern, and particularly in the post-modern age.

This, naturally, never means that the traditional world has rejected freedom; on the contrary, only the traditional world held freedom in dignity becoming to its rank. Freedom, as a faculty and virtue, was the privilege of the few - the prominent people -, while Order was the task of everyone. The »ancient man« was aware of the fact that Freedom cannot be democratized, for virtus, manly virtue attached to high qualities in the original sense of the word, cannot, practically, be shared out. Freedom is not a basis to be provided for people but a faculty to be achieved. Neither the trade union, nor the Parliament, nor women’s rights movement can obtain freedom for people, because the freedom they secure is never a real freedom. The one who needs to be liberated is a servant; and a servant having been liberated is still a servant: a liberated servant. Only the winner is free; only the one who is able to control, and first of all, who is capable of self-control can be free. As self-knowledge is the basis of every cognition, thus self-control is the basis and crowning of every type of control. Besides Freedom, control is closely connected to Order, that is, choosing Order already implies Freedom, is an important step towards Freedom, for Freedom can only be gained by surpassing the realized and maximalized Order. It would be nonsensical to think that freedom can be realized without strength and power - or to be more precise, without personal strength and power -. It would similarly be unreasonable to believe that any other than the superior can be free; the inferior can never be free for the very reason that it is - even in the prime of its political power - always down below. Only that one can be free who is up above, likewise, maintaining power can only be possible from above.

What the left-wing/liberal masses consider freedom is but liberation and »breaking loose«: emantipatio. This is not the result of personal power and victory but of a deprivation of restraints - which even an external institute can carry out. While freedom requires power, breaking loose, on the contrary, requires weakness and reinlessness. The mass cannot maintain itself because maintenance always needs an inner controlling power; the mass can only be maintained from above: it lets itself go by nature. Therefore, when the controlling and maintaining power of Order ceases to be, the mass will come to the state of reinlessness. This is what liberation and »breaking loose« mean. The mass feels free only when it is released from above and it can at last abandon itself to the lowering force of its own weight, the ontological gravitation which always acts upwards from below and pulls down what is above. The freedom of the mass, therefore, is not the freedom of man having won over his own force of inertia so that he can ascend freely, but of man being in free fall. Thus, what is glorified as freedom today is the diametrical - and at the same time parodized - image of real freedom.

As Julius Evola has sharply noticed, a modern left-wing person is essentially drawn towards slavery and dreads real freedom. This is clearly shown by the fact that the reason that archaic times are considered to be the age of yoke and slavery is that modern man identifies himself with those who were inferior and not with those who were their superiors and free at the time. With surprising honesty, Francis Fukuyama, the celebrated theoretician of liberal democracy says the same by declaring the liberal citizen of today to be the spiritual descendant of the liberated slave, and indeed it can easily be detected in the self-interest paired with slave-mentality in the characteristic behaviour of modern democratized mass-man. That freedom does not pervade modern man’s lifestyle is clearly shown by the fact that under the term »freedom« he can almost only mean the freedom of choice - or in terms of politics - the freedom of election. For the freedom of choice in most cases - be it about political parties, goods or travelling goals - is but to choose the thing which has the most charm on man. In other words, in freedom of choice, man can »freely« choose the thing that is most fascinating for him. Therefore, during his »free« choice the average man nearly always infallibly chooses the greater slavery instead of the lesser one. The masses having been cheated »have their own desires: they infallibly stick to the ideology by which they have been subdued« - says Theodor W. Adorno, who cannot really be accused of being right-wing. It is far from freedom, not to mention free choice, when man yields to the strongest, the most attractive allure among several other ones. Freedom of choice, therefore, is the choice of the seemingly most favourable possibility, although a really free choice implies that man is not restricted to choose only from the offered alternatives but by rejecting all of them he is able to create new ones. The free choice of homonculi produced on the assembly line by modern liberal ideology can hardly go beyond the free choice of the man who can -freely - choose between being imprisoned for thirty days and paying a hundred-thousand forints fine. As far as political elections are concerned, the control of processes in modern democracy is not in the hands of the parties and politicians representing the so called persona of the frontal zone of politics and possessing only very little freedom of movement. It is in the hands of the background powers that are incognito, be they lobbies above the parties at any rank who enforce their will »from above«, or be they the so called »opinion-formers« who, by forming public opinion, do the same from below and who, therefore, make »democratic elections« a mere »play« that has already served for the illusion of the disqualified man’s freedom. Thus, freedom is almost unknown in the modern liberal world, and only on the rarest occasions does it become an issue at all. Instead of freedom, man chooses Tahiti or Haiti to be sun-tanned by the same Sun of God; Mercedes or Volvo by which he can go there; the political party which he believes will provide the greatest welfare, and so on. To sum it up, he chooses slavery instead of freedom, the greater slavery instead of the lesser on, the lesser freedom instead of the greater one, in a word, he chooses that which satisfies his increasingly material desires and which more and more embeds him in the »being-serviced = being-at-someone’s-mercy« dependence system.

Actually, the problem does not lie in the fact that freedom of election is the freedom to choose among the »superiors« (and usually the »superiors« who have been chosen rather compels the elector to do greater service and makes him more like a servant); the problem is that the thing which became the »master« of the elector does not serve the elector. One manifestation of this process is, as Gábor Czakó puts it, when man »proceeds« from the state of being subdued to people to the state of being subdued to things; or when, according to Adorno, instead of having matter imbued with soul (animism) they choose to have souls imbued with matter (industrialism). Zeno of Citium, the founder of the stoic school - contrary to the horizontal psychological typologies - classified people according to a vertical, qualitative typology into two groups: to the worthless and to the suitable, or according to another translation, to the vulgar and to the outstanding. But who are the worthless? In modern times the infallible sign of worthlessness is when man, rebelling against the tension having arisen between his own actual state and his higher state or possibility, doubts, lies about and »misinterprets« his higher state and lower it to his own level (depriving himself the chance of rising higher). The worthless in ancient times were able to live together with this tension and with their own inability to rise higher - which also proves their superiority to their offspring -, while the worthless today, setting out from their democratic »dignity« (Dignity for all!) and practising a specific form of the old revolutionary violence, pull down all they can see up above them to their own level. But the nature of worthlessness and vulgarity can come to light precisely when it is compared to suitableness, for the suitable are not those who are experts in, say, arts, professions or sports, but those who are suitable for and outstanding in surpassing themselves ad indefinitum and ad infinitum, who can win total freedom for themselves. They are described by the well-known guide of the shallow, the Arrived, the Buddha: »Look at the happiness of the Arhats! You cannot see any trace of desire in them. They have cut off the thought of »I am«, they have broken the net of illusion. They are motionless, beginningless, immaculate, real Persons, they are those who have become God, they are great heroes, the sons of Awareness, imperturbable in any situation, free of the compulsion of reincarnation, they are those who stand above their conquered »ego«, they have won their own battle in the world, they voice the »roar of the lion«; those who have woken up are truly incomparable«. But is there any hope of reaching freedom and surpassing - if not oneself - at least his own vulgar nature for one who makes himself vulgar together with millions day by day? Is there a more effective means of making oneself vulgar than by watching, listening to, reading, and doing the same as, that is, having the same cultural nourishment as hundreds and hundreds of thousands of others?

Modern spirituality strays to a very dangerous path if it has an aversion to, or rather, if it looks down on politics and believes in the incompatibility of spirituality and politics, of spirit and power, because apoliticism almost inevitably leads - unless the undifferentiated denial of politics is preceded by a sharp differentiation (cf. aphorism 445) - to being at the mercy of the background-radiation of the prevailing politics. In present-day Hungary this process manifests itself in an aggressive extreme-liberal »undifferentiationism«, which aiming at the disintegration of everything valuable and allowing radicalism only for its own use, deprives other approaches from their own radix, from their own root and from their vivid connection with their own source (which always results in the slow wasting-away of the given organism). Obviously, the spirituality that has come into being under the aegis of this political background-radiation will thoroughly bear the stamp of its characteristics and will lose its own which made spirituality what it was in the age of tradition, and which makes spirituality what it is in every circumstance. Accordingly, modern pseudo-spiritual man, instead of choosing a heroic spiritual battle, gives himself up to the drawing force of obscure and indefinable powers, and instead of rising higher he would like to abandon himself to something, although he does not know exactly to what. It is not surprising at all then that »meditation« in the thoroughly unmanly, self-service consume-spirituality is not the » battle royal« (Ramana Maharsi) performed by ancient man proceeding upon the spiritual path, but in fact relaxation. The »glory« of the modern age is that it has made meditation - which used to be the privilege of the most prominent people - one of the forms of relaxation available for anyone. As we all know well, when a fully materialized - too heavily-grown - man who has been cut off his higher life-context »starts to relax«, only the lowest point can set a limit to his sinking.

Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon
Reply With Quote