What is Metaphysical Tradition?

By András László – partial translation from Hungarian by us (we left two small sections out).

Metaphysical Tradition precedes and transcends that which we call world-view: it determines a world-view with universal scope and validity. The origin of Metaphysical Tradition is supra-temporal and it manifests itself in an incorruptible, permanent order, in teaching and the totality and unity of teachings, in archaic cultures, in paths of realization, in the essential spirituality of religions, in the artifacts of sacred art forms, in sciences with spiritual foundation.

The word metaphysics goes  back to the Greek expression of ‘ta meta ta physika’; the interpretation may be approached in two -similar- ways; the first one depicts a lower level: ‘those that are beyond natural beings’; the second interpretation expresses a higher level of meaning: ‘those that are beyond those that exist’.

Metaphysika may be deduced from this expression as the plural of metaphysikon  (sometimes as an adjective used as a noun) and then as ‘metaphysika’ – as singular adjective and noun, then  as the Greco-Latin ‘metaphysica’. We must accept both of these two interpretations of the original expression together, but without mixing them up.

Beings of nature (‘physika’) and nature (‘physis’) are not restricted to the current or future domain of physics, as a scientific discipline. Physis -in this interpretation- refers to the sphere of existents that are in any kind of relation with space, time and substantiality (that is with any kind of space and spatiality, with any kind of time and temporality and with any kind of substantiality).

Even on a lower level, metaphysics (metaphysika, metaphysica) may be deduced from, is oriented towards and deals with that which is beyond spatiality, temporality and substanciality (beyond “consistency”).

The higher level interpretation refers to that which came into being (‘physikon’), to all those that came into being (‘physika’) and to the world that came into being (‘physis’). The domain of all those that came into being – existents exceed the domain of nature. In this sense metaphysics may be deduced from and is oriented towards that which “is” beyond the domain of those that became, of existents even beyond the domain of existence itself.

It is thus obvious that metaphysics -as conceived according  to the wold-view of metaphysical tradition- is by far not the same as one of the branches of philosophy called ‘hyperontological’ metaphysics, even less so with the method and approach appreciated by some, rejected by others.

Tradition (Latin – trāditiō; Greek – paradosis; Sanskrit – pāramparya) – quite differently from the general and conventional interpretation of the term- means the temporal sustenance and the passing on of timeless metaphysical spirituality. Bela Hamvas, when interpreting Tradition, wrote about the supra-temporal presence of the spirit. From another aspect we may and must speak of the supra-termporal, metaphysical (above nature and all that it comprises) knowledge of power-dominance of ‘hyperboreus’ cast into the temporal realm.

In our views and conception tradition always means metaphysical tradition and metaphysics always means traditional metaphysics.

The most universal and innermost domain of tradition should be called super-tradition (Latin supertrāditiō; Greek hyperparadosis; Sanskrit atipāramparya) or, which is also in use, primordial tradition; – its fundamental and ultimate essence is not expressible, which means the same thing as that the central esoteria may not be expressed even in the most secret teaching, because it is beyond even the highest spheres of communicability. Super-tradition or primordial tradition – in its directness- is undocumented and undocumentable, it is essentially supra-doctrinal. Even about the “central” content of its essence we can talk only in terms of allusions, but it is precisely the essence, the essence of primordial tradition which manifests itself in various traditions; in various teachings, in various paths. The unity – the unity of traditions and religions formed around traditions – is not an evidently expressible unity. The conception that all religions essentially teach the same thing is flat dilettantism. The unity of traditions and religions is the primal and ultimate unity in the sense of the innermost essentiality. That, in which all traditions and religions are united should be called ‘Sophia Perennis’ (or ‘Religion Perennis’ or ‘Philosophia Perennis’). (The Perennis adjectival attribute in this case refers to that which is eternal, supra-termporal – timeless, to the temporal representation of ‘aeternitās’.)

We may only speak of traditional and metaphysical teaching if the origin and the ultimate goal in it is supra-existential and this is ‘Metahpysicum Absolūtum’ or ‘Absolūtum Metaphysicum’, so absolute metaphysics or metaphysical absolute. This must be evident in the teaching either directly or with minimal mediation.

It is essential to recognize, besides the metaphysical absolute, that which, in the sphere of communicability, integrally belongs to all true traditions, and which is in fact the primal and ultimate essence of all true tradition: this is the view which is called, on the level of philosophy, solipsism. Solipsism, as a word and philosophical terminology, may be derived from the synthesis of the adjective “sōlus, sōla, sōlum”, meaning sole, singular and from the adverb sōlō , meaning “alone”, and the pronoun “ipse, ipsa, ipsum” meaning “self”. It may only be translated awkwardly, as “only-myself-ism”. Its meaning is that Existence and Consciousness coincides, existence has only one subject and this single subject is I myself, the actionalities of consciousness are my own (Ich-Selbst), the objectivities, the objects and the objective world – are my own objective world, my world, the world of my own Self.

According to philosophical and supra-philosophical solipsism there are many existents, many persons and people – but there is only one Subject. I – like a person- am one among persons, people and existents, but as Subject (like ‚subiectum’, like ‚auton’, like ‚Selbst’, – like ‚Ich-Selbst’, like ‚ātmā’  and like ‚aham-ātmā’), I am alone in the totality of conscious existence. I am (only the first person singular is appropriate here) simultaneously person and subject. I can only lead myself back to myself as Subject  from myself as a person – like from the starting position of personal identification. The Subject that has been reduced into the Subject may no longer be called even a  Subject: this is already the metaphysical absolutum, the absolute as metaphisicum.

The Subject is the supra-existential ruler of Existence. As king, he rules magically over himself and over the Universe that is identical with him. The traditional view is that of magical solipsism – (sōlipsismus magicus).

The world view that derives from a traditional metaphysical foundation is a supra-philosophical world view. To use philosophical terminologies, the terms metaphysical absolutism, magical solipsism, absolute trans-idealism, magical trans-idealism, magical idealism, absolute transcendentalism, immanent transcendentalism and transcendental immanentalism may be indicative of what could, in a philosophical sense,  correspond to that which is our supra-philosophical position.

In terms of doctrinal terminologies we may make some concessions, but only verbally. The final frontier of such concessions, in a philosophical sense, expressed through philosophical language, is the demarcation line between subjective and objective idealism.

The conception of God and Godhead of a world view based on and derived from metaphysical tradition is universal on several levels. Since the super principle of being beyond gods, even beyond God also belongs to the totality of traditions, we must speak of such a God-view that incorporates, and in the same time also transcends and supersedes all theistic views. The appropriate term for this: metatheopantism (metatheopantismus). Metatheopantism transcends and contains its own versions: theopantism (or transcendental pantheism), the generally understood (immanent) pantheism, the synthesis of pantheism and monotheism – panentheism, the various forms of monotheism (unitarian, binitarian, triniarian, etc.), henotheism (i.e. the view based on the existence of one but not a singular God-Godhead), dio- and triotheism, politheism (understanding that there has never been “true” and “clear” politheism: multiple gods have meant/mean the multiplicity of the manifested faces of one single God or Godhead), and may also include the positive (not based on negation) transcendental non-theisticism.

When it comes to affirming or denying the personal nature of gods, God or the Godhead, various traditions represented different positions, based on transcendental and direct experiences. The view that corresponds with metaphysical traditionality represents – based on these- primarily transpersonalism, the manifestation of a supra-personal Godhead and that of a supra-divinity. This, before and beyond, includes the affirmation of divine personality – personal divinity, theistic personalism, but also the attitudinal avoidance of personal God – Godhead.

According to the world view that derives from the universal and integral spiritual-metaphysical traditionality, the previously listed God-interpretations – originally rooted in direct transempiricality – are all essentially true.

Originally, giving preference to any had extremely complex reasons and conditions (the treatise of which deserves a separate study); today it is the interpretation – and in ideal circumstances of realization- that determines which form of view should come to the forefront.

Once, traditionality determined life as a whole – thus it was far more than the basis of the most coherent world view of the highest order. The traditional world was infused by transcendentality and a life beyond life. The archaic Golden age of Hēsiodos and the Greek mythological tradition (Krta – or Satya- Yuga in the Hindu mytho-cosmological tradition, like the early representation of the first and radiating creation) meant the total dominion of traditionality. Even in the Silver age (in Trētā Yuga) and the Iron Age (Dvāpara Yuga), although decreasingly, metaphysical traditionality was still dominant. The Iron age, the age of Darkness (Kali Yuga) (some call it Lead age) started in 3102 before Christ – in tight correspondence with the unfolding of history. The dominant role of tradition receded but until the VII-V. Century BC it still clearly had significant weight. This clearness then started to fade and approximately in the IV-V Centuries after Christ, it completely ceased. Nevertheless tradition had great significance in the Antiquity, in the whole of the Middle Ages and even at the beginning of modernity, although the anti-traditional influence – which has been gaining considerable and perceivable momentum since the beginning of the Kali Yuga – became stronger and stronger and with the first third of the 18th Century, it became dominant.

Tradition until the 19th Century was not a world-view but something that acted as a spiritualizing force and factor behind world-views and in certain areas of life. In the 20th Century (perhaps with a half century delay) it became necessary to create a well defined traditional world-view. The foundation for this work was laid in the first third of the century. The life work of Titus Burckhardt, Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy, Julius Evola, René Guénon, Marco Pallis, Rudolf Pannwitz, Comte Albert de Pouvourville (Matgioi), Leo Schaya, Frithjof Schuon and Leopold Ziegler in this respect is fundamental.

In regards of creating a world-view out of the spiritual-metaphysical tradition with a vantage point above world-views, the personality and life work of Julius Evola, René Guénon and Frithjof Schuon are the most significant and the most universal in scope and perspective. According to our position – although we are not keen on ranking in this respect- Julius Evola was the most eminent among them. (Although there are areas where the views of René Guénon or Frithjof Schuon were the most clear and the deepest, our opinion is that where some differences emerged between these three traditionalist thinkers in regards to partial problems, Evola’s view points were almost always the highest and his judgements were the most enlightening).

….

Having schematically outlined all these we now have to determine the philosophical – hyper-philosophical theses the acceptance or rejection of which has deciding and definitive validity in regards to judging if a position is traditional or not. At this time no well defined dogma-dogmatologia is connected with the world view that corresponds with the universal and integral spiritual-metaphysical tradition. It is also obvious that traditionalism is recognizable and although its basic doctrinal values with dogmatic validity – which are although definitive and intransigent, reaching radical levels – can’t be rigid. Considering all this we must state that the traditionalist view has some doctrinal thesis, in relation to which the already strong intransigence becomes decidedly extreme. The most significant of these:

  • The radical affirmation of ‚Absolūtum Metaphysicum’ and ‚Metaphysicum Absolūtum’ .
  • The pronounced affirmation that Existence (in the broadest possible sense) and Consciousness are one.
  • The differentiation between the person and the Subject. The affirmation that the Subject – ĀTMĀ – is the center of Consciousness and Existence.
  • The most extreme affirmation of absolute magical solipsism.
  • The affirmation of the attainability of ‚Absolūtum Metaphysicum’. The ‚Exvigilātiō Metaphysica Absoluta’ – in other words the absolute metaphysical Awakening  (in Sanskrit: Samyak-Sam-Bōdhi) is the ultimate and main objective of metaphysical tradition.
  • The “absolute realization of Myself” – “to completely lead myself back from my personal self through myself into my absolute self as Subject” – corresponds with the absolute and “perfectly perfect” Awakening, which “is” beyond  Salvation.
  • The rejection of heterotheism -which is acceptable on the level of religion- from the point of view of metaphysical realization. (God or the Godhead is ultimately the potentiality of my being the Subject: “my power-potential to realize myself as God.”)
  • The affirmation of trans-activity (wei-wu-wei in Chinese Taoism) –  thus both activity (actionality) and inactivity (inactionality) is adequate; mainly the unity of these that may be lead back into trans-activity-transactionality.  Passivity – from the traditional point of view – is an objectionable spiritual attitude.
  • Postulating that the contemplative, the Gnostic, the action-heroic and as their synthesis, the theurgo-magical spiritual paths are equally valid.
  • The rejection of ‚Mystica Passiva’. The consideration of “mystical dissolve” as a false objective.
  • There is Oneness in Existence, but there is no equality and beings don’t have equal value. Postulating hierarchical graduality (Graduālitās Hierarchica) and a ranking order and relating it to all areas; to states of consciousness, to human communities and collectives and to individual people; or to spiritual worlds just like to spiritual beings.
  • The pronounced rejection of historical, biological, cultural – and all kinds- of evolution.  The radical rejection of all forms of evolutionism. (In biology for example the synthesis of involutive organicism and gradual-proportional creationism corresponds best with the traditional world-view, rejecting all “stems” and “branches” – even reverse “branches” but also rejecting the over-simplifying -and essentially anti-hierarchical – concept of “vulgar creationism”.  The rejection is obviously the most extreme against the Darwinist – Neodarwinist currents and all those currents – for example the Antidarwinist ones that nevertheless represent Darwinism- that are related to these, not limiting their scope for example by the pseudo-spiritual, essential crypto-materialist views of P. Teilhard de Chardin.)
  • The position of metaphysical traditionality in regards to the historical, societal and political domains is the affirmation of Monarchies and Empires. Once these enjoyed primary reason for existence and if there existed the slightest chance, these state forms would be the most appropriate ones even today, representing and ensuring spiritual reality the most adequately.

The leveling, indifferentiative and subintegrative vulgar – nationalism and the also infinitely leveling internationalism -like anti-traditional formations- can’t be accepted from  the traditional point of view.  However, an antilevelling, differentiative and integrative nationalism is considered to be possible and valid in the traditional view   that, refraining from internationalism, through con-nationalism -keeping in mind the principle of commonwealth instead of internationalism- is able to open to, even to conclude in trans-nationalism (beyond nationalism) or supra-nationalism (above nationalism). It is only the con-national – trans-national “Imperium Monarchicum” that is acceptable for a traditional view both retrospectively and prospectively.

The traditional orientation considers conventionally understood conservative political and societal formations to represent an anemic, compromising and coward line of orientation. From a traditional point of view only such a radical conservatism is acceptable that wants to and is able to conserve in a ‘revolutionary’ – ‘counterrevolutionary’ way; and what it wants to conserve may not be other than the material, structural, functional or – first of all – spiritual reality deemed to be valuable to preserve by metaphysical tradition.

  • The view that finds its roots in spiritual and metaphysical tradition interprets ‘modernity’ and the ‘modern world’ in a particular way. Modernity, according to this view, is connected to the advanced stage of anti-traditionality, to the progressive unfolding of the forces of Dark Age. Its roots reach back to the 7th-6th-5th-4th Century before Christ – this is when the particular manifestation of modernity, that from the beginning of the 18th Century became increasingly destructive, and that in the 20th Century launched a devastating offensive against the last remnants of values, began.

In regards to modernity and modernism, Traditionalism – since it stands in opposition with anti-traditionalism – is extremely rejective, if necessary with a combative radicalism.  Naturally, anti-modernism may also take on vulgar, even blatantly gross forms – those who orientate themselves with traditionality have nothing to do with these. Anti-modernism  is not fundamentally against technology for example; it stands up against forces that turn the culture of spirituality towards a technical civilization thereby corrupting and degrading it. ( Traditional anti-modernism for example is not willing to have anything to do with any kind of Rousseauesque “back to the nature” orientation. )

Following the schematic introduction of the basic thesis of acceptance-affirmation and rejection – denial we must also indicate in a few words in what primary areas an orientation that rests on metaphysical tradition want to manifest itself on the one hand, and what areas it considers to be still conquerable on the other.

First and foremost, the universal and integral spiritual-metaphysical traditionalism intends to change – according to the intrinsic spirit of true traditional doctrines – the concept of tradition. Its view on tradition needs to be based – in all respects – on the totality and unity of tradition – this an unshakable basic principle.

It is a tradition-interpretation imperative that in addition to rejecting the historical, sociologizing and psychologistical (that in the past sixty years has become rather fashionable) tradition – and doctrine deciphering initiatives, mainly the  deciphering interpretations of mythological doctrines exclusively by Freud- , Jung – and Fromm must ruthlessly and without compromise be referred to a level of marginal significance. Not only because the validity of these interpretations may be considered to be almost zero, but mainly because even the optimal super-synthesis of all the branches of psychology in the world is fully incompetent to -from a psychical-psychological, God-forbid psycho-pathological and  psychiatric aspect- qualify to interpret any kind of spiritual-metaphysical doctrine of non-psychical origin, that is manifested perfectly free from any kind of psychical contamination, originating from an almost infinite height above the realm of the psyche. The doctrines’ origin is spiritual and supra-human, in their most fundamental essence they originate from beyond nature and natural entities and they aim beyond the natural and the existent. This can’t even be touched from a physiological, psycho-physiological and psychological aspect -not even from the aspect of a maximally “spiritualized” psychology-, let alone to “decipher”, “judge” or “interpret” it.

Metaphysical traditionalism, as a point of orientation, is capable of extending its validity to all existing and possible sciences and their branches – primarily in terms of interpretation and re-interpretation but even in terms of intellectual fertilization-, although (and this always has to be consciously considered) metaphysics is not oriented toward nature and doesn’t deal with nature and not even such a traditional science like cosmology is metaphysics. Metaphysics can deal with the physical – and this can’t even be conceived the other way around.

The most decisive task of metaphysics is to provide a guideline for physical-mental-spiritual preparation  and self-correction, for pre-initiation and for an eventual initiation and ultimately for metaphysical realization.

Modern man -and we must emphasize this in the spirit of tradition – can’t be initiated and is almost fully incapable of metaphysical realization. There is some possibility –  very little and only for few  – that -in a way by archaifying themselves [by achieving an archaic state] – they cease to be modern men and thus they may step on the path of initiation. Representing metaphysical tradition means the affirmation of initiation and realization – but not without reservations. The path towards the unconditioned is paved by a multitude of strict conditionings, even by taking up new conditions. Precious few people are capable of consciously performing any kind of adequate self-correction of preparatory significance on their mental functions and regarding certain mental-voluntary attitudes in a positive sense, with an orientation toward superiority. Much fewer of those can reach pre-initiation (or prodinitiation) that results in archaification not to mention initiation itself and realization. The representatives of metaphysical tradition do not want to prevent anybody from these paths but they also don’t want that anyone of the otherwise positive people with true motivations should set out on a path -without adequate capabilities and mental protection- to their deepest demise.

Although the treatment of anti-traditionalism and related paths will be the topic of a future study, we must mention here – although just briefly – that there are anti-spiritual currents (they emerge by the thousands nowadays) whose goal (that we may call satanic without exaggeration) is to lead the human mind towards mental disintegration by offering pseudo-spiritual and contra-spiritual paths to people with some spiritual affinity and to thereby creating a cosmic ‘infection’ that affects other, occult spheres of existence. This drive is deeply sub-intelligent but when it appears, it can influence instincts, emotions and partially even intelligence often to a significant degree. Not only sects and “congregations” carrying dark tendencies that are called Christian belong here but also certain lines that “open up” an initiatic path or yōga path for people with spiritual inspirations who deserve better, and who possess even higher capabilities at some level, although their spiritual awareness is not yet (or is already not) suitable for recognizing and rejecting these.

Today, without exception, all yōga trends, all “secret societies” accepting everybody, all orders and organizations that operate under usurped names providing initiation, “transfiguration”, “transcendental meditation” (appropriately understood: contra-transcendental contra-meditation), “hermetic exercises”, that give “yōga-sleep” as “help” for their “fellow men stumbling around in less light”; the satanically dark trends or organizations of contra-realization and downward-transcendence, in demonic offensive against all supra-human, even against all human values, primarily against the otherwise already hardly intact terrains of human consciousness.

We must acknowledge that not only fundamentally dark exercises of the originally dark trends are extremely dangerous for the spirit, for the soul and also for the body but also the originally perfect and fully valid exercises if they are performed by modern man – man that lacks precisely those capabilities and strengths whose high intensity presence would be the prerequisite for adequately executing the exercises.

The world is increasingly flooded by various eastern traditions and traditional religions, first of all by the export – import versions of Buddhism – mostly by completely devaluing Buddhism itself. Buddhism and other traditional religions are infused by such extremely anti-traditional pseudo-ideologies like leftism, democratism, liberalism, even left wing socialism, Marxism, communism, at the very least humanism, pacifism and tolerantism. True traditionalism -thus true Buddhism, too- is human but not humanistic and does not advocate humanitarianism, since it doesn’t consider the bondage of man to be breakable by human means and by human ways. True traditionalism, just like true Buddhism – as says Frithjof Schuon – is pacific but not pacifist; interpretation: the man of tradition strives to realize peace but not at any cost. He only wants peace that’s achieved after the victory of spiritual Light (‘pāx post victōriam lūcis spirituālis’) and rejects peace that emerges after the victory of anti-spiritual darkness (‚pāx post victōriam tenebrārum antispirituālium’). Tradition – and Buddhism within it – is tolerant but doesn’t advocate tolerantism because it’s not willing to go to extremes to be tolerant against darkness – against the overt or covert, but increasingly devastating attacks of anti-spiritual and contra-spiritual forces.

Those who smuggle or openly bring the yōga-paths that are related to Buddhism into the western world- and that are increasingly unfollowable especially for Western man – purposefully fuse – confuse the spiritual and attitudinal deviations and aberrations with the downward-transcending exercises of anti-yōga (i.e. leftism, liberal-democratism, “spiritual materialism”, egalitarism, pacifism and tolerantism, with the practical activation of the forces that bring occult deterioration and death.) The universal and integral spritual-metaphysical traditionalism has never made and will never make any kind of compromise towards any manifestation of anti-traditionalism and especially no compromise will be made if these appear in a spiritual, or even traditional disguise.

The universal and integral spritual-metaphysical tradition and corresponding traditionalism and the world – view that’s rooted in these is the observance of the timeless-eternal Light – the world-view (that is above world-views) of the force and certainty that recognize darkness and the false light and reject them.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Principles and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to What is Metaphysical Tradition?

  1. Pingback: Līberālismus contrā Lībertātem | PRAGUE CONSERVATIVE CIRCLE

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s