Author: Andras Laszlo – own translation from Hungarian
If we adhere to the traditional world-view and world-conception we must follow a fundamentally different approach to man, state and society than the approach that is taken by current conceptions and views that examine (if they do at all) this trinity separately or in their relationships.
The traditional world-view – which is a world view based on metaphysics that leads back all its premises, its general conceptions and judgments to a supra-natural Principium Principiorum –examines those aspects of man’s life that one way or another bind him to a community.
The community in which man lives or may live may be collectivum sacrum (collectivum sacrale), when the Spirit “sacredly” influences the individual and the community that unites people. In most cases however the opposite comes forth: collectivum profanum. This means that people are integrated by an inner disposition that lacks sanctity – it’s even anti-sacred – and by an external orientation towards objectives without any transcendental perspective and goals focused only on one’s most basic biological life that starts with conception and ends with death.
It is typical of collectivum profanum that its objectives lack a transcendental dimension, that it pursues goals that are decidedly meaningless for the individual after his death. If somebody raised the point that although such goals may not be meaningful for the individual, they are meaningful for the community, we’d have to say that this is not valid, since the perspective of the community and the perspective of the individual should overlap. We can’t expect this overlap to be perfect but without a certain degree of overlap – under normal circumstances – neither individual nor collective life may be conceived or is imaginable. We can’t say that “although my life ends, my work and my activities have a meaning that survives my life”. This is a flat, banal, rational – essentially sub-rational – depiction of the relationship between man and his own future and the relationship between the individual and his community. If somebody – not through meditation, not in the sense of a superior approach, but simply by a moment of self-observation – truly tries to tackle this question, he’ll immediately realize that no goal makes sense that is decidedly based on the assumption that the individual will dissolve in death; – or that is based on the assumption that although the individual will not dissolve in death but his subsistence is automatic and necessary.
In order for man – the individual – to subsist after death, he must go through certain levels in the course of his life; he must realize levels and he must overcome trials that make him suitable for being able to experience the trauma and crisis of death while he consciously, truly maintains his self-awareness and his sense of self.
The community may only be collectivum sacrum if it provides the conditions of self-transcendence for all its members, if all the individuals that make up the community thrive for self-realization and if the individual may see a sacred framework in the community for his self-realization, if he wants a sacred frame and if he realizes a sacred frame in it.
The modern world stands in the sign of anti-tradition; it stands in opposition to everything that’s sacred, that is traditional, spiritual, divine, holy, that is related to self-transcendence – both on an individual and on a collective level. The individual that will dissolve may only do something in the community of individuals destined to dissolve in death while he is considered to be alive; to do something valuable he must lift himself from the conditions of his nature prone for dissolution – from the state of his conditioned self. Only through this can he make a move that may result in that his community should move in some sense and to some extent from its position in which the orientation is aimed at annihilation.
The original meaning of state is higher than the original meaning of society. The ancient collectivum sacrum stood in relation with status sacralis (with status traditionalis or with status spiritualis) and with societas sacralis (with societas spiritualis).
In the duality of sacred society and sacred state, sacred state is superior.
We we consider the Word itself, status in Latin means state and it also means state of conditions, stopping, staying, being founded. The god-king of Rome, Jupiter Stator, Jupiter the Upholder, the conditioning Jupiter, Jupiter the state-founder, the one who stops the flow of processes. The state is always related to the axis, to the two poles and to the center; the axis is around which movement is happening, around which he can control and dominate movement while keeping himself in a calm, motionless state, in a state of being held back in a way in a state beyond states, in the state in the original sense.
The Ruler is more than the state. The state is where the Ruler manifests himself. The state is axial – i.e. it is of axial nature -, polar – i.e. it is defined by the poles – and central, defined by centrality. Axiality, polarity and centrality constitute the foundation and in the same time the symbol of the state; and also that in which Dominance and the Ruler possessing power manifest themselves. We should add that currently there are no states in the traditional – in other words in the original and actual – sense: today there is not a single true state anywhere in the world. There are pseudo and contra states in which the apparatus statualis – i.e. the state apparatus – seems to be a reality independent of the state. There exists an actual state apparatus but a true state doesn’t exist.
It is obvious that a state in the original sense of the word – and we can’t conceive of an actual state in any other sense – is not in any way a “oppressive organ in the hands of the ruling class” as was stated by the hideous and paralytic Lenin. Even a state apparatus is not an oppressive organ – provided that is serves a healthy state. Even if the state apparatus without a state doesn’t serve a healthy state, it is not an “oppressive organ in the hands of the ruling class”, but an oppressive and manipulative organ under the influence and control of circles incorporating sinister powers. Essentially it is precisely this that depicts our era: there are apparatuses but there are no states.
We should also add that in the current era Rulers also don’t exist – even less so than states. According to this in the current era the folk/people also doesn’t exist in the original sense. In its stead we find a conglomerate, the anti-sacred heap of people – a distorted collective.
The above mentioned misshapen state apparatus democratically leads the collective – based on the power of the folk. The Greek word demos, although it is connected with daimon, with the demon, in the Dark Age it actually means a connection with kakodaimon, with the wicked demonicity of darkness.
We stress that democracy may be dictatorial, may be liberal-parliamentary. People say that dictatura democratica, which is adopted in China, is an absurdity; however, democracy doesn’t contain in any way equality, equal rights or freedom. What democracy means is only that in it, supposedly, the folk – the demos – rules.
If we look deeper it becomes obvious that the folk in actuality never rules in any democracy. It is not demos that rules, in fact it doesn’t rule in any way, but a system of dark powers that develop a special relationship with the lowest level of needs – on the level of instincts – of the demos. This doesn’t mean that they satisfy the needs on the level of instincts, but that they somehow respond to such needs; they disclose to the demos the possibilities of satisfaction, dissatisfaction, privation and rejection in relation to these needs. They respond to the demos and they make the demos react to their directives.
Evidently the Greek demokratia doesn’t correspond to the principles that originate from traditionality. Although the difference between the Greek – Athenian – démokratia and democracy in the current sense is astronomical, even the Greek – Athenian – démokratia does not correspond with the original, traditional view. It is also evident that the dark, terroristic dictatorships that develop a relationship with -without satisfying the- the darkest needs of demos also don’t have anything to do with what traditionality demands. I repeat: a democracy may have a dictatorial, even terroristic character, and it may also be liberal-parliamentary – both are the products of anti-traditionalism. Neither the democracy in the dictatorial, nor in the terroristic or liberal-parliamentary sense may ever be accepted on the base of traditionalism.
The majority decides – this is the motto of the view that is dominated by quantity. The Dark Age – as follows from all traditional principle and as is pronounced by the founders of traditionalism and as René Guénon succinctly stated – is the age of the reign of quantity. The age of quantity, not of quality. When things are grounded in quantity, pseudo-qualities are introduced. Even in the world of quantity some quality-residue must be present and in the world of quantitative views this quality-residue (pseudo-qualitative pseudo-residue) is the majority. “The majority decides” – children are chanting this when there are five of them; and countries, continents and a whole world are stating this as a basic principle to be followed.
Bela Hamvas writes in his Invisible history – very aptly – that the mass is not weak minded, as the sociologist Le Bon thought in good faith; the mass is a satanic idiot: this is what manifests itself in the mass and in the majority. If not cliques but truly the demos rules in democracy, it is still dark, demonic and satanic. Democracy always appeals to what is dark, satanic and blind in the mass, to what may be manipulated and changed. Essentially there is no principle that may not be made acceptable to the mass if it is consistently communicated in the right way and for long enough. Gradually everything becomes acceptable – everything, without exception; and, in the near future the opposite of everything and then the opposite of those too, this time pointing to a yet again different direction.
Let’s emphasize: both true and pseudo-democracy are the straight, cardinal and combatant manifestation forms of anti-traditionality; all liberal-parliamentary, and all terroristico-dictatorial forms of democracy are also – similarly to the previous ones – anti-traditional, anti-spiritual, destructive, devastating societal and state forms that stand against man, against life and even more so against everything above life and against the Spirit.
It is evident – and this is a fundamental traditional premise – that the only forma statualis that reflects traditionalism is the monarchy; the kingdom, the empire, the principality– i.e. monarchies. No other state form may be imagined or conceived that would correspond with traditionality. There could be statualis formations that don’t directly contradict traditional principles, but still, essentially only the monarchy is the single appropriate state form.
The initial period of the Golden Age was called abasileia , which means no kings. The antitraditional attitude may draw the conclusion from this that the most archaic state was somehow in opposition to monarchy. This would be an incorrect conclusion since in the age of abasileia everybody was a king, everybody ranked as a king and because of this there was no need for a special one. This also implies a human community whose every member was above castes, in fact, every member stood at the very peak of such supra-caste state. Under such conditions it is not important if there is a special ruler or there isn’t. If not everybody stands at the very top of the supra-caste state – and in our current era the majority of people stand n ear the very bottom of the sub-caste state – , it can’t be posited that monarchy doesn’t make sense. The only reason why monarcy doesn’t have sufficient sense in the current era is because the majority is not worthy and not suitable for living in a monarcy. The majority is unworthy and unsuitable for forming a community that is appropriate for a monarchy, for comprising the collective of a state that is suitable for a monarchy.
In the Dark Age the sacral Ruler is missing the highest grade of which used to be the God-King once. This was followed by the sacral king in a more direct sense – the king that was touched by the divine khrisma, whose calling came from Heaven; then kings appeared that ruled by the grace of God, followed by those in whom this kingdom by the grace of God still somehow manifested itself – even if just dimly, partially and relatively; with time even this disappeared – in parallel to which, in some sense even preceding this – the community disappeared together with the people that under the rulership of the king and under the leadership of those worthy for leadership could manifest themselves as demos hieros. Demos hieros is a folk that indirectly – through the Ruler – has sanctity; and this folk is disappearing in our age, may it has already disappeared.
Yet, even today the only valid state form is still the monarchy; state form in a relative sense because true states no longer exist. Only state imitations exist with their apparatus. Despite this, if they created something at least in analogy with the true state, this could be conceived only in a monarchical framework. If there is no king, if there is nobody who is elevated to this rank through a heavenly khrimsa, then at least a regent (regens) should emerge who to some degree approaches this dignity and who, until the true and worthy Ruler appears – perhaps only in a subsequent world-era – in a way substitutes the actual Ruler. The regens – and even more so the regnator – would substitute the king in the capacity of a ruler. The chances are minimal even for this in our times but this is the only direction where something may be conceived.
Here we must mention a very important thing: the question of whether the state and the church (any kind of church) may be separated or not. 99% of the people who consider themselves spiritually oriented would answer with a yes, that the two must be separated. Despite of this, this view is perfectly anti-spiritual. The state and the church may and must never be separated. Such separation means: to revoke statualitas from the church and to revoke everything that the church represent from statualitas – the Spirit and the divine. Such separability should never even come up.
Yet, as we said earlier, currently there are no actual states. (If we want to be really generous we should say that true states don’t really exist.) The apparatus statualis that is operational today makes the impression as if there was a state but there isn’t; there is only an apparatus. And without doubt the church may not be subordinated to the apparatus and the apparatus may also not be subordinated to the church. So it makes a some sense to separate the two today but when we say this – even before we do – this situation must be interpreted and elucidated: why the two may not be intertwined today as it would otherwise be normal.
It belongs to this question that the church is only minimally a church today. This fact just underlines that the state apparatus – the state apparatus without a state – may not be subordinated to the church. If the situation was normal the state and the church would be in an organic symbiosis with each other – in inseparable symbiosis.
If the state is a real state and society is a real society, then the state would stand guard above society. If society is real society – i.e. it is an organic society – then it is also in symbiosis with the state, but in a way that the primacy of the state in this symbiosis remains intact.
The question arises if there a total state has authority. Let’s recognize that superior to the total state – infinitely superior- is the organic state, the status organicus. Status totalis is acceptable as long as the status totalis is: organic. Thus we consider the organically total state to be acceptable which in its control and structure is organically catagogic (following a top down direction), and which in its goals is organically anagogic (following a bottom up direction). In case of the state imitations – that often aim at totality – of today we can observe an inorganic and anagogic control setup and an also inorganic and catagogic orientation. These are formations that are moved by lower powers or controlled by the advocacy (reflecting the attitude of attornies) of lower powers. In these state imitations the most destructive goals of lower powers are taken up and represented by cliques of “lawyers” – without regard to whether or not they are suitable for the masses. No real value is expressed in these goals. Namely the mass can only recognize (just like the lowest level people can recognize) what is it momentarily that he finds say the most pleasant, but it can’t identify what is for them the most positive; – and the two are by no means the same. The most pleasant! For example if they want to eat, they want to eat – everybody knows this and more or less even a collective may know this. If there is no money, they want more money. But about what is positive for them they have no idea. What’s positive also have transcendental perspectives; – and when I say “also” I am making concessions because it only has transcendental perspectives. Somebody in whose life the transcendental doesn’t play a decisive role, can’t recognize what are the true positives.
It is obvious – and we can’t stress this enough – the terroristic and dictatorial forms set in opposition with the liberal-parliamentary democracy do not provide a solution either. Even in these they take on the needs of the folk in the sense of advocatio. Although they don’t’ satisfy these needs but in a certain way they still respond to these adequately.
Let’s assume that they would really satisfy the needs of the people and thus once true democracy (which has never happened) would become a reality world-wide; when this would not be manipulated by money or by anything else. It is possible that this would be the most terrible formation which man on Earth has ever seen. This would be namely fully anarchistic. If so called freedom is increased to the extremes, it is always anarchistic, thus terroristic. And if freedom is extremely repressed that is also always terroristic. The intensification and repression of freedom ultimately concludes in the same result because we are in the Dark Age, because the world and man is in a darkened state.
Man in abaseleia -whether or not he’s ruled- stays in an enlightened state. Today however either the terror of the dictatorship of the apparatus or -as the other extreme- anarchist terror takes over – and practically there is no difference between the two.
Society may only be organic if there is an organic – even organically total- state ruling over it and society may only be an organic society if it is hierarchically structured; we can say that it is structured in the sense of a hierarchical graduality, a hierarchical graduation of existence.
This view is in full opposition with what is being force-fed to people since their childhood today. This however can’t hinder us in pronouncing the principles that are valid and that absolutely don’t concern themselves with how man has been manipulated throughout his life.
Originally (and this always means a state that is closer to the origin, to archaicity, even if it is not fully in archaicity itself) man built a collective unity physically-mentally-spiritually in which the correspondence of inheritances realized on the physical plane, the mental and interincarnative inheritances, as well as the transcendental origins was perfectly harmonious. Originally everybody incarnated where, according to their essence, they had to. This, in some sense, is still like this, but then the formulas were clear and precise. So only such a person incarnated into a bráhmana family that physically, mentally and spiritually met the fundamental characteristics of the bráhman; – never anywhere else, and whoever incarnated specifically there, could not have incarnated anywhere else. This applied equally for the kshatriyas, the vaishyas, the shudras and the chandalas, too. Everybody incarnated physically, mentally and spiritually to the place that was most suitable for them to be their physical-mental-spiritual carrier. Everybody incarnated to where they belonged by their essense – and these were clear formulas.
Today somebody who is by his essence a bráhmana – although there are not too many of these, but let’s assume that we’re talking about a potential bráhmana- may incarnate in terrible conditions because this from a certain point of view – due to the special dispensation of obstacles and advantages – may be to some degree advantageous. But this is no longer a clear formula. In reality -based on special karmabandha relationships- everybody incarnates where they belong even today, but these may no longer be considered to be clean formations. Thus it is conceivable that there are five siblings in one family and one of them is a potential bráhmana, one of them is a potential kshatriya, one of them is a potential vaishya, one is a quasi-shudra and one that corresponds with a panchaka. If there was a sixth sibling, that one may be an avarna. This may be conceived without reservations today, however in the age of organic correspondences this would have been an absurdity.
We should never forget that the bráhmana principle or the kshatriya is just as valid today as they have ever been – not by the slightest degree are they any less valid. What’s lost is the clarity regarding the carriers. This means that the frames of manifestation of the castes have become unstable. These frames became massively unstable very long time ago, in the age of the historical Buddha – so roughly 2500 years ago, around the critical year of 510-509 B.C. This doesn’t mean that the castes in India for example would have lost their validity by today. 2500 years have past and they still have validity. Although it is possible that bráhmanas are only minimally bráhmanas , in the same time among those in the fifth level we still can’t find bráhmanas even today. Those higher have slid down, those lower slid further down, not the other way.
The West – meaning west from the meridian that crosses the Kheops or Hufu pyramid (this meridian also goes through the vicinity of Saint Petersburg) – in some sense is truly a part of the world that’s related to settling and decline, in other words the part where the Dark Age prevails more than elsewhere. The Dark Age of course prevails everywhere, in the West, in the East, in the North and also in the South, but in the West somewhat sooner.
The clean caste formations in the West became unstable almost in pre-hystorical times, but their remnants remained observable for a long time, occassionally even as quite superior forms. The Roman patricians for example were the last representatives of a caste whose members were simultaneously bráhmanas and kshatriyas and represented an extremely superior and ancient archaic unity- in a dimmed and deteriorated form, but still absolutely not indignantly. The majority of the patricians who were the representatives of the gens – the founding dynasties of Rome- (these we should differentiate from the later patricians that got appointed) represented this origin on a certain level; – not all of them and not always and not unconditionally, but to some degree definitely.
Castes may not be created artificially. Yet: we may say that the European middle class of antiquity, of the middle ages and of early modernity to some degree and in some sense meant the pale reflection of the original vaishya. The warrior nobility showed some relationship with the kshatriya and the clergy also showed some pale relationship with the bráhmana.
Certain priests (and in this case this also includes monastic priests) represented a certain bráhmana quality and some of them – although only a few – were exceptional personalities, this however was not enough for the formation of an actual hereditary caste.
Making celibacy mandatory originates from mixing up two principles. The possible fusion of pontifical priestly quality and the monastic priestly quality: monastic priesthood (monk-priesthood). This however should not be unconditionally extended to the entirety of priesthood. If priests had married only from priest-families then such families may have had such characteristics (only pale and secondary) which may have provided a more appropriate base for people with priestly qualities in term of incarnations. Although a priesthood in this sense would have represented (even as a late and pale version) the original bráhmana to only a very small degree, this could have still resulted in a certain -probably very low- vicinity to that state. And here we must note that we must detect an anti-traditional intervention in the fact that the non-monastic priesthood was not allowed to marry, the effect of an intent whose aim was that the bráhmana caste may not exist even as an imitation – even as a pale imitation.
There was however a possibility in the West that connected the ascetic and the warrior life style. In this knightly-ascetic line -represented by only a few- there was a possibility and an orientation towards the restoration of the original state above the castes. No other social formation carried this possibility, besides the knightly-ascetic orientation. And it was precisely this orientation that they attempted to marginalize the most; at a time when this truly had significance and relevance or even today, when these no longer have any effectiveness – only on some castrated, charity level. It’s significant in this respect to remember the antipathy and hatred that Paul VI. Manifested towards the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Starting mainly with John XXIII., the popes professed antipathy towards everything that truly represented any kind of superiority.
In this advanced stage of Kali-Yuga society may no longer be led back to itself- to its own organicity. But it’s possible to awake in people such illuminative possibilities that point out the direction towards which man and the world should be led. There isn’t much practical hope in reaching the appropriate goal but certain possibilities do exist. We have mentioned on many occasions that in a certain direction all necessary steps must be made even if the success of these doesn’t seem to be guaranteed at all. From the point of view of an innate and personal thrive -that aims at a supra-personal goal-, these steps may be very valuable. It is more likely that they will not produce results in the outside world but if somebody follows an inner path and as his outside path -ritually- chooses to change something in the outside world, his efforts -despite the lack of success on the outside- may result in a certain inner progress. That’s all and this -seemingly- isn’t much. In comparison to the highest possible goals that may be set, this is of course very little. But in comparison to what is possible to do in the Kali-Yuga at all, this is not a little. Independent of whether there is or there isn’t any hope for success, everything must be done and if somebody commits to following an inner spiritual path then – at least on this inner path – he can progress.