Based on a lecture delivered by Dr. Andras Laszlo in 1988. – own translation

The concept of existence and consciousness being one has emerged even in the course of the Western history of philosophy, from various aspects. From the Greeks till today there have always been philosophical schools that emphasized this existential and conscious unity (following different approaches), but they have never dared to draw final conclusions. Even the philosophical currents that went the farthest in subjective idealism stopped, according to the platitudes of philosophical lexicons, when faced with epistemological or ontological solipsism. Solipsism means “only myself”, “based only on myself”; explained in first case singular: only I exist myself, nothing and nobody exists besides me. Naturally, this “nothing and nobody exists besides me” is not meant from the point of view of a human individual: it is obvious that there are many people, many persons; but there is only one subject. The multitude of human individuals and the singleness of the subject must be understood correctly, since considering the human person to be single would lead to the most vulgar theoretical deviations. The subject precedes man and the world. The subject is the center of consciousness which means it is the ruler of consciousness; the “ruler of consciousness” means: the Ruler of Existence.

The subject rules existence but not as an ontological or some other sort of abstraction. I may only posit the subject in first case singular: it’s always I. If I speak, I speak as a human person and through this human person I speak as a subject. We can only look for the subject in tthe first case singular, otherwise we can’t find it. Eastern thought expresses this more pronouncedly since this is constantly the foundation, the centre and the purpose of its world-view, manifesting it either quite directly or indirectly (like for example in the case of cosmology).

All spiritual currents that aimed at self-transformation (for example yoga or other paths that are equivalent to yoga) would make no sense without solipsism. The currently popular views according to which these paths of realization transform the various acts, tuning or orientation of the human soul, are false. These paths touch the human person only in as much as they detach him from the subjectiveness that manifests itself though the personality, by the personality but is also paralyzed, reduced and constrained by the personality.

If the powers emanating from the subject become weaker, they result in defects and weaknesses that cause man to assume an objective reality that exists independently of himself. When one suspects, feels and experiences the world as independent of himself, this only means that one is subjectively weak: a sign of one’s own weakness, one’s own mental weakness. Why? Because the subject, (auton in Greek, ātmā in Sanskrit) creates existence. The creation of existence hides so deep behind the personality, in the sphere of powers of the subject right by the centre, that man, who almost completely lost himself in his own personality, can’t discover it in himself. Thus the creation process in which it creates the totality of existence is constrained to mere recognition in personal perception; what’s left of creation is only what the person perceives. One doesn’t experience himself as creator. This, by itself, may be acceptable, but one doesn’t even recognize it intuitively that in his current state, reduced to being a mere creature, he contains the potential creator; thus what’s left from creation is mere perception, experience, recognition, acceptance.

If one studied his own mental functions, he could recognize that if there’s some creativity left, it is in thinking; however thinking is also the weakest, the most volatile and the most subtle mental function. The willful creation of mental images is somewhat stronger, but the creative power that’s active in it, is weaker. The spontaneous creation of images is even stronger but the subjective existence in it is weaker. What this proves is that the farther we get toward empirical experiences and perceptions, the clearer shape the existent takes and the less the subject participates in it, the less it experiences itself as creator. The fact that the willful creation of mental images is more difficult, more fragmentary and more uncertain to achieve than for example in half-dreams or spontaneously, well describers the current state of man. In other words the powers of the “other”, the heteron powers that oppose the auton, are greater than the auton powers. This is inseparable from the reverse view concerning the intensity of reality. The Sanskrit language describes this view with „viparyayá”, meaning turned-around. The goal is vipari-viparyaya, i.e. turning around the turned-around. The Greek language in its older form used “metagnoiá”, later “metanoiá” which, as conversion, always referred to a conscious awakening, finding my way back to myself. We may say that this is when we turn towards the source of the light, away from the world lit up by it.

Thus one of the fundamental and grave consequences of this inverse view is that man considers real all that he is powerless against and the more powerless he is, the more real he’ll consider these; in other words, he’ll consider the 200 kg bag that falls on his head incomparably more real than his own thoughts and thinking functions. What crushes him , what he’s powerless against, what he can’t affect exists, and the less he can affect it, the more it exists. This degeneration of views must be turned around on spiritual paths. But if man changes all this only as content of his awareness, he made but a small step: he redefined something in himself. But this redefinition doesn’t mean that from now on he’ll be experiencing the world like this; he won’t be, but in a certain sense he has opened himself up. At this stage realization is still far away: realization means that I realize myself but not in a psychological sense; in a psychological sense man realizes himself when he reaches his goals, executes his plans and similar. Metaphysical self-realization is not about all this. To realize means to create. From this point of view it’s absolutely not important that I am already created, that I find myself cast into this world as a given (this is what Heidegger’s Geworfenheit means), if I don’t experience myself creating myself in the world, if I experience myself as if I was not created by myself. And if it wasn’t I who created me, than it was another: the heteronHeteron is unrecognized auton: the other, my unrecognized self. Recognizing the auton in heteron leads to the elimination of heteron, but for this it is necessary to develop a world-view, a view of existence that is more than just a view: a world view, a view of existence that functions. It is not enough for the static aspect to be valid, which is implied by “view”; a dynamic aspect is also indispensable: when I am viewing, I am constant and I am consciously viewing. So we are dealing with more than a view, we are dealing with viewing; with more than a world-view, with viewing the world; with more than a structure and frame, with an organic process.

The interpretations of certain doctrines may of course help significantly in viewing myself and the world differently, in intuitively seeking out the points where the acts of creation are perceivable – especially Eastern doctrines. In fact, Western teachings and the dogmas of Christian denominations also provide significant help in this respect, since within Catholicism for example the dogmas are much deeper than what the Church usually presents from these. There are esoteric depth in these teachings even though these are usually not explored. Patristic literature or Greek philosophy get much deeper than is usually taught or assumed. The reason why Eastern doctrines receive more emphasis here is not theoretical but didactic, namely that they are more suitable for illustration. Realization as a path and as a goal was sustained longer in the East than in the West. Hinduism, Buddhism, Bön in Tibet, Taoism in China and the various form of shamanism from the point of view of direct activities, all considered realization to be crucial. Behind all these, considered as religions, there stood a spiritual-metaphysical tradition focused on realization.

Realization of course was always present in the West, as well. It was alive in Christian gnosis, in the Order of the Templars, in the Order of the Gral, in true Rosicrucianism. In terms of this latter one we must emphatically state that it no longer has representatives; there are more than thirty rosicrucian organizations active world wide, each declaring themselves to be the original, authentic and competent organization. Not one of these are authentic. Nobody could ever “enter” into the original rosicrucian order; spiritually one could grow into it, but never enter it. All authentic spiritual schools represents a rank – a spiritual rank that can’t spread, can’t grow in numbers in an ordinary, profane setting.

The power of consciousness is absolute. The power of consciousness is the power of the center: the power of the subject. The term “subjective” or “subjectum” is rather unfortunate since it means being “cast below”, being “subjected” while “objectum” means being “cast against”, “cast to the fore”. The Sanskrit language on the other hand deducts the word for the subject from its actionality; kartr means “subject”, i.e. the one acting, doing. The process is kartum while the objectified act is karma. Thus the views that were expounded first in Sanskrit, namely the views of Hinduism and Buddhism, approached subjectivity from actionality.

A few spiritual schools, like theosophy (although this term meant something different) or anthroposophy can’t be viewed as metaphysical in the strict sense since their focus and orientation don’t transcend existence. Occult and hidden goals only cover a minuscule segment of metaphysics. Metaphysical always means two things: first, it refers to that which is beyond natural phenomena (meta ta physika), second, to that which is beyond everything that exists. Even that which is “beyond nature” is beyond the scope of physics. Physicality also includes different space and time structures, although this is not the range of physicality physics deals with. It’s not only about having to transcend that which is beyond space and time, but also that which exists at all. Occult schools don’t even reach the first meaning of metaphysics, but get stuck in a different space and time structure and being stuck in time and space makes these schools delusional.

If we look at the most important statements of a true spiritual-metaphysical orientation, we’ll find expressions to which  a sentimental orientation relates with antipathy. Such expressions are “strength”, “power”, “ruling”, “freedom”. How a supra-human, supra-personal subjectivity transcends the earthly mode of existence and the multifaceted nature of this transcendence are much more strongly connected with powers of consciousness, with conscious presence, with rulership over personality and over factors that support consciousness (as its carriers), than with what a life led according to moral categories may entail. Thus the traditional view on morality has always been quite peculiar. For superior man moral rules are warnings and reminders that in the specific areas addressed by the directives, where the chance of failure is high, he needs increased prudence, presence and awareness. For people that are not highly spiritual, the directives are unequivocally just directives; they need to be ordered and they need to follow the orders. Superior man also follows these orders, but from a different aspect, from the point of view that following them belongs to the conditions of his transcendence. They warn him that he has to be highly alert. Religions that appear in the form of sects (which by itself doesn’t mean anything besides being “cut off”) always focus on the secondary, consequential aspect of things, instead of on their essence. They hypertrophy some of these residues and represent them with immeasurable aggressiveness. Overemphasizing these even in a much milder way would be still rather dangerous, but when they do this aggressively and in an overly forceful way, it always leads to psycho-spiritual deformations. This by the way, although in a completely different sense, is also characteristic of pseudo-spiritual and contra-initiation paths. We will deal with the difficulties that arise here in subsequent lectures. For now let’s note that the process of gradually leading myself back to myself may also lead to a different direction. For example consciousness may be led into a world, i.e. into a state of consciousness (since worlds are states of consciousness!) in a way that consciousness and through it its own perspectives get poisoned and become impossible. Poisoning existence and consciousness is the method of certain dark, contra-spiritual and anti-initiation schools; they do this by performing a ritual, an ontological operation: for example they introduce death-forces into states where these forces are originally not present. Death-forces may also be transported into the appropriate states of existence in a positive sense- but these schools don’t perform these operations in a positive sense. All deviation may be recognized by their position to subjectivity. There is room for mistakes here, but with appropriate attention this may be eliminated. Schools that focus on the person may be confused with schools the foundation of which is the subject. On a basic level the possibility of confusion is great, but if somebody familiarizes himself with certain doctrines, if he can immerse himself in them, then the possibility of confusion is reduced almost to zero.

To illustrate this we can use an example from the Old Testament. When Christ says “I am the way and the truth and the life”, first we should understand this in a way that this is what He says about himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life”. So He is the way, the truth and the life. But this can really sink in only if I perceive it like this: “I am the way, the truth and the life”. How to understand this? That I already am all this? No. Not in my personal self, that currently manifests itself to me. So in my personal self I am not all this, but I could be. In the sense of the goal, in the sense of the potentiality of the goal, I want to be all this. This is why I’ve emphasized many times that we can’t talk about God in terms of whether or not he exists. The question that aims at the existence of God is a question of a weakened judgement that’s just about to deviate and all pro and contra answers belong to this same category. God is the summit of all ontological goals and this is precisely how his ontological nature is recognizable. Usually, if somebody’s crushed by life or experiences fundamental impressions, be they even natural phenomena, he may easily draw conclusions concerning his own smallness. No long ago I heard that somebody had to see the Niagara Falls to realize how small he is. Others even consider the recognition of their smallness as something especially significant. Certain phenomena may be much bigger than I am but I am the one who notices these phenomena and they only exists in as much as I am aware of them, I see them and experience them. They don’t exist in any other sense. I am always more than what I see. I am also always more than what I assume. The goal is not somewhere. This is the fundamental difference between latentia and potentia. The goal is not hidden somewhere that I will reach sometimes. The goal becomes real by the very fact that I reach it. There is no goal that is waiting to be reached. I must create the goal; my own goal. No goals are waiting, especially not those with the most fundamental significance. The other world is not latent but potential. It becomes real by my realizing it. The same applies to the ordinary world: it exists by my constantly constituting it, although I don’t recognize my own power of constitution in the act of constituting it.

Studying religions and their teachings – besides finding orientation for myself- is actually worthless by itself. It’s not a professional question. Religions and teachings can’t be really studied from a professional aspect. If somebody doesn’t understand existence and doesn’t understand consciousness he will not understand Buddhism – even if he professionally does so; from the professional perspective he may, but he’s constantly in a state of non-understanding. If somebody doesn’t understand himself, if he doesn’t consider his own processes, what can he really understand at all? This is the reason why the translations of almost all sacred scriptures are to a very large degree incorrect even though they are translated by experts who know the given language and the words’ meanings correspond with that in the dictionary. When it comes to Western languages, where there’s constant connection and control, this is not so sharply observable. But when it comes to Eastern and especially to archaic languages, each translation reveals a position; each translation reflects a view or perhaps the view is detectable by that it’s missing, by the lack of adequate reflection on itself. For example Helmut von Glasenapp’s book of the Five World Religions [Die Fünf Weltreligionen] is available in Hungary. This man has spent his life dealing with the history of religions. His expertise is indisputable. His discerning ability however is so weak, it makes you wonder. He hardly understands anything. Such books may have some fragmented value of course, in that they may turn attention to something which helps one draw conclusions. There are of course other currents that lead to continuous deviations. There a disciplines that seem like they were created specifically to lead to deviations. For example almost all current schools of psychology are like this; if somebody starts dealing with them, over the years he will know less and less about the soul. This is how they are constructed. All disciplines could be different, they could all contain life, spirit, discernment, there could be elements and powers that could help evoking additional powers. But this is not so.

What I represent is – as a perspective- is practical. This practicality should be the actual goal; not the direct goal but an indirect one on several levels. It’s not about the dissemination of knowledge. There are lectures, books, courses, etc. specifically for the purpose of education. To help one viewing the world differently: this is the goal. Viewing differently in an auto-reflective sense, viewing that is directed towards the world; to provide help, points of view, certain inspirations. To give more in the current era, especially directly, is not possible; in fact nothing should be accepted from those who say otherwise. The poisoning in this department has reached stupendous magnitudes. True spiritual currents only vegetate in a couple of minuscule streams. Pseudo-spiritual currents on the other hand are operational by the thousands. Europe has been flooded by a dangerous type: the Indian pseudo-yogi. Since Sanskrit is taught in high schools in India and the original language is also somewhat similar to Sanskrit and since they teach asanas and similar in gym class, anybody from India with a somewhat higher intelligence may present himself as an expert, as a yogi, even as a guru. If this was done purely for profit, it could be viewed simply as a series of base practices. The danger however is much greater since the goal, beyond profit, is much more damaging. The Indians- and recently even Tibetans – wracking havoc in the world nowadays are making the last, already minimal, chance of realization impossible. If there was absolutely no darkness in these currents, they would still be incredibly dangerous, considering that they concern things that are by orders of magnitude beyond people of this era. There is for example a Buddhist monastery near Zurich that occasionally admits Europeans (still making it real difficult for them). An important aspect of learning is memorizing and reciting the Tibetan sacred scriptures. The more diligent somebody may be, the worst he’ll fare. Those who are less diligent may leave and realize later that the whole thing doesn’t make any sense. And currently it truly doesn’t. There was a time when reading meant understanding. The writer could not only write and read but also knew the essence of writing, since writing or reading unessential things was unnecessary. This means that in earlier eras reciting a text meant understanding the text and understanding the text almost meant the realization of the teaching. Even for Tibetans, there is nothing left from this by today – and for Europeans even less so. So what they do in this Buddhist monastery is fitting for Easterners of an era hundreds and thousands of years ago; and they make people do this today as step one, and whoever is doing this, is thinking that he’s practicing Zen, or Tibetan Buddhism, or yoga, or something similar – but nothing is farther from the truth. It seems like it is true, but it has nothing to do with the truth. What awakes in him is not the light of consciousness; he sets in motion instead vital forces and all vital forces void of the spirit and all life forces will turn into death forces that damage consciousness first and then the “carrier” of consciousness. Vital forces that are awaken inadequately, in other words, when they are not awaken by an act of the spirit, function as death forces. This is an anti-alchemical process that is performed by the heteron; by my unrecognized self. There is no greater enemy than my unrecognized self. This is the prototype of all enemies. The satanic principle is also related to this one. “Satan” means accuser, enemy, opponent. From God’s aspect there is no Satan, only from the side of the human  mode of existence. Thus from the point of view of my own goal there is no Satan, but from the point of view of my starting position there is.

In the Sanskrit language the name of existence is the same as the name of the essence: sat. Sat condenses both of them simultaneously. Non-existence and non-essence is asat. The name of truth in Greek is alētheia. Alētheia is connected to not-forgetting. What could it be that has metaphysical weight if we don’t forget it? Obviously the decisive thing is the forgetting or not forgetting of the metaphysical origin of myself from myself. To live in non-forgetfulness, in forgetting forgetfulness, means living in truth. The name of truth in Sanskrit is satya. Satya is recognition, teaching and life according to existence and the essence. Thus, from this point of view, whatever is non-essential or not essential is not true. The question of truth – non-truth in a material-content sense in traditional cultures is actually of secondary importance; not that such truth wasn’t present to a very large degree – but the emphasis was not on that; there, always something more was meant by what manifested itself in Latin in relation to spiritual truths as veritās, or in relation to legal truths as iustitia. The Greek equivalent of iustitia is dikē, that of veritās is alētheia. Such proverb and platitude-like residues as “the light of the truth” even in such a worn-out form express the connection between the truth and the light; that truth, alētheiasatya, and veritas are related to the light and light is related to the essential nature of consciousness. Light is the nature of consciousness. “The light of consciousness” is almost a pleonasm, i.e. using a single expression serially. The spirit is the light of consciousness and so is darkness the darkness of consciousness. Consciousness is broader than the spirit and the light. Spirit always means the center of consciousness, i.e. that the subject is in action. The subject is in action, it is in the culmination of actions. Subiectum in āctū – this is my definition of the spirit. The spirit being in action. The conscious act of the subject is the spirit, i.e. the light; not physical light. It was not the physical, natural light that, by analogy, served as the name for the spiritual light. What we physically experience as light is the lost, gross, exteriorized light. The spiritual light is the cause of the external light. The Sun was not compared to God because they saw it; they didn’t associate to God from the Sun. The Sun exists because there is a a SunGod. Auton is the self-generating light – existence; consequently there must be an imprint of it in the physical world and this is the celestial body. But neither the name nor -especially- its existence is what originates from here. It’s rather pathetic when they try to trace religions and the spirit from natural phenomena while forgetting to consider why there exists anything in the first place. They never raise questions about this either in terms of assuming an answer or in terms of refusing an answer. Nothing was ever derived from any natural phenomena. It’s always the spiritual and the superior that’s primal both essentially and – if it has connected to temporality- time-wise. 

To posit the unconscious, especially in the exaggerated sense deep psychology does, is an offensive against the powers of human understanding on the one hand, and an explicit error, on the other. Some recognize an actual spirituality in Jung’s school for example, even though it is an especially anti-spiritual school. Anti-spiritual because it derives consciousness from the unconscious as if the it was the unconscious that is primordial and not the conscious. Obviously, in Jung’s school this is not as strongly and grossly evident as in Freudism, but without doubt, it is there. Fundamentally, there is no such thing as “unconscious” or “subconscious”. Consciousness has actuality and potentiality; a potentiality that is infinitely open. Thus this potentiality has strictly individual, collective, familiar and cosmic aspects.  In such sense, when we speak about the layers of consciousness we are using simple similes; there is potentiality, there are higher and lower potentialities. There are potentialities that once actualized, destroy consciousness; and there are potentialities that once actualized, trigger the elevation of consciousness. The whole question should be raised only from the point of view of actuality and potentiality, otherwise we’d get a view on consciousness that postulates some kind of original but hidden nature somewhere in the background. If that which psychology calls unconscious has any kind of effect, it is not because the unconscious performs some kind of occult function, but because it is not conscious, it is heteron, it is different. The unconscious is actually not I and whatever is not I works against me in some sense. We must discern the subtleties of this otherwise we may immediately misunderstand the whole thing. What this means is not that everybody and the whole world is against me but that if everything stays on the level where it is, then they truly bring death not just as a biological occurrence but in a much broader sense.

The world exists so I can take it back to myself or, which means the same thing from a different point of view, it exists so I can detach it from myself: to detach the world as world, as heteron  from myself, so I can take it as potential auton back to myself.

The goal is unity. Unity is the unity of the auton. What seems to fall out of unity is the heteron. I don’t want to take back that which seems to be falling out of unity to myself as heteron, but as auton; in other words I must recognize the auton before I take it back.

According to the tantrik doctrines everything in the world may be perceived and experienced as yoga. This especially applies to the individual human being. Thus if the necessary powers of recognition have already developed, then each individual may be viewed like they manifest something: with their life they symbolize something. The closer I know somebody, the more exponentially this is true. Some people seem to be connected to symbols that represent specifically powers of destruction. This should be understood with an appropriate degree of differentiation since this is not black and white; even in one single individual we can find an incredible richness of qualities. This applies not only to people but also to species of animals – even individual animal specimen may represent something. Considering that most human relations are insignificant, we should view at least the more important people like this: what does he represent, what manifests itself in him? And here we must really probe deeper since the role of superficial impressions from this point of view is quite small.

There is only conscious existence and there is conscious objectivity. I can’t say that something exist if I don’t have any kind of relation to it, and I can’t say that something actually doesn’t exist if I have a relation to it. No doubt, there is objectivity. But in what sense? There is no objective reality that’s independent of my consciousness – this is senseless. I must say there is nothing more senseless in the history of philosophy because this actually doesn’t fit into the history of philosophy. There is a grave inner contradiction here, namely that I am aware that something exists because I know about it, because it is in my consciousness, and yet I declare that it also exists, when it is not in my consciousness; I even declare that it exists even if it has never even been in my consciousness. This by the way doesn’t apply only to the totality of objective reality and to  the spheres of the “other world” but also to something much more concrete. If man is sufficiently alert he may realize that an entity that’s present in his consciousness has quite a special ontological position. If somebody believes that he’s returning home because he finds his house there, is a naive realist. What does it mean that it’s “there”? It means that various modes of existence of the house defined by thoughts and images may emerge. Otherwise it has no modes of existence at all. How is it possible that something may be found with such regularity? It’s because the constituting power of man is rooted so deep, so far away from the sphere of power that man can control ordinarily, and its inertness is so great – this is why we can find things. This is why we know what we’ll find if we go somewhere. Not something fundamentally different, since even if the house is in ruins, we don’t find something fundamentally different. Fundamentally different would be if we possessed constant magical powers in relation to everything and everybody that exists. Although not in the sphere of direct accessibility, this magical power is available as a potentiality, since power itself is potential. If this power potential is actualized it’s no longer about demon-magic whereby various powers manifest themselves as beings, because the magus (magician) hasn’t taken possession of the power over himself. The appearance of magical powers in the form of beings, due to the incomplete control over them, in other words the merely partial realization of dominance, may be dangerous since these powers that manifest themselves as beings are, to a large degree, real. The demon-magus dominates these powers, but not through controlling himself. As opposed to goetik and demonomagic, the nature of theurgo-magic is such that the power of the auton begins to expand towards the unlimited in it; this means first of all power over himself, which means that the magus exercises his power over beings and forces, i.e. over the heteron, as his power over himself. Having completed this operation perfectly, the magus becomes the creator, the sustainer and the transmuter of the world, recognizing that the world exists because he has created it and because he is sustaining it, in the sense of the Hindi Īśvara-Trimūrti: as Brahman, as Vișņu and as Śiva. And he’ll recognize that it was always he who created, sustained and transmuted the world. However, this is not only a question of recognition but also a question of realization: the question of supra-personal realization. Having reached his goal, the magus not only realizes his own person, his own personality, he also actualizes his whole being. If there was one single element in existence that’s left out of realization, what we call metaphysical awakening would become impossible.

Omnipotency in the absolute sense, without any limitations, is not a result but a pre-requisite of metaphysical realization. And this is not only omnipotentia, but also omniagentia. Not only omnipotency but also universal activity. There is nothing in the world that would not be performed by the magus who reached his goal. Who is the magus who has reached his goal? I myself, if I reach my goal. Is there a world other than a conscious one? There isn’t. Is there another center of conscious existence besides myself as subject? We can’t say there is. Thus the whole world originates from myself. If, however I don’t experience the world as originating from myself that means that I am not fully in the center of myself. In other words, I am not fully myself. If I was fully myself, I would actualize myself as creator, sustainer and transmuter. The significance of this is tremendous – at least for those who don’t resign themselves to their current state; those who do resign themselves to their current state will also leave this behind, but not in an upward, but a downward direction. If one is not striving upward, one is declining since one needs extraordinary elevation powers even to slow down the decline, not to mention to stop it and to turn the process around.

If we look at an ordinary human life we see the teleological greatness of providence on the one hand, and its complete denial and destruction on the other. All these are a question powers. While man occupies an earthly-human mode of existence, he finds himself in a process of unfolding – not evolution. To see this process as an analogy to evolution is flawed. It’s about conquering a mode of existence. Naturally, the powers of death get immediately activated already at the beginning of such a conquest, but they can gain an overwhelming position only if man doesn’t resist. Spiritual man immediately resists the powers of death. What does this all mean? It means (and it must mean) that man – not even in sense of high-realizations, but simply in terms of his own personality -, however long he should live, must stand on the highest degree of realization in the last phase, in the last moment of his life. Thus if he lives 120 years, naturally he stands on a much higher level than when he was hundred and nineteen and on a much higher level than when he was fifty. Generally speaking, this is not the case; we can’t see people reaching a high age being ‘in floribus’ in their last months. This means that a foreign power begins to operate, a power that essentially isn’t foreign but for now it is experienced as such; an effect is generated.

We know that an illness is never caused by what seemingly causes it. The decline of mental faculties is not caused by cerebral sclerosis, death in cholera is not caused by the cholera virus and in general, nothing is triggered by what man thinks. These are all side-effects accompanying something else, and they play a role in the periphery of the triggering event. We obviously can’t say that an agent, a bacteria has nothing to do with the illness, but fundamentally, it has nothing to do with it; it’s not the fundamental cause of the disease.

All diseases reflect the changes of fate. On a high level we are talking about heteron and auton; fate is actually my differentiated acts of gaining and losing power as auton over the differentiated and infinite multitude of powers that manifest themselves as heteron-beings. These are the ones creating so called fate-situations in order to launch attacks from them against the current form of existence. The actual attack takes place in deep-metaphysicality and it is accompanied by the triggering causes on the periphery. The actual causes are thus somewhere else (not on the periphery) and from this point of view the perceived cause of a disease is more of a consequence; it has causality but it is not primal and not secondary, not even tertiary, but an exponentially indirect causality. This is why the fight against them can’t result in fundamental convalescence. On the periphery even full recovery is possible, but not in the depths. A healing process in the multitude of levels and aspects was hardly possible even in much more distant and pure epochs.

Finding my way back to myself is not treated as a goal by spiritual views – and this is especially emphasized by Eastern views- but as an operation related to the beginnings, not forgetting that such operations at this stage may appear as a goal. Nonetheless such operations of realizations can’t be made mandatory for anybody; we can’t even say that they may be specifically recommended to everybody. One of the main characteristics of the paths of deviation of our times is precisely that they put a great emphasis on that everybody should follow some definitive path. This is not surprising, considering that they purposefully offer deviative paths and their interest is that people start out on these. There are also more serious and well-meaning approaches, yet these propagate similar things. Although it is ultimately -but only ultimately- open to everybody, metaphysical realization is not suitable for everybody. In a strict sense, for the majority it is open to a very small degree. It is only open to those who represent the upward orientation, the elevating aspect of the only Man, the spiritual and universal Man in themselves as a possibility that’s much stronger than a mere potentiality. It is only a doctrine that metaphysical realization is ultimately open to everybody and that I can attain awakening by experiencing myself in everything, and according to this doctrine everybody is capable of this. From this to come to the conclusion that I also have a chance -especially if I am not even trying- is, in my opinion, something that people do who, although not striving to attain metaphysical awakening, are under the impression that it is an intelligent thing to nominally identify such goals. Such people think that it is good and intelligent to strive toward such goals, and that I have a chance, even if I only do anything  toward this end, when I happen to have some time.

If somebody recognizes the law he is representing, then he recognizes what Hinduism and Buddhism calls svadharma in Sanskrit. Svadharma is the being’s own law and dominion. Not only does it mean the mission and what one must do, but much more how one can find the path that leads him back to himself. Once one completely returns to himself, dharma and svadharma is transcended and thus eliminated since he who achieves the goal becomes the ruler of dharma; this is why there is no dharma that applies to him: he no longer has a svadharma. Nonetheless, the path is determined by svadharma.

Finally, we must say a few words about karma, a term that suffers much abuse. Karma means “act”. Karma-vāda, or karma-doctrine means that all acts are connected. Naturally, my own acts or whatever I experience as such, are even more tightly connected to my personal self. The principle of action-reaction is embedded in the karma doctrine just like the concept of karma as bondage, although the two are not the same. Karma in general is often confused with karma- bandha , with the karmic bond. Karma-bandha is a bond. Why this bond? Is it because the poor bastard is doing something? Not in the least. It is a bond because the act  was not performed fully by himself. The heteron makes it a bond, because the heteron influences all acts and it is the heteron that turns karma into a karmic bond, vinculum karmicum, a burden, a web; because it is not him, who performs the acts, because he is only a co-performer. Even in thinking one is only a co-performer and heteron plays the smallest role precisely in thinking. This is why all paths of realization can and must begin with thinking – not because it is the strongest and the most elemental, but because in thinking is man the most himself. Even if one starts out on totally different and wrong tracks in his thinking, the thinking function itself has such characteristics that it may serve as the starting point of a metamorphosis. Otherwise even the smallest feeling is stronger than thinking but the heteron-function is so strong in feelings that no path may begin with them; no realization may be based exclusively on feelings. Naturally, a certain stage of realization deals with feelings, too, since they belong to the most significant elements of life.

I can only reach- and this is one of the basic tenets of Eastern metaphysics- that I have actually never left. “Actually” I have never left it, because “actually” I have left and I have distanced myself from what I have never left. I may only reach what I have never left.

Posted in Principles | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A few remarks on the temporal phases of human life

Author: Andras Laszlo

Own translation from Hungarian

There are three adequate views on time as a streaming durance (duratio fluens): 

a) linear time and time-view, – b) cyclical time and time-view, – c) radical time and time-view. Not only are these three types of conception of time and temporality all valid, considering all of them together is the only acceptable position.

Time -as streaming durance- is simultaneously linear and cyclical. Radial time appears in the interrelation of streaming durance (duration fluens) and static durance (duratio stans). This is the time of entry of time (as static durance) into time (as streaming durance) and in the same time it is the time of exit from streaming durance directly to the level of created static durance (duratio stans creata), and indirectly toward uncreated static durance, ultimately toward absolute super-temporal timelessness.

The individual-personal existence and life of corporal man in the state of the earthly-human world begins in time (in tempore) and ends in time (in tempore) but on higher levels of existence (that are always present) other beginnings and other ends are always present, in addition to other durance, together with the two-way nature of linearity, cyclicity and radiality. The interplay of these determine the quasi-rhythmic gradation of durance of human life.

The normative minimum of human life is -according to traditional views- 72 years; in the Far-East they also consider 81 years or even 120 years, but -from an astrological point of view- even 96 years, 100 years and 108 years, or -according to some schools- 60, 64 and 84 years of duration are also of special significance.

It is crucial to consider a 3 grade division, although it is generally neglected. The ages of youth, maturity and seniority are valid differentiation but don’t allow for further gradation.

It seems that a four grade division is more valid  especially if -similarly to the yugas- we focus on the ratio of 1:2:3:4 as progression of durance.

Here we have to take 70 years and 90 years -of secondary significance- as a base, since on the other hand, their base years of 7 years and 9 years are of primal significance. Thus:

1 x 7 years = 7 years; 0-7 years childhood

2 x 7 years = 14 years; 7-21 years pubescent/adolescent

3 x 7 years = 21 years; 21-42 years pre-mature age

4 x 7 years = 28 years; 42-70 years mature and post-mature age

In this gradation seniority starts above 70 years and this roughly corresponds with the conclusion of activities oriented outwards. This is when one truly needs to begin turning inwards.

In other way:

1 x 9 years = 9 years; 0-9 years childhood

2 x 9 years = 18 years; 9-27 years youth

3 x 9 years = 27 years; 27-54 years maturity

4 x 9 years = 36 years; 54-90 years seniority

Old age, in this setup, begins after the age of 90.

We receive a more clear and precise picture if we combine these life-duration gradations with the planetary classifications of astrology.

According to the 9 year basic gradation:

0-9 years Luna

9-18 years Mercurius

18-27 years Venus

27-36 years Sol

36–45 years Sol 

45–54 years Sol 

54–63 years Mars 

63–72 years Jupiter 

72– ? years Saturnus 

According to the 7 year basic gradation:

0–7 years Luna 

7–14 years Mercurius 

14–21 years Venus 

21–28 years Sol 

28–35 years Sol 

35–42 years Sol 

42–49 years Sol 

49–56 years Sol 

56–63 years Mars 

63–70 years Jupiter 

70– ? years Saturnus 

According to the 12 year basic gradation:

0–12 years Luna 

12–24 years Mercurius 

24–36 years Venus 

36–48 years Sol 

48–60 years Sol 

60–72 years Mars 

72– 84 years Jupiter 

84– ? years Saturnus 

These three different systems of gradation are valid together and have to be considered together besides strict consideration of the two types of tetractys-gradation.

Details of the 7 year base gradation for the first 7 years of life:

0–1 age Luna – Luna

1–2 age Luna – Mercurius

2–3 age Luna – Venus

3–4 age Luna – Sol

4–5 age Luna – Mars

5–6 age Luna – Jupiter

6–7 age Luna – Saturnus

This partial gradation also appears in the later stages of life but not so sharply and unequivocally.

According to Tradition, human life in Satya-Krta-Yuga -in the Golden Agen- would be between 4000 and 4320 years and it may have lasted even longer; in Treta-Yuga the duration of earthly-human life weas 3000-3240 years; in Dvápara Yuga this duration was only 2000 or 2160 years; in Kali Yuga -in the Dark Ages- the length is 1000 or 1080 years or less, while in the terminal period 100 or 108 years is the general maximum; people usually live shorter and only in exceptional cases longer than this.

Astrology considers life circles of 60, 72, 84, 96, 108, 120, (132), 144 years but many follow also the 100 year Frank Glahn life circle. Post mortem it’s possible to create a life circle that’s based on actual life duration = 360° key and retrospective this of course is more valid than any other life circle.

Quantitatively, life span -in terms of prospective- is generally not known, thus in order to determine a spiritual life plan in broad terms, thinking in terms of a 72 years long life, although life may be much shorter and longer, too, may be acceptable. If somebody has already past their 72nd year, they can switch to a 144 year life span (divisibility by 36 is especially significant).

Special modes of life conduct, tasks and responsibilities belong to each age (life phase) which – if they remain unfulfilled- may lead to the accumulation of significant  -even fatal- disadvantages on the path of autotransmutatio spiritualis et metaphysica.

There have been strictly exceptional cases, exceptional lives, exceptional individuum personales/persona individualis’ who transcended/transcend the conduct of life determined by otherwise valid frames, also in regards tasks related to age; for example those who follow one of the regular -in exceptional cases irregular- paths of YogaYoga -as the ascesis of metaphysical realization- may exonerate one from the otherwise obligatory caste-laws (varna-dharmas) and age-laws (ásrama-dharmas). 

In the world determined by Indian-Hindi tradition, the following ásrama-dharma circle belonged to the varna-dharma of the bráhmana-varna (age law appropriate to the Brahmana caste), according to gradual phases:

1. brahmacári(n) phase

This refers to the adolescent age that corresponds to the period of intense study in order to establish an increasingly spiritual life-path.

2. grhastha phase

This is the period of the head of the house, of the husband, father. This period is dedicated to establishing a family,  to increase material wealth, to beget children; all aspects of all these must be subordinated to the principles of a spiritual-metaphysical orientation.

3. vánaprastha phase

Once even the youngest child of the bráhmana-father becomes independent and he has no other task of unconditional validity, the father-husband must leave his home and move to a sylvan hermit community so his life may be oriented exclusively above and beyond life.

4. sannyási(n) phase

The old age reached in the sylvan hermit community presents a new task for the bráhmana: he has to leave the hermit community in order to live the remaining of his life as a wondering, fully homeless hermit-ascetic fully dedicating his life to achieving metaphysical liberation –moksa-.    

These life-phases were loosely connected to the life-phases of temporal gradation; the relative tight connection meant an optimal approach and if this was not hindered or excluded by something, the adjustment to these was also considered to be a quasi-task.

To draw a somewhat ironic opposite to this we could say that the “average man” today is infantile until the age of 36 and then -almost immediately- becomes senile or at least starts to become senile.

The nine year cycles – with a plus-minus one-two-three years accuracy- are extremely important. Most people “stop” around the age of 27, and become idle; their views become fixed by then and even if they manage to change a little, this will no longer be real change: it will stay within the already developed and coagulated frame-scheme and even if they adopt new views, they do this the same way as they adopted the one they are about to replace. People on a very low level get stuck as early as 18 and their life -first of all regarding views- will be sustained and determined by what they have internalized up until then. Nowadays it’s becoming an “achievement” if somebody reaches this stage around the age of 36 – let alone 45 or 54, which is increasingly becoming exceptional.

People with spiritual orientation should never become idle and we know that people with true spiritual orientation never stop, never become rigid and “ossified” even above the age of 100, if they live that long, or any time after that.

We must be at the highest spiritual level right in the moment before death (and of course in the moment of death) irrespective of when this takes place. A biophysiological slow-down could happen and this is “permissible”, but actual mental deterioration is absolutely not.

The “eternal youth” of the body in the Kali-Yuga is possible only to exceptional Viators of exceptional paths and even for them, less and less so. To keep the soul significantly intact and uncorrupted is however a prerequisite for a spiritual man and the soundness of the spirit is a conditio sine qua non, which is self-evident.

In the current stage of Kali-Yuga the spirit’s influence on the body is not so significant as before but it is able to prevent its determinant effects on the body in regards the spirit and the soundness of the spirit. The body is usually capable of exerting a strong effect on the soul, and through it, also can also influence the spirit. Those who define themselves as the followers of a spiritual – metaphysical path, have to definitely reduce the direct and indirect -significant-  influence of the body on the soul and on the spirit. The difficulty of completing the tasks that are aimed at this is extraordinary and -considering our era- this difficulty will only increase with time.

When one grows up, one must become fully adult; this is indispensable for the mature preservation and increase of awareness; one must achieve this by preserving the child in oneself while in the same time excluding all infantilism. To lose the child in myself prevents my spiritual-metaphysical realization, just like if I don’t become perfectly adult. An infantile adult is who -despite growing up- remained a child without ever reaching true, mature adulthood. Adulthood – without the preservation and subsistence of the child- quick reaches the initial phase of senility.  The fading away of the child in ourselves – to put it strictly: in myself- is the main meta-somatic cause of the development of senility.

To sum it up: both infantility and senility, although differently, prevent spritual-metaphysical realization.

A child (especially a baby) is closer to the origin and through it to what has no beginning. An adult on the other hand has reached or approached the state of mature awareness, the state of vigilant maturity. The state of the baby -even though it’s continually decreasing- is given; the state of the adult -starting from the middle of life, being exposed to natural contingencies- is declining unless a decisive inner (we could say supra human, life-transcending) resistance develops against this decline. A counter-movement is required that’s striving for ascent: not only for actual ascent but also for stopping or even for slowing the pace of decline. Whoever relies only on the physical plane must die young if he wants to avoid getting old in a state that’s approaching the sub-human and thus finishing his earthly life.

In relation to the earthly-human temporality, praeexsistentia and postexsistentia belong to timeless existence. This however, is by far not the absolute supra-temporal-timeless eternity (aeternitas), just a temporality that is so different that in relation to the generally experienced durance, it means -even if only relatively- an actual quasi-timelessness.

We definitely submit to the unconditional certainty of the reality of human praeexsistentia and postexsistentia and we generally accept -with appropriate amendments- the theological positions related to this -which could be quite varied. We reject redincarnationismus vulgaris; we can’t accept the tenets of moderate postulatio redincarnationis either. Regeneratio tendentionalis is universally and unequivocally accepted from a metaphysico-traditional point of view. This is indisputable. The question is if there is anything acceptable -in addition to the reverse stream of carmically determined tendencies-  that may be related to the basic tenets of the nuanced and restrained teachings of re-birth. The answer must also be nuanced, moderate, diverse and ambiguous. Proper treatment of this would require a whole team of authors. Since this is not our objective now, we can’t deal with this range of questions even tangentially here. What we can say is that the firm rejection of redincarnationismus vulgaris and the non-acceptance of redincarnationismus subtilis belong to our basic tenets but these don’t necessarily mean the complete denial of factualitas redincarnationis. 

Life – embedded in a higher domain- doesn’t start with birth, with biological conception, not even with occult conception and similarly, it doesn’t end with biological and or even with perfect death (including all the subsequent temporal facts). The way of praefecundalis and postmortalis life beyond life is immensely complex, multifaceted and ambiguous and the related questions and answers also contain several aspects and dimensions.

The totality of life is much broader in scope than the rhythmicity and cyclicity of ages and their gradation or the possibility of their gradation. This however doesn’t contradict the classification of the duration of life into various phases, as a fully reasonable and well founded procedure both in terms of validity and justification.

Life can be hardly planned. An eventually successful life-conduct -from a metaphysico-traditional point of view- is minimum ambivalent. If we do consider it possible and positive, the most explicit and deepest consideration of the age-phases is essential; these should be studied both in general and specifically in relation to our-my own lives/life. The former fosters the latter and -when it comes to recognizing principles- the latter depends on the support of the former.

Temporal existence as a duration is related to the multiplicity of cycles. The smallest ones are in the order of magnitude of  ten thousandths of a time-second and shorter, the largest ones may be “measured” in quadrillion years. The study of these doesn’t belong to the domain of metaphysics in a strict sense, but metaphysically determined cosmology and anthropology are important pre- and side studies for building the foundation for the immersion in metaphysics.

Modern man is insensitive toward everything that exceeds and points beyond his earthly-human existence in a vertical sense, upward. But man of this era is not necessarily modern (although he generally is). Modern man doesn’t consider the gradation of life based on duration and phases even if he informatively knows about these, if he has read – heard about the consequences of their application.

The attention of people of our era who are capable of detaching themselves from modernity definitely extends to the occult background concatenations of life. This is not metaphysical orientation yet but – in optimal cases – it may prepare it, introduce it, it may build its foundation. This is why we need to judge such things in a positive light until there is no fixation on the occult “only”, since this fixation may become one of  the major obstacles on the path to the metaphysical. Learning about and understanding the (often modern) occult schools of this era reveals the existence of the already mentioned danger and its complex nature. (Although we don’t consider the extensive and detailed study of occult schools indispensable -besides being interesting- we still consider it important.)

Earthly – human life is not in the least of earthly origin. Kali – Yuga -which is first and foremost a state of consciousness- generally subsists. (To affirm this, doesn’t contradict our solipsistic position.) Human life runs its course among the conditions of Kali – Yuga, but Kali – Yuga itself is not independent of higher realities of consciousness and existence. This understanding must be projected into the interpretation of the phases of human life.


Posted in Principles, society | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment


Author: Baranyi Tibor Imre

– sexcenti sexaginta sex –


Hic sapientia est.

Qui habet intellectum, computet numerum bestiae.

Numerus enim hominis est:

et eius sexcenti sexaginta sex.

(Apocalypsis Ioannis 13:18)

The period of the passing yet frightening victory of contra-tradition that ever more openly asserts itself in the current and especially in the next stage of the modern world and in human consciousness, is no longer merely the age of quantity, although it is also decidedly so, but a closing period with a special contra-hierarchy that appears -according to the Christian tradition- as the reign of the Antichrist. The Antichrist actually embodies the principle of the “anti-king of the world” and as such, is a reverse cakra-vartin: he claims for himself world domination, the role of “spinning the wheel of the world”, but he doesn’t want to turn the wheel from the center (like the true cakravartin, the true king of the world) but quite  the opposite, from the periphery and into the opposite direction. This is a symbolic reference to externalities (secularism), to “indirectism”, and to the spirit of ideological lies which he is supposed to manifest and through which he will eventually create the all encompassing anti-religion and contra-tradition that is the opposite of the “Sacred Empire” (Imperium Sacrum) or the ‘kingdom of God”: the ‘kingdom of the devil’ which our age -with its “progressive” tendencies – in its central and essential delirium is so feverishly and obsessively “building”.

In the Book of Relevations of the New Testament, the Antichrist appears as a “beast” that is similar to Christ but “spoke like a dragon”. This “dragon” emerges from “earth”, from the inferno of the underworld as the individual and collective representative of the antispiritual, demonic darkness. (In Western traditions the “dragon” typically comes from water or earth and as such has a negative connotation as opposed to the dragon in the traditions of the Far East which often comes from air or fire denoting a decidedly positive meaning.) Symbolically speaking, for the “dragon” of the underworld to be able to emerge from “earth”, it was necessary in the first step that all the positive and beneficial spiritual influences and powers be eliminated from man’s world that had prevented this emergence. These powers descended vertically from “heavens” or, to formulate it from the point of view of immanency, from an inner centrality into the world and consciousness of man in eras of relative normality or at least in not too distant eras; in order to eliminate these powers, first- as Guenon puts it- the “heavens had to be vaulted”. This is what the first phase of anti-tradition aimed at achieving with humanism, rationalism, mechanism and materialism; once this was completed, man’s world and consciousness had to be, or rather has to be opened up from below (this process is still in progress) in a second phase. This is when the gate of the underworld is broken in and the path becomes free for the “dragon of the earth” to launch its assault on a wide front.

This infernal “dragon” also appears as “false prophet” or as the spirit of lies who/what “makes the inhabitants of earth believe” and “will cause both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand and on their foreheads”. The hand is the symbol of physical, the forehead is the symbol of spiritual activity and capability, while the “mark” here represents the contra-powers of anti-tradition and the Antichrist. A concrete manifestation of this could also be money (or whatever takes its place) which today -when it’s almost fully quantified- increasingly takes on a “qualitative” character, but this is the exact opposite of true quality. Needless to say, that while money (or its virtual supplement) is becoming the only measure of value among people, it has also become practically indispensable to participate in the mode of life of the Antichrist and in the corruption of existence (in other words, the denial of value par excellence ) in order to acquire it.

Furthermore, the Antichrist also ensures that “no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name”. “Selling and buying” in the broadest sense symbolizes breathing, the basic condition of life and existence and thus what happens is that whoever is not serving the dominion of powers symbolized by the beast essentially can’t participate in any of the human or earthly domains and in a way suffocates in a physical-psychical sense.

We need to emphasize the human domain of life because: “Wisdom is here. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six”. The “beast” only has power over what’s merely human (corporeal and animal; physical and psychical); however, the otherwise seemingly unlimited power of the “beast” can’t extend to the one who is able to count the number of the beast from a supra-human position (“qui habet intellectum” i.e. ’who has intellect’); and who, by looking down, is able to grasp its essence, or -to put it differently- is able to pronounce the name of the demon; and who, with an innate understanding, and drawing existential conclusions, can rise above all merely and “overly” human conditions.

Being unrecognized and invisible, is the conditio sine qua non of demonicity, in addition to not being aware of all that in the human world that is based on and supported by metaphysical non-seeing (avidya), stupidity and inferior seeing (aparavidya) – all things that are plentiful today and that the powers of darkness  -let’s not be naive about this- purposefully calculated with from the very beginning for their actions. However, he ‘who has intellect”, “qui habet intellectum” as the trustee of a superior world: “Stood there on the Mount Sion [representing the centrality of existence and consciousness] with the Lamb, who/what is the symbol of the transcendental I or “Self” (My metaphysical Self) (Rev. 14:1-5). The number we find here, 14000 (=9) indicates -among other things- two squares, tilted by a 45 degree angle (octagon) which is thus the symbol of the totality of the cosmos and the Center above the Cosmos (“Lamb”).

In the course of history many interpretations have surfaced regarding the number 666 itself (from identifying it with the Roman Emperor Nero to considering it essentially the same as computers). These interpretations are, to put it mildly, rather incomprehensive. According to a more comprehensive interpretation 666 is the numerical value of the Hebrew name of the “Sun Demon”, Sorath:

The Sorath expresses the opposite of Sun as Logos within the Sun; in other words it is the divine that turned into its own opposite. (“Satan is God’s monkey”). This is just another way of saying that while metaphysically speaking Christ is completely I, Myself (my complete Self is Christ) , the Antichrist is the complete non-I, the fully other, thus it is a fiction that may only become fully realized if I completely lost my Self as Subject (and my Self as the world).  This is also the reason why the sign of both Christ and the Antichrist is the lion (in other words where the Sun, Urania Logos is in dominion in the astrosophical  sense) since – according to gematrija- 666 is a solar number (6+6+6=18, 1+8=9), but in the opposite sense (9 as Sun, in opposite to this is 6, as Sun Demon): thus the “Antichrist” and everything that it is supposed to manifest is not merely a void – although obviously that, too – , but an active power: the divine that turned into its own opposite and degenerated into the demonic. The name Hakathriel also refers to this, although somewhat differently; this one is the name of the fallen Lucifer (Lucifer falsus). Originally, Lucifer was the “Angel of the Crown” but -due to his hubris and his drive for an absolute position in his state of separation- fell into hell; the Crown = Kether, is the first and highest sephira of the sephiric tree of the Jewis kabbalah; Hakathriel and thus 666 symbolize the fall from the highest to the lowest state, just like -somewhat differently- Sorath itself. As far as the concrete and -if we may say- “personal” social-political appearance of the Antichrist is concerned, who is identical with anti-spiritual darkness, he will be most likely the president or -mutatis mutandis- secular “monarch” of some sort of global “world-governance” which is the external anti-image of the inner “Kingdom of God”; his agents (who bought into the biggest illusion) have been preparing his path for centuries, so that the bringer of the light, the true Messiah – who in the Christian universe is represented by Jesus Christ-, should begin his occult, in a special sense concrete incarnation as an active dark force in the world instead of and against God, unifying all processes aimed at the corruption of existence, so that when the time is right he could finally emerge from latency into manifestation and as a “person” representing the apotheosis of impersonality, he could occupy the position at the head of an ever expanding, but until the last moment camouflaged demonocracy, the only serious enemy of which in the manifest world -at the time of writing these lines- is perhaps Islam.

Applying a full arsenal of anti-traditional means, the agents of the Antichrist, as the occasionally more or less open, at other times secret and semi-secret political background powers, first conquer all the nations and kings of the Earth and then, building up a global anti-tradition, anti-religion (materialism, atheism and various forms of neo-spiritualism) and anti-culture, they reduce man and the world to the lowest possible level – this, besides the general and mass torpor and stupidity as main accomplice, is also helped by the pestilence arsenal of “progressive” manias-, thus casting a deceived humanity into an existential slavery that will truly be the most terrifying of all possibilities so far. His dominance will be complete and -at least for people of healthy disposition, carrying the seeds of normality- terrible. This dominion will also be very short – not on a human scale but in terms of time cycles- because the law of tradition is that the length of time of something in manifest existence is inversely proportional to the “negative” aspect of its existence, i.e. the closer something is to metaphysical nothing (and to a par excellence valueless state) the closer it is also to total annihilation and to being completely annihilated, including those through whom he’ll get to power, since, as they say, the reward for the servants of Satan is Satan himself.

The rule of the Antichrist, or, to formulate it more universally, the rule of contra-tradition is the omega of the possibilities of this world-cycle; its realization means the end of the cycle, in the sense of exhausted possibilities, when “the first heaven and the first earth have passed away, and the sea is no more“. At this point, transcendentally generated, -“from God it descends from heaven”- the golden age of a new world-cycle, when once again  ” the tabernacle of God is among men” and the pure spiritual powers of the new creation permeate the manifest world. 

He, who has intelligence, should count it”


When it comes to possibilities of interpretations of partial significance, it is interesting that the most commonly used prefix for internet sites is www (‘world wide web’); it contains the wav letter of the Hebrew alphabet three times; the numeric value of wav according to the traditional gematrija is 6. This way, before viewing most of the web pages of the virtual world the calling sign of 666 must inevitably be used. Regarding the numerical values of the Hebrew alphabet see Kurt Seligmann: History of Magic and the Occult.


Our own translation from Hungarian

Posted in Principles, society | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The essence of life and death

Author: András László

Becoming is eventually followed by decease and passing. Only that which is incorruptible and immortal has neither a time-bound nor a principle beginning since what has no beginning will not have an end either. We have to examine some terms in order to clarity forms of eternity and temporality.

The word for absolute, timeless eternity is ‘aeternum’ or ‘aeternitās’. The word for the special and relative eternity that refers to becoming and passing together with time is ‘sempiternitās’, or occasionally the term ‘aevum’ is used. The quasi “eternity” that refers to a prolonged extension in time is called ‘perpetualitās’. The expression ‘aevum’ could also mean all of these together. “Aeternum’ is timeless, supra-temporal, absolute eternity; ‘sempiternitās’ is a relative eternity, an appearance and disappearance together with time; ‘perpetualitās’ is full extension across time. Finally, ‘perennitās’ expresses the appearance, the imprint of ‘aeternum’ in time. Religiō perennis, sophia perennis (eternal relegion, eternal wisdom) or philosophia perennis (eternal philosophy) for example are not eternal in the sense of being fully timeless, or that they appeared and disappeared together with time or even that their content has no end. ‘Perennity’ means that it appears in time but it represents timeless eternity within temporality. The human form of existence is directly connected with ‘imperpetualitās’, the opposite of ‘perpetualitās’, i.e. to appear in time belongs to the natural form of human existence and this results in passing also in time. But man is not simply human. Man is a person and Subject. In addition to his mortal part there is also a spiritual being present in man that connects to ‘sempiternitās’, i.e. to becoming ‘cum tempore’ (with time) and passing ‘cum tempore’.

In the same time, in his own subjectivity, in his own Auton-being, he’s fully immortal, completely eternal. Man is the representative of “aeternum’ under all circumstances. In such sense, his manifestation is in the sign of perennitās – this is man’s Subjectivity. The actual condition of man is always determined by what he identifies with. By his identification man may relate himself to his own mortal or immortal spheres of existence; for example to spheres that are fully subordinated to becoming and passing in time. Such is the essence of man’s body: not only his physicality in the strict sense but all those more subtle physical levels as well that man experiences as his own and that also mean the conditions of his current (strictly physical) mode of existence. If man identifies with his mortal part, he has to share in the fate of the body. If he identifies with the higher spheres of existence he carries within himself, his fate will take on the special conditioned state of these (between mortality and immortality) and following the death of the body, he’ll pass on to another world according to these; and if he fully identifies with himself, he is immortal in the sense of absolute, supra-temporal eternity.

The Hindu and Buddhist traditions consider two basic ‘post mortem’ possibilities in regards to man. One of these is pitŗ-yāna. The first part of pitŗ-yāna literally means father, in a broader sense it means ancestor, thus the whole term means the path of ancestors. The other possibility is dēva-yāna. Dēva means god, dēva-yāna means the path of gods, the divine path. Pitŗ-yāna contains two sub-possibilities. One is that consciousness ceases in death (or shortly after death). This is the most common possibility today and it presents a grave situation since, from the point of view of experience, this means the end of experience itself, i.e. annihilation, similarly to how an animal dies. An earlier -and today much more rare- version of pitŗ-yāna is what pitŗ-yāna literally means; the larval remains of human consciousness looming after death which goes through various types of experiences (this is the domain of Hādēs) and after a while this looming presence gradually withers. The individual consciousness at this stage experiences itself embodied in the root of a world (of beyond, the world of origin), the “breast of Abraham” in which, thus returning to its ancestors, it gradually withers. From this stage, the tendencies that an individual carried over to this other world and state regenerate themselves and lead to various human incarnations, embodiments. Not only does it return to its ancestors, it becomes an ancestor. But it doesn’t become an ancestor in the sense that the individual itself reincarnates but in the sense that it gives birth to processes that generate new entities through the ancient stock: this is pitŗ-yāna.

Dēva-yāna also presents additional possibilities. One of these is that consciousness ends in the transitory state, but much later – still, this means a fall back to pitŗ-yāna. The other possibility is that a journey in the other world begins: the kernel of the psychic-spiritual remains goes through various states of existence. It may happen that upon entering one of these worlds (lōka in Sanskrit, related to the Latin locus) it gets attached to it, fixing itself to a state of existence that corresponds to the eternity of ‘sempiternitās’ where its own existence doesn’t have a temporal beginning; in other words it doesn’t begin when it enters but when the lōka begins simultaneously with the beginning of time and it lasts until time ends, together with the lōka. This however is not measurable by units of time, like 10 years, 2 trillion years or a thousandth of a second, since in this sense it doesn’t have content, considering that such things can’t be measured in an order that doesn’t fall into the realms of ‘perpetuity’ or ‘imperpetuity’. This state is the relative eternity of ‘cum tempore’ existence. So the psychic – spiritual kernel may attach itself to such states (worlds) or it may also happen that it reaches the human state of existence and attaches itself to it in a ‘cum tempore’ sense, since the scope of the human state of existence is much broader and more encompassing than is generally known or assumed. It may also happen that it approaches an incarnation and an extract of its being that corresponds to a demon (grandharvas, kentauros) enters the incarnation. The Subject-carrying consciousness that made it this far will dissolve once the incarnation has taken place. The subjective ray (the ray that emanates from the Subject) that has reached this point will retract and a different subjective ray will create a new human being.

Metaphysical Awakening in death also belongs to the realm of dēva-yāna (to its periphery). There is Awakening connected to the body, i.e. it may take place in life. This possibility is called jīvan-mukti or jīvan-māksā, meaning liberation in life. There is also the possibility of jīva-vidēhamukti (mōksa) – which means Awakening in the moment of death, on the border between the living and incorporeal states. There is a possibility for ‘post-mortem’ awakening (after death), this is called vidēha-mukti mōksa. All these are already at the limits of dēva-yāna, since they are states that transcend it. Human births are mostly fueled by pitŗ-yāna and secondarily, in exceptional cases, by dēva-yāna.

These are man’s possibilities in terms of death, full Metaphysical Awakening in life, in the moment of death or following death being the most exceptional one. Dēva-yāna requires initiation; even the conscious attachment to a state in the realm of hell presumes a certain degree of initiation. An uninitiated man is destined to pitr-yāna; those with the highest qualities among these will face the withering of consciousness in pitr-yāna, while the consciousness of those with lower qualities will flame-out in death or directly after death. The state of clinical death is not death and this doesn’t mean that -to use medical terms- death means biological death, but that death is “that” death and not the one from which somebody may “wake up”. If somebody “wakes up” (meaning that he is brought back from death), that person did not die. Despite of this, the states described in the books and research of R. A. Moody and others are interesting to us and show that even average people (whose connection with the body has been loosened) are capable of achieving much more significant conscious experiences than may generally be assumed. If the right conditions are available, the loosened connection with the body may enable special conscious experiences. The research, as well as the opinions concerning all this are all valid as long as they don’t draw too far reaching consequences from these. The fact that in the state of clinical death man goes through such experiences doesn’t mean more than just that: man may have quite extraordinary experiences near death.

In these states death doesn’t actually happen; it doesn’t happen either in experiences since the survivor generally reaches some kind of light or a sort of being, perhaps a gate and whoever returns, never goes through it. Exposed to a certain influence, he/she decides not to go through it or doesn’t want to go through it. The state that follows death would be the one after the experience of passing through, but the scope of research doesn’t and can’t include this. In terms of death, if man doesn’t go through a fundamental transformation previously, he can’t experience death consciously, or he can, but just to a minimal degree.

There are various assumptions regarding death. In his book “Mysterium Mortis”, the catholic theologian of Hungarian origin, Ladislaus Boros, explains that in the moment of death everybody receives an illumination on the base of which they can decide on their ‘post-mortem’ existence. Naturally, he raises the issue in a catholic theological form which here means that man either chooses the road to salvation or to perdition. The final decision (optiō finālis) takes place in the illumination, not excluding the possibility that everybody opts for salvation. Concerning whether or not illumination and optiō finālis actually takes place, tradition doesn’t provide an answer. But it does say that in the circum-mortālis moments of consciousness, for an extremely short period – so short that it doesn’t produce any external manifestation – it is possible that a light flares up which may be followed some voluntary, willful act. Tradition doesn’t teach that this flaring up necessarily always happens and accordingly, since this is beyond control, no definite position may be taken concerning this illumination and the optiō finālis. For those who represent the traditional world view it is not salvation and perdition that depict the strongest polar tension in relation to death, but annihilation on the one hand and absolution in Awakening on the other. The smallest tension is between the ceasing and subsistence of consciousness. Salūs (salūtio, salvātiō) means salvation and healing, just like Heil in German means both; this is how salūs should be understood. Salūs or salve used to be a form of greeting. Full “healing” is salvation which is more than the mere realization of a celestial state. Salūs is the prerequisite of Awakenining, i.e. of ultimate realization. It is not the guarantee of it and it is certainly not identical with it; it’s only precondition of it.

In the great historical Christian denominations salvation is the highest achievement (rank) which may have various sub-ranks. Realized salvation is salvation with the resurrection of the body but this is still not identical with absolution. The opposite of salvation is really perdition within the dēva-yāna order of ‘post-mortem’ experiences. Within the possibilities of dēva-yāna, the difference and the tension between salvation and perdition (like the most extreme state of hell) is truly extreme. But in comparison to the metaphysical tension in which there is complete annihilation (in Sanskrit: nirguņa-mūla-prakŗti-laya, the complete dissolve in the non-qualitative root-nature) on the one hand and Metaphysical Awakening on the other, it is still quite insignificant. Full annihilation, the dissolution in full potentiality may only take place due to extreme and exceptional mistakes during realization.

The general and common possibility -without any positives- of man is that in the moment of actual death (or after that) his individual consciousness ends and this doesn’t mean that his impersonal, sub-personal or supra-personal consciousness should remain. Supra-personal consciousness could only remain if the person’s consciousness does not end in death. There is no such thing that there is subjectivity here, there and everywhere with the same intensity identification; although to some degree even this is true, but there is a always a special identification. This is decisive in regards to post-mortal possibilities. Wherever I am mainly and primarily in identification (to put it in first person singular) becomes (practically) exclusive in the critical moment. What happens with man’s ‘post-mortem’ possibilities is determined by his whole life on the one hand, and the period preceding death, on the other. There is no precise measure in this regard: this may be a year, a month, etc. – the quality of this period and finally the moments near death is most decisive, but not from a moral stand point, so it doesn’t matter if the person was “good” in his life or not; what matters is what level of intensity his consciousness is able to sustain. Existence after death is not of moral character, it has no ethical connotations; it only depends on the presence of forces of consciousness. This is much more of a reality of intensity than a reality of morality. From a higher point of view man doesn’t achieve a given state as a reward or as a punishment; from a lower, religious point of view it is valid, that one’s fate after death is a reward or a punishment, but if one pursues goals related to metaphysical realization, this position is not sustainable because in his case only the forces of consciousness will play a role and thus a man’s position after death is not what he deserves but what corresponds to his state; justice of injustice is not even an issue from this point of view. From a lower point of view this issue is decidedly valid, but from a higher point of view it’s not even an issue.

Correspondences decide; everybody connects to a state that perfectly corresponds to his self-identification. Generally, there are no possibilities of transmutation after death, but in exceptional cases there may be. The highest form of yōga, rāja-tantra-yōga knows a certain type of ascesis that may be continued even after death. This is fully outside of the scope of most yōga methods and generally outside of the scope of human possibilities. This means that identifications and de-identifications, transmutations may be performed after death in exceptional cases – provided of course that identification during life highly transcended the domain of the body.

These possibilities may only be raised in case of high levels of identification with the spirit. The human mode of existence is determined by death several ways: death has not only an extinguishing quality but also one of possibilities. Death has a positive aspect but in order for this to open up, quite exceptional conditions are necessary. Regarding realization we must mention a special form of tantric practices that were known in Inner and Easter Asia. In a certain sense the method itself is related to the tantric versions of Buddhism, as well as with the tantric versions of Taoism: riding the tiger. The tiger corresponds to a special power in the Inner and Far Eastern symbology. This power, a magical power called śakti, is active in existence as creator, sustainer and destroyer. Not all of its forms and manifestations are symbolized by the tiger; mostly its uncontrolled, unbridled manifestations are symbolized by a female tiger. The symbolic, educational situation is the following: the man on the path hasn’t acquired yet the powers that are necessary to conquer the tiger. Due to his low or high level of realization, he’s also not in a position to escape from the tiger or to avoid facing it. He’s facing the tiger because he can’t defeat it and can’t escape from it; so he sits on its back and spurs the racing tiger for an even wilder run and starts to control it until it becomes his carrier and domestic animal. The story has various variations: the tiger eventually collapses and the man kills it or it remains his carrier animal. The point is that man creates for himself a method of realization by applying powers that otherwise work against his realization. As the world “progresses” everything becomes tiger – not a recognized, but a recognizable one. Fighting, sex and many other areas that generally don’t belong to the lines of realization may be turned into such areas in exceptional cases but in such cases the tiger nature is normally known. But for example thinking didn’t used to have a tiger nature: it didn’t used to be moved by an unbridled, confused force. But in the current era -especially in most recent times- the tiger nature is more and more dominant in thinking, in addition to everything else. In the same time this tiger nature may only be recognized with an intuition that is evoked in an exceptionally heightened state since if it is revealed to somebody theoretically and one understands it, this still doesn’t mean that one will be capable of recognizing the tiger. While everything is taking on a tiger nature, the recognition of this is becoming less and less typical. It is quite possible that the time will come when man may face only one single tiger and this one will be the greatest, the tiger of death. Death is the Greatest Tiger man may face in his life and at the end of it. It is possible that once death will be the only possibility that may be ridden. This will be an extreme situation since there is no chance for correction: one either succeeds or not. When it comes to other methods there is always a chance to attempt something else: one goes through trials but here the trial is ultimate and it presents a situation that can’t be corrected.

‘Par excellence” man is a mortal being which means that his mortality is cast in time. Man is able to reflect on death. Animals, although they sense approaching death, sooner and sharper than man can, are not in such a conscious-reflexive relationship with it as man is. In case of animals, everything is happening on the level of feelings while in case of man conscious reflections mean an additional level even though in most cases this is not utilized and man becomes conscious of his own death only in exceptional moments. Thus man is in a tragic situation since he considers himself fully mortal while he lives life as though he was fully “immortal”, not reflecting on his own death.

If somebody becomes ill and the illness is severe and it runs its course quick, he becomes acutely aware that he will have to die. This may weight on him so much, as a thought, that he may commit suicide, etc. Yet, he doesn’t really grasp an even more certain basic situation, i.e. that he has to die at all. The difference between these is not as extreme as it is usually perceived emotionally. The basic problem is that one has to die at all and this prognosis has far more validity than any death-prognosis in regards to illnesses. Although man doesn’t experience himself as immortal but as mortal, his behavior toward himself -due to a lack of reflection despite the possibility of reflection- is such as he’d never have to die. One of the fundamental tenets of all superior spiritual schools is that “you should view each day of your life like it was the last one”; without any pessimistic undertone.

In regards somebody who has no intentions to transmute himself towards superiority all this is almost fully meaningless; such a person -to put it somewhat bluntly- can be “written off”. From a spiritual point of view we are only interested in people who want to transform themselves into higher states. From many other points of view anybody may be interesting but not from this one. The historical Buddha said: ” I am addressing those whose eyes are covered only by a little dust”; thus not those “whose eyes are not covered by dust” or those “whose eyes are completely covered by dust”. No other spiritual teacher or guide (incomparably smaller than Buddha) could say anything else. Those “whose eyes are covered only by little dust”, are people who dimly intuit their own origin, essence, path and goal; but this intuition may be called dim only in metaphysical perspectives, otherwise it means a remarkably sharp consciousness. All theoretical and practical teachings are directed at such people. Only about such people can be said for example, that in relation to themselves they are responsible or irresponsible. It would be superfluous to say the same about those in full delirium since in their case delirium and deviation have a substantial, all-encompassing and fulfilling significance. Responsibility is a no factor in their case so we can also not talk about them being irresponsible. All dark and light prognosis, all (almost) threatening warning and all encouraging remarks are meant only to people who want to transform their state and condition into a higher one.

Hindu and Buddhist tantrism (mostly these) acknowledges a human type they call paśu. Paśu means “sacrificial animal” which may only be a domestic animal, mostly ox or goat. The human type that corresponds to sacrificial animals is also called paśu: the type that -when sacrificed- only becomes part of human regeneration and nothing more. The current paśu is not even a real paśu since in the real paśu at least the awareness of the sacrificial animal or the human consciousness that’s analogue to this, is in some sense awakened. Paśu is man whose consciousness flames out in death, or thereafter. A paśu also has dignity and significance, but not in terms of realization, because in this sense, he depicts man incapable of realization. A paśu is anārya in the deepest sense. The āryas normally denote the top three castes while anāryas the ones below these. Paśu is who doesn’t transmute himself and who -if born into a higher caste- doesn’t realize his prenatal possibilities and doesn’t go through caste-initiation and also doesn’t set out on the path of true yōga. Even if they are born in a lower caste, they don’t set out on a true yōga path.

True yōga has nothing to do whatsoever with popular “yōga” -the term is terrible and stupid in this context- that is being pursued en masse today. Yōga is the ascesis of spiritual transmutation. For us, this term has weight. Nowadays, certain dark spiritual currents that are active either in the name of export-import Buddhism or “transcendental meditation” abuse the term “initiation”; “I went through an initiation” they say, although absolutely no fundamental change has taken place and the person remained exactly the same as he was before.

The initiate is different from an uninitiated person to the same degree as a human is different from an animal: in his own innate, internal world. These are not mere words; this means a serious and real discrimination of consciousness. An initiated person stands above an intelligent common man roughly to the same degree as an intelligent man is superior to a gorilla for example – in terms of his mental qualities. This is not a visible thing but not because it is kept secret and especially not because the person concerned is not aware of it, but because on the common level of human communications a manifestation that is as superior to the human mode of existence as the human mode of existence is to the animal one, doesn’t make sense. Being initiated doesn’t merely mean being smart (that too, of course), but that there is something supra-human in man which is related to his experience of origin and existence.

The overwhelming majority of people (9,999 out of 10,000) are paśu – unless of course a group is assembled that consists exclusively of people who are not paśu. The path of realization a man follows who realizes himself, is leading away from the paśu state. The superior counter-pole of paśu is paśu-pati which/who is the lord of paśus. The Indian tradition identifies paśu-pati with Śiva. There are people who -in different ways- stand between paśu and paśu-pati and walk paśu-pati’s path of realization. One type of these is called divya – divine; In Europe, in traditions with Greek fundamentals this was called theos which means God, those who belong to gods and man who represents a godhead. The other version is vīra which corresponds to hemitheos or hēros, or vēros in ancient Greek, thus the correspondence with vīra, vir. Vīra is somewhat lower (its meaning is true man and hero) than divya but possesses more intensive possibilities and powers, in other words greater virya and heroic powers. In case of divya, the level or grade and quality itself is called divya, while in case of vīra this is called vīra-virya: these depict two basic types that are progressing towards paśu-pati, getting farther away from paśu. Today almost all people appear in the world as anārya and paśu, save extremely exceptional cases – even by their essence they are paśu. There are some people who by their essence and possibilities are not paśu and some of these are capable of rising from the paśu-anārya state by transmuting themselves through metaphysical self-realization.

As a state, paśu-pati means the state of consciousness identical with the Subject; paśu, as a state, means man who identifies with a common state of consciousness. The Subject, the realizer is present, he is here, although his separation from the person is in cosmic magnitude. There can’t any other goal in a metaphysical perspective than this kind of realization and this possibility is available only to mortal man who contains the potientiality (possibility, virtuality) of immortality.

The representatives of modes of existence that are superior to that of humans (angels, semi-gods, gods, archangels)  dispose over much higher possibilities of realization than man, they are in a much higher state, but due to the blissful, bright, free nature of their state, their need of or drive for realization is much lower than man’s; thus, their possibilities are eventually not greater, because their drive is lower. We are talking about people with a drive to transmutation here (thus not about paśus) who already left the paśu state behind by transcending it. Even a small degree of transcendence in this respect means a very high spiritual achievement, since all one has to do is observe one’s own state of mind and psychic condition and the changes that directly manifest (or don’t manifest) themselves in it and thus one may find one’s own greatest enemy in these; especially the greatest enemy of one’s own nature of realization.

Man is unable to realize himself and to lead himself back to himself due mostly to his own psychic and mental conditions. It’s about a true internal battle and not about a simple attack (or counter-attack, or defense); it’s about a full series of complex, sophisticated, internal operations that must be applied against the dark, inferior powers that manifest themselves in the soul. In the type of death that leads to the end of consciousness, the inferior powers are victorious; in death these are unleashed and they extinguish consciousness. Consciousness that’s left without support can’t subsist in death – not only because loosing its support (that carried it) but but also because of the assault of powers that turn against consciousness.

Man who represents Auton must conquer the heteron he carries in himself which is essentially also Auton, but unrecognized Auton. The path toward this end is partially of Gnostic nature (based on knowledge, recognition and knowing) and is partially realizable by destroying heteron and heteron qualities and nature. The two are not in contradiction, since the recognition of heteron, just like the recognition of Auton, doesn’t contradict the elimination or even the destruction of heteron. Man must find strength and a proper vantage point from the existence of death, from its innate nature, from the tension between survival and non-survival and from the considerations related to this, specifically for the sake of realization. This is the essential function and task of spiritual man in general, but especially in our age.

This content was delivered as a lecture by Andras Laszlo in 1987. Own translation from Hungarian 

Posted in Principles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liberalism and Bolshevism

Excerpt from an interview with Dr. Andras Laszlo – translated from Hungarian

Liberalism and bolsevistico-communism stand in the sharpest contrast and opposition – on the surface. This opposition however can be resolved and it does get resolved in the worst possible sense:  the hypocritical nature of this opposition becomes evident mainly when they are faced with an actual enemy. Such was decidedly the case in World War II. Thus liberalism and Bolshevism -although they are enemies- come from the same roots and follow the same objectives, since the ultimate purpose of communism – whether or not it is articulated this way-  is a status anarchisticus (an anarchic state) and the highest goal of liberalism – whether or not it is articulated this way- is the same. Anarchism attacks communism because it is not communistic enough and it attacks liberalism because it is not liberal enough. Essentially both liberalism and communism aims at an extreme status anarchisticus and affirms anarchism; not pronouncedly yet, but almost pronouncedly.   This how it is evident that their goals are the same and it may be deducted from this that their origins are the same as well. No matter how far they get from each other in the course of their development when extreme necessities call for it, they always cooperate.

We consider liberalism, just like communism, an extremely dangerous enemy. Communism is obviously more brutal and and intolerable, but the sins of liberalism are of a different nature. It may also become intolerable at any time because liberalism doesn’t shy away from terroristic moves if its interests so demand. So liberalism may produce the most reproachable acts at any time, but it is indisputable that when it comes to regular practice, a more demonic and destructive system than communism has been invented yet. All right wing orientations, but especially the ultra-dextro-conservative position stand the most decidedly and sharply in opposition to both, but they also stand against national Bolshevism, as well, which constitutes a third possibility; this latter one appeared in Germany already after World War I. The rot-braun (red-brown) initiatives aim at the revival of this. This is also very dangerous and while we can cooperate with national socialism in general – which is always better than the name suggests -, we can’t cooperate with the rot-braun line and we are not even willing to consider such moves. We consider all these our enemies.

This phenomena is suitable for creating total confusion and prevent people from seeing clearly; let’s not forget that one of the goals of skotazmocratism and the intermingling of judeocratism and latomocratism within it, is precisely to make sure that people have absolutely no political world-views. If people have no political world view, manipulation over humanity may become absolute. People are already prone to manipulation to a very high degree – and we should see that nobody in any sense would be able to see through such unclarified  relationships like the intertwined lines of liberalism, communism and rot-braun initiatives.  This is very suitable for fully extinguishing all political commitments people may have and manipulate them exclusively on the basis of the most fundamental daily pragmatisms.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment