On Clemens Wenzel Lothar Fürst von Metternich Winneburg

Author: Dr. András László Translation: PCC (Laszlo Kovari)


There was an eminent and paradigmatic personality who, in the advanced stage of modernity, in the age of increasing and self-renewing, overt and covert, anti-traditional, left wing offensive, managed to remain internally unperturbed. In spite of all seemingly extreme or fateful hesitations, he managed to keep the empire -where after the ruler he was second in command- and indirectly, also the allied empires up, where his personality also played a significant political role.

In regards to the idea and factual reality of ‘Imperium’ or, in a stricter sense, ‘Imperium Monarchicum’, as well as all its possibilities, the name of Clemens Wenzel Lothar Fürst von Metternich Winneburg must be mentioned, at least briefly.

Metternich was ‘Außenminister’ (minister of foreign affairs), ‘Haus-, Hof und Staatskanzler’, (chancellor of the House, Court and the State) ‘President des Staatsrates’ (president of the State Council) in the empires ruled by the Habsburg-Lothringen dynasty, as well as one of four, in more than one aspects most significant ‘Ständige Mitglied der Staatskonferenz’ (permanent member of the State Conference). He received these functional-operative ranks successively, always keeping the previous ones.

The Austrian Empire was established in 1804, while the Holy German-Roman Empire ceased to exist only in 1806; even during this period prince Metternich enjoyed significant political influence and this only increased until 1814/15 and beyond. By the way, Metternich recommended to the Austrian Emperor and Hungarian Apostolic King Francis I in 1814/15 that he should -as much as this was still possible- reinstate the Holy German-Roman Empire and while keeping his title as Austrian Emperor, to retake his title, rank and dignity as Emperor of the Holy German-Roman Empire which he -based on realpolitical considerations- gave up in 1806. According to Metternich, with the disappearance of Napoleon’s influence from the European political-power structures, the opportunity presented itself to unite all German powers, ideally including that of Prussia; otherwise, if the Austrian Empire had been reinstated (through throne succession either by elections or based on primogeniture), it would have contributed significantly to achieving and balancing the political influence of Prussia. Unfortunately – and contrary to the general practice- Emperor Francis  had not accepted prince Metternich’s recommendation, thus it soon became irrelevant.

Metternich’s greatest achievement was perhaps the establishment of the Holy – Alliance. According to our knowledge, the basic idea (at the time in a germinal stage) for this con-national and transnational-supranational organization, whose judgment may only have been/maybe positive then and now, first had been conceived by Mrs. Krueder, the confidante of Russian emperor Alexander I, who immediately took it up, and after perfecting it to some degree, presented it to the Austrian emperor, to the Prussian king and to Metternich. At first glance, nobody liked the idea; both emperor Francis I and Metternich considered the idea in the given form as unfeasible and not serious, but they didn’t refuse it because Metternich already had a plan: that he’d give the basic idea of emperor Alexander I a proper perspective and that he’d make significant changes through such subtle changes in wording of the plan so that that Alexander I would probably not notice it and thus everybody would in the end consider Alexander I as the founder of the Holy Alliance.

We can’t deal here in details with the Holy Alliance and its significance; it’s enough to note that it was indeed an almost perfect, flawless alliance. Its only imperfection was that it couldn’t be more of what it was supposed to be and the reasons for this came down to exterior factors. Its banal critiques that are generally extremely negative in tone and that lack any foundation in historic theory reflect antitraditional-antimonarchical-antiimperial-anticonservative, i.e. leftist manipulation and this is also indirect proof of the positive nature of the Holy Alliance both in regards its foundation and in its details. Generally, the Holy Alliance is referred to nowadays -on a leftist and pseudo-rightist basis- as the most extreme ultra-reactionary alliance in its orientation, in terms of its goals and in its essence and character. In regards to this we must note that the Holy Alliance, by its essence, didn’t represent a reaction but an autonomous actionality. Naturally, besides all this, it also had to be reactionary; this was unavoidable and they never intended to avoid this. In this respect it was indeed one of the most reactionary, if not the most reactionary alliance of history, in addition to its essential autonomous actionality – and this must always be  emphasized. This reactionary character -from a truly right wing point of view- is absolutely not negative, nor is it a mere necessity, but is truly positive. Of course, the left, the anti-left and the pseudo-right perceives and propagates this the opposite way, but the opinions and contra-opinions coming from this side are worth less than nothing in our eyes. We don’t underestimate how dangerous they are, but we will never accept that even a sparkle of validity or value may present itself -even as a possibility- in their opinions.

The Holy Alliance, which was originally supposed to be set up as a three way alliance eventually came to life as a four-way alliance. The founding core of  the Holy Alliance was formed by the Austrian Empire and together with it with the Hungarian Apostolic Kingdom, the Russian Empire (the Empire of the Czar) and the Prussian Kingdom. England actually joined the four way alliance, but not the Holy Alliance (which it didn’t identify with it). The Holy Alliance, that was formed as a three way alliance and which in certain aspects expanded into a four way alliance (in regards England), was not deserted even in its three way aspect, considering that all of the European monarchies joined it with the exception of the Pope (directly, next to the Pope, the Papal State, the Apostolic Holy See and indirectly the entirety of the official Church). The Pope was supportive to and in agreement with the Holy Alliance, but was not willing to join it because the protestant Prussian Kingdom and the East-orthodox Christian Russian Empire were also members. (Regrettably, in this respect the earthly Head of the Holy Roman Catholic Christian Church deemed to be myopic.) Prince Metternich wanted to win over not only the Pope to join as a member, but he also wanted the Turkish Empire (Sultanship) to join the Holy Alliance in some capacity; he thought that it was not impossible to win over the Turkish Sultan to this idea. He was probably right, but he (would have) had to face the opposition of all Christian monarchies, so he didn’t take this further beyond putting out feelers and it was never seriously considered to actually persuade -in serious, official form- the Turkish Empire to consider the membership. Some (carefully) accused prince Metternich that he was not a faithful son of the Catholic Church. This, of course, was not true, but without doubt, he was far from any kind of bigotry. He was Catholic Christian, but even more so he was traditional – irrespective of whether he considered this himself. (From the right wing point of view, the fact that the Turkish Empire was left/stayed out of the Holy Alliance (in its diplomatic name: Sainte-Alliance) may have been/may be considered as a weakness of myopia.)

Alas, the significance of the Holy Alliance diminished over time. The true and significant occasion when the ideology of the regressing Holy Alliance could practically assert itself was the Hungarian revolution of 1848/49 that expanded to a civil war, which in turn expanded into an internal war (and the possibility of further expansion was also not excluded). On the request of His Excellency Franz Joseph I, emperor of Austria and (absolute legitimate) Apostolic King of Hungary,  Czar Nicholas I’s Empire of Russia – in the spirit of the Holy Alliance- was willing to assist in suppressing  the revolution that escalated into a domestic war; the military powers faithful to the Emperor-King would have been also able to repress the revolution but only through huge bloodshed and long standing chaos. Some people are fond of drawing analogies between this -in our view positive- intervention and the annexation of Hungary in 1944/45, ending between April 10-19, 1945 by enemy hordes, as well as the bloody defeat of the 1956 freedom-uprising and (the first, so far last and only true) freedom fight of annexed Hungary, once again by enemy forces in context of an attack as an act of war. This analogy is invalid and the parallels they are seeking follow false principles: In 1944/45 Hungary was not in war with the Russian Empire of the Czar, but with the basest horror-state and contra-empire in the history of man kind. Hungary was not annexed by Russians and the bloody suppression of the Hungarian freedom uprising and freedom fight was also not performed by Russians but by the Soviet Union and by Soviet troops. The differences are significant and we can’t speak about any analogies; drawing any kind of analogy is possible only

  • in the distorted idea-world of the representatives of liberal-democratism as well as the left-wing, pseudo-rightist, contra-leftist and extreme rightist circles (that  -good willed as they may be-  are infected by contra-left currents)  of social-democratism that intend to disclose bolsevistico-communism;
  • in the feeble minds of those, who succumb to the history-falsifying propaganda due to the lack of their intellectual faculties on the one hand and to the combination of their lack of culture and extreme gullibility, on the other.

After this necessary detour, let’s now return to the person of Clemens Wenzel Lothar Fürst (von) Metternich Winneburg (Ochenhausen). Prince Metternich found himself at a transition between the political types of the previous era and those of the modern world. He is undeniably a politician both in the modern sense and according to the criteria of the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries. Not only did he stand his ground by principles more than anybody in the 19th Century, but if by some miracle he was alive today, there would have been nobody more eminent than him also in the whole 20th and very likely in the 21st Century either. In this sense prince Metternich was unique: a perfect ‘real-politician’ and in the same time -and this is even more important for us- a perfect ‘ideal-politician’. Not only did he embody the perfect synthesis of these two basic political types that never manifest themselves together perfectly, he was more than this, more than the perfect unity of theses two perfect forms. Prince Metternich, while on the outside he perfectly adapted to his era within the confines of modernity (although not in today’s sense), according to his inner essence he belonged to a much more ancient era that represents eternity to a much larger degree. On the surface he was perfectly a worldly man, witty and verbose, but internally he belonged to the world of heights and depths. He knew how to be and how to keep quiet, but the Metternich-diplomacy, this highest diplomacy of subtle hues and tones was not a diplomacy of lies as that of later eras; in regards his essential level he transcended even the Talleyrand type of diplomacy of his own era (which he was similar to on the surface) by incomprehensible degrees of heights.

No politician with operative power since then came close to the level of prince Metternich. Prince Bismark, the chancellor of the German Empire -whose eminence has always been beyond doubt- may have approached him in certain areas, but when considering all aspects even he couldn’t come close to Metternich. There may have been some who, by possessing the same degree of power could have reached, perhaps even surpassed the political level of prince Metternich, but in the end, this can’t be decided with certainty. Perhaps Julius Evola -as the ruler of Europe- could have surpassed even Metternich in terms of consistent representation of metaphysical traditional principles in politics – but of course this can’t be decided with certainty either.

How close prince Metternich was to the above mentioned traditional basic principles is almost completely unknown. Traditionality, in Metternich’s era had not manifested itself in philosophical-metaphysical terms. Traditionality appeared -as a rightist, as an ideological rightist concept- only at one author: at Comte Joseph Marie De Maistre. Many similarities may be observed between the basic thoughts of De Maistre on the level of ideologies and Metternich’s practical/applied concepts, and the differences, although not insignificant, are never really fundamental. Metternich may have known the works of De Maistre and we may seriously assume that he in fact did known them. It’s possible that he’d considered many of De Maistre’s concepts unfeasible and he may have articulated many practical objections, but it is unlikely that he’d had fundamentally disagreed with the essence of the basic principles.

Prince Metternich proved his traditional, right wing and conservative character by his life and his political acts; he manifested an independent, autonomous action-proneness in all possible cases; he proved that besides this he was extremely reactionary (in that he always reacted to revolutionary movements with the utmost decisiveness).

The question may be raised if prince Metternich was really anti-Hungarian, as it is whipped into the minds of children and youth from the first grades in elementary schools until the end of university studies through base and demonic manipulations in terms of shaping opinions. Let’s state it categorically: Metternich was absolutely not anti-Hungarian: nothing proves or supports this. On the other hand, based on archive research and the examination of various credible memoirs we can consider it to be proven that he was – in his reserved, cool and distinctive way- Hungarian friendly.

Prince Metternich was the president of the State Council, he was state chancellor and the permanent member of the State Conference that operatively exercised the rights of the emperor-ruler. The president of this latter body was archduke – prince royal Louis and it counted among its members the crown prince archduke – prince royal Franz Karl, Metternich himself, as well as Franz Anton Graf (von) Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky who was responsible for internal affairs, more specifically he held the highest responsibility for police matters (approximately equivalent to minister of internal affairs). Those members of the State Council who held the highest responsibility for an open issue of a given department often appeared as non-permanent members. Normally the two archdukes always accepted Metternich’s proposals; in questions of foreign affairs and those concerning the basic interests of the empire fully, but in questions of internal and police affairs – despite the fact that Metternich had a voice in these and from the 1840s he did intend to voice his views more and more in these matters, the archdukes – in sense of some ill-conceived ‘balance politics” allowed too big of a leeway to the views (that directly or indirectly intended to oppose those of Metternich’s) of count Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky. Essentially, there were no fundamental differences between the views of Metternich and Kolowrat, but the fact is that almost all of the (mostly police) measures that were subsequently considered to be offensive and often attributed to Metternich were almost exclusively initiated by Kolowrat. We must note that these, from a right wing point of view can’t really be considered offensive. It is likely that in all such matters Metternich himself would have also launched measures, but these would have surely happened with much more sophistication than they ended up happening. Although count Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky was not as anti-Hungarian as he was later rumored to be, we truly can’t consider him Hungarian friendly, similarly to baron Kübeck who, although not a permanent member of the State Conference, was one of the often invited members of the State Council, responsible mostly for matters of finance.

Kübeck, Metternich and Kolowrat, although friendly and courteous on the surface,  were almost enemies in the background. This had almost no other reason than Kolowrat’s vanity who sort of considered it to be his responsibility to – through subtle methods- sabotage all of Metternich’s interventions in internal affairs and their becoming ordained through the signature of the Emperor. When the revolutionary insurrections broke out in Vienna and Metternich was forced to resign by the State Conference, almost all of Metternich’s previous positions were taken over by Kolowrat. The revolutionary mob, at least for a while, didn’t have any objections about this, since Metternich’s image as an enemy had already leaked to the “people” so they considered Kolowrat almost as revolution-friendly; they were of course fundamentally wrong about this, but retrospective we can rightfully resent count Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, first of all because due to his personal vanity and extreme ambition he sabotaged the ‘opus’ of Metternich who was incomparably greater and more talented than he was and this despite the fact that Kolowrate was otherwise a very talented, excellently trained and superior personality. So Metternich’s anti-Hungarian sentiments are nothing more than a pseudo and contra legend born out of evil inspirations similarly to those demented and stupid views according to which His Excellency emperor and king Franz Joseph was anti-Hungarian, which is of course completely false. It is also false that Feldzeugmeister Julius Jakob Freiherr von Haynau (military chief commander between May 30th, 1849 and July 6th, 1850) was anti-Hungarian. It is, however, certain that Julius Jakob Freiherr von Haynau, prince Metternich and emperor Franz Joseph I were all uncompromising opponents and enemies of insurrections and revolutions and the civil and domestic wars that resulted from these. This was not their flaw but their holy responsibility and from another point of view their highest virtue. Irrespective of what the open or covert left or their contra-left, invert variations think about all this, the true, traditional, radical conservative and the conservative ultra-right position may not defer from those outlined above in a qualitative manner either in details or, especially, concerning the essential provisions. And we say this not only due to our con-nationalistic and trans-nationalistic-super-nationalistic position but also due to our Hungarian and truly right wing and anti-leveling nationalism which has nothing to do either with the left wing or with the right wing or extreme right nationalisms that are contaminated by leftist and contra-leftist currents.

Metternich’s politics protected not only the Austrian Empire but -together with it- the Hungarian Apostolic Kingdom, as well. Members of the Habsburg Lothringen dynasty were not Hungarian or Austrian or German, nor did they belong to any other nations and of course they were not mixed either, but they were supra-national: Habsburgs and Habsburg-Lothringens; they didn’t have Hungarian blood,  they had Turul blood, Arpad’s and Attila’s blood (through the female line). The members of the House of Arpad and the members of the Turul dynasty were not Hungarians either: they belonged to the House of Arpad, they were Turul. Great dynasties are like independent nations, in a sense of supra-nationality. The concept of national kingdoms is an anti-traditional delirium. A true and anti-leveling right wing nationalism must and does accept all these; if not, than this nationalism is obviously pseudo-right, infected by anti-left nationalism and may define itself as purely right wing nationalism only because it simply doesn’t understand any of this.

The king is the king of the empire but he is also the king of the nation or nations that live in his kingdom. But not as an employee above the people and recognized by them as such, because the people and the peoples, the nation and the nations all belong to the king. The king has immeasurably more to do with the people and with the nation than anybody who belongs to the people and to the nation. The king doesn’t belong to the people or to the nation irrespective of how many of them he rules. He doesn’t, he can’t and he may not belong to any of them – because he’s their king. This denotes a connection that is infinitely more and that originates from infinitely higher and that works infinitely deeper than belonging to a nation by blood. A national king by blood – precisely by his contingent nature- can’t be a true king. He may be an excellent military general or political leader exercising royal rights but even in the most positive cases this is hardly more than usurpation. If there is no real king, then it must be the governor – ruler who stands as the head of the country or empire. This may be a legitimate solution as long as this person also has certain royal qualifications and an inner realization reaching in supra-national dimensions; being bound to the given people or nation is absolutely not a prerequisite, what’s more, this may be specifically disadvantageous and contra-inductive and ‘in concreto’ it truly is.

These thoughts lead rather far from our starting point, from the character of chancellor prince Metternich, but only seemingly, since these considerations correspond with Metternich’s ideology. The nature of metapolitics is such that it may open both towards politicality and apoliticality. If we wanted to open from metapolitics toward politicality, it would be impossible to doubt Metternich’s paradigmatic character; in the same token, Metternich’s character must be respectable also in the eyes of those who want to open specifically toward apoliticality. The character of prince Metternich remained -unquestionably- intact in all its aspects, in all circumstances. Such great personalities as He was, could and may have had -forgivable- flaws, but prince and chancellor Metternich -we can say without reservations- did not have flaws; if he did have some, these were probably so insignificant that they are indeed not worth mentioning.

The character of prince and chancellor Metternich (almost) perfectly corresponds with the paradigmatic character of the perfect statesman. The only reason why he was not fully perfect is because the signs of times manifested themselves also in His being although He was fighting against the very powers of his era and this significantly compensates against all related features. Metternich’s character serves as a leading example in the eyes of everybody with traditional and true, pure and unambiguously right wing orientation who intend to open towards politicality, but his character is highly respectable also for those who turn away from everything external, from all politics and intend to open only toward apoliticality because having a theoretical right wing orientation is valid also in such cases. The author of these lines -in addition to his other spiritual goals- defines it as his special mission to present historical personalities in their original light, who are close to the principles of traditionality. Such personalities include emperor and king Franz Joseph I, chancellor and prince Metternich, as treated above, Marshall and chief commander Alfred Fürst zu Windisch-Grätz, chief commander Haynau, but also those Hungarians faithful to the emperor, who fought in not insignificant numbers against the insurrectionist horde troops of Bocskai, Bethlen, Thököly, Rákóczi and Kossuth that triggered domestic, internal wars. This author is compelled to do this by his imperio-monarchist orientation and by his being a devoted Hungarian – by the recognition that the honor of Hungarians must be sought there where it is truly to be  found and not there where it was gambled away.



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


This permeates and determines the inner and external world of man except for the areas where man conserves his autonomy according to his metaphysical position. The presence of the spirit in the world is manifested as power and dominance. Dominance and power are fundamentally traditional categories; however, anti-traditional powers may modify these, creating a pseudo-form of power (an opposite form), giving it a direction that is opposite to the original stability and to the original movement of power and dominance.
The foundation of true power is ‚suprēmātia’, a superiority that may only be real spiritual superiority that comes from awareness of one’s metaphysical origin. The essence of this issue is the presence of ‘suprēmātia’. Without true ‘suprēmātia’ only pseudo-dominantia may be realized. In lack of spiritual supremacy dominance is not dominance and the power that is connected to this is usurped power. Dominance is different from power in that it stands above it and possesses it. Indian traditions address this in an ontological sense; they call power śakti (a feminine word) which corresponds to the magical power active in the world, while the possessor of power (śakti) is śakta (masculine word). Dominance comes from possessing power. The ruler has power and his sovereign being is based on true supremacy. He rises above other beings and people; his dominance that’s based on his supremacy can take full possession of power and sustain it. Pseudo-dominance can only keep the violent aspect of power, i.e. its most external form; it usurps power but not the totality of power, but only its lowest form, which is violence. No usurpation of power is imaginable that may extend to the full spectrum of power. Usurpation may only aim at the most external and the lowest form, aspect and methods of power.

The presence of the spirit in the world means the awareness of the presence of the center. Thus if the awareness of the center is not present in the world, the world is not spiritual. Spirit means center-awareness in the sphere of man and his world. It is the center and the axis that supremacy, as the culmination of dominance and power, must be based on.  By his essence, the ruler is motionless; he’s like the center and the axis. Operational power is always lower than the power directly possessed by the ruler. Directly possessed power aims at founding, moving and stopping. The ancient king (Jupiter Stator) means “Jupiter that stops”.  Stopper also means founder and mover: it moves and stops things; lays the foundation, creates a solid base and rules. The worldly equivalent – as primary metaphysical manifestation- of the spirit is monarchy, whereby at the top of the state there stands the king, the emperor or the monarch who actively possesses the  totality of power, without limitation. He holds everything in his hand that may be symbolized horizontally and vertically and that extends to these areas, and possesses them without limitation. Just as God possesses existence (being present in existence as the ruler of existence), is the king, the ruler, the monarch present in the earthly manifestation of existence. Traditionality must extend to the various areas of life and it must show the paradigms (patterns) according to which a traditional state may develop.

We must be aware that in the current age – not to mention the future – the possibility of such development is extremely minimal.  Traditional empires ceased to being spiritually permeated already around the 7th-6th-5th Centuries BC. There was some spiritual intensification in the Antiquity and the Middle Ages when traditional states were actualized (although not perfectly). The Roman Empire was a traditional empire; later the Eastern- and Western Roman Empire, also, just like the Western Roman Empire revived by the Carolingian dynasty, as well as the German-Roman Empire. Hungary was also a traditional state in the age of the Turul-dynasty -at the time of the rulers from the Arpad – House – in parallel to the German – Roman Empire of the Saxon and later of the Hohenstaufen dynasty.

These were conserved longer in the East especially when we consider the Chinese and especially the Japanese Empire, where the sovereign presence remained manifested until modern times. The highest form of monarchy is the God-kingdom when the godhead -as an Avatāra (that descends) appears in the world and occupies the position of the King of the World which in Sanskrit is Cakravarti, i.e. “the one who turns the wheel”. Only the one who is in the Center and who rises from the Center may be the “turner of the wheel” or the “lord of the wheel”. In a later stage the God-King is replaced by the sacred king whose mission is from Heaven. These are followed by kingdoms that are kingdoms by the grace of God. This is already a degradation but the spirit is still present, alive and active here. The forms that come after this already lack these powers and a state-form appears that demonstrably represents the non-manifestation of the spirit. They specifically represent not being the representatives of the spirit (of heaven, of transcendence). Such state form is the republic.

Although traditionalism is primarily not dealing with earthly domains, it also has a definitive position in questions of the world, since the world must ensure that people may return, reconnect to the spirit (to the origin). Thus the state bears the imprint of the spiritual world while in the same time being its paradigm in which the internal order of the spiritual world comes to expression, and which provides the pattern for man to build his inner and external world by.  Dominance, which is based on supremacy and which possesses power, may only be aristocratic, autocratic and theocratic. Autocratic means that the ruler has unlimited power and that this power is based on himself. Aristocracy means that the rulership of the best prevails. Theocratic means that aristocracy and theocracy draw their origins from the existence of the Godhead, and that in autocracy a divine principle is at work, and that the autocrat expresses a divine principle in all respects, and that aristocracy manifests the rulership of the best (most eminent)  based on divine dominance.

Theos means God, aristos means good, the best, the superlative of agathos,  auto means self. Theokrateia and theokratiā (theocratia), aristokrateia and aristokratiā (aristocratia), autokrateia and autokratiā (autocratia) are Greek and Greco-Latin forms. These constitute the foundation that enables the ascent back to the spirit. The rulership of the dēmos, of the people is dēmokrateia or dēmokratiā (democratia). “Democracy” would mean a degradation in comparison to the preceding stages even if a true spiritual authority manifested itself in dēmos; but ordinarily it doesn’t and thus dēmos is nothing more than a mass. Today all political lines want to speak in the name of democracy, their goal is its affirmation and exaltation. From a spiritual point of view democracy and democratism must be refuted, they have no raison d’etat. The Ruler’s one single responsibility – an inner one, not a principle to follow- is not to rule against the people. But he doesn’t have to rule in the name of the people because the people are immeasurably below the true Ruler.

We must define how traditional world-view (which concerns mostly spiritual spheres) manifests itself in the domains of politics and society. The unalienable political aspect of the traditional world-view is a political world-view which we call right-wing (dextrism) and from this follows the most radical right wing orientation. Democracy has no place in the radical right. When we talk about dictatorship, we must know what it means. Dictatorship means a temporary state; it means that the autocrat (the ruler) exercises executive power by giving orders, for example through a dictator. Temporariness is an integral part of dictatorship which may be negative or positive. The dictatorship of the proletariat or of cliques of certain circles and groups of people that lack any superior determination is not and may never be acceptable.

If a dictatorship doesn’t manifest the truly superior -but the opposite, the inferior- it represents the dominance of darkness, of skotasmokratiā. A dictatorship that applies terror and behind which skotasmokratiā prevails, must be refused. Such a dictatorship is left wing, similarly to democracy, liberalism and socialism. Terror and liberalism are left wing and so is terroristic dictatorship and democratism.

When it comes to societal-economical considerations, it’s obvious that socialism and especially communism are extremely anti-traditional. Communism is a political world-view that we may rightfully call satanokratiā, satanic dominance. Communism (Bolshevism) is the unequivocal expression of satanic dominance, and so is bourgeois democracy and capitalism on the plain of economics. Neither of these are traditional formulas. The last traditional phenomenon in the societal domain was feudalism – the original one that was still unspoiled by burgeoning money economics. The negative off-shoots of feudalism are always connected to the powerful unfolding of money economics; this is when for example the serfs are forced to work increasingly more than absolutely necessary. The essence of feudum is that everything belongs to the king, but not in a capitalistic sense but as his true royal possession. Whatever he grants becomes private property but not in a capitalistic sense. The land that was granted by the kind as feudum may not been sold because in the hierarchy of proprietary rights it belonged to the king. This process continued down the hierarchy (from a feudum a new feudum was created) all the way to the serfs that “owned” estates. The word serf originally didn’t have any pejorative meaning (it’s Latin form is jobbagus). Everybody was the king’s serf. The serf owned the property, it was his private property but not in a capitalistic sense, but in the sense of the hierarchy of property rights. It was his private property, but he received it in the form of feud-ownership, i.e. his private property was simultaneously the property of his lord and mainly that of the king.

The pure forms of feudalism prevailed in the 9th-14th Centuries; after this (with burgeoning money economics) the pure forms of feudalism became more and more obscure and they also took on characteristics that we may and should judge as negative. While capitalism is anti-traditional (state capitalism is even more), feudalism – in its pure form – is traditional.

Leftism is always anti-traditional and rightism -if it’s truly rightism- is traditional. We must note that many right wing schools were infected by leftist elements in the course of history. We may expose strong leftist – actually contra-leftist- influence even in the far right currents and these (from this perspective) also appear to be anti-traditional. (In today’s political spectrum there are 53 parties in Hungary that are trying to manifest themselves; all these are, without exception, leftist. No matter how the define themselves, they are leftist because in each case they are related to some form of democracy and all democratisms are leftist. That from the point of view of MSZMP (Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party) all other parties are rightist or of the far right, we may simply ignore.)

There are two factors traditionalism considers to be indispensable. One is that feudalism must prevail, irrespective of the chances. The other is what may be called imperialism; since this term already evokes some confused, negative connotations, let’s call it rather imperiumism (“empireism”). If we take a look at Hungary’s history, after the Arpad-House died out, following the dominion of the Anjous, the following is characteristic of the Hambsbugs (the manifestations of the Jagellos and others were only episodic): Hungary was in personal union with the German-Roman Empire. The Kingdom of Hungary was never part of the German – Roman Empire, since the Hungarian king was a king with the rights of an emperor (unlike for example the Czech king) and he was connected to the German-Roman Empire (from the beginning of the last Century to Austria) through an “unio personalis”.

The Hungarian nobility had a much deeper feeling for the essence of feudalism than others in the German – Roman Empire. From this point of view the position of the Hungarians was much more traditional than the various parts of the other empire in the personal union. However, in the German-Roman Empire (later in Austria) people had a much deeper feeling for the idea of the empire and from this point of view this was more traditional. These two conditions (feudalism and imperialism) should have been in perfect synergy. Although the symbiosis of Hungary and the German-Roman Empire – in retrospective – may not be considered unequivocally positive, but the usual attitude that rejects the essentially positive aspect of the Habsburg Empire is completely false.

This personal union – although not perfect – was a form within Europe that we must not reject.

In connection with the spiritual manifestation of dominance and power, we must also speak of nationalism. Nationalism – not without antecedents – was born at the time of the reformation and it was unfolding more forcefully in relation with the 1789 French Revolution. This form of nationalism is anti-traditional and leftist because it is based on nivellation which always means leveling down. The essence of nationalism is that whoever belongs to the ‘nātiō’ is essentially of the same rank and it is precisely this that provides cohesion to the nation. Historically, nātiō used to mean various things; in Hungary for example, for a long time it meant only the nobility. Everybody was an inhabitant, a subject (rēgnicola) of the kingdom, but only the nobility and nobody else was part of the nātiō.

Internationalism, which is also nivellating, may also be led back to the leveling nationalism that unfolded in the French revolution. The premise of one is that everybody is French, German or Hungarian, the rest doesn’t matter, this is what provides cohesion, the spiritual and all other foundation, this is what keeps the nation together.  If we continue the same train of thought, this may be extended to the entirety of humanity. Nationalism, however, also has a positive and rightist form. This nationalism assumes an internally structured nation; a nation that is structured horizontally and vertically; a nation that is differentiated, capable of integration and not aiming at livellation; a nation that is spiritually led from top to bottom, and that is spiritually oriented upward. This is what corresponds with right wing nationalism. Although in case of internationalism we can’t exclude a right wing internationalism, but this was and is being used by the darkest anti-spiritual and contra-spiritual powers to such a degree that cooperation with them from a spiritual point of view is impossible.

On the base of a restricted nationalism it is also not possible to strive towards the spirit. There is a spiritual trans-nationalism (or supra-nationalism) that unites based on principles that transcend nations. This takes on particular forms, like for example churches or orders that stand above nations (there is a radical party that calls itself trans-nationalist, however this has nothing to do with trans-nationalism, because it is a typical internationalist, cosmopolitan party formation.) True trans-nationalism and nationalism in the positive sense are connected by connationalism (a positive position on the side of national communities). Connationalism is based on the idea of nation-community as opposed to internationalism, meaning a simultaneous nationalism, i.e. the unification of nationalisms and nations.

Right and left are expressions that may be led back to the end of the 18th Century which originally referred to the positions of the representatives in parliament. The representatives of the conservative government parties were positioned on the right side, while the representatives supporting the subversion, on the left. The expression is not the best, but since there isn’t a better one, we can apply it thousands of years retrospective, to the current days or to the future.

If we want to name a truly right wing politician from the past 250 years who the most purely represented this ideology in the political domain, it must be Metternich, much more so than, for example Hitler or Mussolini. Metternich represented a right wing ideology that didn’t allow for any anti-left contamination. Due to the manipulative education system, for 99.9% of Hungarians the name Metternich rings as negatively as that of the basest criminal. This position is fundamentally flawed, even stupid. Metternich represented the almost completely pure traditional state ideal and never in his life exhibited one single anti-Hungarian sentiment. (Various careful and probing historical research unequivocally prove this.)

Sometimes in the Middle Ages and before everybody and all currents were unequivocally “right wing”, since all currents were essentially traditional. Anti-tradition could only manifest itself on the peripheries, in the form of marginal forces. Differentiation may be made retrospectively; such was the case of the Guelfs and the Ghibellins in the Middle Ages. Guelf was a dynasty whose original German name was Welf, while the German equivalent of Ghibellin was Hohenstaufen. The positions of the two dynasties were fundamentally different. The Guelf dynasty fully acknowledged the pope’s primacy and supremacy above all. Their position was that the pope – if he wanted to- may become the emperor, but even if he’s not an emperor, he stands above him. According to the Ghibellin dynasty on the other hand, supremacy belongs to the emperor and the emperor -if he wanted to- could take over papal power, but even if he doesn’t, he still stands above the pope. This was well founded since there was a time when the German-Roman emperor was called Vicar of Christ – Vicārius Christī – while the pope was called Vicar of St. Peter – Vicārius Petrī -. This was the case for long centuries. Using current expressions, it’s obvious that both the Guelfs and the Ghibellins were “right wing” currents; this aside, the Ghibellin line was “more right”, because the ruler, according to the traditional conception, stands higher than the high priest. Priesthood always has something lunar about it. At the Aztecs, for example next to the king there was the main priest whose name was “Snake – Woman” and, although a man, he appeared as the wife of the king. In India, at the king’s side – the Rāja – there is Purōhita, the high priest, a brahmana who, during the ceremonies, despite being a man, related to the king as though he was a woman. This had no sexual connotations; it was simply the external manifestation of an inner ranks. Although the ruler himself is a high priest, he nevertheless stands above the high priest. Even retrospective we can differentiate between stronger and weaker “right” currents while, using contemporary and last century expressions, both the Guelf and Ghibelling positions -as we noted- were “right wing”, together, as well as individually. When it comes to Hungary, both Koppany and St. Stephen represented traditional views.

There was a time when the powers of anti-tradition (although they existed) had only peripheral significance. They couldn’t penetrate man’s world, they couldn’t permeate it, but internally they were already at work invisibly; through decomposing consciousness they had achieved a lot, but they couldn’t upset the prevailing order yet. The states of the Middle Ages (although by far not perfect) were still nurtured and sustained by the penetrating power of residues that essentially meant the representation of tradition. Even in their residual state, these still dominated and (even in such a state) they could force the offensive forces aiming at subversion, to marginal and extra-marginal positions. Revolutions are fundamentally left wing. The 1648 English, the 1789 and 1830 French, the 1848 French and European, the 1870/71 French, the 1917 Russian and the 1918-19 European revolutions were all -fundamentally, extremely and more and more extremely- in the hands of the ruling powers of anti-tradition (skotasmocratic, representing darkness) and this is what they fully expressed. 1956 is different, we may not even call it revolution. It was an uprising for freedom and a freedom fight. What happened in Hungary in 1956 was not a left wing initiative; it can’t be connected to 1848, to 1918. 1956 was infinitely above these by rank, by honor and dignity, and by orientation. This doesn’t meant that in 1956 effective traditional powers manifested themselves – since such powers exist only sporadically in the world -, but its orientation corresponds to the orientation tradition would have taken this initiative. When the Bolsheviks called this counter-revolution they wanted to mark this Freedom-uprising negatively. If this was not concocted by the Bolsheviks, we may as well accept the ‘counter-revolution’ stamp, since counter-revolution -as fact, as possibility, as concept- always contains something positive. All in all however it’s more correct to stick to the terms Freedom-uprising or Freedom fight and under no circumstances should we confuse it with the manifestations triggered by dark forces that are concentrated in revolutions.

Viewing the facts, the events, the happenings and the tendencies of the past from the point of view of traditional politology, we may rightfully say that Hungary is still a kingdom today. From the side of powers only injustices happened in Hungary in the past 46 years. For 46 years the country was under enemy occupation and an enemy occupation may not produce national assemblies, governments, parliaments. Juristically (dē iūre) Hungary is still a kingdom where there has been an interregnum for 46 years, thus there is no legal head of state, no parliament, or government. The power in Hungary was de facto usurped by a power that stood in opposition with the interest of Hungarians, assisted by puppet figures. This was not changed by the 1990 “election” either, since the currently “elected” power is based on succession from the previous one and it originates itself from the previous one also. Similarly it’s fully besides the point what is accepted as crest: the one with or without the crown. Hungary’s crest is the crest with the crown and no legitimate organization has revoked this, since no such organization has operated since the beginning of the Soviet occupation. (The crest is the small crest with the crown; a middle crest with the crown may be used, as well, or a large crest with the crown, if it will ever be created. This one has only had drafts; it’s been being designed for centuries but it hasn’t reached a final shape, since it contained territories like Serbia and Jerusalem since the Hungarian king is also the king of Jerusalem and Serbia. The crest without the the crown is not a crest but a escutcheon. Even above the crest-shield of the counties of the kingdom there used to stand the crown, generally the crown with nine branches.)

At this time, the the chances for de facto traditional structures to emerge in Hungary or anywhere else in the world is immeasurably small. The chances are similarly small for the emergence of forms that are reminiscent of such structures. However, how much chance there is for restoration should not affect the principles themselves. What’s needed is the development of principle positions, while we may assume that in the life of a world that is becoming increasingly dark, there are relatively bright periods, so called lucidum intervals. In these cases it is not the original, traditional light that is awakened, but these are still relatively brighter periods in which restoration may at least be attempted, even if it may last only for 24 hours. If it may be realized only for one day and only partially, we should still live, act, operate, think and feel under the aegis of making this happen.

Political orientation, in comparison to spiritual orientation is secondary at most, but this doesn’t mean that this is not deeply and penetratingly important, for example from the point of view of the individual. It is characteristic even of high caliber people that they contain a confusion of principles, i.e. they lack an internal coherence. Karoly Kerenyi, someone who enjoys our respect to a somewhat lesser degree, made a good remark, namely that due to a confusion of principles, the man of our era – including people and their views who operate in science and in other higher areas – are ‘incoherent’, ‘incompetent’ and ‘inconsequent’.  If somebody considers himself spiritual but in the same time sympathizes with the political left, his internal integrity will unavoidably become compromised. The acceptance of all hierarchical setup is indispensable for traditionalism. If somebody considers meditation as a goal, but rejects the raison d’etat of hierarchies, he should also reject the ranking order of levels of consciousness since all hierarchies originate from the hierarchy of levels of consciousness: the world itself is the reflection of these.

If somebody says that all people are fundamentally the same, he can’t think this seriously and he has likely never thought this through earnestly. This is a very special position; one may sacrifice his life for such an ideology without truly believing that it is true. He may surmise that this should be true, but he doesn’t know why should people be equal. Life always belies this kind of egalitarianism, since the nature and spiritual level of people are to a large degree different. There are people on more or less the same spiritual level, but independent of this, egalitarianism has no actual foundation. Further: the principle of equality doesn’t represent anything morally good, anything that should be so because if it was so, it would be better. Precisely because this is not so, it follows that all leveling is based on sinking lower. Aiming at full equality in rights may lead only to equality in the lack of rights.

Dominance and power must come to expression organically. If a state is only a totalitarian state, it is not in the sign of traditionality. Totality must be supported by organicity, by the inner order of values that receives its powers from the spirit and from the domain above life. This order must be central and infused by the spirit and this center (from which this infusion originates) is in the same time the center of the goal which may be pursued by the community and the individual. Each and every single human individual carries in himself the status, i.e. the image of the state; if he doesn’t have such an image, then so: by confusing and darkening everything. Such a person may only strive towards such a state, i.e. towards the non-state. Current states are to a very large degree non-states and current societies are non-societies, as long as we use these terms in their original sense. From the point of view of the original ideal of state and society, current states and societies should be called masses, sets, apparatuses, inorganic organizations operating as tools for exercising violence. Traditionality is based on a true state and social ideal, one that is alive, which receives its life from powers of the highest order, which is organically and hierarchically structured, in which there isn’t and can’t be opposition between the individual and collective, and where everybody is in his place, everybody is oriented towards Heaven, i.e. everybody is progressing towards his higher or lower, but mostly more complete self.

* * *

One can’t find tranquility who lives among the people to pursue worldly goals, or the one who lives in isolation to pursue spiritual goals. Tranquility is achieved by those who live among the people to serve God.

* * *

Only by getting rid of the confused notion that the material world is real and important may one understand and fulfill his true calling.

* * *

Fear of death is born from that people consider the small part of life that is restricted by their own imagination to be everything.

* * *

We know the divine law from the traditions of all religions and from our consciousness, as long as it’s not disturbed by passions and pose; but we may know it also from experience if we apply it in life. All the requisites of the law that give imperturbable  salvation are in the same time the requisites of true law, as well.

* * *

We may consider somebody who is seeking wisdom clever, but if he thinks he has found it, he’s a fool.


Based on Andras Laszlo’s lecture in Nyiregyhaza, April 25th, 1990. Translation: PCC (Laszlo Kovari)

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

Andras Laszlo: Sri Ramana Maharsi


This work of Dr. Andras Laszlo has appeared as the foreword for a work titled A nyilegyenes osveny (Budapest, 1998, Stella Maris).

English translation: PCC (Laszlo Kovari)

Bhagaván Srí Ramana Maharsi is (so far) the last Saint above Saints of India and the world. According to the most authentic circles and personalities, he was a Jivanmukta, i.e. somebody who has realized absolute, metaphysical Liberation (Awakening) still in his earthly-human life.

Who is Liberated (Awakened) and who isn’t, can’t be decided with full certainty – this question belongs to the realm of probabilities. Only someone who is himself Liberated may unmistakably recognize if somebody is liberated, but there’d be needed somebody else who is liberated to establish that this latter one is liberated and so on and so forth »ad infinitum«. The most we could say is: »if I am liberated I’d recognize all others who are«.

The probability that Bhagaván Srí Ramana Maharsi was Liberated-Awakened is incomparably higher than the case of anybody else in the XIX. And XX. Centuries, among those of course that we are aware of. This is beyond doubt reinforced by his life, by his supra-personal personality, by the heights and depths of his groundbreaking teachings and by the specific and universal nature of these teachings.

Maharsi’s sacred life with all its known details, the heights and depths of his teachings and of the certainty of his guidance, as well as their specificity to people while being universal in validity, far surpasses even the teaching and the life opus of the highly eminent Sri Ramakrsna.

Ramana Maharsi did not come forward as a World-teacher, didn’t go among the people to teach them, and never invited anybody to become his disciple. More and more people, although never too many, started to gather around him slowly and gradually, later in a somewhat faster pace. Some of these people had already reached considerable heights in terms of realization above realizations and some of these were below the level of beginners in terms of spirituality.

As far as we know the young Ramana already achieved the goal in his seventeenth year. His arya-dvija and brahamana heritage was an excellent starting position, but this alone doesn’t explain anything. In all likeliness he was born as a virtual Bodhisattva, a supposition which is supported by that he completed – as far as we know – the stages of preparation, pre-initiation, initiation, pre-realization and supra-realization without previously having completed any paths in the strict sense, through a single »transactus supravoluntaris«, in one single timeless moment.

Generally speaking, Bhagaván Srí Ramana Maharsi didn’t have a definite path and he never taught any; instead, he revealed the most fundamental essence of possible paths. Should we consider this yoga, it may rightfully called Adi-yoga (one of  the paths identified by Padmasambhava-Buddha was also called Adi-yoga, but this doesn’t concern our point).

Maharsi’s Adi-Yoga – should we use this expression- may hardly be considered to be tied to any world-cycle; it is hardly related to any specific modes of existence either. It clearly implies -among the general yoga paths- Bhakti, Karma, Jnana Yoga and in certain respects even Raja – Tantra Yoga, without being identical with any or all of these. What’s behind this implication is that what we may consider and call Maharsi’s Adi-Yoga is related – in the strictest sense- to the foundations, to the highest background of all these yogas.

The path proposed by Maharsi – as long as it is a true path – may be walked on the levels of -pre-preparation, preparation, »autocorrectificatio«, pre-initiation, initiation and on the level of metaphysical realization that is related and corresponds to prayoga and to yoga. Theoretically anybody may walk and practice this path and the possibility of failure is not too big here, however this doesn’t mean that this should be an easy path. In some respect it is easier, in another it is more difficult than other paths – and emphasizing that it’s ‘more difficult’ here is just as important as emphasizing that it’s ‘easier’.

It is quite certain that this path may be practiced in connection with any other true paths and we consider this to be quite significant. On Maharsi’s path the starting theme of »consideratio«,  »concentratio«, »meditatio«, and »contemplatio« is the question of »who am I?« which is not meant to be answered and which, at a certain level, is raised without and above words, concepts and »thematicum«; in fact this question is raised without and above actually raising the question.

All truly authentic teachings of »Traditionalitas Metaphysica« and especially those that are -directly or indirectly- more closely connected to metaphysical realization, on a supra-philosophical level correspond with a world-view that on the level of philosophy is known as »solipsism«.

»Solipsism« or more precisely »magicus solipsismus«, or -to put it even more precisely- »theourgomagicus solipsismus«, in a supra-philosophical sense is in close and direct relation with the basic view taught by Maharsi, or with the teachings of Advaita-Védánta-Váda, or of »tantric« Dvaitádvaita or with the basic teachings of Meister Eckhart.

The »magicus« attribute (just like the also plausible »magia« – »mageiá«, »máya«) doesn’t refer to the manifestation of siddhis here, but -in sense of true »theourgo-mageia«- to the ability of realization and to realization, in the sense of actualizing a possibility of power-dominance.

(We may assume that Maharsi was on the level of Mahasiddhas or even higher, but -although there were miraculous events around him- he was dismissive in terms of manifesting siddhis. Although it would have been no challenge for him, he didn’t consider it necessary even to cure himself magically.)

Both »solipsismus philosophicus«, and »solipsismus hyperphilosophicus« unequivocally teach that Conscious Existence may only have one single subject and this subject – in first case singular – is I, Myself; all »actionality« is my »actionality« and all objectivity, the totality of the objective world are my objectivity and my objective world. There exists a »Realitas Obiectiva« but there isn’t and there may not exist an objective reality independent of consciousness, of our consciousness and -first of all- of my consciousness. »Realitas Obiectiva« is the »Realitas Obiectiva« of Consciousness; »Realitas Obiectiva Illusoria« is both reality and illusion, simultaneously. Ultimately everything is I-Myself and besides me there is nothing and nobody. The equivalent of the Sanskrit »Atma« is »Auton«, which manifests itself as »Egon-Auton« (»Aham-Átmá«) and everything else (anybody or anything else)  is »Heteron«, i.e. essentially unrecognized »Auton«.

Maharsi -and this is obvious- was not a philosopher and his teaching was infinitely higher than any philosophy, even higher than hyper-philosophy, yet, although his teaching is neither »philosophia«, nor »hyperphilosophia«, but -essentially- »sophia«, its interpretation as »hyperphilosophia« is still possible and this is intelligible also on the level of »philosophia«. In light of this we may say that Ramana Maharsi -like »sophos«, the perfect ruler and possessor of »sophia« communicated a teaching that is without doubt »solipsistic«.

As a short digression, it’s important to note here that »antisolipsistic« conceptions and positions are always anti-traditional, anti-spiritual and anti-metaphysical and should be considered as such. This applies also to those who are otherwise the eminent representatives and interpreters of »Traditionalitas Spirituális et Metaphysica«, whom we maximally respect and whose work we consider to be indispensable, fundamental and groundbreaking.

It is also important to note that we consider adequate »philosophia« to be no more and no less than »propaedeutica«; we call »hyperphilosophia«  is a spiritual ‘bridge’ that connects »philosophia« with »sophia«. Many legitimate philosophies are possible but the most adequate line and the crown of philosophies is »solipsismus« or, more precisely, what the author of these lines in his other works referred to as »metidealismus transscendentali-immanentalis et immanentali-transcendentalis theourgo-magico-solipsisticus absolutus«.

This is the crown of »philosophia« and this is the only possible line of »hyperphilosophia« that leads to the achievement of »Sophia«.

The philosophical-hyperphilosophical study of this “line” is an excellent propaedeutic to the higher-deeper understanding of Maharsi’s views. We must consider »philosophia« to be invalid if it wants to stay only »philosophia« without ensuring its own transition to »hyperphilosophia« through its practitioners. »Hyperphilosophia« is also inadequate -and in this sense invalid- if it doesn’t serve as preparation for »transscensio sophiatica«.

The corollary of Maharsi’s teachings -which we may rightfully consider solipsistic- is that it favors a »autotheisticus« (»autonotheisticus«) conception as opposed to a »heterotheisticus« (»heteronotheisticus«) one. Accordingly, I Myself am God according to my ultimate essence, i.e. the Self is identical with God and the Self is mine. Maharsi’s teaching posits the innate God as opposed to the external God, the identification with God or with the Godhead as opposed to considering God as being other than I. (Nothwithstanding that he didn’t consider it correct that people turning to him were following ‘statements’.)

What Maharsi was teaching in this respect could be defined as  a »autometapantholotheisticus« God-concept. An impersonal – supra-personal God-concept is much closer to this view than a personal one, although Maharsi’s position was, in a certain, special sense reflective of a ‘personal’ God-concept – in the sense that the God-head may be approached through the first case singular.

There didn’t exist philosophical or other types of problems for Maharsi, and he decidedly did not recommend such “problematification” for others, either.

Maharsi’s teaching is strongly focused on auto-identification and in relation to this, on the fundamental mistake of self-identifying with the body. We must know that Maharsi didn’t only consider the body in the strictest sense of the physical body with its “external” and “internal” experiences, although that too, but considered all “carriers” to be part of the body, including the various subtle bodies, the soul and even the spirit and the spiritual, although this latter one not in its highest form.

It belongs to the essence of all spiritual-metaphysical teachings in terms of realization that I must detach from myself all the Heterons -and thus all carriers-, but I must re-conquer them as Heterons and ultimately as the Heteron, by recognizing them as Auton. This is so -although in different words- in the teachings of Raman Maharsi, as well.

We noted earlier that Bhagaván Srí Ramana Maharsi didn’t come forward as a World-teacher. Despite of this -in terms of his normative rank- we must unequivocally consider him as a World-teacher. His authenticity and authority is on par with the historical Lao Tsu, the historical Buddha, the historical Jina, the historical Zarathustra, Jimmu Tenno, Romulus and Jesus Christ. His self-determined and undertaken mission -in terms of its external “scale”- was not as great as that of the Avatars, the Buddhas, the Jinas, the Zarathustras and that of the God-Kings that laid the foundations for Empires, but his inner, essential rank was on par with these.

The teaching and guidance of Maharsi doesn’t contradict a single spiritual-metaphysical teaching and those in turn do not contradict anything that Maharsi was teaching.

In terms of »realificatio metaphisica« or »suprarealificatio metaphisica«, Maharsi did not provide a “manual” for his current and future disciples. It’s not impossible that there were some disciples for whom he also provided methodical guidance but there are no precise, detailed and reliable references in this regard. This is what makes it significantly difficult to complete Maharsi’s path, besides some other factors and the lack of qualities on the part of the disciples.

It is probable that -apart from extraordinary cases / individuals – it is best to combine Maharsi’s path with some other paths, perhaps with the combination of some epistemological and tantric path, or similar.

With some exaggeration we may (and should) say that if somebody wants to follow a path of realization, the path identified, although not specified by Maharsi can’t be overlooked, but it’s useful to choose other paths that are comparable with this one and with each other, seeking out the guidance of masters or those more advanced on these paths.

Things that are directly connected to realization may only be presented through analogies. The “path” itself, “reaching” the “goal”,  and many others are just -adequate-metaphors. Sometimes -from a certain point of view- these may be given up, sometimes they must be given up. In a certain sense there is no path, in a certain sense there is no goal and there is nothing to realize, or the goal is already present and the path is already completed. All these statements are valid, just like statements different from these may be valid. All these statements are made or written following an inner order to be realized. An Acarya or a Guru may change somebody’s wording, he may change even his own wording sometimes; a disciple or future disciple should never be rigid about a particular terminology, but should be respectful to all.

Inadequate respect towards Srí Ramana Maharsi is rather difficult, but unfortunately, even this is not impossible. All “following” may become flawed and this applies to following Maharsi, as well. Following Maharsi exclusively is gravely flawed and doesn’t correspond with Maharsi’s spiritual intentions, either.

Hopefully the teachings of Bhagaván Srí Ramana Maharsi, of this spiritual giant, that have been published in Hungarian will become and remain important mile stones in increasing the spiritual-metaphysical light for everybody.


At 1am on December 30th, 1879, in Tiruculi, near Madurai in South India, Venkataraman, later Ramana Maharsi, is born as the second child of a brahmana family.

In 1892, following the death of his father, he moves with his brother to his relatives in Madurai and continues his education first in the local Scottish high school, later in the high school of the American Mission.

In the middle of July in 1896 he experiences a spontaneous death experience -without any physical trigger- which results in the perfect realization of his Self. From this moment on his Self-awareness never weakens.

On August 29th, 1896, without informing his mother and relatives, he leaves Madurai and with one rupiah in his pocket he sets out for the sacred mountain of Arunacala, near Tiruvannamalai.

On September 1st, 1896 he arrives in Tiruvannamalai, he gets rid of his clothes and the rest of his money and spends almost all his time in samadhi, in various spots within the local temple.

His relatives find him in 1898 and his uncle from Madurai goes to see him and to take him home.

In December 1898 his mother also goes to see him but her attempt to take him home also fails.

In February, 1899 he moves to the Arunacala mountain and lives in various caves, mostly in the Virupaksa cave or in Mango-grove cave in the summer.

In 1900-1902, his first work is born from the written answers he gave to his first disciple, Gambiram Sesayya. It’s titled Vicára Sangraham (Self-inquiry) which gets published only years later.

1902 – His second work is born from the answers he gave to the questions of Sivaprakasam Pillai, with the title Nán Jár? (Who am I?), which also gets published later.

1905 – Due to a pest epidemic the town is deserted and Maharsi moves to the Pacaiamman-shrine at the foot of the mountain.

1907 – Kávyakantha Ganapati Muni pays him a visit, who’ll become perhaps his best disciple. He is the one who gives the wise man who was previously called Brahmana Svami the name Bhagavan Srí Ramana Maharsi.

1908 – He translates Sankaracarya’s works Vivekacudamani and Drgdrsyaviveka to Sanskrit proze.

1911 – His first Western disciple visits him: Frank H. Humphreys.

1912 His second death experience.

1915 Hymns to Arunacala.

1916 He moves into Skandasram which was established by one of his disciples.

1917 His mother moves to him to Skandasram. Ganapati Muni writes Srí Ramana Gíta, the Sanskrit summary of Maharsi’s teachings in poetic form.

1922 His mother dies. In the middle of December he moves his base to Ramanasramam at the foot of the mountain.

1927 He writes the Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Sanskrit versions of Upadesa Saram (The essence of spiritual instruction), a philosophical poem.

1928 He writes his poem called Ulladu Nárpadu (Sad-Vidyá, or Fourty poems about Reality) which later becomes his most commented work.

1933 He translates two short agamas to Tamil.

1939 Laying the foot-stone for the Mathrubhutesvara temple above the grave of his mother.

1940 He selects the forty two most important verses of the Bhagavad Gita and translates them to Telugu and Tamil.

1946 On September 1st a celebration is held in the asram on occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of Maharsi’s arrival to Arunacala.

1947 He writes Ekatma Pancakam (Five verses on the self).

1948 He translates Sankaracarya’s Atmabodha to Tamil

1949 Consecration of the Mathrubhutesvara-temple

1950 On April the 14th, at 8 o’clock and 47 minutes in the evening: mahanirvana (parinirvana) of Ramana Maharsi.  Exactly in this moment a slow moving, bright comet appears on the sky moving from south to north and then disappearing behind the peak of Arunacala.

Posted in Principles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment


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 the 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, it 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 this tasks 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