So far I have discussed the roles that the Sacred, the gods, the priestly class, and the rites played in traditional societies. In the world of Tradition, these things hardly correspond to categories typical of the domain of "religion" in the current sense of the word, based as it is on the notion of deities conceived as self-sufficient beings and the notion of God as a personal being who providentially rules the universe. Moreover, the cult is essentially characterized by an affective disposition and by a sentimental and devotional relationship of the "believer" to this Supreme Being or deities. In this type of relationship the moral law plays a fundamental role.
One would look in vain for "religion" in the original forms of the world of Tradition. There are civilizations that never named their gods or attempted to portray them—at least this is what is said about the ancient Pelasgians. The Romans themselves, for almost two centuries, did not portray their deities; at most, they represented them with a symbolic object. What characterizes the primordial times is not "animism" ( the idea that "anima" is the foundation of the general representation of the divine and of the various forces at work in the universe) but rather the idea or perception of pure powers, adequately represented by the Roman view of the numen. The numen, unlike the notion of deus (as it later came to be understood), is not a being or a person, but a sheer power that is capable of producing effects, of acting, and of manifesting itself.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_deities - Ancient Roman Gods were only known by name and function, later Etruscan and Greek influence led them to adopt anthropomorphized deities.
The sense of the real presence of such powers, or numina, as something simultaneously transcendent and yet immanent, marvelous yet fearful, constituted the substance of the original experience of the "sacred." A well-known saying of Servius emphasizes that in the origins, "religion" consisted in nothing else but experience. (maiores enim expugnando religionem totum in experientia collocabunt) Even though more conditioned points of view were not excluded from exotericism (those traditional forms reserved for the common people), "inner doctrines" were characterized by the teaching that the personal forms of deities, variously objectified, are only symbols of superrational and superhuman ways of being. As I have said, the centre consisted in the real and living presence of these states within an elite, or in the ideal of their realisation through what in Tibet is called the "direct path," and which generally corresponds to initiation conceived as an ontological change of nature. The saying from the Upanisads that best represents the traditional "inner doctrine" is: "So whoever worships another divinity than his Self, thinking: 'He is one and I another,' he knows not. He is like a sacrificial animal for the gods."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads - Hindu texts importantly detailing the philosophy behind Brahman, which has similarities with the Roman numen. Atman instead makes up the inner doctrine of Hinduism.
Asher Roberts
...
Jayden Fisher
With regard to the rite there was nothing "religious" about it and little or no devout pathos in those who performed it. The rite was rather a "divine technique," a determining action upon invisible forces and states of matter. The priest was simply a person who, by virtue of his qualification and the virtus intrinsic to the rite itself, was capable of producing results through this technique. "Religion" was the equivalent of the indigitamenta (Lists of deities kept by the College of Pontiffs to assure that the correct divine names were invoked for public prayers)of the ancient Roman world, namely, of the body of formulations used with different numina. Thus it is easy to see that prayers, fears, hopes, and other feelings displayed before what has the character of numen had as little meaning and effect upon it as if one of our contemporaries were to employ prayers when confronting a machine. Instead, what was at stake was to be able to understand such relationships so that once a cause was established through a correctly performed rite, a necessary and constant effect would ensue on the plane of "powers" and invisible forces and states of being. Thus, the law of action reigned supreme. But the law of action is also the law of freedom; no bond can be spiritually imposed on beings who neither hope nor fear, but rather act.
Could OP recompose his posts and give them context? Is OP even making an argument or is he just posting random passages from Evola?
Ethan Thomas
I was actually a little curious if all the communists here are hard materialists tbh.
Noah Brooks
"Hard Materialists" = folks who won't believe white people are a race of psychokinetic phallus-wielding monk-warriors that originated in the Atlantis just because some doomsday Indian deity told them so in their sleep.
Lincoln James
Right lad, so that's all of you I'm guessing. This has already been asked but, how many of you are actually white tbh?
Luke Ross
Don't know how anybody could be a white supremacist looking at the degenerated state of them now.
I'm interested in spirituality but I haven't found a proper introduction. How it can relate to leftism is up yours.
Camden Ross
if a spirit can't get you drunk there's no reason to give a shit about it
Jack Baker
Evola endorsed aristocracy, so I don't think he could be called a leftist. I'm not sure what his logic was, but that's something you'd have to address.
Hunter Foster
Thank you satan.
Zachary Campbell
…On second thought, looking at the appeal of aristocracy becomes fairly understandable. However, it's not clear what exactly these ruling classes are supposed to do differently from the proletariat
