Q: Recently I read one of the best and less debated works by Evola, “The doctrine of awakening”. He clearly asserts that original Buddhism considered “the liberation” barred, for karmic reasons, to disabled subjects, especially the blind. (Fabio)

Dear Fabio,
All right: regulations, statutes, rules, laws, codes and canons are all parts of the “profane convention” of this “global mansion” called mankind.
All right, then. But on every occasion an initiate (if there is one that is not just “nominal”) will never lose sight of the main aspect of the question: Love, Brotherhood and, above all, Tolerance to who’s different. So, even if it wasn’t another heritage of medieval superstitions, the phenomenon of disablement should be looked at from the point of view of (this is written, too) “helping the poor”, “comforting the sick” and “assisting the prisoner”. It doesn’t mean that their need, sickness or detention are not important. We could say it’s a matter of “karma”. Nobody can change their fate, but certainly it’s up to us to assist, help, comfort (R+C’s “Consolamentum”) and give them part of our energy.

Like someone said, all the rest is just “hot air”.

I repeat: all displays of “futile wisdom” towards who’s plunged in a huge “endless” sorrow or towards those who are (it’s not for anyone to pass judgement about) in such a dramatic and painful condition, is just a big shameful action, or it comes from a deep spiritual blindness.
So my dear friend, if you still are so unexperienced as you say, don’t let the blind guide you. Don’t be led astray by little rules. Forget what poor little mentors write, and follow your good conscience. Above all, learn how to share all world’s evils, and you will finally understand how pain and sorrow are life’s Grand Masters.

Q: My dear Athos, are these insults addressed to Evola??? (Valerio)

Dear Valerio,
insults are usually unfavourable opinions. So they can’t be addressed to the gentleman you’re talking about, even if I don’t share his ideas. It was just a sort of warning, an appeal not to get involved by who’s able to understand only Freemasonry administrative laws. That’s it, just little rules.
My reference was clear. So I’m sorry if I was misunderstood.

Q: Do you think that judging J. Evola only by his political opinions could distort his thinking and/or just misread it?

Dear Brother,
you’re asking an interesting but difficult question.
First of all I’ll tell you that my unliking to J. Evola isn’t due to his political militancy, but to his well-known attraction to Tantra Yoga (a kind of yoga closely linked to sexual magic).
He wrote much about this, in my opinion, counter-initiatory “practice”.

I can’t say much about his “political likes”. I will just tell you that “easier said than done” is not the real truth. I think there should always be a harmony between what a man says and what he chooses to do.
If it’s not like that for great thinkers, then better to save the idea (said or written) and forget the man. The same goes for another great thinker, Guenon, who was a really stingy man in his everyday life. I could say more about other examples of that kind.
I believe that each of us must learn with his own intellectual faculties how to separate the imperfect man from all the wishes belonging to somewhere beyond everyday life.
In this way we will save Ideas and stop turning ordinary people into myths.
We could now ask ourselves: why man always needed turning his neighbour, or someone “similar to him”, into a myth, and projecting his superego into this kind of “fantasies”? Maybe because of his inner need to turn himself into a myth (then into God)?
It could be an esoteric and really tangling question.
But let’s get back to the subject.
Thought can’t be separated from its practice. I think it’s clear: besides being moral, it’s an ethical question.
Let’s take my example. I’ve been sitting in the Supreme Council of Italy since 12 years. If today I chose to join Bossi’s “Green Shirts” and take such a (im)moral decision, what would it become of my initiatory credibility, if I have one? And what about the motto: Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité; I’ve been sitting under?
I’m sure that I will lose all my institutional credibility, in spite of any good word, and even the best Brothers will not trust me anymore.
So I’ll say again, the best way is to separate the pronunciation of a Principle from the pronouncer’s “fallibility”, unless he’s really “enlightened” in an initiatory or religious way. Usually it’s not like that, so it’s better to separate “man’s normality” from the loftiness of theories and principles he expresses, and manage it both ways.
Unfortunately man, as a living being, is plunged in his own pride. He looks at himself, he agrees with himself, and he always finds the best way to be discharged, even if he’s wrong. He loves quoting himself and being admired by an audience that is as thrilled as it is unable to correctly “measure” his statements.
This is the common practice, but for an initiate on his way to perfection this can’t remain a common habit.
A Follower is aware of his many “slight faults”, so he chooses a low profile, with no praise for himself or anyone else. He will state what he’s thinking, without regarding himself as a “living model” of his words. So he will avoid that the “excessive humanity” of a profane way of living is too close to the “shrewdness” of an abstract thought.

Fraternally
Esonet Editorial Staff