Freemasonry and superstition
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)
All right: regulations, statutes, rules, laws, codes and canons are all parts
of the “profane convention” of this “global mansion”
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???
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
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?
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
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
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.
Esonet Editorial Staff