I also noticed that some things Evola criticized in Catholicism were not present in Orthodoxy and they were much closer to the ideas of Evola. Too bad he didn't gave more considerations to Eastern European traditions. Some of the things I noticed is that in traditional Orthodox Empires there was clear Church and State separation and that Orthodox Church preserved and upkept much of pagan traditions. 1) Relation between Evola's Ghibelline Imperial ideal and how in Orthodox Empires/Kingdoms Emperors/Kings were the first and foremost principal political authority and Orthodox Church with Patriarch as a head never tried to directly interefere in state business compared to Catholic Church and Pope. 2) Evola criticised many problems in the Catholic Church that lead to Reformation, breaking Christianity further into many parts, whereas Orthodox Church never had such a big scandal (except some Old Calendarist movements that broke from communion with Church) 3) Orthodox Church remained what it is and kept its tradition since its establishment to this day, it had no need to adapt to post-bourgeoise revolution modern society. Catholic Church, on the other hand, eventually held the Second Vatican Council with a goal of "updating" the Church to the needs of modern society (famous aggiornamento) which Evola viewed as something expected.
Seraphim Rose did convert to Orthodoxy. Which is more traditional, Catholicism or Orthodoxy, is a question which does not interest me. I am a Muslim and I consider both of them---as well as other Christian sects---to be equally in error since they uphold the doctrine of the trinity as well as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them both). I say to the Christians these words of an Arab poet: عَجَبًا لِلمَسِيحِ بَينَ ٱلنَّصَارَىٰ حَيثُ قَالُوا أَنَّ ٱلإلـٰهَ أَبُوهُ ثُمَّ قَالُوا ٱبْنُ ٱلإلـٰهِ إلـٰهٌ ثُمَّ جَاؤوا بِجَهْلِهِمْ عَبَدُوهُ ثُمَّ جَاؤوا بِمَا هُوَ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ ذَا حَيثُ قَالُوا بِأَنَّهُمْ صَلَبُوهُ لَيتَ شَعْرِي وَلَيتَنِي كُنْتُ أَدْرِي سَاعَةَ ٱلصَّلْبِ أَيْنَ كَانَ أَبُوهُ غَائِبًا عَنْهُمْ وَأَنَّىٰ يَرَاهُمْ أَمْ يَقُولُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ غَلَبُوهُ [1] Strange indeed is the status of the Messiah among the Christians, for they proclaimed God to be his father. [2] Only to proclaim in turn that God’s son too is God, and then worshiped him in their ignorance. [3] Only then, they went beyond even that, saying that he had been crucified! [4] I really wonder, and wish that I could know, where his father was when he was being crucified?! [5] Absent and unable to see him?! Or do they think they outwitted him?!
I am curious to what "initiation" means. To become catholic as an adult you have to go to a year of meetings, go through several masses and rites of purification which intensies during lent and then you are baptised at Easter. Is this not becoming initiated?
I am not well-informed enough regarding Catholicism to decisively answer this question. I think that Guenon and Evola would both have said no. I suggest you consult Guenon's writings on this.
I say to the Christians these words of an Arab poet: عَجَبًا لِلمَسِيحِ بَينَ ٱلنَّصَارَىٰ حَيثُ قَالُوا أَنَّ ٱلإلـٰهَ أَبُوهُ ثُمَّ قَالُوا ٱبْنُ ٱلإلـٰهِ إلـٰهٌ ثُمَّ جَاؤوا بِجَهْلِهِمْ عَبَدُوهُ ثُمَّ جَاؤوا بِمَا هُوَ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ ذَا حَيثُ قَالُوا بِأَنَّهُمْ صَلَبُوهُ لَيتَ شَعْرِي وَلَيتَنِي كُنْتُ أَدْرِي سَاعَةَ ٱلصَّلْبِ أَيْنَ كَانَ أَبُوهُ غَائِبًا عَنْهُمْ وَأَنَّىٰ يَرَاهُمْ أَمْ يَقُولُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ غَلَبُوهُ [1] Strange indeed is the status of the Messiah among the Christians, for they proclaimed God to be his father. [2] Only to proclaim in turn that God’s son too is God, and then worshiped him in their ignorance. [3] Only then, they went beyond even that, saying that he had been crucified! [4] I really wonder, and wish that I could know, where his father was when he was being crucified?! [5] Absent and unable to see him?! Or do they think they outwitted him?!
It is because of the French Revolution (1789-99) that Roman Catholicism came to be associated with tradition, but I see Islam as the revival of tradition with the emphasis on tawheed in our aqeedah. The khilafat / imamat fuses temporal and spiritual authority together, and the Pope's separation from the various kings of mediaeval Europe is a very different kind of set up. What Constantine did with the Council of Nicaea and the affirmation of the trinity (which clearly is in disagreement with the Old Testament and even several passages of the Gospels) is essentially the rejection of tradition. It's very telling how Vatican has an etymological root in Latin as a divining serpent. Returning to the khilafat, I know that many of these khulafa engaged in horrible, sometimes outright evil actions (like Hazrat Husayn Raziatallahu Anhu's martyrdom as a result of Yazid's zulm), but with classical Islam all the way until the Ottomans in 1924 (1342 Hijri, now it is 1444 Hijri), most of the core Muslim lands with the three holy cities, Makkah, Madinah, and Al-Quds Shareef, were under at least some kind of nominal khaleefa. Nevertheless, Sultan Abdul-Hamid II was probably the last effective khaleefah, being overthrown in 1908 by the Young Turks. Reading what he said about the Palestinians in 1896 ("I cannot sell even an inch of the country because it does not belong to me but to my people") in a statement to Herzl brings tears to my eyes.
I am not sure what part of the video you are referring to since it has been a long while since it was filmed. If you can be more specific with a time stamp I can answer your question.
@@SaiyadNizamuddinAhmad Oh ofcourse, well I can't seem to find it, but I'll ask, which translation of the quran would you recommend? I have very minor knowledge about Islam in general and I'd like to start with a good translation.
The translation the professor mentioned is by Aisha Bewley. Since we are on an Evola lecture, there is also a great translation with commentary from the Traditionalist standpoint by S.H. Nasr and his team, called The Study Quran.
Subhanallah. Excellent insights, Ahmad Sahib. Assalam Alaykum. I even acquired a new vocabulary word from none other than Evola himself about 90 minutes into the bayaan: INSTAURATE v. t. To renew or renovate. You're right. That is a word we don't see very often. More seriously, I appreciate the commentary on current events and history. Undoubtedly, the U.S.A is a corporate raj of the Vaishyas, hence the uncanny similarity between the Amreeki jhanda and the East India Company (the so-called "Company Bahadur") flag. May Allah reward you, ya Shaykh. Allah ke fazl se, there are people like you to continue sharing this timeless wisdom with us.
![Lord of Spirits - The Devil(s) [Ep. 94]](/img/n.gif)
Orthodox Christianity is the most Traditional of Christianity.
Some readers of Guenon had converted to Orthodoxy such as Seraphim Rose.
I also noticed that some things Evola criticized in Catholicism were not present in Orthodoxy and they were much closer to the ideas of Evola. Too bad he didn't gave more considerations to Eastern European traditions.
Some of the things I noticed is that in traditional Orthodox Empires there was clear Church and State separation and that Orthodox Church preserved and upkept much of pagan traditions.
1) Relation between Evola's Ghibelline Imperial ideal and how in Orthodox Empires/Kingdoms Emperors/Kings were the first and foremost principal political authority and Orthodox Church with Patriarch as a head never tried to directly interefere in state business compared to Catholic Church and Pope.
2) Evola criticised many problems in the Catholic Church that lead to Reformation, breaking Christianity further into many parts, whereas Orthodox Church never had such a big scandal (except some Old Calendarist movements that broke from communion with Church)
3) Orthodox Church remained what it is and kept its tradition since its establishment to this day, it had no need to adapt to post-bourgeoise revolution modern society. Catholic Church, on the other hand, eventually held the Second Vatican Council with a goal of "updating" the Church to the needs of modern society (famous aggiornamento) which Evola viewed as something expected.
Seraphim Rose did convert to Orthodoxy. Which is more traditional, Catholicism or Orthodoxy, is a question which does not interest me. I am a Muslim and I consider both of them---as well as other Christian sects---to be equally in error since they uphold the doctrine of the trinity as well as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them both). I say to the Christians these words of an Arab poet:
عَجَبًا لِلمَسِيحِ بَينَ ٱلنَّصَارَىٰ حَيثُ قَالُوا أَنَّ ٱلإلـٰهَ أَبُوهُ
ثُمَّ قَالُوا ٱبْنُ ٱلإلـٰهِ إلـٰهٌ ثُمَّ جَاؤوا بِجَهْلِهِمْ عَبَدُوهُ
ثُمَّ جَاؤوا بِمَا هُوَ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ ذَا حَيثُ قَالُوا بِأَنَّهُمْ صَلَبُوهُ
لَيتَ شَعْرِي وَلَيتَنِي كُنْتُ أَدْرِي سَاعَةَ ٱلصَّلْبِ أَيْنَ كَانَ أَبُوهُ
غَائِبًا عَنْهُمْ وَأَنَّىٰ يَرَاهُمْ أَمْ يَقُولُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ غَلَبُوهُ
[1] Strange indeed is the status of the Messiah among the Christians,
for they proclaimed God to be his father.
[2] Only to proclaim in turn that God’s son too is God,
and then worshiped him in their ignorance.
[3] Only then, they went beyond even that,
saying that he had been crucified!
[4] I really wonder, and wish that I could know,
where his father was when he was being crucified?!
[5] Absent and unable to see him?!
Or do they think they outwitted him?!
I am curious to what "initiation" means.
To become catholic as an adult you have to go to a year of meetings, go through several masses and rites of purification which intensies during lent and then you are baptised at Easter.
Is this not becoming initiated?
I am not well-informed enough regarding Catholicism to decisively answer this question. I think that Guenon and Evola would both have said no. I suggest you consult Guenon's writings on this.
Thank you so much for the expert and deep discussion and insight.
My pleasure. Thank you for watching.
Interesting what you said about christianity, I do not either see it as a viable path, one reason why I like Evola's writings.
I say to the Christians these words of an Arab poet:
عَجَبًا لِلمَسِيحِ بَينَ ٱلنَّصَارَىٰ حَيثُ قَالُوا أَنَّ ٱلإلـٰهَ أَبُوهُ
ثُمَّ قَالُوا ٱبْنُ ٱلإلـٰهِ إلـٰهٌ ثُمَّ جَاؤوا بِجَهْلِهِمْ عَبَدُوهُ
ثُمَّ جَاؤوا بِمَا هُوَ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ ذَا حَيثُ قَالُوا بِأَنَّهُمْ صَلَبُوهُ
لَيتَ شَعْرِي وَلَيتَنِي كُنْتُ أَدْرِي سَاعَةَ ٱلصَّلْبِ أَيْنَ كَانَ أَبُوهُ
غَائِبًا عَنْهُمْ وَأَنَّىٰ يَرَاهُمْ أَمْ يَقُولُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ غَلَبُوهُ
[1] Strange indeed is the status of the Messiah among the Christians,
for they proclaimed God to be his father.
[2] Only to proclaim in turn that God’s son too is God,
and then worshiped him in their ignorance.
[3] Only then, they went beyond even that,
saying that he had been crucified!
[4] I really wonder, and wish that I could know,
where his father was when he was being crucified?!
[5] Absent and unable to see him?!
Or do they think they outwitted him?!
It is because of the French Revolution (1789-99) that Roman Catholicism came to be associated with tradition, but I see Islam as the revival of tradition with the emphasis on tawheed in our aqeedah. The khilafat / imamat fuses temporal and spiritual authority together, and the Pope's separation from the various kings of mediaeval Europe is a very different kind of set up. What Constantine did with the Council of Nicaea and the affirmation of the trinity (which clearly is in disagreement with the Old Testament and even several passages of the Gospels) is essentially the rejection of tradition. It's very telling how Vatican has an etymological root in Latin as a divining serpent.
Returning to the khilafat, I know that many of these khulafa engaged in horrible, sometimes outright evil actions (like Hazrat Husayn Raziatallahu Anhu's martyrdom as a result of Yazid's zulm), but with classical Islam all the way until the Ottomans in 1924 (1342 Hijri, now it is 1444 Hijri), most of the core Muslim lands with the three holy cities, Makkah, Madinah, and Al-Quds Shareef, were under at least some kind of nominal khaleefa. Nevertheless, Sultan Abdul-Hamid II was probably the last effective khaleefah, being overthrown in 1908 by the Young Turks. Reading what he said about the Palestinians in 1896 ("I cannot sell even an inch of the country because it does not belong to me but to my people") in a statement to Herzl brings tears to my eyes.
what was the quran translation?
I am not sure what part of the video you are referring to since it has been a long while since it was filmed. If you can be more specific with a time stamp I can answer your question.
@@SaiyadNizamuddinAhmad Oh ofcourse, well I can't seem to find it, but I'll ask, which translation of the quran would you recommend? I have very minor knowledge about Islam in general and I'd like to start with a good translation.
The translation the professor mentioned is by Aisha Bewley. Since we are on an Evola lecture, there is also a great translation with commentary from the Traditionalist standpoint by S.H. Nasr and his team, called The Study Quran.
@@jackmiller9419 Thanks.
Subhanallah. Excellent insights, Ahmad Sahib. Assalam Alaykum. I even acquired a new vocabulary word from none other than Evola himself about 90 minutes into the bayaan:
INSTAURATE v. t. To renew or renovate.
You're right. That is a word we don't see very often. More seriously, I appreciate the commentary on current events and history. Undoubtedly, the U.S.A is a corporate raj of the Vaishyas, hence the uncanny similarity between the Amreeki jhanda and the East India Company (the so-called "Company Bahadur") flag. May Allah reward you, ya Shaykh. Allah ke fazl se, there are people like you to continue sharing this timeless wisdom with us.
Wa ʿalaykum as-salām. Thank you for watching.