Attila Grandpierre is a professional physicist and astrophysicist as well as an historian and an accomplished musician, having been the leader and lead singer of several bands starting in the 70s and until the present day. Currently he is the founder, frontman and lead singer of the shaman-punk band Vágtázó Csodaszarvas (Galloping Wonder Stag). During the 80s he and his then band Vágtázó Halottkémek (Galloping Coroners) reached world-wide acclaim as the “best shaman-punk band” ever. Grandpierre is the lead singer of yet another band called Vágtázó Életerő (Galloping Vitality), in which most of the old members of the Vágtázó Halottkémek band are reunited. The music is deeply rooted in the ancient Magyar and Eurasian folk music tradition, using many traditional Magyar folk instruments.

He is currently a visiting professor at the Center of Excellence in Applied, Computational and Fundamental Science at Chapman University, California, USA.

Attila Grandpierre is a well-known and active figure in Hungary as a researcher of the ancient Magyar tradition, history, myth and spirituality.

Click to view his current academic Curriculum Vitae.

Source

Published in Ultimate Reality and Meaning, 25 (2): 127-147, 2002 June.

Abstract

In this essay the ontological structure of reality is explored. The question of reducibility of biology to physics is considered in the context of their ultimate principles. It is shown that biology is an ontologically autonomous science and is based on its own, independent ultimate principle that is independent from that of physics. In the next step it is shown that self-consciousness represents a separate realm with its own, ontologically autonomous, ultimate principle. Understanding that reality is based on ultimate principles, a new possibility arises to interpret the origin of physical laws.

1. Introduction

Exploring the ontological structure of reality is a primary task of philosophy. Unfortunately, philosophy in the last thousand years seems to be largely awkward, suffering from fundamental self-inconsistencies, and so the fundamental ontological structure of reality is evaluated differently by different philosophies. Nevertheless, the discrepancies of different philosophies on the basic ontological categories seem to be not disparately unbridgeable. Moreover, modern science may offer a significant assistance by its more systematic approach especially since it seems that we have one science instead of many, which is a significant difference to the case of philosophy. Now since science is based on ontological presuppositions (Bunge, 1967, 291), a unique task may be specified: evaluating the ontological foundations of science. If the consideration leads to the result that the ontology of science is correct, we can find the ontological structure of reality what we need. Now if the consideration leads to another result, telling that the scientific ontology needs some improvements, in making these corrections we may arrive to a better understanding of the ontological structure of reality.

2. The concept of “ultimate reality”

It is advisable to formulate the basic concepts exactly. I regard that the ontological structure of reality is built up from some “ultimate reality”. In this work I use the following definition for the ultimate realities:

Definition 1: an existent is regarded as an ultimate reality, if it is autonomous and universal. A reality is regarded as autonomous, if it is not reducible to other realities. A reality is regarded as universal, if it extends to the whole Universe, if it is possible to show that its existence is not limited in space and time.

2.1 A historical account on the candidates for ultimate realities

What kind of factors may be regarded as ultimate realities? This question accompanies the whole development of thinking of mankind. The nature of the ultimate realities is related to the structure of the world, to the question that the world has one or many substances, layers, levels, and to the basic categories of sciences. The basic realities play a key role in every philosophical system and at the foundation of science. Therefore, it is important to present a short overview of the most important existents regarded by some as realities.

In the Chaldean Magic (Lenormant, 1999, 114) the first realities are the primal principles: “ILU, the First Principle, the universal and mysterious source of all things, which is manifested in the trinity of ANU, the god of Time and and the World; HEA, the intelligence, which animated matter; and BEL, the demiurgus and ruler of the organized universe”. In the ancient Hungarian world-system the basic categories were the first principle of the Universe, ÉLET (the life-principle), and ILLAT (the principle of plant life), ÁLLAT (the principle of animal life) and ÉRTELEM (the principle of human life, reason). Later on, ancient Greeks preserved the more ancient notion of primal principles in the concept of “archi”.  Chrysippus, the Stoic (possibly influenced by Scythian and Chaldean teachers) expressed the fundamental realities as: exis (the principle driving existence), physis (the principle driving plant life), psyche (the principle driving animal life), and nous (the principle driving human reason) (Zeller, 1865, 178; Erdmann, 1896, 174). In the Chinese universism (Glasenapp, 1975, 141) the sky-earth-man, moral-spiritual-physical, natural-historical-national categories are the fundamental ones. In the Rig Veda the spirit-life-matter, sky-living beings-earth divisions are made (Glasenapp, 1975). The Egyptian history of Creation (Eliade, 1976, 81) starts with the appearance of the earth (matter), light (energy), life and consciousness. The Indian Sankhya-system regards the universal principle of Spirit and Matter as fundamental (Kunzmann et al., 1991, 19). In the Western culture Thomas Aquinas applies three fundamental categories: that of God, spirit and matter; the material reality shows again a threefold structure of animal, plant and mineral kingdoms. Wolff (1730), after Goclenius (1613) and Micraelius (1652) who were the first using the term ontology, regarded that the three main class of existents are the psychic, cosmic and theos; this division was held also by Kant.

Nicolai Hartmann in his ontology (1949/1955, Section III) describes reality as building up from four levels: the cosmos, the organic realm, the realm of the soul and consciousness, and the spiritual-social world. In this world man is a material, organic, soulful and spiritual being exisitng in three basic forms of individual, nation and history. Mario Bunge (1980, 45) found that the totality of concrete entities may be grouped into five genera – “we may depict (on Fig. 2.1) the structure of reality as a pyramid: physical things – (bio)chemical systems –  psycho(bio)systems – social systems – technical systems”. Medawar (1974) and, following him, Peacocke (1986, 17) divides the world into four levels as studied by physics, chemistry, biology, and ecology/sociology. “By 1993 Peacock had foliated the hierarchy into two dimensions: vertically it consists in four levels of increasing complexity (the physical world, living organisms, the behavior of living organisms, and human culture) while horizontally it depicts systems ordered by part-to-whole hierarchies of structural and/or functional organization (eg., in biology: macromolecules, organelles, cells, organs, individual organisms, populations, ecosystems). Peacocke’s analysis undoubtedly reflects the broad consensus of the scientific community” (Russell, 2000).

A certain confusion is observable in evaluating the structure of reality by the different authors. I think that one of the main reasons of this confusion is that the criteria on the basic building elements of reality, the ultimate realities are not formulated unambiguously. At the same time, one can observe remarkable agreements in the different categorisations, too. Moreover, the basic categorisation of sciences seems to follow closely the above found ultimate realities. Divisions like mathematics-astronomy-physics-biology-psychology-sociology or philosophy-natural science – social science show close similarities in structuring the world. Transparently, the main fundamental categories of existence are: material(physical) – biological (alive) – social – technical, physical-spiritual-moral, earthly-human-godlike (heavenly), natural-historical-national-individual. Now what counts as ultimate reality should be judged on the basis of systematic and thorough scientific investigations, by my proposal on the basis of our Definition 1. Therefore, to make the first step, we should consider the old and still unsolved question: is biology reducible to physics?

Part 1

According to Dante (Convivium, II, 1), ” texts can be understood and expounded according to four senses”: the literal sense; the allegorical sense, which Dante says, “is a truth concealed behind a beautiful lie’; the moral sense; and the anagogical sense. The anagogical sense occurs when “reading in a spiritual way a scriptural passage, which in its literal meaning and in the things being signified points toward the things of eternal glory”; in other words, it is the innermost meaning of a text that, even when it has a literal sense, deals with topics of a spiritual nature. This latter sense must be clearly distinguished from the allegorical and moral senses, which in comparison with the anagogical sense, at least from a spiritual point of view, have a secondary importance. In my opinion, the anagogical interpretation of the Divine Comedy still needs to be undertaken.

Dante calls this anagogical sense “super-sense.” αν-αγωγη (an-agogy) means “to lead” or “to carry upwards,” or “to elevate.” Moreover, when employed as a technical naval term, it designates the act of weighing anchor and sailing away. Metaphorically speaking, when it is referred to spiritual topics, anagogy therefore indicates spiritual elevation or a rising up from the earth. In the symbolism of “navigators,” it designates leaving that “earth” or terra firma to which human beings are tenaciously anchored, in order to hoist the sails and to find a strong current, heading toward the open sea.

Dante was referring to the writing of “poets,” although the distinction of the four senses may undoubtedly be applied to sacred and initiatic writings and to any means of expression and representation of spiritual facts and doctrines. According to this distinction, the “super-sense” in every type of symbolism is always the anagogical sense. The full understanding of symbols consists in the perception of the anagogical sense concealed in them; if anagogically understood and employed, they may even contribute to spiritual elevation. In this sense, symbols are endowed with an anagogic virtue.

Naturally, not all symbols are endowed with such virtue. By extension, sometimes the name “symbols” is given to mere characters and emblems that have almost exclusively the value of representation. Thus the symbols of mathematics and chemistry do not possess, as such, this anagogic virtue. It is possible in these domains to attribute the same sense to very different symbols. For instance, algebraic multiplication may indifferently be indicated with the symbol of a cross or a dot. But the word “symbol,” in its more proper meaning, has a very precise and complex meaning, as we can easily see from its etymological analysis.

In Greek, the term συμ-βολη (sym-bolé) designates the act of joining, putting together; the related term συμ-βολον (sym-bolon) indicates agreement, and thus the sign, or mark. Both of these words consist of two elements: first the prefix συμ (syn; in Latin cum) merely indicates conjunction, while the latter designates and specifies the character of this conjunction. Βολη (bolé) and βολοζ (bolos) indicate the act of throwing. They are terms connected to the verb βαλλο (ballo), meaning “to throw,” “to strike,” “to cast.” The verb and the analogous term συμ-βολον (sym-bolon; “symbol”) designate the act of reunion, while the synthesis (συν-θεσισ [syn-thesis; in Latin compositio]) indicates the result of the action. The dynamic character of the symbol is opposed to the static, immanent character of synthesis. In regard to the effect of the action, the verb συμ-βαλλω (sym-ballo; “to reunite”) is opposed to the verb δια-βαλλω (dia-ballo; “to separate, to oppose”); correspondingly, the συμβολον (symbolon) is the opposite of the “devil” (δια-βολοσ [dia-bolos; "transversal, adversary"]). The attribution of dynamic and magical virtues to symbols in order to overcome diabolical opposition and adversities is philogically obvious. And just as the symbol leads to a synthesis, its opposite, the “devil,” is what leads to the opposite of synthesis, namely to analysis: in fact αναλυσιζ (ana-lysis) is solution, breaking down, dissolution, death.

In a way, the dynamic virtue of symbols is opposed to every analysis, and it acts as the instrument and as the means of arriving at synthesis. Just as in discursive knowledge one arrives at the thesis conceptually, in a logical way, starting from a hypothesis, likewise in the initiatic endogeny it is possible to arrive at a synthesis by employing the dynamic virtue of symbols, in a magical way, starting from the original human condition. These mere etymological considerations already allow us to see how in higher knowledge symbols have a corresponding role to that played by concepts in discursive knowledge. The correspondences between symbols (συνβολοι) on the one hand, and concepts (con-ceptus, con-cipio) and syllogisms ( συν-λογιξοναι [syn-logixonai; "to com-pute"], on the other hand, is a perfect one. In Logic, the syllogism unites the word (λογοσ, logos) with the thought ([i.e., the act of "pondering," Latin pensare] from pondus = “weight”; to ponderate means to weigh), and leads in a discursive manner to consideration and to measurement (mensura from mens, mind, connected to mensis, month, and thus to the moon, which does not have its own light but a reflected one, or reflection). The symbol in the magical science or in the pure and purifying science of the Magi (Persian majidan, “purifying,” through fire) works with the (bolé), the irradiation, the projection, the fulguration. The word of logic corresponds to the operation, or the action of magic, just as the “Great Work” of the Hermetic and Masonic tradition corresponds to the philosophical discourse.

Due to the ever relentless spiritual, mental and physical degeneration of mankind questions have arisen put forward by modernity as to what aristocracy really is, how it should be defined and even if it ever existed at all. Such questions arising is a sign of the times we live in—Kali Yuga. It marks the steady decline from an existence of Quality to an existence of Quantity.

It is beyond question that one person has a competence and experience that is of greater value than another, no matter what field of endeavour we may consider. Some people are good at carpentry while others excel in arts. Hence, some people have exceptional skills when it comes to organising a company, a society and even nations.

If we are to survive this present Götterdämmerung we will have to recover our guiding sacred and traditional principles that once, in our ancient past, gave rise to that true and genuine aristocracy that built all great cultures as reflections Below of that which is Above and filled them with the Light of the Divine.

As a small step towards recovering that guiding Principle we publish the following small book: “Aristocracy And The Meaning Of Class Rule” by Philippe Mairet, first published in 1931.

From the dust cover:

“Aristocracy is here considered as an inherent principle in the structure of any society. The writer contends that the age of democracy is only a phase of social evolution and that the conception of democracy is inadequate to create or sustain a politico-social state. This theme is illustrated by extensive references to the movements of history and closes with a prospect of social renewal through an aristocratic movement, based upon a synthesis of all sciences and directed towards world-development and organisation.”

Aristocracy And The Meaning of Class Rule (pdf)

A physicist’s testimony on physics, modern & post-modern physics

Having been functioning in this field for some twelve years and hence given the possibility to observe much of its internal workings, in this our treatise Sherds of Physis Shattered, we wish to expose some typical conceptual features of physics, the queen of modern sciences, and as such obviously one of the most prominent shapers of the modern world and Weltanschauung.

Our goal is to present a multi-lateral criticism of physics, one which by its very nature through physics pertains to the whole of modern science. We adopt the methodology that as the paper proceeds, we continuously descend to more and more particular perspectives. Hence, while the character of the paper is a polemical, somewhat pamphlet-like scientific counter-propaganda, this methodology allows us to expose the painful narrowness of the modern scientific mentality, its inherently anti-intellectual and anti-spiritual nature, and the self-destruction – self-demolition of science as it is realised in the post-modern era.

The first and highest level of our criticism is formulated from the perspective of traditional metaphysics and aims at the very premises of physics. An objective survey of these premises exposes how absurd it is for modern sciences to claim to be the peak of intellect, and modern scientific knowledge to be the knowledge par excellence. Our strict definition of a physical theory runs as follows:

Physical theory is a mathematical model for empirically observable phenomena, stemming always from the strictly materialistic level of reality, set up in an inductive way by invoking certain working hypotheses. That is, it is a mathematical procedure or mechanism which takes the parameters of the phenomenon as input, and as output yields a set of measurable quantities related to the phenomenon. This set of quantities is to be regarded as a physical result, so these are ultimately numbers which can be compared with the ones read by the experimenter from the display of some measurement device.

From the first two attributes of physical theories, the empirical-materialistic origin, it immediately follows that physics and hence modern sciences can neither prove nor refute the existence of other, that is, non-empirical – non-material realities (including for example the subtle and the supra-formal domains of Manifestation). Their existence or possibility of existence stands strictly outside its horizon: it is unable to touch them. Hence, such conceptions that with the help of physics (maybe in the future, as a result of further development), questions pertaining for instance to the existence of God can be answered, are gross blasphemy; similar to concepts which consider physics the research into the “thoughts of God”.

From the second attribute, the inductive origin of physical theories, it follows that it will never be able to say a single definite word even about things belonging to its own order. It can make only strictly positive statements, so for example it cannot disprove either that the aforementioned realities of a different order may exhibit influence on the materialistic plane as well.

Our strict definition of the operation of physics contains two more attributes which immediately dispel any illusion that a Weltanschauung can be built on modern science:

1. The theories are based on working hypotheses, which ever remain as such because the theories are deemed proven by collections of empirical facts, but facts cannot prove anything, solely the existence of the given facts (Guénon).
2. A Weltanschauung is qualitative, but physics operates with mere quantities. Quantity can never become quality because the two are immediate determinations of pure Substance and Essence, the two poles of Manifestation. Hence, quantity and quality are ultimately separated inside the premises of Manifestation.

For many so-called philosophers of science, it will appear astonishing that in such a narrow sense we have defined physical results, merely as the set of explicitly computed physical quantities, definitely excluding from the notion all the hocus-pocus surrounding these, that is, the very things which either on scientific fora or through scientific propaganda the so-called scientists communicate as results, and they are most proud of. The fact is, however, that everything that goes beyond the mere quantities—the mental pictures of the so-called physical processes for example—allows for interpretations from alternative viewpoints as well. These alternative interpretations are a priori just as legitimate as the scientistic interpretations, even though they be totally alien to this latter viewpoint. Hence, even according to today’s “democratic” paradigm—or meta-narrative considered universally applicable, scientism should not monopolise the right of interpretation, as this paradigm could appear as some “parliament of viewpoints” concept in this domain. The full truth is, however—and that is why we said previously that at this point our outlook is the traditional metaphysical one—that the presence or absence of real principles establishes a hierarchy among the viewpoints, and since scientism lacks any such principle, the corresponding viewpoint must be placed to the bottom of this hierarchy, while traditional metaphysics which is defined as the very repository of these Principles, to the summit of the hierarchy. The only type of results therefore, which is truly inalienable from physics, is the physical quantities as computed results.

Never entirely leaving our initial high perspective, in a relative way we pass to the perspective first of a philosopher- and then a historian of science.

From the philosopher-of-science perspective, we expose a very significant and preposterous feature of physics, which is completely lost to outsiders as it is tendentiously suppressed by scientific propaganda: Even inside its narrow domain of legitimate operation, physical theories are non-exact. We identify three levels on which this characteristic is manifested:

1. The genesis of physical theories is heuristic.
2. The mathematical formulation of the theories is undefined.
3. The theories are unsolvable.

In the present summary we will comment only on this third point: Problems which are both physically relevant and exactly solvable are extremely scarce. For other problems, beyond the fundamental hypotheses of the theory, one needs to draw in additional hypotheses, further restricting the original domain of validity of the theory, and hence arrive at a method—a so-called approximate theory—in which the given problem becomes solvable. This entails the difficulty that due to the increased number and undefinedness of the hypotheses, the domain of validity of the hence-derived theories can be quite difficult to determine. As a physicist it is a common experience how many mistakes and much confusion may arise from the application of diverse—sometimes mutually exclusive—approximate theories, in cases when the approximation is rigourously not valid; and in fact we will say that an important aspect of the activity of the physicist is to flounder about on this swamp. Can this be the knowledge par excellence of man?!

Symbols

SYMBOLS¹and signs, whether verbal, musical, dramatic or plastic, are means of communication. The references of symbols are to ideas and those of signs to things. One and the same term may be symbol or sign according to its context: the cross, for example, is a symbol when it represents the structure of the universe, but a sign when it stands for crossroads. Symbols and signs may be either natural (true, by innate propriety) or conventional (arbitrary and accidental) traditional or private. With the language of signs, employed indicatively in profane language and in realistic and abstracted art, we shall have no further concern in the present connection. By “abstracted art” we mean such modern art as wilfully avoids recognisable representation, as distinguished from “principial art”, the naturally symbolic language of tradition.

The language of traditional art—scripture, epic, folklore, ritual, and all the related crafts—is symbolic; and being a language of natural symbols, neither of private invention, nor established by conciliar agreement or mere custom, is a universal language. The symbol is the material embodiment, in sound, shape, colour or gesture as the case may be, of the imitable form of an idea to be communicated, which imitable form is the formal cause of the work of art itself. It is for the sake of the idea, and not for its own sake, that the symbol exists: an actual form must be either symbolic – of its reference, or merely an unintelligible shape to be liked or disliked according to taste.

The greater part of modern aesthetics assumes (as the words “aesthetic” and “empathy” imply) that art consists or should consist entirely of such unintelligible shapes, and that the appreciation of art consists or should consist in appropriate emotional reactions. It is further assumed that whatever is of permanent value in traditional works of art is of the same kind, and altogether independent of their iconography and meaning. We have, indeed, a right to say that we choose to consider only the aesthetic surfaces of the ancient, oriental, or popular arts; but if we do this, we must not at the same time deceive ourselves so as to suppose that the history of art, meaning by “history” an explanation in terms of the four causes, can be known or written from any such a limited point of view.

• • •

In order to understand composition, for example, i.e. the sequence of a dance or the arrangement of masses in a cathedral or icon, we must understand the logical relation of the parts: just as in order to understand a sentence, it is not enough to admire the mellifluent sounds but necessary to be acquainted with the meanings of separate words and the logic of their combinations. The mere “lover of art” is not much better than a magpie, which also decorates its nest with whatever most pleases its fancy, and is contented with a purely “aesthetic” experience. So far from this, it must be recognized that although in modern works of art there may be nothing, or nothing more than the artist’s private person, behind the aesthetic surfaces, the theory in accordance with which works of traditional art were produced and enjoyed takes it for granted that the appeal to beauty is not merely to the senses, but through the senses to the intellect: here “Beauty has to do with cognition”; and what is to be known and understood is an “immaterial idea” (Hermes), a “picture that is not in the colours” (Lankavatara Sutra), “the doctrine that conceals itself behind the veil of the strange verses” (Dante), “the archetype of the image, and not the image itself” (St. Basil). “It is by their ideas that we judge of what things ought to be like” (St. Augustine).

It is evident that symbols and concepts—works of art are things conceived, as St. Thomas says, per verbum in intellectu—can serve no purpose for those who have not yet, in the Platonic sense, “forgotten”. Neither do Zeus nor the stars, as Plotinus says, remember or even learn; “memory is for those that have forgotten”, that is to say, for us, whose “life is a sleep and a forgetting”. The need of symbols, and of symbolic rites, arises only when man is expelled from the Garden of Eden; as means, by which a man can be reminded at later stages of his descent from the intellectual and contemplative to the physical and practical levels of reference. We assuredly have “forgotten” far more than those who first had need of symbols, and far more than they need to infer the immortal by its mortal analogies; and nothing could be greater proof of this than our own claims to be superior to all ritual operations, and to be able to approach the truth directly. It was as signposts of the Way, or as a trace of the Hidden Light, pursued by hunters of a supersensual quarry, that the motifs of traditional art, which have become our “ornaments”, were originally employed. In these abstract forms, the farther one traces them backward, or finds them still extant in popular “superstition”, agricultural rites, and the motifs of folk-art, the more one recognises in them a polar balance of perceptible shape and imperceptible information; but, as Andrae says (Die ionische Saule, Schlusswort), they have been more and more voided of content on their way down to us, more and more denatured with the progress of “civilisation”, so as to become what we call “art forms”, as if it had been an aesthetic need, like that of our magpie, that had brought them into being. When meaning and purpose have been forgotten, or are remembered only by initiates, the symbol retains only those decorative values that we associate with “art”. More than this, we deny that the art form can ever have had any other than a decorative quality; and before, long we begin to take it for granted that the art form must have originated in an “observation of nature”, to criticise it accordingly (“That was before they knew anything about anatomy”, or “understood perspective”) in terms of progress, and to supply its deficiencies, as did the Hellenistic Greeks with the lotus palmette when they made an elegant acanthus of it, or the Renaissance when it imposed an ideal of “truth to nature” upon an older art of formal typology. We interpret myth and epic from the same point of view, seeing in the miracles and the Deus ex machina only a more or less awkward attempt on the part of the poet to enhance the presentation of the facts; we ask for “history”, and endeavour to extract an historical nucleus by the apparently simple and really naive process of eliminating all marvels, never realising that the myth is a whole, of which the wonders are as much an integral part as are the supposed facts; overlooking that all these marvels have a strict significance altogether independent of their possibility or impossibility as historical events.

1. A derivative of sumballo (Greek) especially in the senses “to correlate”, “to treat things different as though they were similar”, and (passive) “to correspond”, or “tally”.

The Hungarians: The Most Ancient People of Europe

MAGYAR DEMOKRATA

2008: issue nr. 35.

Author: Gerhát Petra

A link to this interview as it appeared in the Hungarian paper Magyar Demokrata is HERE.

• • • • • • •

Michelangelo Naddeo, Italian researcher, believes that the first civilization in Europe had already appeared in the Neolithic and it belonged to the ancient people living in the Carpathian Basin, the Hungarians.

In spite of the fact that you are Italian, you have been studying Hungarian history for decades now. What led you to undertake research on one of the least known countries of Europe?

Although I was born in Italy, I have had doubts since my childhood that all my ancestors were of Italian origin, and that is because of my unusual family name and my features. This is why I decided to try to get to know as many cultures and populations as possible in my life, so that I could understand who really were the ancestors of the Europeans and where I came from. This explains why I started to get interested in Antiquity. I have always been into archaeology and history and I have been always interested in the history of Bronze Age Europe. I always thought that the continent was not uninhabited before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans and, as I elaborated on this thought, after some time I was faced to ancient Pannonia and its inhabitants.

The Indo-Europeanists will probably be shocked even by the thought of their common history having been called into question. What led you to this theory, which is very likely to astound the people of our country? In fact, in your next book, which is about to appear, you state nothing less than that we are the most ancient inhabitants of Europe…

In the book “Honfoglalás… the Magyars are back home”, I listed some 50 cultural markers which migrated from Central Europe to Central Asia and came back with the Hungarians at the time of the Honfoglalás.¹ I have taken two of those cultural markers (art and religion) and I have further researched them through the study of archaeological artefacts.

I have collected thousands of pictures of archaeological artefacts, which prove that a number of pre-Indo-European designs and sacred symbols originated in and around the Carpathian Basin (Gold Idol Civilization, Calcholithic and Bronze age), spread to Agglutinia (Early bronze age) survived in Pannonia (Mid bronze age), and spread again to Magna Pannonia (late Bronze Age).

Those same designs and sacred symbols also migrated to Pazyryk, Altai, at the beginning of the first millennium BC. Later on, they moved to the Tarim Basin, and finally come back to the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Honfoglalás. In other words, the archaeological Bronze Age artefacts found in the Carpathian Basin are identical or very similar to those found in the Tarim Basin by Marc Aurel Stein and to those excavated in the Carpathian Basin and dated to the time of the Honfoglalás. Furthermore, I myself have taken in Hungary and elsewhere dozens of photos of symbols and designs which were bronze age sacred symbols and which, even having lost their ancient sacred meaning, are still to-day used in the decoration of modern buildings.

Thus, are these symbolic motifs and designs still present in our art?

The same Szent Korona² contains 18 (eighteen) “pagan” symbols which can be traced from Bronze Age Pannonia, to the Tarim Basin and back to Hungary of the Honfoglalás time.

The Hungarians came back to the Carpathian Basin, at the time of the Honfoglalás, with the same symbolic art and with the same Mother Goddess, that they had represented in Europe, in the Bronze Age as a woman in the delivery position, while giving birth.

The famous so-called “tulips”, which appear elsewhere in Hungary, are the evolution of a Bronze Age design, which was the symbolic representation of the pregnant Isten³ Goddess. The Etruscans depicted “tulips” far before the tulips started being imported in Europe. Analogously, the Etruscan and Armorican (Anjou) representations of the Mother Goddess, when the memory of their sacredness was lost, became lily flowers.

Still today, the Hungarians, the Ainu, the descendants of the Etruscans, and most populations of Central Asia unknowingly use the same representation of the Mother Goddess as a decorative motif.

The cultural DNA of the Hungarians kept unchanged along 5 millennia.

1. This event is also called the Second Entry of the Hungarians into their homeland in the heart of the Carpathian Basin. The First Entry (the conquest) is considered to be when the Huns conquered this area in the 5th century. The Second Entry (hence reconquest) is the entry of the Magyars of Árpád in the end of the 9th century. However, there is serious debate about whether it really was a “conquest”, that is, a military taking-by-force of this territory, since there is solid evidence – archaeological, linguistic and cultural – proving that the people who lived here at the time even of the “First Conquest” were kin to the Huns. In actual fact, there is comprehensive and strong evidence for the claim that the Magyars are autochthonous to Central Europe, and in particular to the Carpathian Basin. Italian linguist Angela Marcantonio says for example of the Finns and their origin: “we know from archaeology that there have been no migrations from the east, and that the coasts of the Baltic Sea have been inhabited without interruption for the last 10.000 years. We also know from genetics and palaeo-anthropology that the Finns are basically ‘europoid’ peoples, coming from central Europe, possibly from the ‘Ukraina  refugium’,  together with the other European populations, according to Wiik (2002). See: Historic Linguistics and the Origin of the Finns.
2. The Holy Hungarian Crown.
3. ‘God’ in Hungarian, a gender non-specific word.

Nancho Consults Peter Brook

On Audience, Energy and Alchemical Communion

Peter Stephen Paul Brook CBE, director, filmmaker, author, painter, pianist and theater man to the bone, is a giant of world culture. Born on the spring equinox in 1925, Brook produced an acclaimed Faust at Oxford at 17 and at 20 became the youngest-ever director of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. He has since directed over 40 major stage productions, created ten films, and with multiple stage, cinema and television versions returned the dramaturgically languishing gods of India’s Mahabharata to full-time international employment. Although he has produced works as varied and bizarre as Marat Sade, Lord of the Flies, Conference of the Birds, and The Ik, the Paris-base Brook constantly cycles back to the Shakespearean canon for renewal. His primary legacy to the modern stage is a sense of immediacy bordering on possession, taking theater back to the numinous ground where ritual, seance and coven convene.

- Verbatim Excerpts -

Nancho: Among all the institutions collectively known as “Japanese culture” today, the few indigenous ones are actually the dramatic forms – kabuki, bunraku, noh, even ankoku buyo. And despite what you see on television, there is a lot of dramatic talent in this country, like Britain perhaps. What does it mean when a culture or a country has a high “histrionic quotient” or level of thespian ability?

Peter Brook: I remember a number of years ago an English actor saying to me that he felt that there was something very much in common between England and Japan in relation to acting. He said that one of the reasons why the English are normally more gifted for acting than Latin countries is that any Latin, as everyone knows, acts naturally. He has no inhibition whatsoever about immediately and completely expressing himself outwardly. There is nothing that holds him back. This absence of resistance, of course, leads to bad art. It leads to natural communication, but no need for the creative act that comes from difficulty and friction. And he said that the English paradox, that the English who are normally not considered a theatrical nation, a theatrical people, can express themselves through the theatre because there is a meeting between two opposing impulses – an inner impulse that wishes to express itself powerfully outwards, and an inhibiting influence that prevents that through the nature of the education and culture. And he said there is the same thing to be found in Japan, where you have this tremendous meeting between two opposing pressures: the pressure to express outwardly and the pressure not to express outwardly. And this produces a very intense need to create, not easy forms, but in the end, difficult forms. I think this analysis is very convincing.

Do you think the Japanese theatre traditions have anything to offer to modern theatre, or are they simply traditions?

PB: The answer can’t be yes or no. Everywhere in the world there are traditions, traditional theatre. When I started working in England there was a Shakespeare tradition. It was abominable. There wasn’t anything whatsoever to be preserved or respected, and it had nothing to do with Shakespeare anyway. On the other hand, you come to these great traditions – the Noh, the bunraku, kabuki – and one has to salute and respect some of the greatest forms the world’s theatre has ever known, forms of extraordinary beauty, making enormous demands which, to begin with, set a standard of quality, of pure quality, quality on all levels. Most of all in the bunraku, for the simple reason that, apart from the quality of the image, there is something which has to be brought to life every time – this incredibly fine, living interrelation between the operators and the puppets. This is something in the present, like in a martial art. This is not something that exists in the past, because however long bunraku operators have been operating, in each performance they have to rediscover that extraordinary interrelationship between their teams, the dolls that they are bringing to life, and the actions that the dolls make together. It is a supreme exercise, quite apart from the story that it is telling, This sets a standard for the body, for the sensitivity, for the lightness and quickness and execution of all actors in all styles all over the world. – It is a peak in interrelation, in teamwork, in group feeling, requiring the highest level of bodily, emotional and intellectual sensitivity. In that way it is not just a monument, but a monument in terms of its life for each performance.

But from another point of view, one can’t say that any pictorial form that has become frozen can truly express what is needed to be expressed in the present day. You can relate it also to similar forms in India and Southeast Asia. These forms are there to be admired in the way that you can admire great works of art in a museum, which are very important, or great works of music from the past, as showing a degree of quality that today, when our general sense of quality is so low, it’s very hard to reach. They have to be there and they have to be preserved in as living a form as possible, but they mustn’t be thought to be a substitute for the obligation there is to find the present form.

In the Japanese tradition one sees this renewal into the present in an immensely interesting way in fashion design, where without the great beauty of traditional Japanese dress being in any way challenged, the great designers of today have found a true renewal, using methods, materials and a vision that comes out of the present day, yet doesn’t deny their heritage.

In theatrical traditions such as kabuki, great importance is attached to the formalized movements called kata. How do you assess this style of learning?

PB: Again it’s not yes or no. It is much more, how do you feel yourself in front of a formalized movement? If you feel that what is needed is to imitate it perfectly, then it can be a barrier, because imitating it perfectly leads to one saying: So what? I have taken something very difficult and I have learned to do it like someone else once did it. So what’s the value? However, and this is very very rare, if you can go beyond this and say: This difficult form is like a bridge, and if I can completely absorb it to a point where I come to the other side, I can find something that comes to life in myself – this is a very different attitude.

I don’t know about Japan, but in India I saw a lot of this in classical dancing. Once the great dancers were so completely free of the difficult forms that they could use them to express deep human truths. It’s the same in Europe in Western classical ballet. The very rare great dancer goes beyond the form, and the form then is a support, and something very simple can come through. I’ve seen an Indian dancer, a great dancer, doing very artificial movements, but what came through was a mother calling to her child. Her child was the little god Krishna, and all that one saw, all that one could be touched by, was the pure quality of the feeling of Krishna’s mother. One wasn’t seeing the complicated form. In the same way, I’ve seen a great European ballet dancer playing Giselle, and all one sees is the true feeling of madness in this character. But this is very very rare. In India it is more and more rare, and in all the classical schools it is recognized that today all the pupils end at the level of virtuosity. They’ve reached the point where they can do and show the difficult movement, and that’s where the question comes, who cares? You only care if the person wishes to use this like a line of Shakespeare, to lead to something far beyond.

You’ve spent many years celebrating Shakespeare, and presumably studying his era and society. What is your position on the “pit question?” Did the common people, the audience in the “pit,” really only come because of the few bawdy scenes or obscene references, or was there a higher level of searching or understanding among common audiences than we see today?

PB: Well, I don’t think that there is much area for controversy here. Shakespeare, more than any other dramatist that we know, recognized the need to make what happens on the stage a reflection of all forms of life. And by all forms, I mean both philosophical life, spiritual life, inner life, intellectual life, sophisticated life, and popular life – all as being interrelated facets of this great mass that we call living experience.

Edward de Vere (1550-1604), 17th Earl of Oxford

And he knew – and this is something that I’ve found confirmed by experience all through my life – that you can only do that if it is matched by a corresponding audience. That you produce in the theatre just as much as your audience can receive. So if you have an entirely academic audience, to satisfy them you produce intellectual plays. If you have an entirely popular audience, in the lowest sense of the word, you produce crude popular entertainment. Linking levels is one of the hardest things in all human activities. But Shakespeare’s aim and his art was constantly to engage each part of the audience at the same time. And very recently, English poet Ted Hughes has written a penetrating bookon Shakespeare, which has yet to be published, in which he even analyzes this in terms of the single line. How within one line of Shakespeare, he will use an elaborate word that most of the audience could not understand, but which would excite the intellectuals who were sitting close to the stage, and then by the use of the word “and” he would immediately follow it by a second word, which turns the same sense into very everyday use. And the two together, the elaborate word and the ordinary word put side by side, give an excitement to both parts of the audience and, in a lightning flash, both parts of the audience were equally involved.

I think that you’ll find that Shakespeare did something that we learn all the time in the theatre, and which every orator knows as well, which is to never let any part of your audience slip for too long. Because one recognizes that there is this phenomenon in audiences – an audience that switches off. And the aim of all theatre work is never to lose your audience for a moment. Because if you lose an audience, even for a matter of seconds, it’s very hard to capture them again. And if you look at the structure of Shakespeare’s plays, you can find that he alternates all the time between one level and another. And, in this fluctuating movement, he keeps in touch with everyone. There is an element of crude melodrama followed by an element of sophisticated politics, and at once something else that comes in, and something that refers to a very difficult idea.

You can take Hamlet. If you think that Hamlet is inexhaustible as a deep, philosophical play, and yet it is totally accessible and eternally popular as one of the most widely played pieces of dramatic writing in history. And there’s a perfect example of how he could write for an enormous audience. He was only doing what big film-making always strives to do, and which succeeds to a degree.

Very, very good films, on the whole, do bring together enormously different people. And if you think of the very best American movies, there have been a great number of extraordinary pictures that have played to, in New York for instance, to very sophisticated people, and are then playing in remote parts of the Middle East and Asia to very popular audiences. And all of them are held by the same film at the same time, and yet they are seeing different aspects of it. That is the great Shakespearean art and no one has outdone that.

Because the one thing that no one can deny about Shakespeare is that… Well, there are two things you can’t deny. The popular nature is proven by statistics because of the amount his works are played all over the world. But I don’t think that anyone would say that in all writing there is anything spiritually and philosophically deeper than what is in the core of Shakespeare’s writing. And there, there is no concession. That the deepest ideas are expressed without being popularized or cheapened. And for that there is no precedent in theatre writing. The only equivalents are in novel writing. We have a writer like Dostoyevsky, who has also those two sides, whose depth or thought go very deep, and yet whose form is irresistible to a very, very wide audience for its dramatic intensity.

I wasn’t questioning his art, but there was this debate as I remember about the quality of the audience itself, that we haven’t come so far educationally and culturally, that the kinds of things the audience of the Elizabethan era were fascinated with were not merely the vulgar scenes, the same popular baiting that we get in the media today, but that they were actually concerned with deeper issues. That there was an active interest, even among the lower segments of society, in greater questions.

PB: Well, I think you touch on two very important and interesting things. One is that always audiences – their level of understanding – is always underestimated. And that every section of the population is capable of more than the people responsible for creating mass entertainments are aware of. That is a universal truth. But then there’s a more specific truth. That is that every theatre event is a process. And by that I mean that something happens which is not the same in the middle as at the beginning, and not the same at the end as the middle. And when the event is right, in other words, when the words are properly conceived by the author, when the acting is properly conceived and implemented by the actors, there is a change of temperature. That, whatever the audience, it is hoisted to a higher level of understanding than it is normally capable of. And one sees this with an actor. An actor may be a very ordinary and dull person in everyday life. But as he begins to play a great play like Hamlet or King Lear, gradually he becomes a higher level of human being than he is before or after. And the same thing happens to an audience. But an audience, if the work is right, is carried to a higher level. Now this is not only true of Shakespeare’s audience – we imagine because we can’t know how it really was in Elizabethan times – but it is true today. But a good Shakespeare performance will take people, who most likely will say, “oh, I never even thought Shakespeare could interest me,” and because they’re seeing a good performance, which is rare, and not a dull, academic performance, they, despite themselves, are led to be interested in questions, experience feelings that are above their normal level of quality of experience. And that’s what the theatre is for.

That’s what the church used to be for…

PB: No longer, of course. The only difference is that – of course in Japan the temple and the theatre are much more, were much more, closely related than in the European tradition – the great difference is that the church spiritual experience is meant to take hold of the person and last longer than the theatre experience. So the difference is that both aim toward the same goal, but the theatre is like, in show business terms, like the trailer for a great movie. The theatre experience can lift you to a spiritual height for two minutes, and then that’s taken away and you leave the theatre and you’ve gotten it. Then you realize that there is something called a spiritual way that, in a much more painful and much harder and much slower process, can lead you there on a more permanent basis. And that’s where the two are intertwined.

The Futhark alphabet was used by the North European Germanic peoples (the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish) between the 3rd and 17th centuries A.D. About 3500 stone monuments in Europe, concentrated mostly in Sweden and Norway, are claimed to have been inscribed with this writing.

The purpose of this article is to draw the readers’ attention to the fact that this Futhark alphabet, which is also called the Runic (1) stemmed from the very same origin as did the ancient Turkish (2) inscriptions with Göktürk (3) alphabet.The article is concerned solely with reading the alphabet known as “the primitive futhark”, found inscribed on a rock in Kylver on Gotland Island, Sweden, in addition to the other two stone monuments, namely the Mojbro stone in Uppland, and the Istaby stone in Blekinge, with their photographs available, and which are considered to belong to the group classified as the oldest runic inscriptions, by matching their characters with those in the Göktürk inscriptions, and thus being able to decipher them in Turkish. Further ideas, interpretations and opinions in relation to this particular subject shall not be treated within this article. I suggest that more interested readers should get in touch with us directly.

I would like to emphasize the point that I am not advocating any claim on these texts being written in the Göktürk script or vice versa. My claim is that the alphabets of these monuments found in both Europe and Central Asia have stemmed from a common origin in a very remote past. Then, it was only a natural development for the Turkish, and the Germanic tribes that, although in locations so far away from each other, they could seperately carry on with this heritage of writing. I hold the belief that I have been able to prove the claim summarized above by reading the monuments written in Futhark alphabet, or the Oldest Runic, in Turkish through the help of the Göktürk alphabet. The result submitted to your reading here is just a small part of a greater research that has been going on for the past several years (4).

The Orhun (5) monuments were discovered by a Swedish officer named Strahlenberg, and his finding was made known by publications in 1730. In 1893, the Danish scholar Thomsen was able to decipher these inscriptions and declare that they were written in Turkish (6).The monuments of Kultigin and Bilge Kagan, situated near the Kosho-Tsaydam lake in the Orhun River valley to the south of the Lake Baykal, and that of Sage Tonyukuk, the Deputy-Khan (7) a little farther, are the three important memorials which make up what is known in general as the Orhun Monuments. The inscription used on them consists 38 characters. Numerous stone monuments are also found around the Yenisei River, but they belong to a period much earlier than that of the Orhun pieces, and there are in excess of 150 Skyturkish character-forms used on. The ancient Turkish script was written vertically with the lines running from top left downwards to the bottom right, and read accordingly, that is from right to left when the text is laid down on its right side. The individual marks are not joined, and the full or partial sentences are seperated with a column mark “:” in between.

The eight vowel sounds of Turkish, are represented in couples by 4 marks, and they usually are not employed in the beginning and the middle syllables of a word, but are shown in the last syllable, or if they occur at the end. For example:

a ferocious bull, or a fire-breathing dragon (8).

The “god”, or “a deity”.

As for the Futhark alphabet employed on the stones found in Sweden, the monuments bearing this inscription are studied in two main chapters in Prof.Jansson’s study: a) The oldest runic inscriptions b) The 16-rune Futhark and Runic inscriptions from the Viking Age. The oldest runic inscriptions are written with an alphabet of 24 characters (9).The chapter, from pages 9 to 24, in Prof.Jansson’s book of 185 pages is devoted to this particular period. The three stone inscriptions which are mentioned in this part are:

- The stone from Kylver farm in Stånga (Gotland). This is the oldest relic found in Sweden, dating back to the fifth century. (p.13)

- The Möjbro stone from Uppland. (p.18)

- The Istaby stone from Blekinge. (p.21)

Although these three monuments are declared as not deciphered yet, the author is attempting at some unfounded assumptions in relation to their contents. According to the map supplied at the end of this book, there happens to be numerous stones, which are inscribed with the same alphabet and belong to the same period of history, in more than 70 locations in the north and northwest of Europe. (Appendix A). In this article, the decipherment of the three stones mentioned above is accounted.

The monuments considered to be in the 16-rune futhark group belong to a later period called the Viking Age which started at about AD. 800. During this period, the 24-characters of the Primitive Norse runes became simplified and reduced to 16-rune series.The pages 25-30 and the rest of the book in Jansson’s study are allocated to this subject which is beyond the concern of my article.

Continuation of the summary of the research of Juan Moricz¹

The first news

On September 12th 1965, the biggest newspaper in Ecuador, the Quito daily “El Comercio”, published on its front page an extraordinary report about the research conducted on the territory of Ecuador by Juan Moricz. From this expansive article we learn first that among all the tribes living there in the period before the Spanish conquest the language of the Puruha-Canari tribe and the Peruvian Puruha-Mochica tribe was an ancient Magyar language. This first extraordinary conclusion is the result of Moricz’ study of Jacinto Jijon y Caamaño’s² work of comparative linguistics entitled “El Equador Interadino y Occidental.”

On October 25th, the “Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung” publish an interview with Moricz conducted by their Buenos Aires correspondent, in which he notes, that this discovery will revolutionise all hitherto accepted theories of ancient history.

On December 17th in Lima, Peru, Moricz announced in front of representatives of the international press corps, that a Hungarian peasant could have conducted a better linguistic study than those masses of international authorities who researched and categorised the American ancient languages, because the language of the Cayapas tribe, which they put in the group of Chibcha languages,³ is just such a Magyar language as the Poruha (sic), Canari and the Peruvian Purucha-Mochica (sic) languages, which have been put in the Mochica language group. This piece of news was reported by the United Press news service and was picked up by many papers around the world.

On July 23rd 1966, the Guayaquil paper “El Telégrafo” wrote an editorial in which it pinpoints that the researches of Moricz have established that the fraternal European faction of the Ecuadorian people are the Magyar people. For this reason – although the Ecuadorian football team was not able to qualify for the World Cup in London – they are still represented by their Magyar brethren and their excellent team. Our brothers of olden times, that were separated from us and ended up in Europe, are those who now – as so many times before – will show what heroic struggle they are capable of. Therefore “we reject the unrequested Brazilian representation, for we are represented at the World Cup in London by our most pure and most ancient brethren: the Magyars” – writes “El Telégrafo”.

On August 7th 1966, “El Telégrafo” dedicates a whole page to the discoveries of Moricz. In this extraordinary report we are informed that the Kara tribe that arrived in the bay named after them (Bahia de Caracuez) at the end of the 8th century AD is identical to the Magyar Royal Scythian Kara tribe that migrated across India and later – by sea – returned to their ancestral home in present-day Ecuador. It emerged during the course of the investigation also, that Ecuadorian research into antiquity since the time of Juan de Velasco⁴ has spent a lot of effort concerning the arrival of the Kara tribe, and considers the named excellent Jesuit historian’s book about the Kingdom of Quito to be certified genuine. In this work he writes, among other things, that the ‘ó’⁵ sound used on the territory of the ancient kingdom was introduced by this arriving Kara tribe, because prior to their arrival the ‘u’⁶ sound was used for this vowel. Juan de Velasco suggests therefore, that one must travel around the world in order to search and find that people which still uses the ‘u’ instead of the ‘ó’ sound, because they are the brethren of the inhabitants of the Quito Kingdom.⁷

At the time of the Spanish arrival the city of Manta in the vicinity of the Kara bay was called Jokay and it was the Spanish who changed it to Manta. Also here Moricz clarifies, that the First Synod of Quito in 1593, chaired by Fray Luis López de Solís, brought such decisions as the translation of the Catechism and confessional prayers to the language of those peoples living on the territory of the bishopric, for these people know neither the Aymara language nor the common language of the Incas, the Kechua.⁸ The Spanish priests completed the necessary translations but the dogmata of Christianity were never taught on these languages, that is, on these dialects, because these languages i.e. dialects were all dialects of the Magyar language. After having been informed of this, the Spanish crown initiated and carried out the most atrocious policy of language change.

The Spanish court entrusted the Spanish conqueror Don Pedro de la Gasca with the task of briefing in detail the Habsburg ruler on the people and the language the Spanish found here. This he did, and thus the Spanish as well as the Austrian emperor Ferdinand⁹ were fully aware of the fact that what Columbus had found was not a a new continent but the ancient homeland of the Magyar peoples.

1. Correct spelling in Hungarian is Móricz János. For reasons of convenience I will use the simplified spelling of Juan Moricz throughout the article.
2. The Jacinto Jijon y Caamano Museum, Quito is one of the most frequented tourist attractions in Quito. The Jacinto Jijon y Caamano Museum, Quito houses valuable archaeological specimens which were collected by Jacinto Jijon y Caamano. The archaeological exhibits housed inside the Jacinto Jijon y Caamano Museum, Quito have been collected from the different cities and provinces of the South American country of Ecuador.
3. The Chibcha languages, a separate language family, are spoken in Colombia and spread northward to other areas. Surviving Chibcha-speaking tribes, such as the Cuna and Lenca of Central America, have experienced much culture change since the Spanish conquest. Source
4. VELASCO, Juan de, South American historian, born in Riobamba, Ecuador, in 1727; died in Verona, Italy, in 1819. He was educated at Quito and Lima, entered the Jesuit order, and occupied for many years the chair of theology in the University of San Marcos in Lima. After the expulsion of the Jesuits front the Spanish dominions, Velasco went to Italy, where he settled in Faenza, and devoted his time to Poetry. He afterward went to Verona for the publication of his works, but died before concluding arrangements. His history, although defective on account of the author’s excessive credulity, is valuable for the facts that it gives about the reign of the Shyris, before the first invasion by the incas of Peru. The work was often consulted by writers on American history, but was not generally known in Europe until its translation into French by Henri Ternaux-Compans, and shortly afterward it was published in the original language in Quito, with notes by Agustin Yerovi, who had obtained a copy of the manuscript. Velasco’s works are “Colleccion de Poesias, hecha por un ocioso en la ciudad de Faenza,” in five manuscript volumes ; a large map of the kingdom of Quito, remarkably correct for that epoch, the publication of which is shortly to be undertaken by the government of Ecuador” and ” Historia del Reyno de Quito” (3 vols., Quito, 1841-’4; French translation, Paris, 1840). Source
5. A long sound pronounced as in the English word “awe”.
6. A long sound pronounced as in the English word “cool”.
7. Juan de Velasco (1727-1792): Historia del reino de Quito-Equador. 1946
8. Or Quechua.
9. Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor

The Hidden Key Of All The Keys Of The Manifestation Of The Universe

For the western mind, the language of YOGA and other spiritual paths is many times difficult to descipher: the symbols and metaphors are a jungle where both initiates and (mostly) uninitiates are lost.

The hidden key that opens all these secrets and lost meanings is Resonance. Resonance is very easy to understand for the western mind, so much centered on the scientific approach of reality. In the light of Resonance, all metaphors and symbols immediately start to make sense, becoming in the same time a genuine door toward invisible realities.

Definition

The Law of Resonance has a relational character, i.e. expresses the way in which two or more apparently different things or phenomena selectively communicate (are linked), being integrated into an unitary Whole. The links which unite all things in the Universe (physical objects, mental processes, psychic phenomena, spiritual levels, in other words everything manifested) have as basis the process of Resonance.

The fundamental secret of YOGA practice is to create and maintain a process of resonance.Resonance is a process of initiating and amplifying a vibratory response (a link) in a receiving system that is attuned to an emitting system.

It is very important to understand that resonance starts only when the frequency of the two systems (the receiving and the emitting) are very close or identical. In YOGA, the process of resonance is created and maintained mainly by permanently focused attentiveness (effortless mental concentration). During resonance, the cosmic frequencies (vibratory energies) that are continually emitted as cosmic waves by interstellar centers, galaxies or planets can be received by the correspondent foci of the human subtle body in the same way that a radio set can be tuned to different radio frequencies. During resonance, a transfer of subtle energy takes place, from the emitting source to the receiver. The received energy brings with it all the characteristics of the source, on multiple levels (physical patterns, specific energy, feelings, inner states, information, ideas, etc).

YOGA and Resonance

What has YOGA to do with resonance? Here’s what: all yoga techniques (asanas, pranayama, meditation, etc.) are accurate modalities to create resonance with certain cosmic energies that are specific for that particular technique. The type of energy that a certain technique resonates with is revealed by a guru (and who knows that information through direct experience is a true guru!) when he gives initiation into that technique.

In other words, through the practice of a certain asana, for example, the yogi creates a link between his own microcosm, vibrating now on a certain energy (corresponding to that asana), and the macrocosmic source of that energy (or the cosmic correspondent of that asana). Through this link (or resonance), the energy from the cosmic source is ‘poured’ into the practitioner’s microcosm. The more that asana is effortlessly maintained with the necessary mental concentration, the more that type of energy is accumulated into his being. This is the reason all truly advanced yogis maintain asanas, or meditate, or do pranayama, etc., for hours at a time (NOT recommended to beginners!).

Therefore, YOGA puts at our disposal not only an instrument for self knowledge, but also a large spectrum of tools to develop those areas of our being that are less developped, so that we become whole, complete beings.

Therefore, due to their similitude, the phenomena, ideas, feelings, objects, energies, etc., are in agreement (consonance, concord), vibrate in unison (identity), evoke (summon) each other selectively through action at a distance.

In classical physics, resonance is well known in mechanics, acoustics, electromagnetism. This phenomenon though characterizes the entire manifestation of the Universe. The basis of existence of resonance is the energetic and vibratory substratum of the Universe.

Therefore, a first step in understanding resonance is to ponder upon the fact that all physical, mental and spiritual phenomena are rooted into (are a result of) (develop from) a Unique Eternal Reality.