Symbols

SYMBOLS¹⁾and 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. (↑)
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.

written by Gyula Tóth
May 4th 2006

The Hungarian Chronicles and the Fictitious Middle Ages

When Heribert Illig developed his theory known as the Phantom Time theory he drew his arguments mainly from the history of the Western part of Europe. He drew attention to the immense amounts of forged documents that remains from the Carolingian empire, the Palatine Chapel of Aachen with its architectural features preceding its own time by several centuries, the extraordinary calendar correction of pope Gregory XIII and the conspicuous and inexplicable lack of any archaeological findings, being typical for the era.
Of course he also addressed the oddities of the Byzantine empire: he mentioned the end of construction, the decline of the knowledge of writing, the transformation of events of the era in question into (quasi) fairy-tale and the inexplicable and unmotivated rewriting of chronicles. His arguments are in themselves heavy enough and worthy of consideration. However, Illig never addressed one issue, never referred to it with a single word – in fact, it seems he was not even particularly aware of the problem: the issue of the legacy of the Hungarian chronicle tradition. Specifically, this Hungarian chronicle tradition, which supports its hypotheses with such elementary strength, should have enjoyed an elevated position in his book or even a separately devoted chapter. It is not coincidence that lately our medieval chronicles have become surrounded by a conspicuous great silence. While in single issues of our renowned historical journals efforts are being made to “refute” the facts of falsification of our chronology, they do not even dare mention the issue of our [Hungarian] chronicles.

At first glance, our chronicles seem to be in terrible confusion, regarding the issue of dating the reconquest¹⁾ [of the Carpathian Basin]: Márk Kálti in his Chronicon Pictum²⁾ mentions a date two-three hundred years earlier than that which is derived from officially accepted chronology. Very well, we might think, we don’t not need to attribute too much significance to the issue, surely he made a mistake in writing or calculus. Yes, but he is not alone with this problem. Namely, Simon Kézai in his chronicle³⁾ leaves the Magyar reconquest at the end of the 800’s, however he dates Attila not in the first half of the 400’s but three centuries later, that is the 700’s! With this both Márk Kálti and Simon Kézai together make clear that it is not their mathematical knowledge which was lacking but they were in fact trying to remedy the same problem, namely the problem of the illegally inserted three centuries, albeit using two opposite methods.

Historical amnesia?

According to the current officially accepted chronology, Attila lived in the first half of the 5th century AD, while the Magyar reconquest took place in the last years of the 9th century AD. The difference in time between the two events is at least 450 years, which has to indeed be considered to be a significant chronological difference. Despite this the Hungarian chronicles cover quite extensively the time of Attila and report the most minute details possible. This same chronicle legacy covers also the Hungarian reconquest in similar extent and amount of detail. After all this we could expect with full justification that our chroniclers, having covered the historical eras mentioned, also should mention the approximately 300 years of the Avar age separating these two events. Faced with this issue, not only do the chroniclers not mention this – they do not even write down the word “Avar”! Further, they date the events in such a way that no time is left for any Avar age, for between the death of Attila and the Hungarian reconquest they claim a distance of five generations and altogether 104 years! Márk Kálti and Simon Kézai give the impression that regarding the events between the era of Attila and Árpád they seem to suffer from some kind of historical amnesia! They skip over 300 years with such nonchalant wastefulness as if these years truly never happened! Would our chronicles’ memories fail in such a way? How is it possible that they remember the Hun times more accurately – it being much further away from them in time, than that Avar era which immediately preceded our reconquest? We must concede: this is very strange! Wherever our ancestors lived during the 300 years of the Avar period they certainly had to have lived in the vicinity of the Carpathian Basin. They should have had first hand information on the Avar empire, with its centre in the Carpathian Basin, assuming of course that there actually existed an Avar empire at all. Because if it did not exist then it is not such a mystery why our chroniclers are so silent about it.

However, the Hungarian chroniclers do not only fail to mention the Avar empire, they also fail to mention the Khazar empire. This silence is strange because preceding our reconquest – according to the official version of history – the Hungarians were part of this very Khazar empire, and – on top of it all – this, during the time between the era of Attila and Árpád! It certainly seems that they failed to tell Márk Kálti and Simon Kézai about this fact, since – as with the Avar empire – they do not mention any form of Khazar empire!

Maybe I do not even have to mention, that the glorious Carolingian empire and its head, Europe’s father, the driver and motivator of world history, the transformer of the world, the patriarch of two continents, Charlemagne does not merit mention in our chronicles either. If not for anything else, but his military campaigns of annihilation of the Avars in the Carpathian Basin, he should have deserved to be mentioned! Of course to be mentioned certain criteria have to be met, namely, and above all, it helps to be a real, existing, historical person!

The quoted passages are from Chronicon Pictum, pages 21 and 22. Országos Széchenyi Könyvtár (National Széchenyi Library)

How much time passed between Attila and Árpád?

The old Hungarian chronicles know of a distance of five generations separating the time of Attila and that of Árpád:

“… and this boy’s ancestry was foretold in a dream, this why he was named Álmos⁴⁾, who was the son of Előd, son of Ögyek, son of Ed, son of Csaba, who was the son of Etele⁵⁾.” (Chronicon Pictum)

Our chronicles talk about altogether 100 or 104 years between the death of Attila and the second entry of the Hungarians into the Carpathian Basin:

“677 years after our Lord becoming flesh, 100 years after the death of king Attila, the Magyars or Huns – thus called in the tongue of the people and in Latin called Ungarus – in the reign of emperor Constantinus III and pope Zacharias again entered Pannonia.” (Chronicon Pictum)

The Hungarian chronicles also report such details, according to which Edömén, the brother of Ed – who was the son of Csaba and thus the grandchild of Attila – actually lived to see the Hungarian reconquest and thus he himself together with his household also returned to Pannonia! How would all this be possible if between the death of Attila and the Hungarian reconquest there passed not 100 or 104 years but 442 years (!!!), which is claimed by the official chronology?! It is obvious it simply would not be possible! Thus the conclusion is likewise obvious: either the Hungarian chronicles’ claims are false, or our chronology has been forged, as Heribert Illig suggests!

In any case, the argumentation concerning of the 104 years is not only supported by the Chronicon Pictum but also by the research of the Soviet archaeologists Zakharov and Arendt. But let us see how László Götz writes about this in his work entitled “Keleten kél a Nap”⁶⁾:

“The so-called Saltov culture discovered at that time was firmly placed within the remains of the Lebedian Magyars (that is by the Soviet archaeologists Zakharov and Arendt). They state that the swords found at Saltov and the Kobán area in northern Caucasus bear closest resemblance to the Magyar weapons of the reconquest era. The Saltov culture appeared in the end of the 8th century and disappeared at the end of the 9th century – so they say. In any case it cannot be a Khazar culture because it is not to be found in particular in the centre of the Khazar empire. It surrounds in a massive semicircle the Khazar centre of the lower Volga: from the middle of the river Don, through the upper part of the river Donets all through the Kubán region all the way to the eastern Caucasus mountains, to the river Kuma. (…) The Saltov-Majack culture is the only archaeological culture in southern Russia (Ukraine), on the territory of which it can be shown that life ceased to exist at the end of the 9th century, that is, exactly simultaneously with the event of the Hungarian reconquest.” (This and all following excerpts by the author)

It is important to note that the Saltov-Majack culture, which the Soviet archaeologists connected to the Lebedian Magyars preceding their reconquest, blossoms approximately 100 years (from the end of the 8th to the end of the 9th century), before it was – at the end of the 9th century, that is at the exact same time of the Magyar reconquest – “depopulated with tragical suddenness”! It certainly is difficult not to recall the death of Attila, the falling apart of his empire and the retreat of his peoples to “Scythia”, and the 100 - 104 years separating said events and the second entry of the Magyars, as written in the Chronicon Pictum!

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. (↑)
2. ”Illuminated Chronicle”, written before 1360 AD (↑)
3. Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, written around 1282-1283 (↑)
4. Hungarian ‘álom’ = dream; ‘álmos’ = someone who is dreamy or sleepy (↑)
5. Or Ethele. The original, non-latinized version of the name Attila. In the Icelandic mythological epic the Edda he is mentioned as Atle (↑)
6. The Sun Rises in the East.

   “One of the most comprehensive studies examining this complex question [of Magyar-Sumerian connections] is László Götz’s 5-volume 1100-page research work entitled “Keleten Kél a Nap” (The Sun rises in the East), for which the author consulted over 500 bibliographical sources from among the most authoritative experts in the fields of ancient history, archeology, and linguistics. In his wide-ranging study, László Götz examined the development of the Sumerian civilization, the determining cultural and ethno-linguistic influence of the Near-Eastern Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Age civilizations upon the cultural development of Western Eurasia, and the linguistic parallels between the Indo-European, Semitic and Sumerian languages indicating that the Sumerian language had a considerable impact on the development of the Indo-European and Semitic languages which have numerous words of Sumerian origin. László Götz also examined the fundamental methodological shortcomings of Indo-European and Finno-Ugrian ethno-linguistic research. His conclusion is that most Eurasian ethno-linguistic groups are related to one another in varying degrees, and that these groups, such as the Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic groups, were formed in a complex process of multiple ethno-linguistic hybridization in which Sumerian-related peoples (Subareans, Hurrians, Kassites, Elamites, Chaldeans, Medes, Parthians) played a fundamental role.” Source (↑)

Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, –nor the human race, as I believe, –and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.¹⁾

Having attended the new production of G. Verdi’s opera Macbeth at The Gothenburg Opera, I was quite surprised by the unexpected chosen interpretation of this great adaptation of Shakespeare’s masterpiece. Having a reputation of being a talented director, gifted with an ability for subtle shades of meaning, - and what is perhaps most important - always being faithful to the text and the music in the pieces he chooses to direct, Mr. David Radok seemed to choose a somewhat different path this time, in my opinion away from the very core of Verdi’s opera and of Shakespeare’s play.
Since this article is not intended to be a critical review of the production in question,
I will go directly to the heart of the matter.

In Radok’s version of the opera, the three kings - Duncan, Macbeth and Malcolm - are portrayed as dictators, styled with a communist-regime flare and they are displayed as being identical or equal. “A being that is absolutely identical to another, under every regard, would be one and the same with it… “many” beings that are equal, completely equal, would not be many, but one.”²⁾ So in reality, they are meaningless robot-like duplicates.

It is more than obvious what the director is trying to say with this alteration, because, an alteration is what we are dealing with here. The mantra seems to be that the leaders of yesterday are basically the same as the leaders of today, therefore Macbeth “speaks to us” even to this day. Even though on the surface leaders may look more or less the same, they are very much different from each other on a deeper level, as we intent to explain further on.
However, Shakespeare and Verdi on the other hand, did not regard the three kings as being identical in any perspective and the kings are naturally displayed in this fashion neither in the play nor the opera. Therefore this concept raises a series of contradictions and problems.

The basis of the generally accepted version of the world we live in is the absurd idea of progress.
If the leaders of yesterday are the same as the leaders of today, it would seem to be in disharmony with this idea. Everything belonging to nature changes according to cycles and perhaps this is the reason for this unusual interpretation of the three kings being one and the same?
It is true that if we look at for instance a plant, it normally goes through a four-period-cycle in the principles of birth, blossom, withering and death. There is evidently a part that can be linked to a degenerating process. However, this concept would then in reality mean that things were better in the past and if one would go back far enough in time, to a golden age of humankind, we would find the opposite of today’s leader. This is the nub of the error, which makes Radok’s interpretation unintelligible and false.
The main question I must raise is this: Why is it morally wrong of Macbeth to kill Duncan, if they are the same and why then is it morally right of Malcolm (through Macduff) to kill Macbeth? If they are the same, as they are displayed in Mr. Radok’s concept, then where is the conflict? What is the purpose of writing such a play?
Macbeth’s guilt, agony, pain and nightmare-like visions would be entirely unmotivated if Duncan and Malcolm where displaying the same inferior moral or psychological nature as himself.
The esoteric core of both the play and the opera is manipulated and altered in order to provide room for the director’s outlook of the world and this outlook is a false one.

In The Convivio, Dante explains that “writings can be understood and ought to be expounded principally in four senses.”³⁾ The literal, which is the first meaning, is the veil that is covering like a cloak or veil the three others, which Dante specifies as the allegorical, moral and anagogical or esoteric:

“In this kind of explication, the literal should come first, as being the sense in whose meaning the others are enclosed, and without which it would be impossible to and illogical to attend to the other senses, and especially the allegorical…
It is impossible to proceed to the form unless the subject on which the form must be imposed is prepared first.
… Consequently, since the literal meaning is always the subject and material of the other senses, especially of the allegorical, it is impossible to come to an understanding of them before coming to an understanding of it.”⁴⁾

If the exoteric structure - subject, material and form - is changed or altered, the innermost core of the play, which is the esoteric element, will be lost or at least is being made unavailable to the audience.
“Exact form does not destroy freedom in art: it gives it wings.”⁵⁾
“For just as grass spreads in an uncultivated field and overshoots and covers the spikes of wheat so that when seen from afar the wheat disappears, and the fruit is finally lost.”⁶⁾
Therefore, the quality, and the effect it can possibly have on an audience is entirely dependent on the esoteric core and if this element is not present anymore, the higher purpose of the play is simply destroyed.
Traditional art always seems to incorporate this esoteric element, which per definition makes it traditional or sacred as opposed to modern art, where this element is absent, thus making it modernistic.

“The idea of different meanings existing simultaneously at different levels, however strange it may seem to us, was altogether familiar to men of letters throughout the Middle Ages and even later - witness Spencer’s The Faerie Queene.”⁷⁾

We all “know” on a somewhat deeper level, most often in an unconscious way, that the downward path to the underworld on which Macbeth is travelling during the four acts of the play is the wrong one and it is also evident to us that the opposite path, the upward direction, is the right one. “The truth of the fall of man, remains indelibly written in the inner substance of the soul.”⁸⁾ We intuitively perceive this because we are made of the same material – the spiritual and the material; light and darkness – and these opposites are active in us on an everyday basis.
These opposites are simply part of our nature and identity. Why then give the impression that the kings are composed of the same material when they’re not?
If an audience knows on a deeper level that Macbeth is degenerated and corrupt, then what is the opposite of these kinds of ideals? No ideals at all? Neutrality? Life will always provide us with situations where one sooner or later will be forced to choose how to react physically, mentally and spiritually. The opposite of degenerated and corrupt ideals are noble ideals; higher ideals.

As I have said in my article Subversion of the Arts, art is not simply to show “how-it-is”, but if this is being done, the opposite, that is an alternative or a higher reality must somehow be displayed or at least be made to be perceived on a subtle level.
“A supreme example of an esoteric work is The Divine Comedy which presupposes salvation and deals with man’s purification and his ultimate sanctification or in other words his regaining of what was lost at the fall.”⁹⁾
“The sacred tendency present in the arts has genuinely aimed at opening up a path in the world of manifestation back towards the primordial origin.”¹⁰⁾

1. The Republic, Plato, book 5. (↑)
2. Men Among the Ruins, Julius Evola (↑)
3. The Convivio, Dante Alighieri, book 2, chapter 1. (↑)
4. Ibid. (↑)
5. The Relations between Religion and Art, Arthur Osborne, Artifex 2. (↑)
6. The Convivio, Dante Alighieri, book 4, chapter 7. (↑)
7. The Sacred Art of Shakespeare, Martin Lings. (↑)
8. Ibid. (↑)
9. Ibid. (↑)
10. Solum Ipsum, Metaphysical Aphorisms, Nr. 540, András László. (↑)

Context
Perhaps the most recent texts outlining the kind of war protocol we are now addressing is Budo Shoshinsu, a collection of the most authentic moral teachings of the Japanese knights, written in the 16th Century for young samurais to teach them the foundations of bushido, “the spiritual path of the warrior”.
The teachings concern the appropriate perception of death (as an opportunity for transcendence, which is apparent in everyday behavior, heightened awareness and the importance of the moment), loyalty (towards the superior and everything that is superior), high alert (always prepared to face defining moments), martial arts (control over forces and actualizing the principle of One, thus creating harmony between the “inner world” and the “environment”), weaponry and behavior without excesses (excess is the result of attachment: to wine, women, etc….attachment means being dominated).
To live by the principles outlined in the teachings required to maintain control over all areas of life (thoughts, emotions, actions on the physical plane, higher states of consciousness). Control is analogous with dominance over power(s), a fundamentally solar, male, royal principle.
In short the teachings were oriented towards maintaining the dominance of the superior (pure, independent/detached, solar, royal, direct, masculine) over the inferior (attached, dependent, lunar, reflective, dark, feminine).
The difference between Japan in the 1500s and the world at large today is that Japan was a traditional society, quite isolated from its rapidly degenerating environment. The process of degeneration has continued until today. Today there is no chance of isolation for traditional world views to subsist.
Modern world view is pervasive while traditional world view is heavily attacked and ridiculed at best: modern world view is the direct result of the general process of involution, while the traditional world view reflects the state of consciousness dominant before the process of involution –materialisation- started.
In the epoch of Tradition the potentialities of various aspects of materialism were marginalized (in consciousness therefore in society as well, where it was prevalent among slaves only). Today all these unrealized potentials are being actualized by inferior people whose life’s purpose is to serve tendencies (forces) that actualize these potentials (slaves).
We may consider the actualization of potentials natural. What makes the actualization of all aspects of materialism destructive however is the notion that it is superior to Absolutism, or that materialism should be the context for actions in all areas of life, which would make it a relatively absolute factor (which is of course senseless): absolute, because no principles are perceived or accepted beyond it, and of course relative, since the refusal of principles is merely the result of inferior (materialistic) thinking and the inability of this thinking to grasp them.
The difference between the era of Tradition and the Modern era is that in Tradition the hierarchy of existence was truly reflected in social organization (caste system) whereas in the age of modernity this hierarchy is reversed. Thus the level of consciousness and the world view of slaves is dominant today.
In all areas of life, this world view is in direct opposition to the royal, super human consciousness, which in the era of Tradition was directly and actively represented by the King (of the world). The king dominated by his presence (passively active: no action was necessary), while the queen on his side was a living symbol of power active in the manifest world.
Slaves have never had power. The (active) dominance of power was the domain of the warrior caste. For warriors the King represented absolute knowledge, thus the purpose of their life. Today, just like in the age of Tradition, slaves don’t dominate power. Their pursuit of power is senseless and always reflects inferior and repulsive style elements. Dominance, thus masculine potentials are so much out of range for them that instead of dominating power, they are trying to identify with it. Not grasping the concept of dominance they want to become the symbological queen and sit on the king’s throne.
They put each other on the throne and laugh at each other there. It is comical, although this is a dark kind of humor, since it also involves the usurpation of power. Today there are millions of such thrones (positions) everywhere.
We have artificial organizations in all areas of life today: politics, military, religious organizations, the corporate world, academia and criminal organizations. Each deserves separate studies. What’s relevant here is that they “took over” structures from the era of Tradition, but since they all lack true fundamentals (they are based on illusions), these structures were first empty shells (pseudo hierarchies where positions are “rewarded” based on the amount of inferior (reflective) knowledge and manipulation), then the structure itself has been changed, reflecting the very illusions that called them forth: “horizontal hierarchies” (flat organizations), female principles in leadership, etc. All reflect a materialistic world view that denies vertical differentiation, promotes a gross and stupid equality and since it is unable to define it’s own principle (matter), it completely lacks any foundation.
Only in artificial organizations is it possible that people occupy roles without actualizing royal principles in themselves under a false sense of leadership. Thus ranks have no significance, they don’t represent plexuses of power. Instead of actualizing the principles of power and dominance within themselves, men (and women) remain powerless and increase the effort of manipulation and accumulation of inferior knowledge.
The use of weaponry for example doesn’t require super human qualifications. It requires inferior education only that enables people with no inner power whatsoever to operate them (as opposed to traditional fighting systems like swordsmanship and archery, where the weapons were the very symbols of the path to achieve super human states, which the warriors were actively occupying and then transcending).
War is necessary when power is usurped. It’s purpose is to reinstate the dominance of the superior over the inferior in all areas of life.

Front lines
Open war

In the era of Tradition and the initial stages of history (external) war was a focused effort, reflecting a focused, controlled, dominated mind, aligned to supra rational consciousness. External war (small jihad) was the reflection of the warrior’s efforts to eliminate involutive tendencies within himself (great jihad) and to conquer principles by transcending the human state.
In the era of Tradition war was the domain of the best: nobility; hence the respect of the fighting parties for each other: they were not in opposition but fought for the same purpose on different sides. They were fighting an inner war. External war provided them with opportunities to actualize many potentials. In such a war there were no losers. The dominance of one didn’t mean defeat for the other. Only the superior was involved in war and the victory of one was a revelation that he actualized the principle of One in himself to a larger degree then the other. Thus One’s victory, whether or not it ended up in the other’s physical death, provided the other with a chance of transcendence. Both the death of the best of the dominated forces and the victory of the dominating forces was glorious. The two achieved the same objective. Victory was the divine manifestation of the superior, a testimony that the victor had already transcended the human state. The one who died, achieved it after death; in a way the next stage of his initiation was triggered by the victor. The victor saw himself in the defeated, the defeated saw himself in a more actualized state, in the victor. The two were one.
As we follow history and get closer to the present day, the purpose of war has been gradually changing, taking on more and more inferior forms. First, with the disappearance of kings in total dominance, the royal weapons of bows/arrows and swords were replaced by more inferior weapons that no longer symbolized any path, they were mere technologies. In the same time the purpose of war was becoming less spiritiual and more material/economical. Naturally this meant that more people from the lower castes were involved in war. In the last stage of history it is the masses that are fighting for resources; there is no principle involved, the fighters are the slaves, there are no warriors: war has become terrible, the symbol of total annihilation: the individual in the mass, who identifies himself completely with his body suffers complete elimination. Everybody loses, there are no victors. Everybody involved serves negative tendencies. Nobody dominates power. Various powers dominate everybody. The mass is powerless. Actual war is just the open, intensified version the occult war that takes place in everyday life. Individuals in the mass (slaves) are unable to exercise any control. There’s no force of integration (leadership roles are also occupied by slaves) so there’s no vertical alignment towards principles. Soldiers are disrespectful and cynical. They confuse power with technology. The soldiers are excessively weak: no nerves, no mental strength and absolutely no presence of intellect: rape, brutality and cruelty is wide spread.¹⁾ Entertainment and promiscuity is part of war. In the very near future even the slaves are going to be replaced by robots operated by male or female operators (not soldiers).
Not only is the masculine principle not present, in a sense the war is against the masculine principle itself.

Occult war
Negative tendencies are fighting against a few superior men (representing principles) through the masses. Today everybody with an unshakable materialistic world view is a mass individual and blindly follows/obeys negative (anti traditional or modern) tendencies. The pseudo principles they submit to are democracy, evolutionism, progressivism and a twisted “spirituality” that perceives God outside of one’s existence.
In the 1500s young samurais were advised to simply avoid places that are not appropriate for their rank (pubs where low caste people gather, brothels, etc.), behavior that is typical to inferior people (pursuing pleasures: visiting whores, drinking) and to be always on high alert once they leave their house.
The reason given for this was because they could at any time expect some crazy individual to pick a fight with them (the symbology of which is that the inferior would force the superior into situations that are unworthy of him).
Today this advise still holds, although social organization according to the caste system no longer exists. The number of superior people is very low and one finds only places where inferior people gather, blindly pursuing pleasures and fun, “dedicated” only to economical and material goals, exercising the least amount of control possible.
The elite is not organized; every member of the elite is isolated. Every one of them must fight individually. There is nowhere to go. Each one must decide: fight or die. They must fight a royal fight, actualizing principles in themselves, becoming superior, occupying their place in the true hierarchy.
The isolation is not physical. Superior people are born into an inferior environment, grow up in an inferior “culture”, they are exposed to inferior value systems, they are completely surrounded by the mass. The mass is a brute aggressor whose only purpose is to disable the superior reaching his goal. The mass has no other purpose, the force behind it is the absolute anti-principle: it can’t be reached, can’t be realized, can’t be actualized. It doesn’t even exist by itself: it’s existence depends on the principle of One it is fighting against. This births senseless behavior, irrationalism, blind mechanism, stupidity.

Orientation of the mass
Today we find the following elements that are typical of the mass:
Pleasure. It is fundamentally oriented towards the body, slightly oriented towards the mind (not the intellect). The pursuit of pleasure is pervasive in all areas of life. The illusion of the mass is that life is not worth living without pleasure. They don’t realize that the kind of pleasure they are pursuing stems from the same roots as the pain and suffering they are trying to avoid. The root is an unquenchable thirst for life (the cause of their existence). Once pleasure is “achieved”, pain or suffering is immanent. In the same token, once pain or suffering is experienced, the pursuit of pleasure is intensified. The notion that people’s behavior is driven by the avoidance of pain and the pursuit of pleasure was established and this senseless behavior is truly valid for the masses today. Everything people do to pursue pleasure is in the context of a material world view. All their actions are the opposite of the actions of the superior. This difference is perceivable by different style elements. Since pleasure is mostly material, individuals in the mass are increasingly unable to differentiate between types of pleasure. One aspect of materialism is exactly the lack of differentiation. Emotional pain is “cured” by chocolate, alcohol, etc.

Examples outlined very briefly

Eating and drinking as perceived by the inferior
they eat and drink carbohydrates, glucose, lactose, calories, protein, fats, alcohol, etc. focus is exclusively on the body. Also, eating and drinking habits reflect emotional states and fluctuations. Eating and drinking may become a compensation. Eating style is animalistic, greedy, voracious. Prefer strong tastes for immediate benefits. The inferior consumes. Without control. Blindly and in (mostly large) quantities.

Eating/drinking as perceived by the superior
enjoy the sight, smell and taste of tender meat, exciting vegetables, soft butter, honey, hot, fresh bread, etc. they capture and fix the deep ecstasy of wine with their soul, they fly with the volatile strength of spirits and they intimately know the solid, calm quality in beer. This is not eating or drinking. This is active knowledge. For them the food or the drink is a symbol of the essence they already have, thus eating and drinking is a ritual for the actualization of knowledge. Quantity is absent, only quality is present.

Exercise - inferior
To look good, be attractive, improve self esteem, improve physical health. The self is subordinated to the body; it identifies with the body.

Exercise - superior
Looking good is of no concern; the superior man is attractive to the superior woman because of the principles/superior knowledge he actively acquired and the dominance he exerts; the superior transcends the individual self and identifies with I, the ruler of existence and consciousness (self esteem is senseless); physical health and strength serves the purpose of actualizing the absolute man (or woman) and it is the consequence of appropriate actions of the I. The body serves the I.

Relaxation - inferior
Analogous with stupor. In an acute lack of understanding and under the aegis of an astounding lie, the mass uses names of traditional doctrines to accomplish stupor: yoga, meditation, contemplation. They breathe deep to calm the nerves and cope with stress, which they experience because they don’t understand the cause of existential crisis.

Calm - superior
For the superior every area of life is a ritual, thus he lives in high (intellectual) intensity; the behavioral style is calm, firm and unshakable. On the path of actualizing the One in himself, he exercises meditation and contemplation supreme. He exerts synthesized control over “thoughts” and “emotions”. Striving to be detached from the body and transcend the human state. Relaxation is senseless.

Talk - inferior
Their talk reflects their thoughts. Uncontrolled, associative: one thing reminds them of another thing, that of another, etc. their talk is chatter that lacks strength. They also go with the flow, and find themselves in situations that they don’t understand; in fact they are not aware that they are in “situations”. The subject of their talk is their “life”: Work, relationships, kids, shopping, jokes, etc. infinitely boring and there’s nothing to follow. They either talk all the time or the don’t talk at all. When they don’t talk it’s not a sign of control but that of a particular emotional state.

Communications - superior
What do two people, who have absolute knowledge talk about? What does a wise man and a mass man talk about? Nothing: it is senseless. The wise knows the mass man, the mass man is not fit to comprehend knowledge…also, he’s too busy talking. The superior makes statements when the time is right. He doesn’t get into arguments (discursive knowledge is inferior). the purpose of statements from the superior is to trigger the “evolution” of others, who are ready. Discussion is avoided. The superior doesn’t want to persuade.

Dance - inferior
Part of fun, pleasure and even exercise. The scene has become the disco or (mostly latin) dance clubs (the music played in clubs is just a feeble attempt to organize the confusion in the “composers” mind). The style of dance in discos is reflective of the mindset of the mass: mechanistic, robot like. Isolated people, men and women moving the same way. Physical contact is always sexually motivated. Dance (besides drinks of course) has become a necessary step for sex between strangers and semi strangers. This mentality is also valid in dance clubs. While these clubs maintain various forms of dance, the motivation is to mate, to have fun or even to exercise.

Dance - superior
Dance is a ritual that serves the purpose of the realization of the absolute man and the absolute woman. The dancing parties become the symbols of these absolute states. Dance is serious. The harmony between the movements of the man and the movements of the woman is analogous with sex. The force that drives these movements are sexual. Since the woman sees in the man the symbol of the absolute man and vice versa, sexuality is experienced in high intensity, but impersonally, on a supra individual plane. Dance doesn’t involve one improvised move (ritual choreography). This way, there is no room for individual sexual motivation. Once individual (inferior) sexual motivation is present, the magic of dance is gone.

Arts - inferior
Industrial design, under the aegis of practicality.

Arts -superior
similarly to eating and drinking, arts are the actualization of knowledge: ritual.

Sex - inferior
Pursued exclusively for the sake of pleasure. Each individual pursues his/her own pleasure. The act is comparable to mutual masturbation (just like their dancing style). On a lower level they even consider it fun. Alcohol is almost always part of the experience. In fact the reason for drinking alcohol is often exclusively to have sex. This is true even when it is not immediately apparent: at pubs, company events. It is more apparent in discos and whenever dance is involved. Attraction is based largely on physical faculties. Sex dominates both men and women.

Sex - superior
Similarly to dance, it is a ritual whereby both the man and the woman are symbols of the absolute man and woman. The stages reflect the alchemical operations of separation, preparation, burning, retraction to the root (beginning), etc. If alcohol is used it is never to
”achieve” a state of stupor but to experience the analogue qualities of ecstasy, the lifting of spirit as a preparation for sex, whereby higher states of consciousness is achieved. The woman is in analogy with sex (taken to the extreme she is sexuality); man dominates sex, he is never dominated by it.

Fun/entertainment - inferior
Geared toward focusing the mind, to induce some level of negative entropy; instead of the upward direction of the focus of the superior however, the inferior focuses his attention downward.

3. Work and career
Artificial roles, where there is no room for the intellect (superiority); there are rationalizations only, which are subordinated to inferior goals. People are subordinated to functions and become mechanistic (robot like) sometimes animalistic. The work environment was created specifically for the masses and is mostly maintained by mass individuals. Just like everywhere else, the pursuit of “fun”, pleasure, money and/or positions or all of these is constant.

Work, fun and pleasure is mostly intertwined among the mass. The motto is that “if it feels good, it is good”. Since the mass evaluates everything on a physical level, they are ready to try anything under this motto, all the while, due to their relative mindset, they are losing grasp on what feels good and what doesn’t: since they are on the lookout for new sources of pleasure, they find less and less things that don’t feel good.

Protocol in social situations:

First of all we must differentiate between the masses and people who don’t belong to the mass but are not (yet) superior either. These people are potentially superior, but they are confused or not on a path to realization. The presence of the superior means a force of integration for these people. They start to realize latent potentials and perhaps organize around the superior, gradually acquiring higher knowledge themselves and exhibiting the superior style elements. When the caste system was alive, there were three basic levels between the king and the slaves (warriors representing controlled force, merchants, representing control over economics, craftsmen, representing control over matter…the slaves were outside the hierarchy, representing merely bodies who exercised no control by themselves). In the time of Tradition superiority was reality and respect from the less superior towards the more superior was authentic. Today reality is defined by inferiority where respect has no foundations. Although the degree of actualization of true, absolute principles in people is still different, thus a hierarchy is potentially in place, the influence of negative tendencies is so strong that these potentials maybe realized by the best only while the rest falls victim to negative tendencies. Recognizing the style elements of the mass and keep a distance is vital.
Thus the following protocols are not for the masses. It is for the actually and the potentially superior.
We must also differentiate between protocol for men and women. Men are warriors who can expect “attacks” from the mass from anywhere, any time. Even though the mass directly target superior men, attacks may come directly or indirectly. Indirect attacks come through their women. Women, who belong to a superior man must be aware of their role in this scenario. All women who are potentially superior (with or without a superior man) are subject to attacks, but women who belong to a superior man experience more of these.
Although naturally each person is different, they exhibit some similar characteristics due to the same orientation of their focus;²⁾ in interactions they are always courteous, collected and calm, their actions are void of everything unnecessary. They don’t make compromises in most of those situations individuals the mass considers to be normal.
The most common of these situations are based on undifferentiation.
The mass can’t differentiate, can’t grasp the essence. This results in them mixing everything up in life, which results in a total lack of clarity. Examples:
mixing of men and women: there really is only physical difference between them. On any other level feminine tendencies dominate. The term unisex was born and they even start to look the same. They don’t have a need for differentiation. They share saunas, swimming pools, lie next to each other on the beach, perform the same tasks in adjacent cubicles, drinking together in pubs, men and women gossiping with each other, competing against each other. Men don’t look at women as women, and women don’t look at men as men. They look at body parts: both men and women see butts, breasts, legs, arms, backs, stomachs etc. The focus of attention reflects a fragmented world view. It is common that women and men start to look at other women’s or men’s body parts, as well. In all situation there’s mostly indifference. This is of course no detachment. They are both dominated by sexuality. So when it comes to sex, it lacks real tension (tension comes from differentiation). Partially due the constant lack of tension, but increased promiscuity, learned homosexuality is rampant. The mass propagates that everything is ok, as long as it doesn’t hurt (physically) others. Also, they do anything for fun and pleasure. This has become the norm.
mixing of races. It starts also in the context of fun, pleasure and even careers. Example: white (and other) people listening to North American black music (not accidentally the strongest “cultural” influence today world wide), dancing to black music, dressing like blacks, moving like blacks, talking like blacks and acting like blacks. Then mixing with blacks. The mass doesn’t differentiate, so this is –in a sick sense- not a surprise.
Mixing perspectives: the mass thinks in relative terms. They are unable to grasp metaphysical (absolute) contexts. Their thinking is feeble and relative: they have no real context so they are always mixing what they perceive to be a context with content. Science has become unscientific, the truth has become relative and law has become unlawful.
Protocol for women who already belong to a man
One of the most fundamental context of the behavior of women is sex. Sex is always present in social interactions. Within this context, sharing is a fundamental part of woman’s nature. For women, the protocol is based on control over sharing. The woman should not adjust her behavior to the environment, but to her man only. The range of social interactions exceed those that are directly, or almost directly (through 2-3 steps) linked to sexuality. Here we only look at those that are directly related.
The difficulty is that the closer a woman is to the absolute state, the more sexual she is and also, she possesses a quality which is typically described as “nice”. “Nice” however has more than one aspect. A woman, whose life depends on a superior man, is nice but distant. She exerts the kind of happiness only women in love can. She smiles and laughs, but she is in control and distant. People see that she is happy, smiling and polite. But these visual style elements are the only ones she shares with others. She doesn’t share her dreams, fantasies with anybody but her man; she doesn’t talk about her body and of course, she doesn’t talk about her sexuality even to other women! She shares everything with her man only, who is the one who insures this control.
Sharing information verbally or by writing is a very intimate thing. Sharing information over drinks, away from others, is even more intimate. Only primitive people think that sharing the body is what “matters” only. Superior women know that everything they share with others, they take away from their man, who they belong to completely: in this sense they are worst then prostitutes, since prostitutes put on sale to the inferior which already belongs to the inferior. A woman, intimately sharing information with other men and even other women, puts on sale that, which belongs to the superior. Naturally, even telling about this openly to the man after, is not an excuse for the act already done.).
Even inferior men “feel” this truth and this is why they are only jealous of other men, if they are unknown to them (at the women’s work, from their past, etc.). This truth doesn’t know social ranks: blue color workers or bankers feel the same burning jealousy. If the woman is flirting with their own friends, even if it is in front of their own eyes, they are not jealous, they don’t even notice. Inferior women often cheat on their husbands with family friends. Only the most primitive men don’t care who their women share information with. This is because their view is so materialistic, that they themselves identify with their body only, thus that’s all they want from the woman, as well. Since the woman, through her sexuality closely identifies with her body, the more primitive the man, the more feminine he is.
Women typically break the protocol of not sharing precisely because they have a man. They make small compromises to comply with social norms and they think that situations are innocent or they confuse the notion of being “intimately nice” with being “nice with a distance”. Both inferior men and women take advantage of this confusion by being indiscreet. In fact when a woman experiences indiscretion it maybe an indication that she has not kept a distance. Indiscretion is sneaky. Always hidden, it looks innocent, humorous or nice or has an “it’s OK” undertone (especially when drinking is involved; in fact drinking with a man automatically invites/encourages the inferior man’s indiscretions), especially if it comes from people who are considered to be acquaintances. Today people know a lot of people but these are not “relationships”, they have no foundations; they are superficious and meaningless. Needless to say that any kind of indiscretion coming from strangers (however small, nice, funny, etc. they maybe) are unacceptable . To use the samurai analogy, indiscretion is analogous with somebody crazy trying to pick a fight. If it already happened (couldn’t have been avoided by distance), it must be dealt with swiftly and and for good, to make sure it will never happen again: it is time to use the sword.
The range of indiscretions is wide. It could be questions about private life, almost anything related to sexuality, invasion of privacy (contact at inappropriate times), even talking about own life without being asked. Today both the work place and public areas (bars, pubs, public transport, etc.) is full of instances of indiscretions that most people don’t give attention to and walk by in a state of sleep. It could be as common as mass emails sent to “buddy lists”, or innocent questions like what did you do last night. This last one is interesting because the one who’s asking is not even aware of why it is indiscreet. What makes it indiscreet is the wrong answer, that would imply sharing information. So the question set up, initiated the circumstances for indiscretions. People in the mass are always curious. Knowing is possessing. If they know the superior, they have a sense of excitement, similar to the one the thief feels, because they feel they possess them, in a sense steal part of them.
At some instances of indiscretion it’s enough to ignore the situation in other cases taking a direct stance and “using the sword” is necessary. It is important that the woman is aware of the situation, almost like in a state of heightened awakeness, feeling that this is a “war situation”, carefully controlling her actions. The presence of this control already creates a distance. If the situation is clearly an intentional indiscretion, the woman must flatly ask to stop it. The man the woman belongs to is always present in the woman, even when he is physically not around. Typically this presence, as a passive dominance, repels indiscretions coming from both inferior women and men. When the woman keeps the distance towards somebody who is not a mass member she does them a favour. The cool distance makes them adjust their behavior. When she keeps her distance from the mass she does what she must: active opposition to the mass, active subordination to her man. The conscious act of subordination to her man becomes sharply evident, if the inferior man, who commits the indiscretion is above the woman in the pseudo hierarchy at work. In such instances the woman openly subordinates (cuts off) all inferior, material considerations. Superior women typically experience subtle indiscretions only, it rarely happens that they face gross indiscretions, like concrete, direct sexual proposals. These happen mostly to women who have no desire to keep a distance and happily “mix” with anyone. Gross indiscretions are the result of this pattern of mixing. From their point of view it is not even indiscretion, but something “men do”. Gross indiscretions geared towards the superior woman are grotesque and less dangerous than the subtle ones. They are easy to notice and easy to deal with immediately. The subtle ones have a more violent, bullying character: by using “socially accepted values”, like niceness and “friendliness”, it forces the woman to take a stand in “small” situations, taking a risk of coming across “strange” in the eyes of the mass; for them however this is not a risk, because keeping a distance means more than being friendly.

Protocol for women who don’t belong to a man
The biggest challenge these women face is the lack of masculine principle in the majority of men. Besides of course the control of sharing and keeping a distance from the mass in general, adhering to the basics of etiquette enables women to exhibit the appropriate style elements to attract potentially or actually superior men and repel the mass men. With the adherence to etiquette, they repel mess women as well. Even though without men, the question of subordination to the superior applies to these women as much as to those who belong to a man. Ideally they should submit to the idea of the absolute man until the idea becomes an actuality when meeting the man.
Important consideration is that a superior man who already has a woman (or women) is always preferable to an inferior man.
Two more points must be addressed here: meeting the superior man and sexuality. Both of these could trigger “wrong compromises”.
In traditional societies the caste system itself provided the solution for meeting the right man. The authenticity of caste system was based on active dominance of the superior. Belonging to a particular caste and being born to a particular family set the conditions for “finding” the right man.
The notion of love was not distorted by modern sentimentalism and notions of men serving his woman and his family, or that the woman grants favours, or allows men certain things.
The woman experienced her existence in subordination to the man, who exerted active (intellectual) dominance, which is synonymous with higher (impersonal from the point of view that it is higher than the individual) love.
Today’s “system” has no authenticity. Both men and women are seeking (sinking into) sentimentalism. “Falling in” love is a correct term to describe the the rather primitive physical love people confuse with the higher ideal. “Freed from the bonds” of hierarchies, mass members, who are often positioned no higher than on a regressive infantile level, “freely” decide who to marry, who to date, who to have “relationship” with. The criteria is often no more than a body part. In other cases it is social rank, which, lacking any authenticity, is a negative image of true hierarchies of previous eras, thus choosing a “life mate” becomes a mockery Tradition. It is typical of women that they are trying to find men for those who don’t have any yet often with the specific intention, to make sure she “gets enough”, that she is sexually satisfied. To increase the chances, they often look among men, who they consider to be safe choices (e.g. unable to get women on their own), and they either do introductions (better scenario) or set up a blind dates for them. A blind date is an opportunity of checking each other out and quickly decide: he/she looks good, or doesn’t look good and how much compromise one is willing to make, etc. This is in sharp contrast to introductions even as recently as 100-150 years ago, when meetings had a more ritualistic character: formal introductions in the presence of parents or the public, controlled communications and a general sense of high tension.
If the “arrangements” produce no results, the woman gets a dildo for her birthday, and the search continues, typically not for long. After accepting the notion of “you gotta have somebody”, the woman will either go out to get drunk and get laid, or provokes the indiscretion of somebody at work by a little flirting, then accepts the dinner invitation, gets drunk and gets laid, thereby establishing a relationship.
By nature women are controlled by sexuality. The circumstances today are such, that the media specifically propagates that not only is it OK for women to subordinate themselves to inferiority, like promiscuous men (themselves controlled by sexuality, just like women), but seeking anything higher than physical pleasure (which is just a small aspect of physical love) is socially not acceptable or “funny”; this is again a typical slave mentality, which directly attacks and undermines the superior.
Women represent sexuality, (superior) men represent control over sexuality. By “carrying” the ideal man in herself, almost like being in love with him, the woman exhibits certain style elements that draws the right man (at least as close to the state of absolute man, as the woman is to the state of the absolute woman) to her. This protocol applies only to superior women, not most women. Once the right man finds her, he’ll take her. The style elements of the right man are typically open and honest and enable the woman to recognize superiority and distinctiveness: the actual man replaces the ideal.
The superior woman without man applies the same protocol to all mass men as women with men.
Protocol for superior men
The essence of the superior man is in opposition to the mass. On all levels men must realize royal principles. On the highest level he is in complete dominance, on a lower level he actively pursues dominance over powers, and loyalty to the highest principle, on an even lower level control over his life, typically as a family man (head of family) and loyalty to the superior; all superior men are loyal, exhibit various degrees of detachment from what is considered to be life by the mass (burning desires, thirst for becoming, attachments). They are detached. They don’t subordinate themselves to anything inferior, including women. They are not dominated by sexuality or substances (drink, food, drugs, etc.). The more the man has actualized the principle of One in himself the more personal the war is for him. On the highest level he sees the “enemy”, the cause of the negative tendencies in himself. Eliminating the cause is the purpose of the war. On such a level awareness extends to every moment. Mass individuals experience “important”, defining moments in their life only occasionally: graduation, important promotion, wedding, divorce, etc. Maybe 10 defining moments in an average life. Maximum. Superior men experience at least this many every day. Actualizing potentials is what makes up their life. An acute ability to recognize the essence, to differentiate. To clarify and put things into their place. Always purpose driven, they act from context. The decisions they make are essential, contextual, not the result of analogy: the result of synthesis. They consider the appropriate factors only; they eliminate confusion. They maintain perfect communication. If they write or read, it is for this purpose. They listen in context, from the point of view of the truth. They avoid discussions, arguments, they don’t want to persuade. They make statements. This straight forwardness characterize all their actions. The way they act is clear from distortions. They are not influenced by attachments, sentimentalism or low level considerations. Their acts are focused, pure and powerful. Since they actualize supra rational knowledge, on the level of the causes of phenomena, their life is a ritual. Everything is symbology including themselves and the roles they play. This includes their relationship with a woman or women. Inferior women typically avoid superior men. What makes a woman inferior is the drive to subordinate themselves to the inferior. Women that are not completely mass women, and of course superior women, feel attraction to superior men and a strong desire to subordinate themselves to him (in most cases this is not based purely on physical factors. Those are quickly becoming irrelevant). The higher level the actualization of One in the man, the more women he already possesses (potentially or actually). On the level of the king, all women belong to him.³⁾
They avoid situations that calls for subordination to the inferior: women or inferior men. They are the symbol of One, royalty, absolute man. Meditation and contemplation supreme is a daily practice.
Challenges are plentiful. Not making compromises is dangerous. Survival is not possible without some adjustments. Situations may arise that their presence activate latent potentials in men lower then them but who don’t belong to the mass. In such situations, even if the superior man is put in a lower role in the artificial hierarchy, his dominance is still undeniable. Today they must occupy positions of power even in this reverse hierarchy so they can exert the kind of influence they must.
This is of course more than difficult but it maybe possible by staying both inside and outside the system. Each man must have a plan to accomplish this. They must avoid places of gross stupidity. Just being there is a potential reason for corruption. They may experience direct attacks from men putting them in situations, which are not natural (normally a superior man should never meet a slave).

1. on subtle rape see “style elements of negative tendencies” (↑)
2. about the focus of the superior, see “style elements of negative tendencies” (↑)
3. the king is the active representation of One. This means that all men are his modalities and through all men he actively possesses all women. He may claim any and all attached (in actuality he never claims these) or unattached women. On a lower level (e.g. warrior) men don’t share women with other men. Since they are not controlled by sexuality, they can have more women. (↑)

What follows are predictions for the age of Kali (quarrel) as found in the Vedic scriptures written many thousands of years ago. Kali-yuga (the age of quarrel) started 5,000 years ago (3,102 B.C.) and is scheduled to last a total of 432,000 years, leaving 427,000 years to go. At the end of Kali-yuga (i.e., in 427,000 years) the yuga-cycle will start over with Satya-yuga, the Age of Truth. We should all note the Srimad Bhagavatam’s mentioning that in Kali-yuga many cheaters will claim themselves to be God, as we can very practically see this happening today.

Description of the Age of Kali

In the fourteenth chapter of the last canto of the “Paramahamsa Samhita” portion of the Vayu Purana, named “Sri Gauranga Candra Udaya”, Lord Brahma prays to the Supreme Lord Sri Hari thus:

“In the age of Kali, people are spontaneously attracted to sinful activities and are devoid of the regulations of the scriptures. The so-called “twice-born” are degraded by their low-class activities and those who are born in low-class families are always hostile to brahminical culture. The twice-born are low-class by quality and do business by selling mantras. These so-called learned men are absorbed in their intestines and genitals and their only identification is the thread they wear. Indulging in over eating, absorbed in bodily consciousness, lazy, intellectually dull and greedy for others properties, they are consistently against God-consciousness. Due to being overly inclined towards false paths without essence, they manufacture their own processes for self-realization. Neglecting their actual duties they are expert in blaspheming You (the Supreme Personality of Godhead) and the saintly persons; hence again Mother Earth is in tears due to this burden. Therefore, Oh Lord of the Universe, destroyer of the miseries of the destitute, please mercifully do what is befitting for the protection of the Earth and the living entities.”

“The very day and moment the Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krishna, left this earth, the personality of Kali, who promotes all kinds of irreligious activities, came into this world.”

- Srimad Bhagavatam 1.18.6

“O learned one, in this iron age of Kali men have but short lives. They are quarrelsome, lazy, misguided, unlucky and, above all, always disturbed.”

- Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.10

Foreseeing the incompetence of the people in this age of Kali, or the iron age of quarrel, great sages and saintly people throughout the ages have sought to benefit the general mass of people by revealing to them the knowledge contained in the scriptures, whereby they may attain relief from the inflictions of this most degraded and dangerous of all ages.

Elaborate description of the anomalies of Kali-yuga and the plight of the living entities is given in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Therein it is described how as the sun rose and after taking his morning ablutions in the waters of the Sarasvati, Vyasadeva sat alone to concentrate.

“The great sage Vyasadeva saw anomalies in the duties of the millennium. This happens on the earth in different ages, due to unseen forces in the course of time. The great sage, who was fully equipped in knowledge, could see, through his transcendental vision, the deterioration of everything material, due to the influence of the age. He could also see that the faithless people in general would be reduced in duration of life and would be impatient due to lack of goodness. Thus he contemplated for the welfare of men in all statuses and orders of life.”

- Srimad Bhagavatam 1.4.16-18

In the purport to these verses Srila Prabhupada describes Kali-yuga in this way: “The unmanifested forces of time are so powerful that they can reduce all matter to oblivion in due course. In Kali-yuga, the last millennium of a round of four millenniums , the power of all material objects deteriorates by the influence of time. In this age the material body of the people in general is reduced, and so is the memory. The action of matter has also not so much incentive. The land does not produce food grains in the same proportions as it did in other ages. The cow does not give as much milk as it did formerly. The production of vegetables and fruits is less than before. As such, all living beings, both men and animals, do not have sumptuous, nourishing food. Due to want of so many necessities of life, naturally the duration of life is reduced, the memory is short, intelligence is meager, mutual dealings are full of hypocrisy and so on.”

“The great sage Vyasadeva could see this by his transcendental vision. As an astrologer can see the future fate of a man, or an astronomer can foretell the solar and lunar eclipses, those liberated souls who can see through the scriptures can foretell the future of mankind. They can see this due to their sharp vision of spiritual attainment.”

“And all such transcendentalists, who are naturally devotees of the Lord, are always eager to render welfare service to the people in general. They are the real friends of the people in general, not the so-called public leaders who are unable to see what is going to happen five minutes ahead. In this age the people in general as well as their so-called leaders are all unlucky fellows, faithless in spiritual knowledge and influenced by the age of Kali. They are always disturbed by various diseases. For example, in the present age there are so many TB patients and TB hospitals, but formerly this was not so because the time was not so unfavorable.”

Elsewhere in the Srimad Bhagavatam Srila Prabhupada further reveals the degradation of human society.

“In the Kali-yuga the population is just a royal edition of the animals. They have nothing to do with spiritual knowledge or godly religious life. They are so blind that they cannot see anything beyond the jurisdiction of the subtle mind, intelligence or ego, but they are very much proud of their advancement in knowledge, science and material prosperity. They can risk their lives to become a dog or hog just after leaving the present body, for they have completely lost sight of the ultimate aim of life.”

- Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.43