The Yoga of Power - Chapter 2

KNOWLEDGE AND POWER

Tantrism, in its emphasis on self-empowerment, recaptures and stresses what may be called "traditional knowledge" of a metaphysical rather than profane nature. This knowledge is witnessed from the very beginning not only in Hindu areas but also in other traditional civilizations of a higher kind, such as those that flourished before the advent of modern civilization. It will be useful to point out briefly the implications of this kind of knowledge.

India possessed a metaphysics based on "revelation" (akachani, shruti), a term that should be understood differently than in the context of monotheistic religions, in which it is assumed that the deity has bestowed special knowledge on humanity, who is thus a passive recipient, and that a given organization (e.g., the Christian church) is in charge of safeguarding divine revelation in the form of dogmas.

Shruti, however, corresponds to the exposition of what has been "seen" and revealed (made known) by certain individuals, the so-called rishi, whose high "stature" is at the basis of tradition. Rishi, from dric, "to see," means precisely "one who has seen." The Vedas, which are considered to be the foundation of the entire orthodox Hindu tradition, take their name from the word vid, meaning both "to see" and "to know," which is an eminent and direct kind of knowledge assimilated by analogy to the act of seeing. The ancient Western counterpart to this term is found in Hellas, where the notion of "idea," because of its root id, identical to the Sanskrit vid (hence Veda), suggests a knowledge based on seeing. Tradition in the form of shruti records and proposes what the rishi have "seen" directly, on a superindividual and superhuman plane. In its inner and essential aspect, the foundation of the entire Hindu metaphysics may be said to rest on this.

Regarding a knowledge that presents itself under these terms, the attitude to be taken is not different from that taken toward one who claims that in an unknown continent there are certain things, or toward a physicist expounding the results of his experiments. One may simply believe, relying on the authority and truthfulness of the interlocutor; or one may attempt to verify personally whether what has been said is true or not, in the first instance, by undertaking a trip, and in the second, by gathering all the elements necessary for reproducing the experiment oneself. These are the only two sensible attitudes to be taken regarding a rishi's claims, unless one intends to ignore anything related to metaphysics. This is not a matter of abstract concepts, of "philosophy" in the modern sense of the term, or of dogmas, but rather of material from which experiences can be derived, since tradition offers the means and singles out the disciplines with which it is possible to "verify," through personal and direct evidence, the reality of what has been communicated. It seems that in the Christian West the adoption of a similar experimental approach has been granted only to mysticism, since theology defined it as a cognitio experimentalis dei and described it as something that is beyond both mere faith and agnosticism. (Christian mysticism, however, should not be equated with the kind of knowledge I have been talking about, because its background is emotional rather than noetic, and religious rather than metaphysical).

The prevailing orientation of the Tantras runs on the same lines. They repeatedly affirm that a mere theoretical exposition of doctrine has no value whatsoever. What especially matters, according to them, is the practical method of self-fulfillment, the body of means and rituals through which certain hidden truths may be recognized. This is why Tantras wish to be referred to as sadhana-shastra - sadhana being derived from the root sadh, which means exerting will power, effort, training, or activity in the hope of achieving a given result. A Tantric author remarked: "At the present time the general public are ignorant of the principles of the Tantra Sastra. The cause of this ignorance is the fact that the Tantra Sastra is a Sadhana Sastra, the greater part of which becomes intelligible only through Sadhana."

It is therefore not enough to abide by the theory of the identity between the deeper self (atman) and the principle of the universe (brahman) and "to remain idle, vaguely thinking of the conscious ether." The Tantras deny the value of knowledge to this. In order to obtain true knowledge, one must be transformed by action; hence kriya, action, became the password. To this idea, Tantric Buddhism, or Vajrayana, gave a supple expression by employing the symbol of sexual union between the "effective way" (upaya) and knowing, in which the former plays the male role.

It should be noted that in the higher forms of Tantrism this point of view is even applied to cult and eventually not only to metaphysics, to the sacred and transforming knowledge, but also to knowledge of nature.

As far as cult (puja) is concerned, I shall discuss later the special role that it plays in Tantrism, together with the various evocations and ritual and magical identifications. Moreover, it is a Tantric notion that one cannot adore a god without "becoming" that god, which brings us back to experimentalism rather than to any religious dualism.

As far as the sciences of nature are concerned, we would have to go to great lengths to explain the opposition between "traditional" knowledge and knowledge of the so-called scientific, modern type. This is not just the view of Tantrism, since on this matter it followed previous traditions and in the process of developing its own cosmology and its doctrine of manifestation it borrowed, adapted, and developed their teachings and fundamental principles.

Briefly stated, here is the situation: According to the modern point of view (which in a Hindu perspective would be considered to be typical of the most advanced phase of the "dark age"), we can directly apprehend reality only through those aspects revealed to us by physical senses and by their extension, namely scientific instruments, or, according to the terminology proper to some philosophies, through its "phenomenic aspects." Positive sciences gather and organize data provided by sensory experiences, and only after having made a certain choice between them (excluding those with a qualitative character and essentially relying on those that are susceptible to measurement and "computation") does it inductively arrive at some knoledge and laws of an abstract and conceptual nature. To them, however, there no longer corresponds an intuition, an unmediated perception, or an intrinsic evidence. Their truth is indirect and conditioned, and it depends on experimental examination, which may eventually lead to a reshaping of the previous system.

In the modern world, in addition to science one encounters "philosophy," but only to find in it abstractions and a mere conceptual speculation, which is broken down into a discordant multiplicity of systems espoused by individual thinkers. This world of philosophy may be said to be eminently "unrealistic." The choice seems to be between these two alternatives: either a direct and concrete knowledge depending on the sense, or a knowledge that is presumed to be able to go beyond this "phenomenic" world of appearances, but that is still abstract, cerebral, merely conceptual, or hypothetical (scientific philosophies and theories).

This means that the ideal of "seeing," namely, of a direct form of knowledge verging on the heart of reality, despite having a noetic, objective character (an ideal that was still preserved in the medieval notion of intuitio intellectualis), has been set aside. It is interesting to notice that in the so-called European critical philosophy of Kant, intellectual intuition is still thought of as a faculty capable of apprehending not just the phenomena but the essences as well (the "thing in itself," the noumenon), and yet this capability is assumed to be precluded to man (just as scholastic philosophy had taught). That assumption was made in order to clarify, through antithesis, what according to Kant was the only knowledge available to man: mere sensory knowledge, scientific knowledge, whose abstract, nonintuitive character we have so far discussed, and which may show with a high degree of precision how forces of nature act, but not what they are.

In esoteric teachings, including the Hindu ones, such a limitation is considered to be surmountable. As we shall see, classical yoga in its various articulations (yoganga) may be said to offer the methods of a systematic overcoming of such a limitation. The bottom line is this: there is no such thing as a world of "phenomena," of perceptible forms, and behind it, an impenetrable, true reality: the essence. There is only one given reality, which is multidimensional; there is also a hierarchy of possible forms of human and superhuman experiences, in relation to which these various dimensions are progressively disclosed, until one is able to perceive directly the essential reality. The type or ideal of knowing, which is that of a direct knowledge (sakshastra, aparokshajnana) of a real experience and of an immediate evidence (anubhava), is always preserved in all these levels. As we previously stated, the common person, especially the one living in the end times, in the Kali Yuga, can enjoy such a knowledge only when it comes to physical and sensory reality. The rishi, the yogi, or the Tantric siddha can go beyond that reality, in the context of what may be called an integral and transcendental experimentalism. According to this point of view there is no such thing as a relative reality and, beyond it, an absolute, impervious reality, but rather a relative, conditioned method of perceiving the only reality, and an absolute method.

The immediate connection between this traditional epistemology and the main concerns of Tantrism is rather obvious. In fact, in this order of ideas, the way to any superior knowledge seems to be contingent upon one's self-transformation, an existential and ontological change of level, and therefore, upon action, sadhana. This conception contrasts with the general view offered by the modern world. Modern scientific knowledge, in its technical applications, confers to modern man multiple possibilities with impressive consequences on the practical and material plane, while leaving him, on a concrete plane, at the same level. For instance, if through modern science we happen to learn the approximate processes and constant laws of physical phenomena, our existential situation has still not changed a bit. In the first place, the fundamental elements of physics are nothing but differential functions and integrals, namely, abstract algebraic entities, of which, in a strict sense, we cannot claim to have either an intuitive image or a concept, since they are mere instruments of calculation ("energy," "mass," "cosmic constant," "curved space," are nothing but verbal symbols). Second, after we have "known" all this, our real relationship with phenomena still has not changed. The same applies to the scientist who elaborates knowledge of such a kind and even to one who develops innovative technology: fire will still burn him, organic modifications and passions will still trouble his soul, time will still dominate him with its laws, the sight of nature will still not speak to him, but it will mean to him less than it did to primitive man. This is because the scientific formation of modern civilized man entirely desacralizes the world and petrifies it in the ghost of sheer, mute appearances. These appearances, along with knowledge of the kind discussed so far, make room only for the aesthetic and lyrical emotions of poets and artists, which obviously have no scientific or metaphysical value, being merely subjective experiences.

The prevalent alibi of modern science is the claim to power; and that argument, in this context, deserves to be considered, since shakti as power, as well as siddhis (namely, powers), plays an important role in Tantrism and related currents. Modern science offers the proof of its validity through the positive results achieved, particularly by putting at man's disposal such a power that has, so it is claimed, no precedents in previous civilizations.

We are dealing here with a misconception of the term power, since no distinction is made between a relative, external, inorganic, conditioned power and true power. Obviously, all the opportunites offered by science and technology to people of the Kali Yuga are exclusively of the first type. Action produces results only because it conforms itself to given laws, which scientific research has pointed out, laws that action presupposes and obeys to the letter. The effect, therefore, is not directly connected to man, to the Self, or to his free will, as to its cause; between action and result there is a series of intermediaries that do not depend on the Self, and that are necessary in order to achieve what one wants. It is not just a matter of devices and machines, but of laws, of natural determinism that could go this way or that way, unintelligible in its essence; such mechanical power, is, after all, precarious.

In no way does it represent a possession of the Self, nor is it one of the Self's powers. What has been said about scientific knowledge applies as well: it does not change the human condition, the existential situation of an individual, nor does it presuppose or require any transformation of that kind. It is rather something added on, superimposed, which does not imply any self-transformation. No one claims that we show any real superiority when we are capable of doing this or that by availing ourselves of any technical means: we do not cease to be mere humans, not even as lords of atomic weapons who can disintegrate a planet by pushing a button. And worse yet, if as a consequence of any given cataclysm people living in the Kali Yuga were deprived of all their machines, in the greatest majority of cases they would probably find themselves in a worse predicament than uncivilized primitives do when facing the forces of nature and the elements. That is because machines and technology have atrophied their true strength. We may well say that modern man, by virtue of a diabolical mirage, has been seduced by the "power" he has at his disposal, and of which he is so very proud.

That which does not depend on the laws of nature, but which rather bends, changes, and suspends them, is a different kind of power. It is a direct acquisition of a few superior beings. The condition for such power and for the real knowledge I previously mentioned lies in the removal of the human condition, that is, of the limit represented by what the Hindus call "physical Self"(bhutatman, the elemental Self). The axiom of all yoga, of Tantric sadhana and analogous disciplines, corresponds to Nietzsche's saying "man is something that must be overcome," only taken more seriously. As is the case with initiation in a general sense, the human condition is not accepted as one's final destiny; it is intolerable to be merely mortal. Overcoming the human condition, in the framework of such disciplines, is in various degrees the condition for authentic power, for the acquisition of siddhis. To be precise, these siddhis do not represent the goal (to consider them as such is often reputed to be a deflection), but rather they are the natural consequence of an achieved superior existential and ontological status. Far from being something added on or extrinsic, they are a characteristic of a spiritual superiority (it is interesting to notice that the term siddhis, besides "extraordinary powers," means "perfections"). Therefore, they are always a personal achievement, and as such they cannot be transferred, nor are they "democratizable."

There is a deep hiatus separating the traditional and the modern world. The knowledge and powers pursued by the modern world are democratic, that is , available to anyone endowed with enough intelligence to achieve, through educational institutions, a knowledge of modern natural sciences. It is enough to gain through training a certain level of knowledge that does not involve the deepest nucleus of one's being in order to be able to correctly deploy technological means. A handgun will produce the same results in the hands of a lunatic, a soldier, or a great statesman; in the same sense, anyone can be transported in a few hours from one continent to another. We may well say that this "democracy" has been the leading principle in the systematic organization of modern science and technology. As we have seen, the real differentiation of beings is the condition for an inalienable knowledge and power, which cannot be transferred to others; they are exclusive and "esoteric," not artificially, but by virtue of their very nature. They represent exceptional peaks of achievement of which the whole of society cannot partake. What is open to society are only opportunities of an inferior kind, precisely those that have been developed in the late Kali Yuga, in a civilization that has no correspondence with previous ones. In the context of traditional civilizations, besides these material opportunities (the paucity of which was due to the lack of interest people had in them), artistic activities could be pursued by anyone who had any interest in them. Generally speaking, they were characterized by various ways of life essentially oriented toward higher planes of being. This spiritual climate has been maintained in more than one area until relatively recent times.

I thought it necessary, as a way of introduction, to expose these critical and theoretical principles in order to give the reader a sense of direction into the spiritual world we are about to enter. As we approach our subject matter, I will add two more considerations, the first, again, concerning the science of nature. As I have said, in the data furnished by common experience, modern science has found only the so-called first qualities, namely, extension and movement, to be useful for its own purposes. The so-called secondary qualities, such as the quality of things and phenomena, have been excluded as such and treated only from a psychological and subjective point of view. In reality, however, no object or phenomenon is directly experienced through extension and movement only, but is rather perceived together with other qualities. In India, a qualitative-psychological physics has been develped, with "atoms" and "elements" that consdier reality not merely under the species of extension and movement but rather according to various qualities corresponding to different senses; such are the mahabhuta, the paramanu, and the tanmantra. These principles of the natural order are not abstract apeculations but rather potential objects of a direct experience, while at the same time they retain the value of explanatory principles of the system on which the world is built. They can be perceived by the special faculties developed by yoga and by sadhana. Then we can see how there corresponds to them a meaning, a form of evidence or special enlightenment.

The perfect, liminal degree, in higher knowledge, is that in which being is identified with knowing, in which the contraposition between subject and object, between I and not-I (which is found in every form of modern scientific knowledge, constituting its methodological premise) is finally removed. Jnanayoga, in its last stage, aims at achieving this state, called samadhi. But if instead of turning to Patanjali's Yoga-Sutras we turn to Tantric metaphysics, the essence or bottom line of everything is shakti, or power; hence the connection with the doctrine of siddhis, of superhuman powers. We can also read in it about an alleged process in the world in which Shakti, after becoming explicit in the realm of the not-I and consequently becoming obfuscated and unconscious, gradually awakens, acquires a conscious form (chidrupini-shakti), unites with her principle or "male partner" (Shiva), and finally becomes one with him. As we shall see, according to Tantric hatha yoga, this process is repeated inside the practitioner. It forms the basis of a doctrine of certainty.

A Tantric commentator remarks that things are power and the "power of a thing does not wait for intellectual recognition." One may amuse oneself by calling the world an illusion, or think of it as unreal, but "karma," the force of action, will force him to believe in it." We can always ask of something, Why is it like this and not like something else? "In reality the Lord himself [Ishvara], would not elude these questions, which are the natural mark of ignorance." These problems come up as long as one remains in an extraneous or passive relatinship with Shakti's manifestations in the world. These problems end, the Tantric author claims, only when the individual, because of sadhana, activates in himself the Shiva principle, that is, the radiant and dominating counterpart of the primeval power. In him, there will then emerge a particular and suprarational kind of evidence and certainty, bound to a power. It is claimed concerning the fundamental requirement of practice: "Every Scripture is but a means. It is not useful to one who has not yet known the Devi [goddess = Shakti] and is not useful to one who has already known her." After all, it is an Upanishadic theme that "into blind darkness enter they that worship ignorance; into darkness greater than that, as it were, they that delight in knowledge," and that those who have studied, upon attaining true knowledge, "throw away books as if they were on fire."

The abovementioned polemical remark against those who think of the world as illusion was obviously aimed at that current of thought whose most extreme expression was represented by the Vedantic doctrine of Shankara. It is not meaningless, at this point, to see how that polemic was conducted. Vedanta claims that the only reality is that of the plain Absolute, in its formless and undetermined aspect, the so-called nirguna-brahman. Everything else, the world and all its manifestations, is "false," a mere product of the imagination (kalpana), a mere appearance (avastu): here is the well-known and much -abused concept of maya, of the world as maya. A hiatus is thus established: nothing unites the real, brahman, with the manifestation, the world. Between them there is not even an antithesis, since one is and the other is not.

In the polemics carried on by the Tantras, their orientation toward concreteness is confirmed. It is true that from the point of view of the Absoute, the manifestation cannot exist in and by itself, since there cannot be a being outside of Being. A question may be asked, however, as to what exactly is one who professes the doctrine of maya: if he is Brahman itself or one of the beings that exist in the realm of maya. As long as one remains a human, namely a finite and conditioned being, one certainly cannot be calle nirguna-brahman, which is the unchanging pure Absolute without determinations and forms. Therefore, such a person cannot be but maya, since outside of nirguna-brahman one finds only maya. But if that person - the extremist Vedantist - in his existential reality, as a human, a jiva, a living being, is maya, then everything that he claims will be but maya (appearance and falsehood), including hs theory according to which only nirguna-brahman is real while everything else is illusion and falsehood.

This argument, which employs a subtle dialectic, is unexceptionable. Tantras say that the world as we know it may be maya from the point of view of brahman and of the siddha, one who has completely overcome the human condition. But such is not the case from the point of view of every finite consciousness, in the experience of common people, to whom it is instead an indisputable reality that cannot be prescinded from. Until one perseveres in his condition, one is not authorized to call the world maya in the Vedantic sense of the word. In a commentary to the Isha-Upanishad, it is emphasized that by insisting on the doctrine of maya and on the absolute contradiction between the supreme principle and everything that is determined and endowed with form, the very possibility of yoga and sadhana would be compromised, since "it is impossible that something would be transformed into its own very contradiction."

"We are mind and body: if mind and body (inasmuch as they belong to the world of maya) are false, how can one hope to achieve through them that which is true?" Strictly speaking, the extremist Vedantic doctrine of maya would therefore deny to the individual the very possibility of elevating oneself toward the principle, since such a possibility of elevating oneself toward the principle, since such a possibility presupposes that between these two no hiatus exists (a relationship between not-being and being), but rather a certain continuity. That is why, because of its concern to establish the necessary premises of yoga and, generally speaking, of sadhana, the practice leading to realization, and in order to prevent any contemplative escapism, Tantrism formulated a doctrine of the "active brahman" that is no less metaphysical than Vedanta's. Tantrism accomplished this by introducing the notion of shakti and by reshaping the maya theory. In the following pages we will mainly deal with that doctrine.



-Julius Evola, from The Yoga of Power: Tantra, Shakti, and the Secret Way