Homosexuality, “Traditionalism” and Really Existing Tradition

It’s a rare experience to find one’s self battling bourgeois "Traditionalism" at the side of Baron Julius Evola, and I gotta say, I like it!

Shortly after the war, Baron Evola found himself the target of some aspersions from self-styled “Traditionalists” which led him to these valuable reflections [1] on:

…the danger of a Guénonian "scholasticism" (in the negative sense of the term), which can reduce everything to something which is both inoperative and abstract, despite the claims (without a proof) advanced by many followers of Guénon, of having attained a knowledge which should be "realizing" as well. The proof that such a danger is real, is given by the orientation taken by some Guénonian cliques of "strict observance." An example is also found in Italy, by the periodical "Review of Traditional Studies," which was started last year in Turin, and which imitates the French Guénonian periodical Études traditionnelles even in its editorial contents. The translations made in it of old articles written by Guénon, along with some texts or theoretical orientations, may be helpful. However the tone of this review is a pedantic one. One can frequently notice in it an academic inclination, namely the style of speaking ex cathedra and ex tripode in a final and pedagogical tone, and with an authority which no member of the editorial staff possesses, either because of spiritual stature or because of valid works being published.

What Guénon had to say in an unfortunate essay concerning "The Need for a Traditional Exotericism," must also be rejected, since it offers dangerous incentives and alibis to a reactionary and petty-bourgeois conformism. The pedantic representatives of Guénonian scholasticism should rather strive to reach a deeper understanding of the true meaning of the Way of the Left Hand, which is not any less traditional than the Way of Right Hand, and which has the advantage of emphasizing the transcendent dimension proper of every truly initiatory realization and aspiration. An abstract and intellectualizing Guénonian scholasticism, typical of "research institutes," may well ignore the real meaning of the Way of the Left Hand.

"Traditionalists" are soooo boring...

The Timeless Relevance of Traditional Wisdom [Bloomington, Indiana: World Wisdom, 2010] purports to “rediscover the sacred worldview of Tradition, governed by truth, virtue, and beauty, as [it] addresses some of the most pressing issues today, including fundamentalism, gender and sexuality, religious diversity and pluralism, faith and science, and the problem of evil.” And while there is much good here [and well worth the $3.00 it‘s going for on Amazon, such is the modern world‘s disinterest] I find it discouraging, though predicable, to find this quote from the august Whitall Perry:

The homosexual error is, among other things, that of isolating one pole of a binary cognate and treating it as an absolute, which does violence to the imperatives of the cosmic order. [p.76]

Well!

This sort of flummery posing as profundity [what is a “pole of a binary cognate,” and how does a limp-wristed queen “do violence” to imperatives of no less than a “cosmic order”?] happens too often when Traditionalists attempt to pontificate [“ex cathedra” indeed] on subjects without, as Guénon would say, the proper data. The data, in this case, being knowledge of traditional societies, and knowledge of homosexuality. How then can they apply Traditional principles to either, or especially to their supposed interaction?

A conclusion is reached, supposedly by long and profound meditation of “principles” but really based on caricatures and stereotypes [“dangerous incentives and alibis to a reactionary and petty-bourgeois conformism“], and then merely dressed up, post hoc, in “deduction from principles.” Reading such comments, I am reminded of Peter Damian, the “inventor“ of the concept of “sodomy,” which has had a peculiar quality through centuries of discussion: it cannot be described, because though “unnatural” it is so delectable that a description would increase its occurrence -- especially among the clergy themselves! By the XIXth century, this theological scruple would produce “the Love that dare not speak its name.” [2]

This is all the more unfortunates, and unacceptable, since a man with the requisite knowledge of Tradition, and experience living in a traditional society, and experience of homosexuality, is available within the Traditionalist fold, indeed, among the very First Generation, a friend and correspondent of Guenon himself, and published alongside Evola by Inner Traditions: Alain Daniélou.

Daniélou, unlike any other Traditionalist, actually lived, “full time,” in a traditional society, rural India of the 1930s, where he became fluent in Sanskrit and Hindi, initiated into several local cults, attended the lectures of authentic traditional teachers, and, in short, acquired a knowledge, unavailable to Westerners or from “anglicized” Brahmins, of India art and philosophy that, unlike the “cult” status of Guenon’s work, was recognized by the scholarly world as unsurpassed.

He did all this while traveling the back roads of India in a Gulfstream trailer with his “long time companion,” as we would say, Raymond Burnier. While this lifestyle would have had him arrested in England, and even today in parts of the USA, he found that in India it was a non-issue: his French birth made him an outcaste, and since marriage was out of the question, his private life was ignored. [3]

Eventually, Daniélou learned that even theoretically [or ’principially’ as Traditionalists might say] there was no ’objection’ to homosexuality; quite the contrary:

Homosexuality is recognized [in the Hindu tradition] as a biological fact, given the necessity for all the intermediate degrees between masculine and feminine, and has never been persecuted. Its various practices are described in the classical treatises on the art of love, which every young scholar must study in just the same way as the other traditional sciences. Even today, boy prostitutes have their niche in society and certain privileges, in particular, that of playing female roles -- dressed as women -- at major religious performances, organized by the temples in each town or village, and representing episodes in the epics that recount the lives of the divine heroes Rama and Krishna. [4]

Such passages occur throughout his writing, but this one is interesting for containing both points I want to draw attention to. Traditionalists, by and large, are born and raised in modernized Western societies, and acquire their knowledge of Tradition largely through books. Daniélou is unique in having, admittedly at a later age, undergone the education of a traditional young man, and lived in a traditional society. He is thus fully aware of both the actual role played by homosexuals in such societies, as well as the objective, technical knowledge of it possessed by every educated man. [He is also the author of the standard modern English translation of the Kama Sutra].

Even on a “principial” level, Daniélou has no patience with such simple-minded shuffling of “archetypes”, pointing out that if there are two basic principles, light and dark, male and female, etc., then there must be many “resultant intermediate states.” Shiva, for example, is not merely paired with Shakti, but manifests in many forms, some bisexual or hermaphroditic, which are the subject of numerous homosexual cults. [5]

All this is in contrast to say, Guenon, who learned his “Eastern Metaphysics” in Paris, from some traveling Hindus. The dangers of this were immediately apparent in his condemnation of Buddhism as a heresy in his early works [unlike Evola, whose Doctrine of Awakening promoted Pali Buddhism as a true Aryan path].

Just as Guenon learned his anti-Buddhism prejudice from bigoted Hindus, and then “derived it from the Principles of Tradition,” so Perry and company read their Western, Semitic prejudices into their discussion of homosexuality.

Daniélou reveals that when Guénon eventually felt the need for some “hands on” experience, and wanted to settle in India, the British refused him a visa. Thus his “seeking refuge in traditional Egypt” was actually to his second choice. Daniélou regrets that Guénon was unable to avail himself of living Hindu traditions, which might have lent more nuance to his overly intellectual and abstract works. [6] Indeed, how different the overly-Islamized world of "Traditionalism" would be had he been able to join Daniélou in India; and how uncomfortable the "Traditionalists" must be today, stuck with their "last valid revelation" in post-911 America.

But perhaps they have only their petty-bourgeois conformism to blame. For what kind of world would Guénon have actually found in Cairo? Fortunately, we have the more recent work of John R. Bradley [7] to set the record straight on homosexuality and traditional Islamic societies. His journalistic account of really existing traditional Arab societies [where boys proudly seek wealthy patrons, and gay-bashing is as unknown as “Gay Pride” parades] parallels Daniélou’s account of how reasonable and homo-friendly Tradition was [8] until challenged by imported notions of “vice”, first Victorian, then “modernist” [and now, perhaps, “Traditionalist”].

For a more “academic” perspective, F Sadar surveys the Qur’an and haddith and concludes:
Given the Qur'an's emphasis on diversity, it seems strange to me that the sacred text would not recognise sexual diversity. When we are asked, in 17:84, to "Say, 'Everyone does things in their own way, but your Lord is fully aware of who follows the best-guided path", should we not include homosexuals in 'everyone'?

It seems that the Prophet Muhammad did. One reason the Qur'an mentions "men who are not attracted to women" is that such men existed in Medina during the time of the prophet. They lived outside the dominant patriarchal economy but moved freely amongst the women. The prophet accepted these men as citizens of the diverse society that was Medina with the usual stipulation that they should not break the ethical and moral codes of society. [9]

Apart from ritual abjuring of any approval of “negative treatment” of homosexuals [viz., murdering them on sight] there is still much of substance that we agree with in the rest of the essay by Ali Lakhani, from which the Perry quote was extracted, such as the absurdity of “gay marriage” and the evils of the consumerism that “the gay lifestyle” seems to bring with it. However, this all is covered by our distinction [first adumbrated by the late Alisdair Clarke on his blog, Aryan Futurism], between the Leftist-concocted “gay” identity and real homosexuality as it has existed throughout history. The later, much to the chagrin of the Leftist, has been largely on the side of the Right, from the ancient Männerbund [to which Evola traced the origins of Aryan culture] to the pre-War “Masculinist Movement” of Germany to William Burroughs‘ Wild Boys and pirate utopias. His comments on modesty and consumerism recall Sardar as well as Bradley:

Reading the Qur'an in terms of contemporary circumstances, is it not right to question whether the commodification of sexuality, the constant bombardment with sexualised images in advertising, for example, as well as the insistence on explicit display of sexual behaviour on tv and in the movies, has taken things to absurd limits and got the balance totally wrong? The pressure such commodification puts on people, especially young girls, to conform to the current fashion in body form, behaviour and acquisition of male company, far from being a "liberation", can be a nightmare. It is the kind of waking nightmare that far from encouraging personal fulfilment of the whole of our being emphasises one aspect of our nature to the detriment of all others. So, it seems to me modesty and privacy would have a large role to play in countering the excesses of consumer culture while they present no impediment to fulfilling our sexual nature in the privacy of our own homes. [10]

You would think that after the revelations about Schuon’s later activities, and even Evola’s remarks on whipping and deflowering virgins, the Traditionalists would steer clear of offering advice on sexuality. [11]

Still, we find much wisdom in an argument Schuon used in a different context, and with suitable though slight modifications, it can serve as our warning to Traditionalists [12] who would enter these topics:

[H]ow is it possible to brush aside entirely the intellectual and moral qualities of the ancient sages [who treated homosexuality as unimportant or even as particularly sacred] and to put oneself blithely on the other side of the balance? If a maximum of intelligence and virtue and a maximum of error could coincide in one and the same consciousness, as [Perry and company] take for granted, then man would be nothing, and the emergence of [these traditional sages and societies] - supposing them to be such - would by the same token be impossible. ... [T]his conjecture bespeaks a monstrous lack of imagination and sensitivity and is belied at every turn - we repeat - by the intellectual and moral eminence of the men at whom it is aimed. One almost feels the need to apologize for drawing attention to something so obvious. [13]

Notes

1. “René Guénon and the Guénonian Scholasticism” (from René Guénon: a Teacher for Modern Times) available at http://web.mac.com/juliusevola/iWeb/excerpts/Rene%20Guénon%20and%20the%20Guénonian%20Scholasticism.html
2. See Mark D. Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, especially chapter 3 on Peter Damian.
3. See his autobiography, The Way to the Labyrinth, New Directions, 1987.
4. India: A Civilization of Differences, Inner Traditions, 2003, p. 11.
5. See Virtue, Success, Pleasure & Liberation: The Four Aims of Life in the Tradition of Ancient India, Inner Traditions, 1993, pp. 95-96]
6. Evola makes a similar criticism of Guénon, in the article cited, and elsewhere.
7. Behind the Veil of Vice. Macmillan, 2010.
8. Islam, though an “Abrahamic” religion, purports to “correct” the distortions and lies that the Jews and Christians have added to Allah’s pure revelation; rather than wallowing in smug “folly” like the Christians, the Arabs preserved and developed Greek wisdom; reasonably enough, they took over Greek pederasty as well as pedagogy [see William A. Percy: Pederasty and Pedagogy in Ancient Greece].
9. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/2008/09/homosexuality_part_1.html See also his Reading the Qur'an: The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Islam, Oxford, 2011.
10. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/2008/09/homosexuality_2.html
11. Leaving aside the charges of child molestation, as “unproven,” Schuon on his own evidence seems almost to have, after moving to Indiana, come under the influence of fellow Midwesterner William Burroughs, devising a synthesis [despite Guénon’s condemnation of such ‘syncretism’] of Islam and Native American rites, which among other things required him to dance about clothed only in a “specially designed mini-loincloth.” One might even welcome him as a prototypical Wild Boys were it not for the hypocrisy of his animus towards homosexuality.
12. Is Perry “unqualified” as Evola calls his tormentors? Perhaps not; he is the author of some incisive essays, reprinted in Challenges to a Secular Societ,. Oakton, VA: Foundation for Traditional Studies, 1996, as well as the editor of monumental and invaluable Treasury of Traditional Wisdom [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971; Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2000].. In the latter work, the titular excerpts of wisdom are arranged by topics, within an overall structure, not unlike Mortimer Adler’s Syntopicon, while modern Traditionalists are quoted in the introductions, really mini-essays, to each topic, thereby avoiding the danger of seeming to elevate them to the level of revelation. However, curiously enough, Perry chooses to quote, along with the expected Guénon, Schuon and Coomaraswami -- Daniélou! Thus, if Perry is qualified, then so is Daniélou, with the latter having the additional qualification of actual experience, of both traditional society… and homosexuality.
13. Logic and Transcendence, p. 33.