HRH Prince of Wales
"...the teachings of the traditionalists should not, in any sense, be taken to mean that they seek, as it were, to repeat the past – or, indeed, simply to draw a distinction between the present and the past. Their’s is not a nostalgia for the past, but a yearning for the sacred and, if they defend the past, it is because in the pre-modern world all civilizations were marked by the presence of the sacred. As I understand it, in referring to Tradition they refer to a metaphysical reality and to underlying principles that are timeless – as true now as they have ever been and will be. And, by way of contrast, in referring to Modernism they refer to a particular (though false) definition of reality; a particular (though false) manner of seeing and engaging with the world that, likewise, is distinguished not by time, but by its ideology.
In an article written in 1983 for the traditionalist journal Studies in Comparative Religion, Professor Nasr put it this way:
When we use the term ‘modern’ we mean neither contemporary nor up-to-date… Rather, for us ‘modern’ means that which is cut off from the Transcendent, from the immutable principles which in reality govern all things and which are made known to man through revelation in its most universal sense. Modernism is thus contrasted with tradition…; the latter implies all that which is of Divine Origin along with its manifestations and deployments on the human plane while the former by contrast implies all that is merely human and now ever more increasingly subhuman, and all that is divorced and cut off from the Divine source.
Most especially, therefore, we can see that it is the very timeless quality of these immutable principles of Tradition that makes its teachings so timely.
(The rest of the article is thoroughly recommended - link below)
http://www.sacredweb.com/conference06/conference_introduction.html
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Tradition
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I found it interesting that the argument about tradition was taken out of the realm of 'time' and therefore out of the realm of nostalgia or habit. I suppose one could take it further and remove any reference to 'time' completely. Then ask whether the source of thought in a given situation is divine or otherwise? 'Tradition', I suppose, would then be a systematised guidance to the former?
Almost certainly, as you say. It's this gift of restating that which is almost known, but has become dusty or confused or tangled, that distinguishes a timely tradition from a load of old books.
What I found fascinating about this lecture is that it accords perfectly with the School's general attitude.
In practice, however, it appears that the traditionalists produce fairly uninspiring results - eg Prince Charles's taste in architecture, which does, contrary to what he says, seem to exhibit a great deal of "nostalgia for the past", and very little else.
The assertion that "in the pre-modern world all civilizations were marked by the presence of the sacred" is tosh. All civilizations are marked by the presence of the sacred, so far as we can tell, certainly including our own. Despite all that has been said about the evils of the supposed dark age we live in, there is still abundant interest in the spiritual.
Anyone who wants to experience the pre-modern world can emigrate to Papua New Guinea or Amazonia, where there are many tribes still living in the Stone Age. But I don't think anyone will be booking their flights. 'Traditionalists' prefer their ancient world safely in the past, ie in their imagination.
I would go along with Prof Nasr's analysis in many ways, but I still distrust the motive. In my opinion, 'Traditionalism' as defined here is a reactionary, negative movement, and it therefore isn't going to inspire much-needed change.
Kevin said:
"The assertion that "in the pre-modern world all civilizations were marked by the presence of the sacred" is tosh."
Yes, it probably would take quite a lot of convincing to make a case for the Mongols or the Aztecs having presence of the sacred. Presence of a big pile of severed heads maybe?
I think this is why we cannot draw a line in the sand at a particular point of time and say, "everything before this is sacred, and everything after it isn't".
Kevin said:
"Despite all that has been said about the evils of the supposed dark age we live in, there is still abundant interest in the spiritual."
Yes, but most of this stems from various 'traditions' that date back to the pre-modern?
If the definitions of 'traditional' and 'modern' are referring, as the article says, to ideologies and not periods of time, then there needn't be any contradiction here. But use of the word 'modern' is not necessarily helpful in this respect!
Kapila, I think you make a couple of very good points here. The use of 'modern' is, as you suggest, the fly in the ointment.
I was going to delete that comment and just ask the questions (a) do people agree that HRH's view is pretty close to the 'average' School view; and (b) if so, does this help to illuminate some of the problems that we face?
Sorry, I don’t really know what the average school view is. I just found it illuminated something for me that hadn’t been clearly seen before.
Another aspect of this traditional vs modern question has arisen:
It is a common and perhaps legitimate view of the ‘moderns’ that many aspects of a tradition are simply ritual, superstition and pomp? Perhaps ‘moderns’ are incapable of even perceiving anything deeper than the ‘outer ritual’ but the accusation that tradition can become an empty shell devoid of the essence that once gave it life is not entirely unreasonable. I think most of us have experienced that virtually anything can become mechanical?
There is a metaphor given by Anthony de Mello: a man comes to a village and shows them how to make fire. After he has left they forget how to make fire but put the flint and kindling up on an altar and worship it.
How to keep the flame alive?
(on reflecting on this last question, this quote from Einstein came to mind)
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."
What I mean by the average School view is that if Prince Charles's speech were to be delivered at Mandeville, it would be accepted by most people as self-evidently true. Anyone who wished to disagree with it would be swimming against an overwhelming tide of opinion.
This doesn't mean it's wrong, of course, but that it fits with our customary assumptions. Nor am I assuming that you're subscribing to it wholesale, by the way.
I like the Einstein quotation!
Kapila - might we have the Einstein quote on the current first post? It encapsulates what the School could foster.
Kapila - might we have the Einstein quote on the current first post? It encapsulates what the School could foster.
Kevin said:
What I mean by the average School view is that if Prince Charles's speech were to be delivered at Mandeville, it would be accepted by most people as self-evidently true.
Quite possibly. I don't know and I increasingly feel it's none of my business what other people want to think or believe. I think we each need to genuinely enquire and look at the accumulated prejudices in the way. This will be different for many of us. I've been mostly ambivalent about the royals up until fairly recently, but the Prince Charles article explained something new to me. Its effect on the being was also 'light'.
Well, I just think that there is probably a link between the accumulated prejudices I have, and the accumulated prejudices of the company I keep.
I've only just read HRH's introduction to the Sacred Web conference in Edmonton - it's even better hearing him speak it on the given link.
He mentions the Temenos Academy and I would also like to recommend it. (See www.temenosacademy.org)
Temenos was started by the poet Kathleen Raine (and others)and has enjoyed the patronage and support of HRH. Their lectures and study groups are well worth considering. The lecture I last attended was by Prof. Keith Critchlow on Chartres. I don't recall any specific details - just enormous enthusiasm and energy!
A forthcoming series is called The Learning of the Imagination and starts with Psychological Perspectives given by Nicholas Pearson on 1 February and concludes with What the Romantics Can Teach Us by Prof. Grevel Lindop on 5 July.'To live by the Imagination is Blake's secret of life,' said Kathleen Raine.
Full details of these and other events are on the website.
Post a Comment