Julius Evola's distorting Theravada Buddhism

[4GreatHeavenlyKings]

From what I understand, Julius Evola was a devout Fascist and Buddhist who developed a, shall we say, strange interpretation of Theravada Buddhism, in which Fascism was the perfect political system and Theravada Buddhism, as interpreted by him harmoniously with Fascism, was the perfect religion.

I obviously disagree with these sentiments, but does any other person have any opinions about how Evola distorted Theravada Buddhism?

[Ceisiwr]

From what I understand, Julius Evola was a devout Fascist and Buddhist who developed a, shall we say, strange interpretation of Theravada Buddhism, in which Fascism was the perfect political system and Theravada Buddhism, as interpreted by him harmoniously with Fascism, was the perfect religion.

I obviously disagree with these sentiments, but does any other person have any opinions about how Evola distorted Theravada Buddhism?

Well have you read his books? What is it that he specifically twisted?

[4GreatHeavenlyKings]

From what I understand, Julius Evola was a devout Fascist and Buddhist who developed a, shall we say, strange interpretation of Theravada Buddhism, in which Fascism was the perfect political system and Theravada Buddhism, as interpreted by him harmoniously with Fascism, was the perfect religion.

I obviously disagree with these sentiments, but does any other person have any opinions about how Evola distorted Theravada Buddhism?

Well have you read his books? What is it that he specifically twisted?

I have not read his books myself, but I have learned that "from what I've been told he thinks that the Buddha was some kind of kṣatriya supremacist on the basis of the few texts where the Buddha argues with brahmins about caste and ridicules them. But he takes these out of a context in the Early Buddhist Texts where birth-caste is understood throughout as irrelevant, and is subverted by the introduction of a notion of "moral caste" which is literally just equivalent to good character. So the Buddha speaks at length in various texts about outcaste-born people who he considers to be Brahmins because they refrain from killing and cultivate friendliness to others and brahmin-born people who he considers to be outcastes because they kill and cheat and steal. It just is not possible to reconcile this persistent understanding of character-based caste and friendliness and compassion being the virtues of good character with the racist warrior ethic Evola is trying to get at, I think, unless you do what I've been told Evola does, which is declare certain texts arbitrarily to not contain the true teaching and to be later additions."

One quotation from Evola is "We can see that the effective aim of Buddhism was to discriminate between different natures, for which the touchstone was the Doctrine of Awakening itself: a discrimination that could not do other than stimulate the spiritual bases that originally had themselves been the sole justification of the Aryan hierarchy." Another is "In confirmation of this is the fact that the establishment and diffusion of Buddhism never in later centuries caused dissolution of the caste system—even today in Ceylon this system continues undisturbed side by side with Buddhism; while, in Japan, Buddhism lives in harmony with hierarchical, traditional, national, and warrior concepts. Only in certain Western misconceptions is Buddhism—considered in later and corrupted forms—presented as a doctrine of universal compassion encouraging humanitarianism and democratic equality."

[dharmacorps]

I haven't read Evola in years, but from what I remember his understanding of Buddhism and the Pali Canon was poor and the interpretation into a political viewpoint was hackneyed (as most attempts to politicize the dhamma are).

[josaphatbarlaam]

I have not read his books myself, but I have learned that "from what I've been told he thinks that the Buddha was some kind of kṣatriya supremacist on the basis of the few texts where the Buddha argues with brahmins about caste and ridicules them.

I think he only has one book on Buddhism, The Doctrine Of Awakening. You should at the very least read as much is available on the Google Books Preview (which is a lot). I did so over 2 years ago. By the way, he didn't care about Theravada, just the Suttas of the Theravada canon, but only the suttas.

As to the idea that at Buddha's time the Kasatriya's were the top caste, or that early Buddhism was a religious revolt led largely by Kasatriyas against the Brahmins, I've seen that elsewhere as well. In fact you could consider both Buddhism and Jainism as that, since both are putitively started by Kasatriya Princes and look down on Brahmins as wrong in religion.

But he takes these out of a context in the Early Buddhist Texts where birth-caste is understood throughout as irrelevant, and is subverted by the introduction of a notion of "moral caste" which is literally just equivalent to good character.

If you're familiar with Mahayana you know the phrase "sons and daughters of good families." What is a good family? (Rhetorical question---because we mean what did Buddha's hearers think when hearing the phrase at that time.)

In Pali we have the word Bhikku Bodhi ill-advisedly translates "clansmen." (Not the greatest of associations in English, BB.) As in "the goal (nibbana) for which clansmen rightly go forth from the homelife to the homeless life." This word is what Mahayana gives us as "sons and daughters of good families."

In Brahmanism, the word Arian mean the top 3 castes, and to say BB's "clansmen" would mean to say "someone from one of the top 3 castes." Perhaps Evola is knowledgeable of the region's history and is taking it that way. Fact is, BB's clansman either does mean "someone from a clan in the top 3 castes" or "someone from a religious family."

I prefer the latter. I think the meaning is that people raised as atheists cannot be Buddhists, it is for "sons and daughters of good families" that is "religious families." But its also quite likely in India at that time that such families would indeed be from the top 3 castes, so the two meanings merge into one as you go back further in history.

Don't take this as a defence of Evola; its only showing that his critics aren't very knowledgeable and don't read much...since this knowledge is not hard won and comes to me all from just reading the suttas and other volumes of Max Mueller's Sacred Books of the East, i.e. the ones giving translations of Brahmin Law. As for Evola, I find him too unimpressive to criticize or praise.

----Where Evola really gets wonky is understanding Arian as meaning a race rather than as meaning the top 3 castes, as it meant to the Brahmins, or as a saint as it comes to mean in later Buddhism. He is insistent that it means Arian as the term was then used in WW2 times and is wrong on that, and he spends way too much space on it.

So the Buddha speaks at length in various texts about outcaste-born people who he considers to be Brahmins because they refrain from killing and cultivate friendliness to others and brahmin-born people who he considers to be outcastes because they kill and cheat and steal.

You will have to list them then. I can only recall perhaps 2, where the argument is by no means that someone of the lowest cast is a brahmin in any sense but only that if they live morally they can go to a temporal heaven.

Nonetheless I think even Evola recognized that in the Kasatriya war against the Brahmins that he believed Buddha was engaging in, that Buddha redefined Brahmin to mean a Buddhist monk which essentially displaced the Brahmins as a caste (this is also obviously one reason he sees this as a Kasatriya attempt at destroying the Brahmins, i.e. how like the Dhammapada defines monks as becoming Brahmins thus eradicating the notion of Brahmin by birth and culturally appropriating the term Brahmin to destroy and genocide off the Brahmin culture by racistly denying it its right to exist...how very fascist.)

It just is not possible to reconcile this persistent understanding of character-based caste and friendliness and compassion being the virtues of good character with the racist warrior ethic

Its very easy. The Kasatriyas were wiping out the Brahmins by redefining Buddhist monks as the true Brahmins. Thus creating hostility towards the ethnic Brahmins to such an extent that when they said to a Buddhist layman "I'm a Brahmin" they would most likely get their ass beat or be killed for (as the layman would interpret it) impersonating a Buddhist monk.

And this kind of system was inaugurated by two Kasatriya Princes at about the same time, so its a clear Kasatryia War Against Brahmins as an ethnicity, a clear Fascism, from Buddha and Mahavira, one might say, especially if they are Evola.

Evola is trying to get at, I think, unless you do what I've been told Evola does, which is declare certain texts arbitrarily to not contain the true teaching and to be later additions.

I think he is skeptical of any notion that Buddha was against killing animals for food or killing in self-defence in the way Leftist Buddhists are skeptical of rebirth or anything about afterlifes or the condemnation of abortion in the Vinaya or anything against pandakas.

Surely he knew from the canon also that Buddha actually said "kings execute those who deserve to be executed, exile those who deserve to be exiled, etc." and thus was not a Leftist activist against the status quo with regard to the powers of kings. (Kings were Kasatriyas, so by Evola's interpretation that makes even more sense.)

One quotation from Evola is "We can see that the effective aim of Buddhism was to discriminate between different natures, for which the touchstone was the Doctrine of Awakening itself: a discrimination that could not do other than stimulate the spiritual bases that originally had themselves been the sole justification of the Aryan hierarchy."

Those with much dust in their eyes vs little dust in their eyes were discriminated at first. The first teaching was sepcifically given to those judged to have the least dust in their eyes. Were these of the lowest caste? or were they Kasatriyas?

Another is "In confirmation of this is the fact that the establishment and diffusion of Buddhism never in later centuries caused dissolution of the caste system—even today in Ceylon this system continues undisturbed side by side with Buddhism; while, in Japan, Buddhism lives in harmony with hierarchical, traditional, national, and warrior concepts. Only in certain Western misconceptions is Buddhism—considered in later and corrupted forms—presented as a doctrine of universal compassion encouraging humanitarianism and democratic equality."

Buddha never opposed the caste system as a social institution, only opposed the notion that an evil person of the Brahmin caste could not go to hell and a morally good person of the lowest caste could not go to a temporal heaven. The only modification of the caste system as a social institution was to destroy the Brahmin caste and replace them with the Buddhist monks. Evolva is right on that point at least.

[josaphatbarlaam]

in summary, brahmins are indian jews basically. what christianity does with jews, i.e. "those who believe in Christ are the true jews now and judaism in both its pre-christian (torah) and post-christian (talmud) forms are invalid as a religion now"...Buddhism does with Brahmins "Buddhist monks are the true Brahmins now and Brahmanism in its pre-Buddhist form (upanishads) post-buddhist form (gita/advaita) are invalid religions now." also jews offered animal sacrifices and Jesus was against it...Brahmins offered animal sacrifices and Buddha was against it. So the new religion banned it. Its a pretty perfect parallel. This is why some people even speculate that either the Brahmins were Levites who migrated to India (some Jews speculate this) or the Jews were just Brahmins who migrated to Israel (some antisemites sepculate that). Either way we see the two main religions on earth sought to wipe out Brahmins/Jews, and you can add a 3rd because Islam does too...and how? Always by supercessionism. "We're the real Brahmins/Jews now, not you!"

[Sam Vara]

in summary, brahmins are indian jews basically. what christianity does with jews, i.e. "those who believe in Christ are the true jews now and judaism in both its pre-christian (torah) and post-christian (talmud) forms are invalid as a religion now"... supercessionism. "We're the real Brahmins/Jews now, not you!"

Worth noting that supersessionism didn't claim that Christian believers became Jews, merely that the New Covenant replaces the old one between God and the Jewish people. Hence St Paul's insistence that Christians need not be circumcised or follow other Jewish cultural practices. And the present tense is inaccurate. Supersessionism has not been official Catholic doctrine for some years now, and different Protestant denominations vary. Anglicanism, for example, is extremely wary of making any such claims.

[josaphatbarlaam]

Worth noting that supersessionism didn't claim that Christian believers became Jews, merely that the New Covenant replaces the old one between God and the Jewish people. Hence St Paul's insistence that Christians need not be circumcised or follow other Jewish cultural practices.

Phil 3:3, "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh"

Rom 4:13 "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

Paul spiritualizes what it means to be a Jew, as Buddha does what it means to be a Brahmin. The true heir of Abraham is he who has the faith of Abraham (by which Paul means faith in Christ) and so on. Its the same game.

[Sam Vara]

Worth noting that supersessionism didn't claim that Christian believers became Jews, merely that the New Covenant replaces the old one between God and the Jewish people. Hence St Paul's insistence that Christians need not be circumcised or follow other Jewish cultural practices.

Phil 3:3, "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh"

Rom 4:13 "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

Paul spiritualizes what it means to be a Jew, as Buddha does what it means to be a Brahmin. The true heir of Abraham is he who has the faith of Abraham (by which Paul means faith in Christ) and so on. Its the same game.

I think we certainly need to distinguish between the spiritual and cultural aspects, because Paul didn't think that followers of Christ literally became Jews; merely heirs to the covenant. And, as I said, this is hardly a mainstream position in Christianity any more. Modern sensitivities largely rule it out.

[SDC]

I posted the following verbatim on SuttaCentral earlier today where there is an ongoing thread on the same topic:


Not sure how many are aware, but the translator of The Doctrine of Awakening by Julius Evola was Harold Edward Musson, who, accompanied by Osbert Moore in 1949, would go on to ordain in Ceylon as Vens. Nanavira and Nanamoli respectively. It appears that Evola was an early influence on both while they were still laymen (Musson translated the book to English while stationed in Italy during WWII). I skimmed Ven. Nanavira’s biography last night to see if I could get a better idea of how he understood Evola’s views, but all I could find was a short quote that Nanavira later had “considerable reservations” about the work (though no source was provided for that - probably one of his letters - I’m still searching). A nearby footnote indicates that early on - since there were so few books available in the UK about Buddhism - that Musson’s translation of Evola was an important early exposure for Moore as well. I’ve not had a chance to parse Nanamoli’s biography, and there’s no mention of the extent to which either was aware of Evola’s more troubling views (the work in question was originally published in Italian in 1943, it seems the worst of Evola came later?). Take this with a grain of salt, but considering how personally both monks took on the Dhamma, and the body of work they produced, it seems very unlikely that Evola’s early influence remained in the years that followed their ordination.

I gave The Doctrine of Awakening a quick glance last night and, like pretty much everyone who approaches the Dhamma for the first time, it seems likely that Evola thought it more as something to be used to further his own interests in the world - something to add to the identity for the gain of success, comfort and security. Considering AN 4.159, it is feasible that one could pick up the Dhamma still full of craving, desire, and conceit, and through those wrong views gain right view; but in doing so one must be willing to shed the absolute pinnacle of what they prefer, and whatever goal or ideal is representative of that preference. Evola shows no interest in doing so. His description is one of someone who believes he has grasped the “method” and finds it a useful tool for the refinement of his own worldliness.

Having dealt with - as a moderator on DW - the influx of many groups who use the Dhamma as a tool in the same way, it is always abundantly clear that something other than liberation is sitting at the pinnacle for them. An easy way to rebuke their views is to simply point out that Dhamma has not been given priority, and they are in the direction of enhancement rather than cessation, which is far from the point. Also it is pure sīlabbata-parāmāsa to take on asceticism in the manner Evola describes it: the idea that the duty in itself is enough for liberation; failing to see that purification of virtue is not a means for just any end, but meant to serve as an enduring basis for something you have yet to understand.

All in all, alt-right Buddhists (or anyone who upholds a worldly ideology above all) typically crack under the pressure of their own views. They are controlled, but not tranquil, and aggressive, but not confident. They uphold their acquisition above relinquishment, which is to say they are just as deluded as anyone else who isn’t hedging against wrong view. It isn’t really necessary to rebuke these views, but to represent the Dhamma in much higher standing (which it is). They simply can’t keep up because they would have to displace their view to do so.

The issue gets complicated, however, when those wishing to debunk the Evolas of the world themselves uphold an opposing view that may be just as worldly - far less in the direction of ill-will but not in the direction of relinquishment either. No good can come from that sort of confrontation.

The intent should always be to show that such a person’s placement and usage of the Dhamma is more auxiliary than primary and therefore something else is present that they still consider more valuable than development towards nibbana. Bring that to the fore (in a discussion if possible) and it should expose that identity is of the utmost priority to such a person, i.e. not the Dhamma.

Just my take.

[pulga]

From Stephen Batchelor's essay Existence, Enlightenment and Suicide:

In the same year The Doctrine of Awakening, Evola's study of Buddhism, was published in Italy. He regarded the writing of this book as repayment of the "debt" he owed to the doctrine of the Buddha for saving him from suicide. The declared aim of the book was to "illuminate the true nature of original Buddhism, which had been weakened to the point of unrecognisability in most of its subsequent forms." The essential spirit of Buddhist doctrine was, for Evola, "determined by a will for the unconditioned, affirmed in its most radical form, and by investigation into that which leads to mastery over life as much as death."

As its sub-title ("A Study on the Buddhist Ascesis") suggests, Evola's aim was to emphasise the primacy of spiritual discipline and practice as the core of Tradition as represented by Buddhism. He condemns the loss of such ascesis in Europe and deplores the pejorative sense the term has assumed. Even Nietszche, he notes with surprise, shared this anti-ascetic prejudice. Today, he argues, the ascetic path appears with the greatest clarity in Buddhism. ...

If one ignores Evola's suprematist and militaristic views, The Doctrine of Awakening offers a clear and often thoughtful account of early Buddhist doctrine. Evola proudly recalls that the English edition "received the official approbation of the Pali [Text] Society," through their "recognition of the value of my study." It is nonetheless curious that in 1951, so shortly after the war, the book would be published in London by a reputable Orientalist publisher (Luzac) without any reference to the author's extreme right-wing views.

[dharmacorps]

I gave The Doctrine of Awakening a quick glance last night and, like pretty much everyone who approaches the Dhamma for the first time, it seems likely that Evola thought it more as something to be used to further his own interests in the world

Well put SDC.

[josaphatbarlaam]

Evola was most impressed by the form of monastic life in Buddha's time being living outdoors in the forest with very little gear, and Nanavira probably was impressed by the same initially. But that form of monastic life was quickly replaced by settled monasteries after Buddha's death. Evolva saw that and believed it was due to the lower castes rushing in after the great Kasatriya master died, for as he lived it was mainly Kastriyas who would as part of the warrior caste have had survival training as kids and be capable of living in the forest whereas the lower castes would not. I imagine Evola would have viewed the establishment of nuns as being done by Ananda after Buddha's death in an extreme act of backstabbing. He's probably right too.

[SDC]

I imagine Evola would have viewed the establishment of nuns as being done by Ananda after Buddha's death in an extreme act of backstabbing. He's probably right too.

Are you saying that Evola would’ve likely held the view that the order was established after the death of the Buddha? Or that it was established by Ananda after the death of the Buddha?

[zerotime]

I gave The Doctrine of Awakening a quick glance last night and, like pretty much everyone who approaches the Dhamma for the first time, it seems likely that Evola thought it more as something to be used to further his own interests in the world

Well put SDC.

the SDC comment is very right. And probably is the only message useful in that thread.

Evola did an intellectual utilitarianism using the Dhamma to support his own ideas, around the existence of a supremacy of the spirit in his own terms.

Evola was an important author for the fascist ideology at those times. Need to say he was critique with the biological racism of the nazis and also rejected a racial anti-jewish position. Instead, he wrote about a type of "spiritual racism" including also the Jews. He was a fascist without doubt, although with his own peculiarities. You can read about these ideas and a general summary of the Evola's views in his book "The Path of Cinnabar"

Just to say, one should be aware about all these authors belonging to the start of last century who were appreciative of Buddhism. They arose very linked with their own times, ideologies, wars and social turmoils. We can find authors in both left and right ideologies. All they were, in a first place, very attached to their own ideologies, and any ideology means an strong attachment about how the world should be or not. They tried to fit some aspects of Buddhism inside their own views.

At those times, the comparatives and the ideological utilitarianism of Dhamma was common. Although note this is always present. This "misuse" of Dhamma teaching is similar to what frequently we can read today in internet places, like in example SuttaCentral. However, we should concede to Evola a personal honesty in the acceptance of that utilitarian view of Buddhism, because he explicitly wrote that he was not a Buddhist:

"The English edition of the book was approved by the Pali Society, a renowned academic institute for the study of early Buddhism, which acknowledged the validity of my work. My publication of The Doctrine of Awakening has led some to believe that I am either a Buddhist or a specialist in Buddhism. This, of course, is not quite true. Having reached my goal by publishing the book, I no longer focused on the subject. The goal I had set myself with the book was that of presenting Buddhism as an example of the 'dry', or intellectual spiritual path, based on pure detachment"

- "The Path of Cinnabar"

that honesty is more rare in our times, more replete of deceptive appearences for the naive.

Nobody has any authority to claim who can follow or appreciate the Buddha and his teaching. This means a nazi, communist, anarchist, left, right, or whatever ideological mind, he/she can appreciate the Buddha words until their understanding can reach. Maybe after that contact these ideological minds can change some things in their lifes or not according Dhamma. In any way, the arising of this connection for the appreciation of the Buddha teaching always is a rare and precious kamma to see in any being. While the arising of attempts to destroy such link is bad kamma and the work of Mara.

In a right-ideology person sounds logical seeing some Dhamma connection by the reading of Evola writtings. If somebody is anarchist he can have that connection by means Kropotkin. And if somebody is a left-globalist he can see that connection by means Suttacentral board.

Where is the problem at all.

(If somebody is interested in the Evola's views, here is "The Path of Cinnabar": https://archive.org/details/pathofcinnabar )