THE Indo-European caste system is divided into four hierarchical categories and these, in turn, are populated by the brāhmaṇa (priests), kṣatriya (warriors), vaiśya (merchants) and śūdras (workers/slaves). Writing in Revolt against the Modern World, first published in 1934, Julius Evola describes this arrangement as
one of the main expressions of the traditional socio-political order, a “form” victorious over chaos and the embodiment of the metaphysical ideas of stability and justice. The division of individuals into castes or into equivalent groups according to their nature and to the different rank of activities they exercise with regard to pure spirituality is found with the same traits in all higher forms of traditional civilizations, and it constitutes the essence of the primordial legislation and of the social order according to “justice.” Conformity to one’s caste was considered by traditional humanity as the first and main duty of an individual. [p.89.]
This is compared to the four pistras of the Ancient Persians, traces of which were still evident in the Middle Ages.
Despite efforts to redefine it in accordance with the degenerate values of the modern world, caste is not related to the class system because it is not centred on economics. The fact that class also involves linguistic and behavioural qualities, on the other hand, should be enough to indicate that social categories of this type were once altogether different in nature. Behaviour, within the context of caste, is crucial and this four-fold system
defined functions and typical ways of being and acting. The correspondence of the fundamental natural possibilities of the single individual to any of these functions determined his or her belonging to the corresponding caste. Thus, in the duties toward one’s caste (each caste was traditionally required to perform specific duties), the individual was able to recognize the normal explication as well as the development and the chrism of his or her own nature within the overall order imposed “from above.” [p.90.]
Rather than sustain itself in a coercive fashion, therefore, the caste system was viewed as a “natural, agreeable institution” that allowed each individual to fulfil his or her role in the world. Evola points out that the system received its solidification by way of nature and not by the imposition of violence and brutality. It was only when somebody found themselves out of step with nature that the balance was affected in some way, although it was usually corrected automatically on account of its wider principle of unity.
The historians, economists and sociologists of today fail to comprehend the realities of the caste structure and insist that it is based on social injustice:
What upsets modern sensitivity the most about the caste system is the law of heredity and preclusion. It seems “unfair” that fate may seal at birth one’s social status and predetermine the type of activity to which a man will consecrate the rest of his life and which he will not be able to abandon, not even in order to pursue an inferior one, lest he become an “outcast,” a pariah shunned by everybody. [p.91.]
Evola counters such observations by explaining that people living within a caste system attribute their status to a higher order that completely excludes the possibility of mere chance or fortune. Examining the position of an individual or group of individuals within a particular society is worthless if it fails to take into consideration the idea of karma, or spiritual inheritance.
In fact Evola even notes that such a concept may be explained in a comparatively modern, philosophical context:
Kant’s and Schopenhauer’s theory concerning the “intelligible character” (the “noumenal” character that precedes the phenomenal world) relates to a similar order of ideas. [p.91.]
Each caste contains a cohesive blend in which its place on the hierarchical ladder is determined by a specific pool of spiritual and physical capabilities, psychological dispositions and functional skills. Unlike the modern world, where an individual is placed in the hands of a careers’ advisor or dispatched to a job centre, those born into a caste already know exactly who they are and what their actual role in life consists of. Evola, and rightly so, presents this state of affairs as “an incomparable sense of security”.
Once people begin to drift away from the Traditional society and lose their place in the caste system, every
field is saturated with disorderly, inorganic activities that lack a deep foundation and meaning and are dominated by temporal and particularistic motivations and by passions, cheap interests, and vanity. In this context, “culture” is no longer the context in which it is possible to actualize one’s being through serious commitment and faithfulness; it is rather the locus for “self-actualization.” [p.93.]
With the individual now said to be in control of his own destiny – at least in theory – a serious internal conflict arises, resulting in the loss of identity that characterises the world of capitalism. With modernity’s ever-shifting values centred around the sporadic fluctuations of the market, one has little chance of fulfilling one’s true vocation. Consequently, this leads to
a relative levelling, to equal rights and duties, and to an equal social morality that pretends to be imposed on everyone and to be valid for all people in the same way, with total disregard for single natures and for different inner dignities. The “overcoming” of the castes and of the traditional socio-political orders has no other meaning. The individual has achieved all his “freedom”; his “chain” is not short, and his intoxication and his illusions as a restless puppet have no limits.” [p.93.]
Contrast this rampant social instability with the strength and balance of a structure in which each individual is at peace with himself in a transcendent existence that is rife with meaning.
Although there are clear injustices in the modern class system, something that has been imposed by a rapacious and self-serving breed of merchants and moneylenders, the hierarchical verticality that one finds in the caste system should not imply that one caste is either superior or inferior to another. These terms only apply in the event that an individual – regardless whether he or she happens to reside among the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdras – actually fulfils a given function. Respect, therefore, is freely accorded to those of all castes who are faithful to their particular calling.
This is the true meaning behind the word dharma, which means “to uphold” one’s true nature. Those who try to move from one caste to another, or who feel out-of-kilter with all four, are viewed as pariahs and Evola attributes this to an “inner dissolution”. Even when the members of two different castes enter into a relationship, those at one end of the hierarchy feel just as outraged as their counterparts at the other.
These defining characteristics of Aryan India were still alive during the Middle Ages and one of the most visible examples of this could be encountered in the medieval professions:
The ancient German peasant, for instance, experienced his cultivating the land as a title of nobility, even though he was not able to see in this work, unlike his Persian counterpart, a symbol and an episode of the struggle between the god of light and the god of darkness. The members of the medieval corporations and guilds were as proud of their professional tradition as the nobility was proud of its bloodline. [p.96.]
The modern contention that Traditional communities are comprised of gullible people who are incapable of knowing any better is also taken to task by the Italian. Whilst it is claimed that those in the “lower” castes are unable to progress, perhaps in the way that contemporary Western societies like to motivate their citizens through greed and consumerism, even if a common worker was unable to comprehend or participate in the rites of the aristocracy he derived a great deal of satisfaction from knowing that he was playing his part in the grand scheme of things. Not through stupidity, or naivety, but simply because he understands the value of transcendental unity. Furthermore, the common man would be willing to demonstrate his loyalty – especially to a divine monarch – through the taking of a vow:
The view of the subject as a being connected to the person of his sovereign through a sacred and freely chosen vow is an ancient Indo-European view. In the traditional world, this fides or personal devotion went beyond political and individual boundaries, and even acquired the value of a path leading to liberation. [p.96.]
Without this essential interplay between “co-ordination and gravitation,” Evola says, the entire structure of the caste system becomes “dissociated and atomised” and this leads to a complete break with the higher powers.
