FMW and Rudra Chakrin

[Jeffrey Paige]

“Gus” posted a piece by “Rudra Chakrin.” At first I didn’t see how it
related to anything FMW wrote. However, upon further reflection it
could be a good study in contrasts—an idea that in important ways is
the exact opposite of FMW’s thinking.

After perusing the first ten listings on Google for “Rudra Chakrin” it
seems the idea of a “wrathful wheel turner,” or “Shambhala warrior”
with totalitarian power is antithetical to Buddhist pacifism, or the
major tenets of FMW’s philosophy. In particular, I call your
attention to: http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/SDLE/Part-1-10.htm

Rudra Chakrin, the Shambhala warrior, figures prominently in the
origins of the “Nazi religion.” The Nazis were attracted to the
“Shambhala warrior myth.” See reviews of the book Hitler, Buddha,
Krishna at: http://www.trimondi.de/H-B-K/inhalt.hi.en.htm

FMW was very critical of Hitler and the Nazis in his essay “The
Vertical Thought Movement,” written in 1940. It might be said that the
Shambhala warrior myth is symbolic of the inner battle we find on the
spiritual path, but many have taken the story literally and tried to
apply it to forms of government in the relative world. FMW pointed out
the flaws of such approaches as a way to achieve what he called
“profound social balance.”

The Discovery Channel produced a documentary video Nazis: The Occult
Conspiracy. It might still be available on YouTube. Hitler and his
inner circle—particularly folks like Goebbels and Himmler—were deeply
into the practice of mysticism and mystical states of consciousness.
They supposedly traced their origins to Atlantis. Ken Wilber
emphasizes this is not a condemnation of mystical states per se, but
indicates the low moral development of those practicing it. (Integral
Spirituality, p. 294)

Rudra Chakrin could be considered a “counterphase.”

“…if the initial construction is even the most phantastic
conceivable, and as far as possible from that which is generally
regarded as reality, nevertheless, if the counterphase is given full
recognition, the resultant is durable Truth. While, on the other hand,
if the original construction is in terms of the generally conceded
objective material, and grounded in the most careful observation, but
is not taken in conjunction with the counterphase, the resultant
effect is a false conception and, if believed in, produces a state of
real delusion.” (Aphorism 24, E & P, pp. 386-387)