Evola is a thinker that I have a somewhat troubled relationship with.
Sometimes, he's brilliant (Revolt Against the Modern World, Metaphysics of Sex). Yet some of his books are rather wretched, many acknowledge then table difficult arguments, a few have absolutely bizarre tinfoil hat conspiracy theories (e.g. Lemuria, Atlantis, Hollow Earth cribbed from the Sci-fi of Bulwer-Lytton) and all his works are uniformly pretentious, but he has his moments (as much or more so than most post WWII continentals) and he is, if nothing else, a unique philosophical voice. How many other philosophers talked about the ontology of gender in the first half of the 20th century? Short list, that is.
Books like this one are part of the trouble I have with Evola. It's completely reliant on secondary sources, it's essentially a running commentary on Woodroffe's "Shakti and Shakta" (so much so that it really borders on plagiarism) and Evola seems more concerned with showing how "Adept" he is and throwing around as much Tantric terminology as he possibly rather than being concerned with explaining anything or exploring his philosophy. I honestly am a bit skeptical of the level of familiarity Evola had with Tantra since so much of this is lifted from Woodroffe and since Tantric documents were tough to come by when this was initially written in 1926 (versus say texts of Buddhism or the Vedanta). I can't seem to find anything Tantric besides Woodroffe cited in the bibliography, either.
It's the old occult/hermetic "Whose secret knowledge is bigger?", rather than the philosophy of religion/Orientalist, anthropological study, or philosophy book it should be. Anthropology books and Orientalist scholarship have footnotes. If you read Muller's "Dhammapada", half the page is footnotes on every page. A footnote every 30 pages is not scholarship.
This book's footnotes are anemic. While part of that may be the translator's fault, judging by his keen and readable translations of "Revolt Against the Modern World" and "Metaphysics of Sex" and "Ride the Tiger", I'd wager it's mostly Evola's fault.
While I'm rather grateful that someone would bother to translate this or any of Evola's work and Mr.Stucco should be commended for all he's done to make Evola's work accessible to a larger audience, a footnote on which work of Vedantic Monism (it sounds like something out of Guenon's MAHBATTV) is referred to in chapters like "Shakti: the World as Power" would be helpful, as would cites of obvious quotes from Spinoza on the godhead (where a reference would be helpful since Spinoza is seldom read anymore, even by people with philosophical backgrounds) or the fact "other" (23) is an obvious Hegel POS reference (another philopher virtually no layperson is familiar with).
I'm fine with Evola's usual philosophical references in his other books, but I'm not sure if he's implicitly referring to something else or not half the time in this one. The notes seem more slipshod than usual. Since many of these books aren't available in English, footnotes should be more thorough, not less.
Long story short, if you don't know anything about shaktic tantra, you won't learn anything from this book - it really is mostly a commentary on Woodroofe that Evola intersperses with comments about "the vira's path", which he proposes as an alternative to Nietzsche's Superman and Stirner's "hero's path". If you do know about shaktic tantra, you'll probably think Evola's interpretation of it is odd, but maybe interesting, if inconsistent with the actual texts. Evola's strength is not as a religious thinker or scholar - he's a philosophical one that uses eastern religions as the basis of his system, a la Schopenhauer, Hegel or Nietzsche.
Oh, E's system itself? As described in this book, it roughly borders on hinduistic antinomianism and forms a bizarre counterpart to Satanism's Rational Egoism - it's not focused on radicalized passions, but the detachment from them in the radical situation. This seem kind of counterintuitive - what then is the point of radical actions if no benefit is gained from them in detachment? Supposedly, it's less individualistic than those systems, though it's never really clear how.
Allegedly, detachment and passion "co-exist". Evola proceeds to table that whopper of a hole in his theory after mentioning "the difference from an individualistic Superman, not to mention Marquis De Sade, is rather obvious." (61). The thing is, it isn't, well not the second part at least. What's the point of doing something apart from self-interest, will, or whim? How can detachment and passion simultaneously co-exist in the subject? Personally, I think this again points to the fact Evola was completely reliant on secondary sources, namely Woodroffe - who was relatively uninterested in Power-as-an-end-in-itself (Evola's interest) or the "vira's path" and wrote nothing about it. His research was more descriptive.
The other major problem in the book is the fact Tantra was egalitarian in its recruitment of initiants, which is at odds with portions of Evola's philosophy. People from all castes could join. Evola glosses this as much as possible, since he finds equality reprehensible and at odds with Tradition.
In fact, the Tantra of Evola really seems to stand in direct contradiction to the world of "Tradition" and has far more in common with Modernity and its subjectivism, promiscuity, lack of the real absolute (with the abstract of money replacing Shakti, an absolute relegated in practice to the world itself without a center/monarch as anchor of the other-world), "equality", lack of center, structure, and relativism. Evola's Tantra, which mixes equal parts demagoguery, power-worship, occult, ritual, and dual moralities (itself a byproduct of egalitarianism, something Evola himself will write extensively about later) for the population and provisional moralities for the initiated is essentially just Hinduistic Naziism, even though he doesn't seem to realize it. It would be hard to see it as such in 1926, I suppose.
You really don't need to read through the entire book and its obscure references to chakras, etc to get that. In the "magickal" sense, the vira's path is a really "left-hand" system. The aghori path and esoteric hitlerism are the only things I've seen more out there and self-contradictory. If you follow either of those last two, best of luck in your imminent incarceration.
Essentially, do whatever you want, but remain detached, follow a ritual or engage with the Five M's, and it's fine (it's a provisional and partial amorality, not a total one like Nietzsche's). To be utterly frank, in the Western psychology idiom, E gives you tips on replicating anti-social personality disorder. Personally, I find that utterly horrifying. Your mileage may vary, though I wouldn't recommend it. Evola himself completely abandoned any philosophy vaguely resembling this after WWII. Look towards "Ride the Tiger" for his mature philosophy.
The funny thing is I think despite E's willingness to shock, his interpretation is probably less criminal than what Shakti actually was historically (despite the West's willingness to turn all Asian religions into pacifist hippie caricatures) - unsurprisingly, it's allegedly been the belief system of the Thuggee for quite some time. Also, Angulimala is generally said to have been a Shaktic Tantric devotee, which gives you an idea of how Tantra was viewed when it was first gaining popularity.
Extremely Limited Recommendation.
Largely incomprehensible to the educated layperson. Only for people interested in Tantra or in Western philosophers who use Eastern Religion. If you're interested in this, buy Woodroffe's book first (it's available for free online, too). If you are still interested after reading that (it's a slog, though it's thoroughly researched and decently scholarly) read some of Evola's other work. Start with the main trilogy - "Revolt Against the Modern World", "Men Amongst Ruins" or "Ride the Tiger", then buy this. "Ride the Tiger" or "Men Amongst Ruins" are the easiest to read, RATMW is his best book and the most systematic.
If you're interested in yoga (as an exercise routine), look elsewhere, if you're interested in the philosophy underlying yoga exercise, read something on Kundalini Yoga ("Serpent Power" by Woodroofe, etc).
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Great on Kindle
Great Experience. Great Value.
Putting our best book forward
Each Great on Kindle book offers a great reading experience, at a better value than print to keep your wallet happy.
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Get the free Kindle app: 
Enjoy a great reading experience when you buy the Kindle edition of this book.
Learn more about Great on Kindle, available in select categories.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Customer reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on February 3, 2010
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on July 19, 2021
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on August 31, 2006
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on March 20, 2019
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on February 11, 2007
