Letters from Vienna #155
Letter to Horst von Wächter II
Of Spiritual Battles
Dear Horst,
I identify strongly with your fight in defence of your father’s honour, which I regard as a righteous one. Truth and justice go invariably hand in hand and it’s vital for one to strive for both.
As is clear from the documents you provided me: your father was very brave to resist the pressure of those who wished to depopulate the Ukraine as a precursor to German settlement, a project which was undoubtedly slowed down by squabbling between the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS about who would get the spoils. By “throwing a spanner in the works” he undoubtedly saved millions of lives. That he is accused of being a “mass murderer” as a direct consequence is, to say the least, bizarre.
“The earnest enquiry by the blind King Dhritarashtra,” Paramahansa Yogananda tells us “seeking an unbiased report from the impartial Sanjaya as to how fared the battle between the Kurus and the Pandavas (sons of Pandu) at Kurukshetra, is metaphorically the question to be asked by the spiritual aspirant as he reviews daily the events of his own righteous battle from which he seeks the victory of Self-realization. Through honest introspection he analyzes the deeds and assesses the strengths of the opposing armies of his good and bad tendencies: self-control versus sense indulgence, discriminative intelligence opposed by mental sense inclinations, spiritual resolve in meditation contested by mental resistance and physical restlessness, and divine soul-consciousness against the ignorance and magnetic attraction of the lower ego-nature.”
“The battlefield of these contending forces is Kurukshetra (Kuru, from the Sanskrit root kṛi, “work, material action”; and kṣetra, “field”). This “field of action” is the human body with its physical, mental, and soul faculties, the field on which all activities of one’s life take place. It is referred to in this Gita stanza as Dharmakshetra (dharma, i.e., righteousness, virtue, holiness; thus, holy plain or field), for on this field the righteous battle is waged between the virtues of the soul’s discriminative intelligence (sons of Pandu) and the ignoble, uncontrolled activities of the blind mind (the Kurus, or offspring of the blind King Dhritarashtra).”
“Competing on this field are two opposing forces or magnetic poles: discriminative intelligence (buddhi) and the sense-conscious mind (manas). Buddhi, the pure discriminating intellect, is allegorically represented as Pandu, husband of Kunti (the mother of Arjuna and the other Pandava princes who uphold the righteous principles of nivritti, renunciation of worldliness). The name Pandu derives from pand, “white”—a metaphorical implication of the clarity of a pure discriminating intellect. Manas is allegorically represented as the blind King Dhritarashtra, sire of the one hundred Kurus, or sensory impressions and inclinations, which are all bent toward pravritti, worldly enjoyment.”
“Buddhi draws its right discernment from the superconsciousness of the soul manifesting in the causal seats of consciousness in the spiritual cerebrospinal centers. Manas, the sense mind, the subtle magnetic pole turned outward toward the world of matter, is in the pons Varolii, which physiologically is ever busy with sensory coordination.”
“Thus, buddhi intelligence draws the consciousness toward truth or the eternal realities, soul consciousness or Self-realization. Manas or sense mind repels the consciousness from truth and engages it in the external sensory activities of the body, and thus with the world of delusive relativities, maya.”
“The name Dhritarashtra derives from dhṛta, “held, supported, drawn tight (reins),” and rāṣṭra, “kingdom,” from rāj, “to rule.” By implication, we have the symbolic meaning, dhṛtam rāṣṭraṁ yena, “who upholds the kingdom (of the senses),” or “who rules by holding tightly the reins (of the senses).” The mind (manas, or sense consciousness) gives coordination to the senses as the reins keep together the several horses of a chariot. The body is the chariot; the soul is the owner of the chariot; intelligence is the charioteer; the senses are the horses. The mind is said to be blind because it cannot see without the help of the senses and intelligence. The reins of a chariot receive and relay the impulses from the steeds and the guidance of the charioteer.”
“Similarly, the blind mind on its own neither cognizes nor exerts guidance, but merely receives the impressions from the senses and relays the conclusions and instructions of the intelligence. If the intelligence is governed by buddhi, the pure discriminative power, the senses are controlled; if the intelligence is ruled by material desires, the senses are wild and unruly.”[1]
In the same way that one is best positioned to know what oneself has done and why I think it wise and prudent for every nation to employ its own “pure discriminative power” in examining its own actions. Thus, Americans should examine why exactly it was rare for prisoners to be taken in the Pacific Campaign or why millions of Korean, Vietnamese and Iraqi civilians were exterminated, British subjects should examine the genocidal horrors of the British Empire, while it’s up to Germans and Austrians to determine why the crimes of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen-SS and other units (e.g. Todt) led to the deaths of millions of Russians and Jews.
Films, such as “2 oder 3 Dinge, die ich von ihm weiß“ by Malte Ludin are infinitely preferable to ones such as “My Nazi Legacy: What Our Fathers Did” by David Evans for one very simple reason: Malte Ludin has greater knowledge about what actually happened and has a greater feel for it while David Evans ought, properly speaking, be directing his gaze to the horrors of the British Empire rather than filming a topic about which his understanding is clearly limited. Not only is the film not a success in clarifying matters, David Evans lays himself open to the charge of hypocrisy and double-standards, especially given the fact that the Anglo-American Empire continues to perpetrate its appalling crimes against humanity today.
“2 oder 3 Dinge, die ich von ihm weiß“ is about Hanns Elard Ludin, Hitler’s envoy and Plenipotentiary Minister of the Greater German Reich for Slovakia, who was responsible for the deportation of Slovakian Jews and executed by the Soviets in Bratislava in December 1947. More exactly: the film is about Malte Ludin’s (born in 1942) search for the truth about his father.
Paradoxically the movie “My Nazi Legacy: What Our Fathers Did” by David Evans seems to be about the crimes perpetrated by Hans Frank and (very) vague accusations against your father (for which no evidence was actually provided). Had at least one, single, credible witness or one half-way independent historian been called to account, a case against your father could have been made but to my recollection (and it is quite a few years since I saw the film): there was none.
I made the point after it was shown in Vienna that, given the British crimes in Ireland, the British had no right to accuse anyone of anything (those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones) while instead of focusing on Nazis in the past the film should have been focusing on Ukrainian Nazis in the present (this was in 2015).
I shall never forget the extraordinary reply of Philippe Sands: that according to a friend of his: there were no Nazis in the Ukraine! Had he failed to watch his own film, which showed Nazi (in Waffen-SS uniform) after Nazi after Nazi in the Ukraine?! Or had he only focused on himself? Was the whole film merely about his ego and nothing else? And, if this is the case, can you be surprised that he has shown little interest in the truth? The truth would undoubtedly damage his narcissistic view of himself, and that, of course, could never be permitted!
To be perfectly frank: I have never understood why, exactly, this film was made. If it was concerned with crimes against humanity: there are plenty of those around today! One doesn’t need to dig up German but ought to focus on the Ukrainian ones[2] or American ones in Afghanistan or Iraq. Why do American servicemen still pose in front of flags of the Waffen-SS (a Jewish friend of mine, a Vietnam War veteran, said that there were plenty of Waffen-SS flags to be seen in Vietnam)? And why are some crimes tolerated while others not? Are not human rights and the rule of law universal? And if not: how ridiculous, hypocritical or foolish have we become?
I shall devote my next letter to the work of Sönke Neitzel, who, I believe, provides one with a more sophisticated understanding of what happened to German and Austrian soldiers in World War Two, which might, hopefully interest you.
[1] pp.54-56, God Talks With Arjuna, The Bhagavad Gita, Paramahansa Yogananda