Where does Béla Hamvas – in my opinion – err? I had been feeling something behind the ears not allowing me to accept the ideas of the great Hungarian uncritically, but I did not know what bothered, pinched, like nails in the soles (though now there are no nails in the soles).

Last night, I watched a good document by Martin Scorsese about George Harrison, „Living in the Material World„, and at some point of consideration about the mysticism, mantras and meditation, something occurred to me saying that to life (the absolute, the essence of God, you can call it as you want) no intermediaries or tools were needed. I cannot profess a good or bad religion, and I have to live my God or my life experience, not to speak of them.

Where does Béla Hamvas err?

Therefore, (I know I am treading muddy ground) we should not protect ourselves (as Hamvas did) in rationalizations to explain that the euphoria is needed on the excellent religion provided by wine because life in itself is euphoria and if it is lived (not professed), it does not require external tools. Yes, wine is another taste in our life’s millions of flavours. We should know them and admire them if they are good, but we should not have to create another idol obscuring the essence. Drinking wine and evaluating such drinking becomes mantras supporting meditation, but it cannot replace this meditation…