It opposes to contemplation a path of action...?

[Trap.jaw.800]

Hello,
While reading the first chapter of the book, The Yoga of Power by Julius Evola, i came across this following passage where the author says -

"Although Tantrism is far from rejecting ancient wisdom, it is characterized by a reaction against a hollow and stereotypical ritualism, mere speculation or contemplation, and any asceticism of a unilateral, mortifying, and penitential nature.
It opposes to contemplation a path of action, of practical realization, and of direct experience. Its password is practice (sadhana, abhyasa)."

Here (If i've understood correctly) the author is trying to say that Tantra is not just meaningless rituals, speculations or contemplations, but rather stresses on yogic practices and also on a direct mystical experience or realization (probably through meditative practices.)

Now, I'm having difficulty in understanding what the author meant in the bold texts above.

Was the grammar correct when the author said- "It opposes to contemplation a path of action..."?

If so, what exactly did the author mean in those bold texts?

A little help would be great.
Thank you.

 

[probus]

For context, the entire passage (indeed the entire book) is about Buddhism, a religion or philospohy that seeks ways to achieve enlightenment or nirvana.

I don't really agree with your interpretation. The passage in bold points out that there are at least two pathways to the goal. The one usually considered is contemplation. The other path is much more active, involving action and experience.

 

[jutfrank]

Here (If i've understood correctly) the author is trying to say that Tantra is not just meaningless rituals, speculations or contemplations, but rather stresses on yogic practices and also on a direct mystical experience or realization (probably through meditative practices.)

That's right. The focus is on action rather contemplation.

Was the grammar correct when the author said- "It opposes to contemplation a path of action..."?

Yes. Although the pattern used here ('to oppose something to something') is very unusual, it does make sense.

Read it like this: It puts a path of action in opposition to contemplation.

 

[Trap.jaw.800]

For context, the entire passage (indeed the entire book) is about Buddhism, a religion or philospohy that seeks ways to achieve enlightenment or nirvana.

I don't really agree with your interpretation. The passage in bold points out that there are at least two pathways to the goal. The one usually considered is contemplation. The other path is much more active, involving action and experience.

So which of these two paths, does Tantra prescribes to its followers in your opinion?

 

[probus]

So which of these two paths, does Tantra prescribes to its followers in your opinion?

The passage does not indicate a preference for one or the other. By the way, I should have corrected a small error in your English. Which of the two does Tantra prescribe, not prescribes.

 

[Tdol]

The phrase meaningless rituals is highly suspect to me, and I have lived in different Buddhist systems.