The true essence of everything always abides, though unmanifest in the inner depths of very Being, while its sensory qualities appear outwardly. For it is impossible that the Divine Ideas included in the intelligible world should be evanescent: to pretend that the content of Divine Science is evanescent would imply atheism. ~ Nur ad-Din Abd ar-Rahman Jami, Lawa’ih
The descent of the Being, or the Self, to the human being, ends with the subtle and gross states. The subtle state has three sheaths, as shown in the following chart.
- Corporeal things
- Living beings, plants, vegetative soul
- Sentient beings, animals, animal soul
- Rational beings, humans, rational soul
- Sentient beings, animals, animal soul
- Living beings, plants, vegetative soul
Of course, the descent happens in reverse order, from the rational to the gross; the chart illustrates how it unfolds in time, as material objects seem to evolve from life to sentience to rationality. The subtle state may also be called the psychical. Note that the gross state and the subtle state together make up what may be called the corporeal world. That is why the following quote from Frithjof Schuon seems to be way off the mark:
I do not know from where Guenon gets this enumeration of the five conditions of physical existence which he calls ‘corporeal’: space, time. form, number, and life. l am in agreement as regards the first four, but not as regards life, because what we are concerned with here is matter or, if one prefers, physical substance. If one adds life, which is not at all a general condition, it is likewise necessary to add other secondary categories such as color and so on. ~ Frithjof Schuon, Rene Guenon: Some Observations
Five Conditions
Pace Schuon, Rene Guenon considers this to be a very important question, so it is important to “get it right”. These are Guenon’s actual words, which Schuon misquoted or mistranslated:
The existence of individual beings in the physical world is indeed subject to a set of five conditions: space, time, matter, form and life, which can be matched with the five bodily senses, as well as to the five elements. ~ Rene Guenon, Gnosis and Spiritualist Schools
Guenon identifies the source as the Sankhya of Kapila. The tanmatras are the five elements, which are related to the five senses, as shown in Man and his Becoming. Likewise the five elements are related to those elements. Therefore, the chief characteristic of the five conditions is their transcendence in the sense that they are never themselves manifested, yet are the principles of manifestation.
Space and Time are obviously like that; they are a priori to experience. That is, there cannot be any phenomenal experience without space and time. Space is not discovered by investigating the world, as if there could be someplace that is non-space. The same applies to time.
There is a further distinction. Time arises in the subtle state, but space arises in the gross state. Ether is the most subtle element, at the border between the gross state and the etheric body of the subtle state.
By “form”, Guenon means the ideas or essences in the Divine Intellect. Once again, they are not discovered through investigation of the world. Forms are not grasped by the senses, but rather by the intellect intuitively.
There is another possible misunderstanding: Guenon uses the terms “physical world” and “corporeal world” interchangeably. Hence, the corporeal world includes the subtle world. Perhaps the Greek word ψυχή (psyche) could be used instead of “life” to make the point more clearly. Psyche is “life”, but it has connotations like soul or consciousness. Now consciousness is indeed a “general condition”, irreducible to the other conditions; consciousness does not arise out of matter. Nor is consciousness discovered in the phenomenal world; on the contrary there is no phenomenal world without consciousness.
Colours can only arise in consciousness so they are indeed secondary. This dissolves Schuon’s objections. Matter will be taken up in the following section.
The Notion of Matter
After having addressed the issue of “life” as general principle, Schuon turns to matter:
For Guenon the notion of ‘matter’, is factitious, confused. problematic; it has nothing fundamental about it and is to be found nowhere except in the modern West. This is incredible. And what, in an altogether general way, is the sensible substance that one can touch, measure, weigh, analyze, and possibly work or shape? And why, for goodness’ sake, would this not be matter?
Now even a great intellect can be wrong, but his errors are usually deep and subtle. If the mistake seems so obvious, then it is likely that something essential has been lost. What follows are a few points to take into consideration.
Point 1: Matter is not manifested
This means that you cannot show me a piece of matter. Like space and time, matter is part of each experience, yet it cannot be experienced directly. Hence, one cannot touch, measure, weigh, analyze, and possibly work or shape it directly.
Point 2: Experience is of things
Following up on point 1, you can show me a banana, an automobile, a squirrel, and so on, but you cannot show me matter. Hence matter is not what can touch, measure, weigh, analyze, and possibly work or shape. Rather, those experiences are of specific things. You can touch a banana, weigh it, analyze it, and slice it up over your ice cream.
Point 3: Matter has no meaning in physics
This may surprise some people, but the notion of matter is not fundamental to physics. You could define matter as any elementary particle with mass. Yet quantum entities do not have size or volume as conventionally understood. That means that the classical definition of matter as “extension” is not valid. However, corporeal things do have extension.
Point 4: Matter is not necessary for sense experience
You can experience sights, colours, sounds, the passage of time, travel, and so on in your dreams or imagination. Hence, sensory experience does not prove the existence of “matter”.
Point 5: Matter is indeterminate
The “matter” of physics is more like the prime matter of ancient philosophy. That is, it is in an indeterminate state, just like Schrodinger’s famous cat. It only becomes a specific thing when it is informed. Wolfgang Smith has addressed this question adequately, so there is no need to repeat it here.
Epilogue
True understanding requires a shift in consciousness. The naïve view is that matter is reality and there are things “out there, right now” that run on their own power.
The shift is to understand matter as the canvas on which the Divine Archetypes are reflected. They manifest in space and time, so that they can be experienced in consciousness. It is a gift. You can grasp the Attributes in the intellect, but you can also experience them through the senses.
Here is also a lenghty document of the two gentlemen in question that might be of interest:
https://youtu.be/7Vlf8GQJFeY
Today I read some texts that describes Schuon as defiling minors with his cultic ritual, but what I gathered was that the profane world had misunderstood his apparently illegal activities with the Girls in their teens. For the ritual setting of the Khrishnaic dance with its touching of nude human bodies is completely out of the moral framework of sexual license.
Here is a short video on YouTube where Schuon discusses his views on metaphysics, esotericism, syncretism and religion.
https://youtu.be/OKgjGiTVbPo
Two striking differences between them seems to be in their relationship to syncretism and exoteric religious practice. Where as Guenon rejects syncretism and speaks of synthesis, Schuon seems to accept syncretism in esoteric practice, and whereas Guenon stresses the need for religious exotericism, Schuon seems to considered exoteric religious practice unnecessary for an esotericist or to a metaphysician.
I’ve also heard Schuon was also quite extravagant which derived from his experience of Mary from which he made his practice of ritual nudity going all the way to the practice of sexual magic. Some have said it was a sign of a spiritual illness rather than a mystical revelation.
The last, decisive, view of Schuon et al., wriiten a few montgs before Guénon passed away:
Letter from René Guénon : Cairo, 27 September 1950
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter, which came to me yesterday. Allow me to say first of all, that you have been very wrong not to dare to write to me so far, because I assure you that I am not one of those who surround themselves with ceremonies and to whom one can address only through intermediaries!
During the incidents of 1946, and in spite of all that I had already noticed as being unfortunate even before that, I still thought that everything could be arranged, and it seemed to me that your submission could only contribute to it; but, to tell you the truth, I regretted it by seeing how much it has been abused afterwards. Since then, as before, I have remained silent for as long as I could, and for the same reasons, despite all the more or less extravagant things that I have too often had the opportunity to observe; but that has not served any purpose either, and even I have realised that some people too willingly interpreted this silence as approval. Finally, there came a moment, as you know, when, despite all my good will for conciliation, it was no longer possible for me to maintain this attitude, and when I had to intervene, in a way in spite of myself, in this question of Christianity which was at least the apparent starting point of the current crisis ( I say apparent because, in reality, this seems to be only the continuation of the one of 1946 which had never really been resolved). It is now quite clear that there is no longer any hope that the situation will ever improve, and it is certain that this could not continue indefinitely…
Naturally, I already knew from Vâlsan what you thought of all this, and I thank you for having kindly confirmed it to me yourself. As for those who are hesitant or who are even now siding with Switzerland, their case is obviously explained by all the fantastic assertions that have been repeated to them to satiety and in which they still believe; but it is to be feared that one day or another they will end up feeling cruel disillusions… In Switzerland, doctrinal knowledge seems very weak among all, despite their “jnânic” claims; from a technical point of view, their ignorance in this respect is hardly believable, and the most unfortunate thing is that they imagine that it is possible to supplement it by so-called “inspirations” which are too obviously outside any traditional regularity. There would be too much to say about all this, but I do not insist on it any more, because I think that Vâlsan keeps you informed of what is most important in our correspondence. I am pleased with your complete agreement with him; there is in him a doctrinal background much more solid than in the Swiss, including their Master, and I fully agree with your appreciation in this regard. I was glad to hear that you had already started to meet independently; no matter what attitude we take on the other side (and I hardly hope that we resign ourselves to an “amicable” separation), you certainly do not have to worry about a question of “regularity” that no longer even arises under these conditions, and which, moreover, would have no more reason for you to ask yourself vis-à-vis Lausanne than for Lausanne itself vis-à-vis Mostaganem, because there is no real difference there, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the value that one can wrongly or rightly attribute to such or such individuality… The essential thing is to have a really normal Tarîqah, what is disdainfully called in Switzerland “a Tarîqah like all the others” what a pity that some did not want to be satisfied with it !
Please believe, dear Sir, in my cordial sentiments.R.G.
************
Recently, other letters or parts of letters, were posted on the internet. These express concern going back to 1936; but Guénon could not foresee how far these aberrations he saw, could go after 1980, in Bloomington, Indiana!
[…] Everything you are telling me is very extraordinary and, I must say, unexpected; I thank you for it, for you are right in thinking that it is necessary for me to be informed of what is happening, however unpleasant it may be. I, who had counted on the function of Schuon to relieve me a little, here is just the opposite that occurs and that there is for me only a source of new concerns! […] what is his imprudences, they are probably explained by his too great confidence in himself, which has worried me for a long time already …[…] I wonder if, in my last letter, I did not forget to answer certain things; if you realize it, you will be very kind to point them out again. I’m not like Schuon, and I admit that there are times when I happen to be really tired …”- Guénon to Louis Caudron, April 27, 1936.*******************************”[…] In general, it seems that Schuon has a natural tendency to be a bit too “absolute” in his assertions. […]”René Guénon to Louis Caudron, March 9, 1936.*********************************”On the other hand, his preparation for his role that may have been insufficient or too fast would certainly be less serious if he had a little less confidence in himself, and especially if he didn’t have this kind of will of not taking into account so many things that have their importance … The history of conferences at the Adyar Hall is still a good example; how can he not see which party certain people would not fail to draw against us? I assure you that this still worries me seriously; it will be necessary to prevent such a fault at all costs!”-René Guénon to Louis Caudron, April 17, 1936.****(Adyar Hall = seems like Schuon wanted to make speeches in a theosophy conference room with mainly a theosophical audience)**************************************”[…] Many foqara returning from Switzerland stated that the members close to Frithjof Schuon did not hesitate to say that the work of Rene Guénon had been useful in his time to allow the constitution of the tariqah, but that the René Guénon’s role was now over as Frithjof Schuon was there; that it was regrettable that Rene Guenon continued to write while he was only repeating himself, but that it was a kind of mania which he had contracted and of which he could not get rid of; that he would do much better, instead of writing, to make more invocation; that it was nothing more than a faqir like the others but endowed with a faculty that made it a kind of remarkable typewriter. I added that the impropriety had been pushed to the point of circulating the rumor that Rene Guenon was to be treated as an exceptional grace for Frithjof Schuon’s moqaddem.”Marcel Clavelle to René Guénon, October 10, 1950.********************************”[…] in Lausanne, the ritual observances have been reduced to the strict minimum, and most of them do not even fast during Ramadan; I did not think it was that way, and I see that I was only too right when I said that soon it would no longer be a tariqah, but a vague “universalist” organization, more or less at the in the manner of that of the disciples of Vivekananda!”Guénon to unknown, Cairo, October 9, 1950″************************************”[…] That does not surprise me, because from the technical point of view, the ignorance of all these people, starting with Frithjof Schuon himself, is truly frightening …[…] Thinking about all these stories, I think that we will have to be very careful about all that Frithjof Schuon and the Swiss would like to put in the “Etudes Traditionnelles”, because they could slip into something that…
Guénon stood for revelation, the prophetic norm and the sacred law, whereas Schuon thougt that he himself was so great as to have a revelation and law in his heart, like the Afrad in Tasawwuf; but the Afrad were more observant than the ordinary believers:
René Guénon, Sheikh `Abd al-Wâhid Yahyâ rady allâhu `anhu :
“We will say first of all to express things in the simplest way, that we do not build on emptiness; yet a purely secular existence, from which all traditional elements are excluded, is really only empty and void in this respect. If you want to build a building, you must first establish its foundations; these are the essential foundation on which the whole building, including its highest parts, will be built and will always remain so, even when it is completed. Similarly, adherence to an exoterism is a prerequisite for achieving esotericism, and, moreover, it should not be believed that this exotericism can be rejected once initiation has been obtained, any more than the foundations can be removed when the building is built. We will add that, in reality, exotericism, far from being rejected, must be “transformed” to a degree corresponding to the degree reached by the initiate, since he is becoming more and more capable of understanding the underlying reasons for it, and that, consequently, his doctrinal formulas and rites take on a much more truly important meaning for him than they can have for the simple exotericist, who is always reduced, by definition, to seeing only its external appearance, that is, what matters least about the “truth” of the tradition considered in its entirety. “(Spiritual Initiation and Realization, Chapter VII – The Need for Traditional Exotericism)
Presbyter Iohannes: I have translated that into English and it’s on my site; but it will be more perfect later, because a genial metaphysician is checking my translation for doctrine. I find it marvelously acute for a character and spiritual comparison, for doctrine too, not that I’m a great judge. I see deep knowledge and intelligence, and am 99.999% sure that at least one of the writers is a spiritual master in a Guenonian stream, drinking from the same Source, and God knows best.
https://frithjofschuon.wordpress.com
I removed two comments from 2018.
Dead seriously, but only in a way, both Guénon and Schuon are among the most important writers who have ever lived. They are opposites, so I’ll deal only with Schuon, because I was the third of his four wives for 22 years and have been through a lot! You can see where on my site: FS denies that revelation and a sacred law are necessary for the pure pneumatic. He quotes the Brahma Sutras, Guénon and Meister Eckhardt in support of his ideas. The authorities are great; what they say is true; but there’s a huge HOWEVER! They all say, elsewhere, that revelation and obedience to a sacred law are essential – and the more holy one is, the more true that is! All “pure pneumatics” (Fard, plural Afrad in Arabic) performed extra, non-obligatory acts in addition to following the sacred law of their revelation; and every revelation requires that believers judge by what God has revealed, or…they are not believers! To make a VERY long story too short, Frithjof Schuon says one can be saved in the best way (in a new “religion,” the Perennial philosophy) by following him as the criterion of truth and goodness; but God says the opposite, countless times!
I’m a Muslim and most of you are Christians; however; I’ll try both. Jesus said “If you love me, follow my commandments!” Meister Eckhardt said, “How can one not obey the law (or commandments), when they issue forth from love?” In the Quran (The spread table, verses 44-47) God says that whether you are a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim, you must judge by what God has revealed [to you, in YOUR scriptures]; otherwise, you are a disbeliever, astray and living in evil. In the Surah of The cow [2:282] Muslims are told to have piety [taqwa] towards God. Then He [Himself!] will teach you [Gnosis!]. Now taqwa means love, fear and obedience towards God and all that leads to Him; but Frithjof Schuon was pious in a superficial way: he did not FOLLOW a thing in any scriptures, taking lines from here and there in sheer eclecticism, which, by the way, Guénon wrote, will unleash forces one cannot defeat! Now I’m guessing, forgive me if I’m wrong; but after us disciples lied in Court under oath [you know:”so help me God”] about our dressing as American Indians and his embracing the bare breasted wives of his disciples [every word, dress, undress and move being against the Islamic revelation and sacred law: what happened? A kind of hell broke loose, on the internet [!] where it’s impossible to delete scandal, both true and false – and even with lawyers paid fortunes and so on ad infinitem! Part of what’s there is true, but perversity was added to it. Then the defenses were full of sophisticated lies; and al-Ghazali wrote a book against calumny and backbiting because those are lethal for those who commit them. Then, in one sentence, he says that when news has spread, one MUST talk! So that’s why I keep writing a blue streak in spite of courts and lawyers, fines and being in contempt of court. When I’ve died, who will ever know where the “true middle” was? Here each writer speaks for himself, and you see that Guénon and Schuon ressembled one another like black does white! https://frithjofschuon.wordpress.com
Just go to https://frithjofschuon.wordpress.com where the two are decisively compared in their own words. They are also compared to all Gnostics in all revelations from time immemorial. The difference is astounding!
I wish I could delete my past comments here as some sites have been deleted or changed (hint).
For an easy to understand comparison, see Frithjof Schuon versus René Guénon: their roles near the end of the world, by Maude Murray, the third of Schuon’s four “wives!” That’s on Academia.edu. Or see Twitter, Facebook or A last minute lesson in discernment, under her name.
https://pt.scribd.com/document/348127488/Rfutation-Des-Quelques-Critiques-de-Schuon
This anonymous refutation covers all of the Schuon fiasco against Guénon. Unfortunately it is only available in French. Perhaps it would be useful if someone translated it (someone more well versed in french than I am).
The most striking difference, in my opinion, is in their style. Guenon is more adamant, opposing one view to its contraries. Schuon strives to seek out the middle ground between two seemingly opposing views, in which each view has plausibility in its perspective. So Schuon addresses exoteric issues, which Guenon typically avoids.
What do you have to say about “Schuon vs Guénon” in more general terms?