Julius Evola was among the first writers to take up the ideas of Rene Guenon, and maintained an epistolary relationship with him until the end of Guenon’s life. Yet, although Evola wrote a long article in La Vita Italiana, titled “Rene Guenon: A Master for our Times”, in praise of Guenon, he also wrote another article in which he opposed what he called ‘Guenonian Scholasticism’, which he defines as:

This kind of ‘scholasticism’ consists in following passively just about every view ever formulated by Guenon, with a pedantic attitude, without any true investigation or discrimination, and with a real fear to make even the slightest change in the master’s formulations.

This accusation is directed toward Guenon’s followers as much as against the Master himself. We can agree with Evola that Guenon’s writings are not revealed text, but we also need to take into account the Guenon offered solid reasons for his perspectives. Therefore, we should expect the same from Evola, and not assume that Guenon is writing from his “personal equation”. In our day, ironically, we need to oppose an Evolian Scholasticism that takes some of the more marginal positions of Evola as representative of the whole of Tradition. What follows are the points espoused by Guenon that Evola takes issue with.

Knowledge and Action

Evola disputes Guenon’s contention that contemplation, or knowledge, is superior to action. Guenon explains his position most fully in The Crisis of the Modern World, where he associates knowledge with the Brahmin caste and the East, while associating action with the Kshatriyas and the West. If it were just a question of two perspectives, that would be one thing, but Guenon goes on to infer that the West is deviant in that regard. Evola takes the first position (that there are two legitimate paths, one knowledge and one of action), but then in the next paragraph contradicts himself by giving action primacy.

Guenon’s contention is that the principle of Action lies outside Action, viz., in the Unmoved Mover, a position also held by Evola. Guenon asserts that the Unmoved Mover is actually knowledge. Evola doesn’t actually address Guenon’s argument, so we’ll give it a try. The debate is a little puzzling, if only because Guenon asserts that there is a more fundamental principle that unites the Brahmin (knowledge) and the Kshatriya (action), but then seems to have forgotten it. Both Guenon and Evola appeal to the Bhagavad Gita as their authority and come to different conclusions. On the other hand Tilak, who was respected by both men, seems to have learned the right lesson. It is the noumenal Will that is the Unmoved Mover and the uniting principle. While it is true that there have been different paths, Boris Mouravieff describes a Fourth Way path, based on Hermetic and Hesychast Traditions in the Eastern church, that combine both. Pace Evola, knowledge is essential, but pace Guenon, knowledge without a corresponding change in the level of being is ineffective. Acquiring Knowledge is the easier part, while the change in Being is more difficult as it involves the Will. Evola mentions the practical and ascetic attitude of Early Buddhism to bolster his point.

Spiritual Authority

Evola challenges Guenon’s position of Spiritual Authority vis-a-vis Regal Authority. Again, this seems like a non-issue, because it also depends on that deeper principle uniting the two castes and seems to not to take into account Temporal Power. Yes, the priestly caste ought not to exercise temporal power over the administrative caste, yet they cannot abandon their teaching task on spiritual matters. Nevertheless, Guenon and Evola agree that there is a Regal initiation that integrates the two castes. For example, it was accepted that the Pope should have temporal power over the Papal States, but I don’t recall Evola ever mentioning it.

I think the dispute is exacerbated by historical circumstances, in which the Catholic religion came to be dominated by theological disputes which overflowed into the secular realm. This may be because Christianity did not have a Law, per se, as do Traditional religions. Contrast this with the Roman idea of the Emperor or the Muslim idea of the Caliphate. The Emperor or Caliphate is supposed to represent, not just the political unity, but also the spiritual unity of the State. However, in these cases, this involves ensuring that the religious law is followed and enforced. Theological and philosophical positions are personal matters in those systems, so the enforcement of creedal orthodoxy is not their task.

Initiatory Organizations and Masonry

Guenon was overly punctilious about the regularity of initiatory organizations and he accepted Masonry as one such. Here we agree with Evola. Self-initiation is possible as we have pointed out. Also, even if the initiatory impetus of a Tradition is passive and virtual, it can still be made active. Evola seems to have picked up his strong animus against Masonry from the long-time Catholic opposition to it … part of his “personal equation.” This has two roots. The first is related to the Templars which was unjustly destroyed. This led to the end of initiatory organizations in the West, even if Masonry carried it on for a time. Nevertheless, there was a time when Masonry did indeed transform itself into a revolutionary and subversive organization. Guenon describes that process in some detail.

Buddhism

Guenon devalued Buddhism, but later corrected himself by discovering an alleged “Brahmanic” version of Buddhism. This Evola rejects; it is sufficient to refer to his work The Doctrine of Awakening. In Evola’s conception, initiation on this path depends on the descent of “forces from above”, something we are sympathetic with for obvious reasons.

The Necessity of a Traditional Exoterism

They both make sense. From Guenon’s perspective, in a Traditional society, one simply accepts the exoteric system of the group (this is what led to the conviction of Socrates). However, Evola rightly points out that the gap in our day between Esoterism and the available Exoterisms is currently unbridgeable. Perhaps the way forward is to find a way to bridge them.