We recently mentioned Guenon’s role in bring awareness of Tradition to the West, but there are two other very important figures: Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy (AKC) and Julius Evola. Operating on three different continents, they kept in contact with Guenon via post, exchanging letters and even books. That was the precursor of the Internet, in bring together the scattered remnant of Tradition, spiritually and intellectually, if not physically. Both men were accomplished thinkers in their own right, but their respective encounters with Guenon were transformative and heavily influenced their own writings.
There are some who would exclude Evola as a Traditional writer, but the other two did not see it that way. AKC wrote a favourable review of Julius Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World, which was published in the Feb-Apr 1940 edition of The Visva-Bharati Quarterly and included an English translation of the chapter “Man and Woman”. Guenon himself reviewed several of Evola’s works.
There are clearly differences in interests and interpretations among the three authors, which Evola would attribute to differences in the “personal equation”. However, these differences could never be over metaphysical principles, but rather differences in the interpretation of contingent historical events. For example, there were disagreements over the Traditional characteristics of Hermeticism or Buddhism, but in the latter case, Guenon was later to alter his opinion.
AKC was an enormously erudite man and his contributions not just in metaphysics, but also in traditional art, crafts, folklore and mythology are important to anyone not just seeking to understand Tradition abstractly, but also in its potential applications. Similarly, Evola’s interests were in the forgotten Traditions of the West, whose characteristics he sought to reconstruct from the analysis of myths, sagas, and legends. He also applied his understanding of Tradition to current political and cultural events.
Another important difference is that whereas Guenon eventually opted to live within a specific tradition (Sufism), AKC and Evola were those rare men who could live outside tradition and caste.
Also Westerners have a great deal of curiousity about other peoples and cultures; there is intellectual movement. Most Hindus have a “frog in the well” mentality, or think copying the West in everything is a sign of advancement…
authentic masters in vedic Hinduism not comfortable in taking in modern westerners
You are not missing much due to the rarity of such people out there: actually I myself would like to have a teacher like that. What I know of my culture mostly comes from family and self-study. The dominant power structure and imposed culture in India is anti-Hindu (and by this I mean anti-everything that is of native origin I include Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains in the HIndu category). Hindus cannot expect the state to do much for them, but can act as private citizens to protect what they still have…
“…the severe decline of Buddhism, and the problem of authentic masters in vedic Hinduism not comfortable in taking in modern westerners who have no clear caste history…”
The fact that Buddhism is in decline today does not prevent those who wish to gain from it to do so by means of study of the right masters who have written on it. As for Hindu masters, many are suspect to even Hindus, and they are badly in need of good masters again to be an example to people as in the past. I think the one bad consequence of Christianity was that it destroyed vestiges of living pre-Christian traditions, Westerners cannot connect to Greek goddesses in the way HIndus can connect to say Shiva and the rest of their mythology in a living way (although the Indian state which copies Western liberalism without understanding what it entails, wishes that Hindus lose connection to their culture and it be replaced by an artificial culture promoted by the state, which in its form is what they adopted unthinkingly from the British, so they end up losing everything, many Hindus are deracinated as any deracinated Westerner). I think this subtlety is something that people like emperor Julian understood, that a religion that insists on exclusivity can erase a people’s living cultural memory of things prior to that religion, which is why he tried to restore paganism…However, Westerners can regain something through proper study of ancient masters. Also those who are anti-Christian strike me as foolish, as this is what the West has in terms of tradition (it is better children go to Church than end up with nothing), the West will either go down with its tradition or it will change within it…The entire world is in the midst of change with respect to these things…
James,
Yes thats what I meant. The original nature of the Buddha’s teachings come to mind. In the Sutta Pitaka, there is no talk of the need to create all the features of a religion for the average person to surround the Dharma, and I tend to think a major part of that is due to the Buddha’s statements that the path he has shown is not for the average person.
Exit,
“My problem is not the divorce of the exoteric and the esoteric (I disagree with Schuon, I don’t think they necessarily need to go together)”
I would like to hear more from you on this. Do you mean accepting an exoteric path is not necessary to reach the esoteric?
kadambari:
“The Orthodox Church as always appeared to me the most beautiful, perhaps as it has its roots in Byzantine. Protestant denominations strike outsiders as something suitable for merchants…”
True, but don’t forget the weird, heartwarming, sheer ugliness of American Protestants. Even Alan Watts had to acknowledge it, in Beyond Theology:
“If I try to set aside the innate prejudices which I feel against this religion, I begin to marvel at the depth of its commitment to earnestness and ugliness. For there is a point at which certain types of ugliness become fascinating, where one feels drawn to going over them again and again, much as the tongue keeps fondling a hole in a tooth. I begin to realize that those incredibly plain people, with their almost unique lack of color, may after all be one of the most astonishing reaches of the divine maya-the Dancer of the world as far out from himself as he can get, dancing not-dancing.”
Think: Lake Wobegon, or Dwight Shrute from The Office.
[http://jamesjomeara.blogspot.com/2010/02/kids-dont-wanna-hear-some-weirdo-book.html]
cont.
Evola, Guenon, Coomaramswamy, etc. and the gornahoor site, in that doctrines that are in complete accord with Tradition can only have differences in their contingent outward aspects, not their metaphysics, then Christianity (to me) is fundamentally not in complete accord. You not only don’t see this gap in Vedic metaphysics, but you don’t see it in Sufi metaphysics, Hermeticism etc. And I use the ontological gap as just one example in Christianity’s fundamental metaphysics, there are other examples in its metaphysics that leads me to the view that its not in complete accordance (again that doesn’t mean it should be treated as being no different from certain worldviews I mentioned earlier in one of my posts).
I agree with your assessment of neo-pagans which is why, among other reasons, I don’t consider myself one. And I would say you’re right in that there probably is no perfect tradition in this age, at least for western man. Evola’s position on this was even less optimistic. In Evola’s assessment, not only is there presently in this age no perfect tradition for western man who is seeking genuine transcendence and the unconditioned, there is probably no tradition at all for himv(Christianity in itself not being Traditional according to Evola, no authentic centers of Hermeticism and similar initiatic doctrines left in the west, reservations with certain elements he had with the Kaballah, his apparent subtle suggestions that the particular/differentiated western man not get himself involved with Islam, the severe decline of Buddhism, and the problem of authentic masters in vedic Hinduism not comfortable in taking in modern westerners who have no clear caste history). To Evola, the only two options for the differentiated in the west is to accept that transcendence is out of one’s reach and instead try and live an ethically upright life as best as possible, or, seek transcendence by oneself without the guidance of a master, a particularly dangerous path.
Ernest,
Hello. The ontological gap becomes a problem if you take the metaphysical principle of the non-difference of the absolute and the self is the fundamental in the metaphysics of Tradition. Of course Traditions have made some type of gap on the outward level to the uninitiated, but not on the inner level (the metaphysical core of the doctrine). And that leads to the issue with Christianity as I see it. This ontological gap seems fundamentally part of its metaphysics, and if you are of the opinion of E
James,
From what little I know, Orthodoxy, ethnic issues aside, would in some ways seem to be more attractive than Anglicanism. I was baptised Church of England, but I don’t come from a very religious family – we would put ‘Anglican’ for our religion on the census or on an application form, but we almost never went to church and I stopped identifying as such when I was about 15. So again, my experience of today’s Anglicanism is presently rather limited. The churches local to where I’m currently living appear to be more High-church, though not Anglo-Catholic. I’ve read a few articles recently about ‘Anglo-Orthodoxy’ – something to investigate further. I wasn’t aware, but there is a ‘British Orthodox Church’ (Coptic). It seems to be quite small at the moment:
“Although the British Orthodox Church is a small community at present, it is committed to evangelism and wider ministry. Currently, the British Orthodox Church has 5,000 to 10,000 members who are served by 12 churches.”(Wikipedia)
According to their website one can join their ‘fellowship’:
“The British Orthodox Fellowship is a means of allowing ordinary British people to experience the faith and spirituality of the British Orthodox Church while they remain members of their own Christian tradition, or even are investigating the Christian Faith for the first time.”
“Our community is canonical, because it is an integral part of mainstream Oriental Orthodoxy. It is traditional because it is rooted in the two thousand year life of the Orthodox Catholic Church. It does not change with every modern fad and is increasingly becoming a home for those from other Christian communities who are unable to remain in communities which are drifting away from the historic faith. We are the only Orthodox community in the British Isles which has an English diocesan bishop with a definite mission to bring Orthodoxy to British people in our own culture.”
Sounds promising, though I’m not clear on how Oriental Orthodoxy differs from Eastern Orthodoxy.
As for Islam/Sufism, whatever its pros and cons, ‘converting’ would be difficult for my family to accept, I think.
As I said, there possibly isn’t an entirely perfect and complete religion/tradition for a Westerner, but I’m eager to choose something, which for now is probably going to be Anglicanism. In the absence of an official esoteric/initiatory path, I’ll do what I can with Hermetic, Perennialist, other Traditional material and my own reason. Of course there’s more to a Traditional society than esotericism, and Anglicanism may still give me the support to defend or revive these other elements – at least the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope speak out against consumerism.
I’ve read a few articles and blog posts of Cutsinger’s. What’s your opinion of him?
Ernest,
I wouldn’t dream of advising or criticizing anyone’s religion choices [religious choices?]. It’s interesting, however, in this context that you should walk past Orthodoxy toward Anglicanism. While it was a popular choice [in the UK] for the tradition-minded, the High church was always vigorously opposed by the Low, the more traditionalist the more ‘Papist.’ [See Hanson’s Catholicism and Decadence] On the other hand, today it seems split between a parody of secularized irrelevance and outbursts of Primitive Christianity among the barbarians who haven’t gotten the word yet — calls for crucifying homosexuals in Uganda, for example, while the home country is making them bishops.
On the other hand, the more ‘conservative’ Anglicans have been flirting with Orthodoxy; for reasons I wouldn’t necessarily agree with or take seriously. Nevertheless. In fact, I once attended a “traditionalist” weeklong retreat [james Cutsinger, etc.] that took place at a Orthodox monestary [in South Carolina!] where the Anglicans were all abuzz with their imminent conversion to this more compatible form of Christianity.
Speaking for myself, Orthodoxy, at least as presented by such writers as Phillip Sherrard, or Kallistos Ware, impresses me as a form a Christianity that has impressed as an alternative to Western Christianity [the only kind most American’s know about, and treat as “Christianity” tout court] that avoids many problems caused by what Schuon would call the Latin mentality; principally a stifling legalism combines, paradoxically, with a “thirst for innovation” as Sherrard calls it. Think of adding new doctrines, on the one hand, but doing so, on the other hand, “infallibly.”
Evola, like most Westerners, hardly even notices Orthodoxy. However, I would argue that just as he valorized a “Roman” Church as more Roman than Christian, the Greek Church is, in turn, more Greek, and thus more authentically Aryan, at least spiritually, than the Roman.
[On a side note, I might be inclined to argue that Islam, despite being obviously an ethnic outsider, absorbed, and has preserved, more elements of authentic Greek culture, not just philosophy and science, but even ethics and social structure, than the relatively de-paganized West.]
Of course, you’re right about the ethnic element. I’m not sure there is an American Orthodox Church, and the mind kind of reels to think of what kind of Rotary club meets New Age it would be.
On the other hand, here in the US, on has access to various ethnic communities; a small compensation, as Schuon would say, for the modernist multi-culti atmosphere. At the aforementioned SC monastery, I attended a Greek service… in nearby Atlanta! I happen to live in Astoria, NY, which is the largest Greek population outside Greece, so I have access to services at a Orthodox cathedral a couple subway stops away. A few years ago I knew an anti-Schuonian Traditionalist who joined the Russian Orthodox church and attended services in Manhattan, where years of emigre politics have created several rival “authorities.” Just last year, I discovered that around my block is a “Coptic Orthodox” cathedral, which would have delighted David Tibet.
Despite this plethora of choices, and despite actually preferring the Greek service itself, having a long interest in NT Greek, I do myself find the “ethnic” component off-putting. On the other hand, a quick look at Wikip. shows there is a Celtic Orthodox church!
33.Also the only positive outcome is in Russia with the growth of the Orthodox church. Consiering Communism destroyed all trace of higher culture there, the growth of the Orthodox Chruch is good for Russia, as it is better they have something than nothing; this tradition has always seemed to me superior to the Protestant denominations which are the most uninteresting to non-Christians. The Orthodox Church as always appeared to me the most beautiful, perhaps as it has its roots in Byzantine. Protestant denominations strike outsiders as something suitable for merchants…
Also the only positive outcome is in Russia with the growth of the Orthodox church. Condiersing Communism destoryed all trace of higher culture there, the growth of the Orthodox Chruch is good for Russia, as it is better they have something than nothing, this tradition has always seemed to me superior to the Protestant denominations which are the most uninteresting to non-Christians, perhaps as it has its roots in Byzantine…
Is there really much metaphysics in Christianity? Despite the attempts by Chruch fathers to bring in philosophy into the religion (this is something coming outside the core teachings), the core is based on belief and miracles, which many intelligent person will reject. Regardless of what is being said about the forces that are leading to the lack of influence of the Church, it seems that the lack of depth at the core is what is leading followers to stray…Just as you can never make Islam more profound than it is as there is not much at the core even if you wrap a great deal of philosophy around it, the case is similar to Christianity. The problem has to do more with the fact that you cannot make something which at at core an intelligent person will have trouble accepting, and this does not entail that they are deluded liberals, or new age types or atheists or what not. Christainity might have been at the stage of culture for a while, but I think that perhaps its time has passed. You see it most strong in countries like Africa and Latin America these days which do not have much else in terms of culture.
My reading of the perennialists/traditionalists remains a little limited (lots of Evola, a little of Guenon and bits and pieces of others’ writings), so please forgive me if some of my ideas and arguments are a little naïve.
1. On the problem of the ‘ontological gap’ between The Absolute and the Self in Christianity: Is this necessarily a problem? What is the basis of our conviction that there is no gap – our own direct investigation and metaphysical knowledge or our reading of Guenon and others? I understand that the general perennialist position involves the idea that Tradition takes a different form relevant to a particular time-and-place – could the gap be a peculiar (but not necessarily inaccurate) part of this form of Tradition? Even if Vedic/Hindu tradition is the ‘purest’ expression of Tradition that we know (as some appear to hold), that doesn’t necessarily mean that is the truly pure expression of it, does it?
2. On choosing a tradition: Despite some reservations and distaste regarding Christianity, and being unsure about how Traditional the figure of Christ is (Evola had reservations about this), I have been reading with great interest the posts on Gornahoor regarding Catholicism/Christianity (among other sources), and have been strongly considering joining one branch of Christianity. Neo-paganism, even the forms that are not plagued by new-age elements, seems, to not on its own be coherent and sturdy enough to genuinely challenge the current regime of modernity. I also feel that the way of living ‘outside tradition and caste’ makes it difficult to resist and fight modernity.
How literally do we take the doctrine of the four ages? Should we really resign ourselves to the notion that we can do nothing? Even if this is the case, for those who identify with the role of ‘warrior’ isn’t it proper to fight even if the odds of winning are low?
Perhaps for the westerner, there is no ‘perfect tradition’ that appears to exist. Despite the apparent Traditional aspects of Catholicism (particularly in the Middle Ages) that Cologero has highlighted in his posts, I am still reluctant. Orthodoxy is in some ways more appealing, but its ethnic aspects appear to be an obstacle. Therefore, and particularly as a Briton, I am considering Anglicanism. Versus today’s Catholicism, Anglicanism seems to possess a flexibility that could be useful for those with Traditional views – with the right effort it seems it could be more easily moulded into something better, compared to Catholicism with its more ‘organised’ structure, or at least one could more openly hold unconventional positions. There is also the rather entertaining prospect of Prince Charles, a man with perennialist sympathies, as heir to the throne and potential ‘head’ of the Church.
It increasingly seems to me that in most cases, one should work within an ethnically compatible religion, that for me as a westerner, my tradition is a synthesis of Christianity, the best aspects of paganism, Hermeticism and heroic and chivalric tradition and literature. I have begun to recognise the beneficial effects Christianity had on European/western tradition, particularly in terms of unification.
This is perhaps a slightly childish example, but I think Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings represents in a pure form the potential vitality and beauty of this synthesis.
Here is the end of the BBC Radio adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, where a young English choir boy sings Bilbo’s Last Song – the end of a story permeated by European mythology and Christian feeling:
Exit,
Oh I definitely agree with your assessment on the majority of neo-pagans. I hope I haven’t come off as the usual neo-pagan who has a pathological hatred for anything christian.
As to the first point in your post, I was of that view at one point as well….viewing the hostility from the christian hierarchy as a degeneration of the doctrine and not because the doctrine itself is not in complete accordance with Traditional metaphysics. But as I kept reading through the old and new testament and the early writings of the church fathers, and coming across again and again the idea of an ontological gap between the absolute and the I/atman (something that can not be accepted at the metaphysical core of Tradition), and other ideas that deviate from traditional metaphysics, I found myself moving more and more away from that original view.
I completely admit in the possibility that I have missed something which has lead to me to this view, and that I may very well find that missing something that will allow me to see what you possibly see. But at the present, I just don’t think that there is a possible missing piece that will lead me back to the view (also your view) that I held before.
James,
I think you got my post confused with kadambari. Anyway, that question you posed is an interesting one, and thanks for the link that you posted.
@James
I have found it interesting that people like Schopenhauer looked upon Christianity as an imported graft upon European civilization. He was a strange man…
I have often wondered if Christianity did not initiate a ‘counter-tradition”. One can see in its egalitarianism the seeds of Marxism and other totalitarian ways of thinking. If you look at the spread of pagan civilization, it is the civilizational ethos which they held as important. The Greco-Roman civilizations were essentially aristocratic orders. They looked down upon the slave as he did not have political power and was not a citizen not as something genetically inferior. But the emancipated slave was different. For example, look at the attitude of Alexander in his conquests. Nowhere does he treat other civilizations as “inferior”, he is fighting for expansion of his kingdom and territory. Hence, you have civilizations interacting in a harmonious way in places like Bactria with the new Hellenic influence in the territories Alexander conquered and the old Buddhist influence of the region. Contrast this with the hatred exemplified by the Arabs, setting out to bring the infidels under Islam, even if the older civilizations were far superior. I do not think those people who see the seeds of modern type of racism as a result of the semitic traditions are off the mark. For example, you look at the spread of Indian civilization via the spread of Buddhism to tribal areas in Central Asia and you see the spread of Indian civilization to Indo-China, it was a harmonious spread. Of course, people fought wars over territory but the civilizational ethos spread as a result in a harmonious manner. So in India the fair skinned Brahmin from say Kashmir is not necessarily superior to the darkest Brahmin from South India, as they both share the same civilizational ethos. I think this is what Evola was trying to emphasize when the speaks of the “spirit of the race”. True, originally race and blood counted for a great deal, perhaps everything, but eventually the civilizational idea has to be dominant if the civilization is to have a future. This is what Evola means by the “spirit of the race” and it is when this decays that a race or civilization decays as he puts it. Now a harmonious spread of the great pagan civilizations did not entail a destruction of heirarchy, but rather the affirmation of it in the sense that a spread is of the higher civilizational ethos. In the East, when the tradition becomes rigid, you have the native culture coming up with creative ways to invigorate the tradition such as in Buddhism; the Buddha wants to restore the old ideals which were becoming corrupted; Evola notes he is a restorer. Even Jainism was a creative way for the merchant castes to find an appropriate religion and creative outlet as they were looked down upon by the Brahmins. This is what happens when a civilization tries to renew itself from within and is a process that occurred in all healthy civilizations, they attempt to renew vigor while retaining the essential civilizational ethos which is central to their way of life. In India, you see a destruction of this with the advent of Islam: it does not blend in with the native tradition without a great deal of destruction, and it is constantly at odds with it as it is never fully accepted by the native culture which resists conversion. Islam inflicts damage on the areas which had civilization by destroying it; conversion of population results in historical and cultural amnesia; in the case of India poverty in a destitute sense begins with Islam. The wealth of India sustains Muslim civilizations in the Middle East for centuries. One has to just read the accounts of people like Bernier (Travels in the Mogul Court)to see how the peseants were taxed to an excessive extent by the Moguls that it is futile for them to work. He contrasts this with Europe where the difference in wealth is not so glaring in his times. Even today, I am amazed that those areas having the most Islamic influence historically are the most backward culturally: Bihar, Up, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan. Some places have begun to heal, and these are places where you have islands of civilization today. The native civilization withers as survival under a foreign system becomes becomes the goal; caste hardens, culture becomes inflexible, rigid and loses its native creativity. Northern India is denuded of all higher types as the entire aristocracy is mostly slaughtered or converted. India is still in need of great healing in this respect, the culture has almost lost the sense of what made it once a civilization. And if there is anything like ethnic harmony it is because the outside religion has become more native like in terms of tolerance and has adapted to local conditions.
Now in the case of Europe, Christianity creates a new kind of order Christianity as a phenomenon is something I am in need of more study to understand fully. The Christians used to pray underground in Rome: it is touching when you see the catacombs. Obviously the people who flocked there were drawn to it, and it appealed to their needs. At first it was the underclass essentially, the dispossed, the weak, outcastes, widows and such. But it grew as it fulfilled a need amongst the people who were drawn to it that the existing system was unable to somehow fulfill. When the Romans adopt it, I think they were thinking along the line of pagans, that it was just another sect, among various religious sects. Now, Christianity grows powerful to stamp out everything in its way in terms of religion such that it alone becomes dominant as a religion, I doubt the early Romans who adopted it were able to see this: just as Hindus and Buddhists who became Sufis were unable to see that in a generation or two as Muslims, their descendants would be hostile to the very faiths from which their ancestors converted in the first place. It must have been something like this with the Romans. Now if you notice, the old civilizational influence of Greece and Rome continues under the new Christian umbrella, but with a different form, and it is creative in its own fashion; the conversion is total.
However, Christianity breeds the seeds of liberalism, egalitarianism and humanitarianism that eventually threaten the original structure itself. How is the civilization to retain its vigor becomes the essential question. As paganism is not a living tradition, it is not easy to revert to it and you have neopagan movements which often do more harm than good and confuse people even more: any change will occur gradually and will happen within the existing system if it is not to self-destruct. As for the Church having as much influence as in the Middle Ages, that does not seem possible to me in today’s times when much of Western Europe is living in a post Christian era. However the diminishing of the influence of the Church has left a vacuum as far as the sustenance the Church gave to society in terms of spiritual matters for the masses.
These are interesting questions to ponder. As the East these days basically copies unthinkingly what the West does and thinks it is progress, the West can teach the East, as it has already tasted of the negatives (and is additionally ahead in this respect as well) which are also sprouting in the East as the traditional structures wither…
kadambari;
“Now a rebuttal from those who consider christianity to be inherently traditional might be that this is example of those in the christian hierarchy betraying the essence of what they follow, but I would respond in saying that if the christian scriptures and other early writings do not contain the key aspects of the metaphysics (and as you can see, I believe they don’t) that the Templars, Hermeticists, and certain mystics were trying to bring forth, then the christian hierarchy wasn’t really betraying the essence/metaphysics of the doctrine, but honestly representing its essence.”
This reminds me of Alan Watts explanation for why he left the orbit of the Traditionalists: “there is not a scrap of evidence that the Christian hierarchy was ever aware of itself as one among several lines of transmission for a universal tradition”.
Wh. Perry gave the Traditionalist response here Anti-Theology and the Riddles of Alcyone but I wonder if anyone here thinks he succeeded?
“One could say that certain mystics represent this core, but they never created their own lineages.”
This was Evola’s response to Schuon: the only trace of initiation in Christianity was in Hesychasm, but that was a small movement and irrelevant to the whole history of Christianity.
“If Christianity (specifically the western church) did have an esoteric core, it was with the Templars, but even then you see the doctrine trying to rid its of an influence that is trying to bring its metaphysics in accord with Tradition by eventually squashing the Templars. ”
Again, largely Evola’s POV.
“Finally, this isn’t to say that I regard Christian doctrine as a whole as being in the same boat as that of worldviews that are completely of the anti-Tradition, such as materialism, pantheism and the new age, animism, nihilism etc. Its metaphysics is an approximation to Tradition (and I think thats why it was able to adopt a number of features of european pagan traditions…..be it to a certain extent) but not in complete accord with Tradition, and therefore the metaphysical core of its doctrine can’t be considered an example of Tradition.”
I wonder if as we move West, just as materialism increases, so Tradition becomes more and more misunderstood and not-so-traditional?
If we reject the Schuon/Smith model of “everything is a religion and all religions have an esoteric core” model, and go back to Guenon’s original view [religion as a special Western, or Semitic, phenomenon] perhaps religions do not so much “adapt principles” as Schuon would have it, but rather are actually part of the “counter-tradition” itself. ‘Exoteric’ = “The Great Parody.”
Matt, these excesses and intellectual deficiencies on the part of many Christians do not prove lack of doctrinal principles. A degeneration cannot be used to critique the religion, as there were plenty of intellectual Christians who understood the doctrine.
These deficiencies and the stubborn aversion to metaphysical principles exist in many neopagans, especially in the heathen circles. They claim as well that all metaphysics is foreign to “pagan” myth. And this attitude is typical to any degeneration of tradition wherever it may arise, which seeks as a substitute superstition, magic, and sentimentalism.
Furthermore, the attempt to see the traditions in terms of “pure principles” that is, from a metaphysical standpoint, seems to me already nothing but a return to the old Greco-Roman way of seeing things: the innate tolerance they had towards the various traditions and the attempt to glean what is of significance from them.
Exit,
Thank you for your response and the continuation of this good discussion.
To respond to the point you made, I would say that something approaching the similarity of the metaphysics of the european pagan mystery traditions and specific philosophies that came from europe (and to extend it further, the metaphysics of the vedic tradition) is in the Bible, as seen with the example you brought up. But I tend to doubt whether it truly is the same, instead of approaching sameness. For instance, in all those mentioned traditions, there is no ontological gap between the Absolute/One and the Self(Atman). But in Christianity there is, and I would say even in the Christian Scriptures. And we also find in Christianity and its scriptures, the idea that it is a given the human aggregate (with all its memories, thoughts, emotions) stays immortal, and that goes for all human aggregates. Whereas Traditional metaphysics states that the immortality of the individual, with all their thoughts and feelings, is not a given, that immortality must actively be obtained, and if it not obtained, the particular individual does not survive the second death.
Obviously there can be differences in the contingent aspects of traditional doctrines, but if you believe in one of the main points that Guenon, Evola etc. make, they can’t differ in their fundamental metaphysics. And its apparent that Christianity appears to deter in that regard and when examples arise where there is a push to try and erase that difference Christianity has in the most important part in traditional metaphysics (the nature of the absolute principle), such as Meister Eckhart, Hermeticism etc., , its met with hostility from within. And I am of the opinion that its met with hostility because the christian doctrine does not allow for those possibilities because its not in accordance with a fundamental part of its metaphysics, which is that there is a fundamental difference between the absolute and the Self (or what was referred to in Christianity as the higher soul). Now one might say that this is only the case on christianity’s exoteric level, and that we can also find in other traditional doctrines, such as the vedic one, where a difference is placed between the absoulute/brahman and the self (only an apparent difference) for the uninitiated. The problem with that is that that tradition had an esoteric core, whereas Christianity never seemed to have one. One could say that certain mystics represent this core, but they never created their own lineages. If Christianity (specifically the western church) did have an esoteric core, it was with the Templars, but even then you see the doctrine trying to rid its of an influence that is trying to bring its metaphysics in accord with Tradition by eventually squashing the Templars. Now a rebuttal from those who consider christianity to be inherently traditional might be that this is example of those in the christian hierarchy betraying the essence of what they follow, but I would respond in saying that if the christian scriptures and other early writings do not contain the key aspects of the metaphysics (and as you can see, I believe they don’t) that the Templars, Hermeticists, and certain mystics were trying to bring forth, then the christian hierarchy wasn’t really betraying the essence/metaphysics of the doctrine, but honestly representing its essence.
Finally, this isn’t to say that I regard Christian doctrine as a whole as being in the same boat as that of worldviews that are completely of the anti-Tradition, such as materialism, pantheism and the new age, animism, nihilism etc. Its metaphysics is an approximation to Tradition (and I think thats why it was able to adopt a number of features of european pagan traditions…..be it to a certain extent) but not in complete accord with Tradition, and therefore the metaphysical core of its doctrine can’t be considered an example of Tradition.
@ James,
As to your comment about the semitic traditions, I am reminded that Wittgenstein who was half Jewish said that the only thing that can be truly called Jewish is the Old Testament, he did not mean this in a negative way. I guess it is similar to what Sachau said about the Koran–““The foundations of Arabic literature was laid between AD 750 and 850. It is only the tradition relating to their religion and prophet and poetry that is peculiar to the Arabs; everything else is of foreign descent.” Considering these are the same race originally, this is an interesting similarity!
I think those who are always speaking of “pure principles” are mistaken in equating wholly divergent traditions and deeper understanding is attained when one realizes that the world religions do not all stem from the same world view or culture, which is why I dislike reductionism of such disparate traditions to “pure principles”. How can they be similar when the metaphysics behind them is disparate? As for “pure principles” Hinduism realizes that the paths to the truth are dependent on and limited by the moral and intellectual depth of a person. Christianity is a bit different because of the Greco-Roman influence, but still sister to these traditions nevertheless. And of course, the three have more in common with themselves than with the Eastern traditions; it is a good thing to also see indeed how they are different, so the understanding is more refined as to the details…
While the church fathers did read the philosophers that does not mean that the same principles are not to be found in Chistian doctrine. For instance, Genesis states that man was made in the image of God and Romans has a bit to say on the idea of the ruling principle coming from God or the Intellect; moreover, the kingdom of Christ reigns supreme over the temporal kingdom. That is not to say that there weren’t adaptations from foreign influences, but that these were made possible only since such possibilities were already allowed for in the doctrine itself. Such adaptations are really just extensions, except in such cases of heretical perversions and excesses of which there were many.
Exit,
“You and others have shown nothing to support that they don’t.”
I’ll use Christianity for example. Most of the traditional features of Catholicism and the Orthodox Church come from the pagan traditions of Europe (like the position of the Pope as pontifex as such, or Aquinas’ borrowing of the idea from pagan philosophy that man and God share similar attributes). With that said, I readily admit that a few of Christianity’s traditional features do spring forth from within the doctrine (the kingdom of heaven is within and must be taken by storm, christ’s statement of men as gods). But they are still few, and Schuon seems to take the position that all the traditional features stem from within the christian doctrine.
“Furthermore, the fact that he also practiced Indian rites had nothing to do with his Sufi order, which is to say, he did not mix forms together in a syncretist fashion.”
I have read sources that he practiced those rites separately, however, I think there is more weight behind the ones that state that they were not practiced separately. But if new light is shed on the issue, and Schuon is vindicated, I’ll duly note it.
Again, none of that means Schuon’s metaphysical principles are wrong, or that he was a bad person (I think the majority of his muslim critics are outright slanderous towards him and treat him as almost like a satanic figure), the complete opposite is the case. I just think he hit a few bumps along the path.
“I was speaking about his and others assumption that a particular doctrine’s features that conform to tradition spring from within that doctrine.”
You and others have shown nothing to support that they don’t.
I also suspect there may be a misunderstanding of Schuon’s actual words, as such relationship derives from the metaphysical aspects of doctrine applied to one of several more limited expressions in the relative, hence there can be two or more seemingly contradictory formal points of view stemming from the same doctrine depending on the type of man it is adapted to. These seemingly contradictory natures arise from the contradictory natures of man rather than the doctrine. Man is merely the starting point and spiritual realization the goal.
“As for my comments on his sufi order that he created, they are valid. He made a number of documented statements about how his followers don’t need to concern themselves with the exoteric part of Islam”
And these are? I must assume that you are cherry-picking quotes and pulling them way out of context, for Schuon has said on numerous occasions the complete opposite. Furthermore, the fact that he also practiced Indian rites had nothing to do with his Sufi order, which is to say, he did not mix forms together in a syncretist fashion.
EXIT,
I wasn’t speaking of Schuon’s assessment of an outward religion’s excesses, I was speaking about his and others assumption that a particular doctrine’s features that conform to tradition spring from within that doctrine.
As for my comments on his sufi order that he created, they are valid. He made a number of documented statements about how his followers don’t need to concern themselves with the exoteric part of Islam, a direct contradiction to his writings and statements where the exoteric and the esoteric can’t be divorced. My problem is not the divorce of the exoteric and the esoteric (I disagree with Schuon, I don’t think they necessarily need to go together), my problem is his hypocrisy in this regard, and the mixing of different practices/rituals from different doctrines, which again is in complete contradiction to his statements about how traditional forms should not be mixed for they are complete in themselves (his own followers have admitted that this took place and in many cases still takes place in the sufi order he created).
Im not trying to imply that all this somehow invalidates the metaphysical principles contained Schuon’s writings. They don’t, just like how Evola’s associations with the Nazi’s don’t invalidate his important contributions. Schuon had good insight into many things. My words are only to show that (1) even intelligent men who strive for transcendence can make mistakes, even late in life, and (2) the hypocrisy in the attitude of many in the perrenialist movement towards Schuon and Evola, treating one (Schuon) as a near god-like being and the other (Evola) as a boogeyman figure that the movement should distance itself from.
Schuon surely doesn’t need anyone to defend him, but to any of his readers it is quite clear that he was highly critical of religious exoterisms and their excesses. As for creating a “universal multicultural esoteric church,” such comments strike me as coming from someone who has no knowledge of what actually went on, but wishes for reasons of personal bias to spread dirt.
I won’t get too much into this because I realize that the intent of this site is to speak of metaphysics and pure principles, but I do share the sentiments of James and kadambari. I think it can be too easy to just accept every major religion on the basis of a unity at the metaphysical level and not point out the serious problems of a supposed tradition at the contingent level. This can also lead to many in the self described traditionalist movement to not pose the legitimate question of whether features of a religion conforming to Tradition came from within, or were placed on it from the outside (a question that seemed to only be taken into account with seriousness by Evola). And yes, Schuon and his followers are particularly guilty of all this.
I’ve always found it funny that Evola became such a black sheep to the perennial movement because of certain political associations he had for a period of his life, and yet Schuon is held up as some type of avatar for the movement when he indulged in what seems to be the cardinal sin in the movement, mixing traditional forms together. At least Evola realized the mistake he made in getting into politics, and never thought of himself as some figure destined to create a universal multicultural esoteric church.
“merely contingent” realm can be highly in need of criticism.
Yes. Especially when the ‘merely contingent’ realm induces in historical and cultural amnesia and outright denial in peoples. It is interesting, V.S. Naipaul was the person who first stirred me to realize this and investigate further. He is an interesting author, even though he grew up in extremely limited circumstances in a place like Trinidad, he somehow developed an original mind, and his books are quite prescient culturally speaking.
As for Christianity, I think it was powerful in resisting Islam in Europe which did not suffer the same fate as Central Asia and Persia and India…So however much I feel more at home with the Greco-Roman religious outlook, I respect Christianity for this…
kadambari;
Well, for the Traditionalist the ‘unity’ is perceived at another, higher level, in metaphysics, so it would not be immediately apparent. But they don’t seem to realize that the “merely contingent” realm can be highly in need of criticism. Guenon himself was quite clear that all these “religions” were largely Western inventions, and products of the Kali Yuga at that; [“attempts to reconstruct” after some earlier cataclysm or words to that effect] so one would expect them to be defective; but Schuon and his followers seem to have a rather Candide like approach were everything is “providentially adapted” and thus necessary [sort of the way Marxism protects capitalism by making it a “necessary stage” not to be questioned]. Only Evola seemed able to critique their historical roles.
Joshi, Lovecraft’s contemporary editor, put out one of his “Agnostic Reader”s a while back; I usually don’t bother with such 19th century tripe but it was only a buck and had some interesting things in it. One was by Mencken, of all people, and concerned the implicit insult of seeking to convert people; nothing was more contemptible or pitiable than someone persuaded to give up an ancestral tradition for some “new” idea, either religious or even scientific. Very Evolian, as in the Aryan seeking neither confirmation of his own ideas, nor conversion from others, who have their own Ways.
@James
“How different would the whole “Traditionalist” movement be, if the over-emphasis on Islam as “the last revelation” had been short-circuited?”
Your comment is intelligent, and I am quite amazed that you see that all religions are not the same. I am not saying that Christians ought to be HIndus or Buddhist, but the idea of the ‘unity’ of religions strikes me as odd. There are two homes of religion, India and the Middle East–I cannot see any similarity between the religions originating from these two sources, but it is easy for a Hindu to understand and identify with the Greco-Roman religions than Christianity. You know I have quite a few Iranian friends who are from old families who have a great sense of their past. They say Islam was forced upon them and since their Persian religion was destroyed, there is nothing they can do other than somehow hope things will change in the context of their current religion, because if they discard it, they have nothing to fill the void. They seemed to have more pride in being Persian than being Islamic, although they are quite a mixed lot after the Arabs conquered Iran.
I think that Persians are quite divided–some like my friends think that learning Arabic was the most boring thing they were forced to do at school (to be able to read the Koran), and then there are others who are quite into their Shiite Islamic culture, which is what Iran retains in terms of culture as the Zoroastrians are a negligible minority. The Shah I believe tried to revive interest in Iran’s imperial past and placed Zoroastrians into some positions of power, but he was corrupt and lost his rule…Iran is an interesting country. Count Keyserling in the Travel Diary of a Philosopher observes that it is the only country in the Middle East where there is an intellectual life (I guess now oil has changed a lot for those countries in modern times!). Persians however are fond of saying that although Islam conquered Persians, Persia gave Islam a culture!
I think conversion a sad thing because it divorces people from the wellspring of their cultural roots. Take Kashmiri Muslims. Most are just converted Hindus (by the sword or converted to advance in a Muslim dominated court) even with Hindu last names still, but they cannot accept this fact and contrive all kinds of Middle Eastern ancestry, which is quite absurd, only a few might have the blood of the Islamic proselytizers who came to Kashmir. With the attitude they have towards Hinduism one can see what conversion does to a peoples: it divorces them from their native origins and culture, and causes them to place their identity outside. Hence their sad attempts to rename the Shankaracharya Hill in Kashmir to Suleiman Hill, even though the old name is from a time before their religion even came into existence! I feel sorry for converted folk as they seem to have a veil placed on them–there is not much they can do to see things in another way as the veil is tinted, those who have the luxury of not being converted can see the cultural amnesia that ensues in such people. I don’t have answers to these problems, but am just stating my observations…
As for places like Afghanistan, it is hard to imagine that this place once had a magnificent culture. I was going through Alberuni, and even he states in his book on India about the Shahis (who were Hindu rulers of Afghanistan): The HIndu Shahiya dynasty is now extinct, and of the whole house there is no longer the slightest remanant in existence (having been killed off as an ethnicity). We must say that in all their grandeur they never slackened in the ardent desire of doing that which is good and right, that they were men of noble sentiment and noble bearing…
Some of the Shahis fled to Kashmir, and Kahlana (author of the Sanskrit history of Kashmir)writes:
Where is the Shahi dynasty with its ministers, kings, and its great grandeur?…The very name of the splendor of Shahi kings has vanished. What is not seen in a dream, what even our imagination cannot conceive, that dynasty accomplished with ease…
I think it is sad to know one’s cultural history especially if that history has been a very long and tragic one…It is better to have a short historical memory as do most peoples so that such knowledge does not make one sad….
Here below is morality without any external commandments, morality that is born from practice and discipline and good habits, the pagans could be “chaste” in the highest sense without the ten commandments and without moralizing. HInduism also teaches something akin….
Plato seventh letter: (This situation though written over two thousand years ago strikes me as curiously modern:)
… (326c)when I reached Italy and Sicily on my first visit. Upon my arrival, moreover, I found myself utterly at odds with the sort of life that is there termed a happy one, a life taken up with Italian and Syracusan banquets, and existence that consists in filling oneself up twice a day, never sleeping alone at night, and indulging in all the practices attendant on that way of living. In such an environment no man under heaven, brought up in self-indulgence, could ever grow to be wise. So marvelous a temperament as that is not in nature. That a man should grow up sober-minded would also be quite out of the question, and one might make the same statement about the other qualities that go to make up excellence of character. Neither can a city be free from unrest under any laws, be those laws what they may, while its citizens think fit to spend everything on excesses, meanwhile making it a rule, however, to avoid all industry except such as is devoted to banquets and drinking bouts and painstaking attention to the gratification of lust. It is inevitable that in such cities there should be an unending succession of governments–tyranny, oligarchy, democracy–one after another, while the very name of just and equal government is anathema to those in control…
….I reached Italy and Sicily on my first visit. Upon my arrival, moreover, I found myself
Also James, caste has to be put in perspective. Caste in India becomes rigid after the Turko-Mongol invasions, after which civilization was destroyed in most of what was Hindu-Buddhist territory and replaced with a veneer which can hardly be called civilization. For example,–you can see the outcome and civilizational wastelands in places like Afghanistan where the original population was wiped out. Today these places have different peoples with a different religion. In places like Pakistan Swat valley which was the home of Tantric Buddhism and which had 1,500 monasteries, you can guess what happened to them and compare the results before and after. India produces nothing intellectually significant after the arrival of Islam and its destruction, intellectual isolation under Islam was ended after the arrival of the British.
You can see in North India the decline of the status of women after Islam, Hindus hid their women and covered them to keep them from Muslims. It is simply amazing that anything good survives in India considering the levels of destruction historically.
The negative aspects of Middle Eastern cultural influence in India survives today especially in the North.
Today in India if you go to the areas which have majority HIndu population and have been spared from the ravages of Islam, you see thriving communities, for example, in places like Himanchal where people are generally benign. Hindu controlled states like Gujrat are doing well economically. Also India today is not controlled by Hindus–the government does not represent the middle class which is completely alienated from it and never votes. The South retains more culture unlike the North as it was spared much of the destruction, so educational levels are high and it is more progressive. If you look at their history, HIndus become extremely orthodox to survive the Islamic invasions and caste becomes rigid thereafter. The native culture had come up with creative answers and alternatives with Buddhism, Jainsim and such. All these creative movements come to an end as HIndus mostly try to survive after the invasions, millions, in fact, most of the aristocracy was killed, converted or taken as slaves elsewhere in the Middle East. Usually cultures do not survive when the aristocracy is wiped out in the course of invasions.
V.S. Naipaul’s “India a wounded civilization” is a good book where he observes what I pointed out. “Among the believers” and Beyond Belief are also good observations on non-Arab countries which were converted to Islam.
As for caste in India today, most educated Hindus have moved beyond it, and if some marry within caste that is a personal preference. And if you are upper caste today, there is no advantage, it is impossible to get a seat in university due to quotas which is why people go abroad to study.
@James
Also I meant the Greco-Roman religious critique of Christianity you find in Galen, Porphyry, Celsul, Iamblicus and emperor Julian. These show how sophisticated the pagans were and they were not mere “idolators”.
Also, I find that the British historians writing before the fifties are generally accurate in writing about Islam. For example, Arnold Toynbee who wrote the famous ‘Study of History’ has an interesting account of Islam and Sufism. These day we are just fed watered down versions of history for the sake of political correctness.
@James
I meant to say above that Balkh (modern day Afghanistan)was a confluence of Zoroastrianism, Brahminism and Buddhism. Most of the native population was almost entirely wiped out in the course of invasions, and replaced.
Also my Iranian friend’s mother tells me in her simple way, that Iranians have a sense of their past and a connection to it because of Firdusi, who revived the national language, and Iranians speak Persain not Arabic. There is a lot of truth to this.
@James
I guess my suspicion of Sufis stems from the fact they were Islamic proselytizers in Hindu Kashmir. We know from history passed down to us how they would try to imitate Hindu and Buddhists sects, this was a way for them to trick the native faiths into embracing Islam. Hindus and Buddhists would think it’s just another sect as in their religion, but it was not, as the ultimate framework in which the religion rests is completely different, although Sufism imported mysticism into a matter of fact religion like Islam. And then once Sufis, these new converts would in a generation or two, given the Islamic background, become hostile to the native faiths from which they converted in the first place, as the native faiths are culturally entirely different in framework from what Islam is based on, especially as they grew in numbers. This is unlike the various native faiths that get along more or less with the occassional quarrels as their roots are the same: I mean Hindus, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and others live in relative harmony, despite the face they are divided into numerous sects. Hindus have a history of persecution under Islam espeically in Muslim majority places like Kashmir. In Anatolia, Sufis were Jihadist fighters bent on conversion, there are countless other examples. They end up having an agenda in the background it seems to me, this is because the Semitic faiths do not understand what pluralism in religion means in the way Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Zoroastrians do; that it does not amount to relativism in religion in any way, or the license to lead whatever lifestyles one pleases, and their books are based on one book, one way dogmatism, which is incomprehensible to Hindus and other Easterners and Buddhists.
From my Persian friends, I realize Sufism is more Persian than Islamic. My friends tell me it was a way for Persians to have their essential mystical nature emerge when a matter of fact religion was imposed on them via the sword and a reaction to Islamic orthodoxy. The regime till this day wants to erase the Persian aspect of their culture, they tell me. Apparently, it tried to get rid of NoRooz when it came to power, as Norooz is a Zorosatrian celebration. But they could not, my Persian friends tell me, because no one showed up to work! I remember seeing a Persian parade in celebration of the Iranian new year, and was stuck by how colorful it was, no ladies covered in tents, nothing gloomy or dark, people were in their colorful traditional costumes, and there was song and dance and everything was joyous. My friend says this is essentially what old Persian culture was: it emphasized beauty, creativity, the human form, dance, art just as the great civilizations of Greece, Rome and that of Hindu India did. And the pagans did not need to be covered in black from head to toe to be chaste. My Persian friend hates the color black, says it reminds her of death and the outfit they are required to wear by the regime in their country is not Persian in culture but is Arab culture. I think it is because the Iranians never lost their language (which is indo-european) to Arabic that they retain a sense of being distinct in that area. Others like Lebanese and Syrains no not retain their language and speak Arabic. This makes a huge difference in terms of historical memory. Even Westerners have to make a serious study of Greek and Latin to understand what religion could have meant for the Greeks and Romans, if they are to get past Christian prejudice towards it. It is taught as if Christianity was an improvement upon the old religions. I tend to view it as Evola, that christianity was the religion that came to “prevail” in the West, there are no more pagans in the West to account for their religion in a living way, as there are pagans in Hindu India. Also, from the Greek critiques of Christianity like that of Galen, it seems to me that their religious outlook was quite sophisticated, and was not simple “idolatory”, which by the way is how Muslims characterize Hindus!
Also when you look at history, the places where Sufism arose such as in Balkh where Rumi was born was the confluence of Zoroastrianism, Brahminism and Hinduism, you can easily trace the roots of the mysticism in Islam.
Dr. Sachau, the great scholar of Arabic notes that only the Koran is original to Islam, everything is of foreign import by converted people. He translated Alberuni’s Indica in which he says in the introduction: “The foundations of Arabic literature was laid between AD 750 and 850. It is only the tradition relating to their religion and prophet and poetry that is peculiar to the Arabs; everything else is of foreign descent. The development of a large literature, with numerous ramifications, is chiefly the work of foreigners, carried out with foreign materials, as in Rome the origines of the national literature mostly point to the Greek sources. Greece, Persia, and India were taxed to help the sterility of the Arab mind….. What India has contributed reached Baghdad by two different roads. Part has come directly in translations from the Sanskrit, part has travelled through Eran, having originally been translated from Sanskrit (Pali ? Prakrit ?) into Persian, and farther from Persian into Arabic. In this way, e.g. the fables of Kalila and Dimna have been communicated to the Arabs, and book on medicine, probably the famous Caraka.”
My Persian friends constantly complain that their great thinkers are lumped together with ‘Islamic thinkers” in the so-called history departments. Most of the great Islamic thinkers were Persians, in fact, recent Zoroastrian converts. For example, Al-Kahwrizimi is referred to as the “Zoroastrian”. Many of the Greek texts were translated into Arabic (that was the language they were forced to write in) by first generation Zoroastrian converts, who still retained the Persian genius, and appreciated other peoples’ culture, in this case, the Greco-Roman. And Al Khawrizmi is a gentleman to acknowledge his debt in mathematics to Diophantus the Greek and Brahmagupta the Hindu. This is different from the semitic tendency to plagiarize and not attribute the souce, making it appear as if they themselves are the complete creators, this is the biggest source of cultual amnesia in my opinion, feeding the “one way, one truth, one revealed book for all” dogma. Do you think people in Afghanistan have any memory of their pre-Islamic past or want to? We Hindus are fortunate to have this memory despite the many invasions and attempts at conversion of the native population.
Of interest might be the writings of the famous great explorer Richard Burton who also notes the tendency not to emphasize the Zoroastrian and pre-Islamic contributions in Islam.
I have plenty of exmeplary Muslim friends and get along with them fine, just as I have plenty of exmeplary Christian friends. It’s just that the dogmatism in these religions makes me uncomfortable at the theological level, as we are not used to the “one revealed book for all” idea.
As for India, caste has changed a lot. People intermarry these days, but I think the fundamentals of the religion is quite strong among those who have a sense of cluture and history, regardless of caste. However, not many Hindus with the brainwashing they get at school and universitiy where they are fed whitewashed history are aware of their history and past apart from what is passed via the family. Caste prejudice exists only in extremely backward places like UP and Bihar and is mostly becoming a thing of the past and exists among those with low levels of education. Hindus have moved on. Some Hindus marry oustide caste, others do not. That is how it is. I think the religion is strong enough to preserve the fundamentals without caste, as long as it still is able to recognize the essential values; this is what is ultimately important, and is the challenge as India is an evolving country. India’s problems are largely of a political nature, and have to do with the imposition of a system of governance that is not suited to it.
I think HIndus are accepting of others into the religion, and that of others. People loved Samuel Stokes, and he was living in Himanchal in extremely orthodox times, unlike today! So I think it really depends on the individual, how they are able to adjust and adapt. It is the same with foreigners in Western societies. It is up to them to adjust and adapt, many lead productive, fruitful lives. Others just don’t seem to be able to adjust and blame the societies and not themselves. So I guess it depends on the individual everywhere.
Kadambari,
It’s not a question of “becoming Hindu” but what role a Westerner could play in traditional society. According to D.
http://books.google.com/books?id=GCOewSVrf2sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=danielou+labyrinth&source=bl&ots=ZzusC8FF9S&sig=vox1ybEpTW-RAURzsaiZl0fJ4O4&hl=en&ei=DUWuTLeIMIT6lwev0anjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=caste&f=false
they would be of the lowest caste. D. could learn the Vedas but not recite them [presumably in public]; contrarywise, his Brahmin teachers could not even look at him, and he had to listen from a concealed place. Hard to imagine RG putting up with that, although just the sort of thing he would promote as “traditional social structure’, perhaps!
D. eventually sank to the level of outcast, not because of his relations with his lover, Raymond, but because Raymond married a Brahmin wife, a theosophist to boot! In the decadent West, of course, it would be the other way around, and Raymond would be socially redeemed by marriage to anyone.
Your remarks on Sufism are very interesting. Despite the happy talk promoted by H. Smith, for example, RG never taught that there was some esoteric “core” to every “religion.” In China, C. and T. are quite separate traditions, while the Semitic religions [‘religion’ as such being only in the West] seem to have “hidden” cores; Islam was sort of mid-way, and he spoke of “Islamic esotericism” rather than “Esoteric Islam.”
It’s hard to see anything ‘intellectual’ in Islam, or the other Semetic faiths; think of all the nonsense about “koshering” this or that. Your reference to apostasy as a ‘crime’ for example; social regulation posing as ‘wisdom.’ F. Schuon and his school have been taken to task for misleading Westerners by presenting as “Islam” what only pertains to Sufism, and a peculiar brand at that.
I’ve always thought Sufism was derived from Neoplatonism, via the other Greek wisdom Islam assimilated, but I’m just an amateur. Your Aryan connection through Persia is intriguing; can you recommend anything on that?
Sorry, his first name was Samuel Evans Stoles not Graham Stokes. He is somewhat of a legend in Himanchal, and to be precise the apples were red delicious. Anyway, he was later known as Stayanand Stokes.
Guenon must have had some other motive for converting to Islam, perhaps he was drawn to it as it is a semitic faith much closer to Christianity its brother and is completely at odds with Hinduism. Anyway, after his conversion, I guess he must stuck to it if his conversion was genuine, as apostasy in Islam is a crime in that religion.
The missionary was Graham Stokes, they made him a Brahmin out of respect for him, as he was intelligent. His daughter is active in Himanchal parliament otday, the hill state being almost completely Hindu is one of the most pleasant states left in India. He introduced the golden delicious apples to Himanchal.
“in India he would always be an out-caste, and not part of that Tradition.”
Ha ha that’s funny and quite ridiculous he felt like that. There was a famous missionary in Himanchal, India, who introduced the famous apples found there, who initially sought to convert the natives, but then just married locally and became a Hindu instead! I think Hinduism is large enough for Guenon not to feel an outcaste, and it seems a personal choice. Also I find it odd intellectually that anyone can embrace Isalm reading that book cover to cover by choice! Guenon would have been better off as a Christian considering all the Sufi mysticism (perhaps the only intellectual component of the religion) is just Aryan Persian mysticism (pre-Islamic i. e. Zoroastrian) creeping into Isalm (which was forcibly imposed upon a mystical peoples like the Persians after Arab conquest) combined with Buddhist/HIndu/ influence. I find not a single original neuron in it. Sufism is every bit Persian and not Islamic. Still I have yet to read Guenon!
Looking at the passage again
http://books.google.com/books?id=GCOewSVrf2sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=danielou+labyrinth&source=bl&ots=ZzusC8FF9S&sig=vox1ybEpTW-RAURzsaiZl0fJ4O4&hl=en&ei=DUWuTLeIMIT6lwev0anjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=guenon&f=false
I may have given a misleading impression of it. D. talks about Guenon “settling” in Egypt, not of his conversion to Islam. Obviously, he could have lived as a Moslem in India as well! Given his rather Indian POV, due to his teachers, and “transcendent” POV, he may have been initially more attracted to India as a place of residence. D.’s point though is that living in Egypt prevented him from contacting living centers of pre-Aryan tradition, such as his own Shaivism. And my speculation is I think still related to that; how different the “atmosphere” of Traditionalism [to say nothing of the “Guenonian Scholasticism” Evola mocked] if he had been in a more ethnically diverse culture. The example of D. himself makes questionable the strong implication from the later Traditionalists that modern, Western man is “uniquely” suited for Islam as opposed to Hinduism, for example, although even D. admits the traditional world he entered is no more.
I’m not sure about that Guenon story. He gives as a reason for selecting Islam over Hinduism what you said: in India he would always be an out-caste, and not part of that Tradition. When I get some time, I’ll look for the reference.
I have posted on the blog how Guenon described his “conversion”, which was not such in any common use of the word. He may have accepted Islam as the last revelation, but not as any “truer” than other revelations.
BTW, he regarded Aurobindo as not Traditional.
Speaking of Traditionalists who lived “outside tradition and caste” reminds me of a strangely neglected Traditionalist, Alain Danielou. By ‘neglected’ I mean discussed, since Inner Traditions keeps most of his books in print, but you seldom see anyone refer to him [outside of his Kama Sutra translation].
And yet Danielou is the only Traditionalist outside Guenon who really lived in a Traditional culture, traveling in India with his lover in a silver house trailer for many years, long before he knew of Guenon. Ironically, he points out that as a Westerner he was an out-caste, and therefore no one cared about his ‘out’ lifestyle! Despite this, he immersed himself in Traditional culture, leaning Sanskrit and even becoming a Shaivite initiate.
His importance: due to this background, when he did discover Guenon’s work, he was able to independently verify the truth of Guenon’s assertions about Indian thought.
Another irony: Guenon actually wanted to live in India, and only remained in Cairo because the British, on the eve of the war, wouldn’t provide a visa. And Danielou, whose family had ties to the diplomatic corps, tried to get him into French India [whre he could have met Aurobindo!] but to no avail. How different would the whole “Traditionalist” movement be, if the over-emphasis on Islam as “the last revelation” had been short-circuited?
Perhaps he plays the role of d’Artagnan? Although in correspondence for many years with Guenon, Schuon was younger then the others and his most influential works appeared after the ground had been prepared by the others.
At the moment, Schuon is outside the direct interest of Gornahoor, although his works merit close study. Perhaps at a future date.
How come you never mention Frithjof Schuon?