Frithjof Schuon and René Guénon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 гру 2011
- Martin Lings at the Temenos Academy
This lecture is a personal response from Martin Lings, who was closely associated with both Frithjof Schuon and René Guénon. This is an important introduction and commentary on the significance of these two important contributors to the elaboration of the Sophia Perennis that is particularly relevant to our times. Taken from Seriousseekers.com (in three parts, RealPlayer Audio format), merged and republished.
Priceless pearls of timeless wisdom to be savoured and lived into. We are lucky to have this record
This is a rare treat for whoever is interested in the lives and works of these amazing men.
Powerful lecture and such great insights on Guenon and Schuon.
One of the many things I've learnt from R.G. books is to look carefully what words we use - as modern men we tend to misuse terms and induce or enforce confusion around. Personally, I wouldn't even try to speak about G. - I am so aware about his deep knowledge, about his clear mind, about how special for our modern word he was/is, how difficult to define, about how easily and quick the words we use could be misunderstood that I'd rather keep all the knowledge I get from him for myself. There is only one thing unclear to me: how come that despite this huge knowledge of his, he only referred to the Western Church and overlooked the Eastern one, so important for the spirituality?
Because they are both Western. Esoterically there is no difference between Catholic and Orthodox, and to prove that you must only refer to the evidence of what was practiced in the West in the middle ages, and the best example of that is works like Ladder of the Monks or Cloud of Unknown, the works of Saint Bernard, Saint Romuald and others, and see that they are direct derivations of the works of the early Church Fathers, like Climacus, the Areopagite etc, and that corresponds perfectly to works like Philokalia, the hesychasm, Jesus Prayer (to which the rosary is the Western version, which, by the way, has its roots in the Desert Fathers of Egypt) etc.
Also, the Eastern Orthodox could never and would never be able to constitute a Traditional Civilization because of the intense caesaropapism going on. They were always pawns to the wants and needs of emperors and that's an inversion of the appropriate hierarchy of things in which Spiritual Authority must be above Temporal Power; even after the conquest of Istanbul by the turks, even after the massacres, they were the first ones to recognize the power of the ottomans and submit to it, even recognizing the claim that they were "successors to Rome" (!), a muslim state that is. That's partly why they never fully developed Hermeticism and the Lesser Mysteries on their own like in the West.
@@servus_incognitus I am talking dogma here, not various political decision. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church in Poland under communist regime made no exception to what you are pointing at. I am talking about the path in itself not of individual decisions of the clergy. People often mistake one with the other. Also keep in mind that where oppressive regimes have settled, a signifficant number of priests ( orthodox and romanocatholics) have ended their lifes in prison - so there were not such a bending of the heads as you may think.
Guénon was the Master, Schuon the student that in many (but not all) ways surpassed the Master. Guénon focused purely on Esoterism (metaphysics), Schuon on both Exoterism (religion) and Esoterism. Guénon's opus is algebrical and intellectual, Schuon's geometrical and spiritual. Guenon shows the Way to the Absolute, Schuon takes your hand and lead you to it. Both are contemporary equals of Plato, Plotinus, Shankara, Ibn Arabi, Rumi, Meister Eckhart. Both essential and complementary, the two pillars of Metaphysica Perennis et Universalis.
+Dalakouras A. I have a similar impression, at least regarding Schuon. Well, intellectually for sure. What about Gurdjieff?
I agree, i think Guenon was the pioneer
What on earth are you talking about?
Omar Kayham Gurdjieff obviously fits within these ideas. He also believed in the idea of the philosopher king.
In his chapters on Ashiatashiamesh the ideal society is described and how to realize it starting with work on oneself.
Good point. Thanks.
Thanks 4 share! Excellent
|Rites and various methods point the way to metaphysical realization, but one could nevertheless ignore them and by unswervingly setting the mind and all powers of the being to the aim of this realization could finally attain the supreme goal; but if there are means which make the effort less laborious, why choose to neglect them?|
Rene Guenon |Oriental Metaphysics|
Great stuff
21:18. Instead , We launch the truth against falsehood, which gets it smashed, and in no time it is gone. Alas to you for what you describe! ( سورة الأنبياء )
When there is a inner unity in all Religions, why Schuon embraced Islam and became a Sufi? Why he didn't find this source in Meister Eckhart, who was a Christian mystic? Why he changed the exoteric expression ? thx for every answer
Unless you understand the position of Nabi Muhammad (salam) in the spiritual hierarchy, you will remain confused till the end of time. It is the Prophet and the Quran that gives Islam the absolute spiritual authority over all other traditions.
@@alhassani626 Salaam, Ameen to that brother!
Unlike many other tradition, Islam as a religion itself acknowledge all other religions. The holy Quran speak itself as it is not new religion but confimation of previous scriptures. The exoterism in Islam today still unchanged and accessible, in the original form. and many other religions has lost it from the original form. I agree there are misuse of Islam by fundamentals and others but still Quran and hadits are kept unchanged and can be learn by anybody. I gues this is the reason.
@Leonardo's Truth lol
@@Sky_Secretary The Quoran was not perfectly preserved actually. And it actually affirms the divinity of Jesus Christ saintjerome.substack.com/p/kalimatullah-the-word-made-flesh
who is the speaker please?
mieliav Martin Lings
The hindus _at best_ accept the Buddha as an Avatar that appeared just to lead unworthy people astray. Even to call him an Avatar in no way concedes that buddhism might be a valid religion. And that has nothing to do with what I think about the Buddha.
Schuon gave in to petty individualism, ecumenism and crazy syncretism. He became delusional as he could not see himself as what he really was or should be. He is a very sketchy writer, and doctrinally weak, as he doesn't even fully understand the difference between the exoteric and the esoteric point of view.
Guénon on the other hand is the bestower of the pure, untainted Traditional doctrine, true esoterism, as far as it allows itself to be transmitted in a written form. He is doctrinally perfect, uncompromising and free of individualistic taint, not to mention a devout, good and kind hearted man.
There is no possible comparison between them.
What Lings intends to say is that Schuon really goes more into detail on exoteric side of things, while Guenón stays more strictly in the esoterism. That's what he means when he says that "there is much in Schuon that cannot be found in Guenón". Yet, as I've already said, Lings was far from being a reliable matter in this issue, as he took Schuon's side in the split, even betraying Guenón's trust (something I won't go into right now).
For instance, the part of that statement that says that "everything that is in Guenón is also in Schuon" is simply and verifiably false. To name only a few things, there is an absolute absence in Schuon's writings about anything regarding the King of the World (and the fact the some of his followers went on a trip looking for Agartha only goes to show the absurd level of their ignorance on this matter), and also almost nothing regarding the institutional, systematic character of initiation, or of initiatic order for that matter. His writings are also significantly lacking when it comes to traditional symbolism when compared to Guenón, and even more lacking when it comes to criticism of the modern world and pseudo-religions. He also never fully understood some key differences between exoterism and esoterism (such as the difference between mysticism and initiation, which really is laughable for someone claiming to be a spiritual master). His writings can only compare with Guenón's in terms of Metaphysics, but even then with severe reservations. He's more of a comparative religion scholar than anything, besides the whole "cult" fiasco.
Now, the other part of Lings' statement, that there are things in Schuon that aren't present in Guenón, may have some truth to it, but even then it must be qualified: because here he is referring to Schuon's writings on exoterism and spiritual guidance, things Guenón never intended to do. But then again, what is the value of that coming from a traditionalist, when we already have the saints and sages of each exoteric form (traditional religion) to provide us with it? What we need from traditionalists is to reveal the esoteric Tradition within the particular traditional forms, and not to take their places! So, all in all, I wouldn't say Schuon has much going for him over Guenón at all.
Of course, you could point out to Schuon's practical function as a shaykh, spiritual master, that put him in a more direct relation in regards to the spiritual Work of others in itself, but it suffices to take a quick glance at his "tariqah" and what became of it to realize how that failed on all accounts, turning into a firepit of deceit, lies and scandal (be it from accusers or defenders). That is not in small part due to his doctrinal errors and individual insufficiencies of course, which we crystallized through superbia and pride.
Schuon should've taken Guenón as a master and continued his work as a faithful disciple, but his western individualistic temperament got the better of him, and he only got worse with time. He was wrong on every account in the pseudo-intellectual fiasco of a book that he shamelessly released on Guenón's centenary as polemics against him (trying to "correct" him, as you say, and erring, missing the point, or shamelessly and gratuitously attacking him at every turn), and that's not to mention his ever increasing scandals and lunacies.
The traditionalists that followed more closely the directions Guenón had pointed are much more interesting, such as Michel Valsan and others, but they are much unknown in the anglophone world, even for traditionalist standards.
Ananda Coomaraswamy was much closer to what Schuon should've been from the beginning, apart from his special "function" of Spiritual Master and initiator in the West of course, which made his orthodoxy that much more crucial and necessary, and his heterodoxy that much more destructive.
Lings, unfortunately, it's obviously not a reliable source on this matter, as he was always a fanatical partisan of Schuon from the beginning.
Also, it must be said, one can only laugh upon hearing Lings talk about how some of Guénon's writings are "unpublisheable" because of supposed "mistakes", especially when one knows that he, as the editor of the English version Guénon's Symbols of the Sacred Science, adulterated and censored some of Guénon's paragraphs to render them more in line woth Schuon's views! He really shows his true colors when he says that; as a fanatical schuonian, Guénon's "mistakes" to him are anything that is not in agreement with Schuon, and that is certainly no trustworthy way of determining the truth of the matter (specially when you consider how many errors are published in Schuon's work and carrer as a spiritual master in general, most of them arriving from his divergence from Guénon, and still his followers kept silent). Now why can't one simply be faithful to what Guénon wrote and publish it as it is and, if one wishes, commenting on it later, but rather dogmatically censor it is beyond me. And it is doubtful that what Lings considers "mistakes" would be considered as such by Guénon himself. It suffices to read his correspondence to get a sense of this.
oeuvre-de-rene-guenon.blogspot.com/2019/02/la-fonction-de-frithjof-schuon.html?m=1
archive.org/details/refutation-des-quelques-critiques-de-f.-schuon/page/n29/mode/1up
archive.org/details/c-1970-80-sources-dossier-sg-vol-2_202307/Poulat