Schuon's Traditionalist philosophy

Harry Oldmeadow's book is a good introduction to the thought of Frithjof Schuon, one of the more prominent Traditionalists authors, second only to René Guénon. While the book speaks for itself, I can't help comment on some of the contents.

Schuon's view of God is based on Advaita Vedanta, and would be considered “impersonal” by classical theists. This completely mysterious divinity emanates a number of celestial archetypes, which manifest themselves on Earth in the form of different religions. Each “orthodox tradition” is therefore a genuine expression of the Divine. Examples of such traditions include Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and shamanism. Schuon's view of race and ethnicity are essentialist, and this explains why God has to manifest himself in different ways to different peoples. Schuon also had an essentialist conception of caste, each caste representing a specific personality type. For this reason, several distinct archetypes might manifest within the bounds of the same religion. This explains such apparent anomalies as theistic tendencies within Buddhism (in the form of Pure Land Buddhism) or impersonal mysticism within Christianity (Meister Eckhart).

Behind the exoteric religious traditions can be found an esoteric message, a perennial philosophy, which transcends them all. Yet, Schuon doesn't denigrate exotericism, nor does he recommend syncretism. Schuon emphasizes that each authentic religious tradition is sufficient onto itself. Men can be saved by following the precepts of their exoteric tradition, precisely because all paths ultimately have the same goal. A simple faith is better than a cerebral, purely metaphysical “esotericism”. One of the functions of esotericism is to save the exoteric traditions from corrosive criticism and self-doubt, by explaining that they are all true, and therefore don't need to fear the existence of other, seemingly competing traditions. Schuon's own path to God strongly emphasizes the divine character of Beauty as expressed in traditional art – Schuon was both a painter and a poet. To Schuon, “maya” isn't simply an illusion to be rejected in favour of Atman-Brahman. Maya simultaneously both veils and reveals the true character of God, Beauty being one of its foremost forms of revelation. Indeed, the whole world is filled with symbols and symbolic meanings which point the discerning seeker to God and reveals something of his character. Indeed, the Divine itself sometimes walk the Earth in the form of avatars, each avatar being commissioned to bring a specific Revelation.

Another important point in Schuonian Traditionalism is, of course, the anti-modernist critique. Following Guénon, Schuon views the modern world as the last stage of the Kali Yuga, and rejects virtually everything associated with it: modern science or scientism, the theory of evolution, New Age spirituality, Neo-Hinduism á la Vivekananda or TM, Freudian psychoanalysis, democracy, egalitarianism and modern art (starting with the Renaissance). Jungian psychoanalysis is also rejected, since Schuon believes that Jung went “downwards” to the “psychic” and infernal, rather than upwards to the true divine archetypes. Schuon's anti-modernism wasn't connected to any political program, but rather with a pessimistic and somewhat apocalyptic perspective, awaiting the complete dissolution of the present world at the arrival of the Kalki Avatar. Perhaps wisely, Schuon didn't give any detailed predictions on how and when the eschatological scenario would play itself out. Yet, even the Kali Yuga has one positive trait: divine grace overflows, and it's possible for its denizens to be saved by simply repeating the divine names (this notion comes from Hinduism – indeed, Schuon explicitly connects it with Shrimad Bhagavatam). Thus, even the conservative Schuon has a certain “populist” trait in this regard. Cyclical conditions make the narrow old way obsolete, in favour of the broader path of the new way.

I happen to disagree with most of the contents of Schuon's perennial philosophy. Thus, Schuon's doesn't seem to have a good definition of what constitutes an orthodox tradition (I can hear his disciples reeling). For instance, why is the religion of the North American Plains Indians orthodox? Why is Gnosticism, which seems similar to the perennial philosophy, heterodox? Like other perennialists, Schuon has difficulties pressing Christianity into the mould. Is there *really* any room for Advaitin-inspired mysticism within Christianity, with its strong emphasis on the unique historical person of Jesus? When discussing Revelation, Schuon reaches the curious conclusion that no new revelations are possible after Muhammad! This, of course, is connected to Schuon's personal conversion to Sunni Islam through a Sufi order, but it doesn't strike me as a serious “esoteric” argument. Indeed, Schuon makes a de facto exception for Sikhism, which he deems orthodox, despite being post-Islamic. Another problem is Schuon's rejection of syncretism. Judging by Mark Sedgwick's exposé of Traditionalism, “Against the Modern World”, Schuon's own Sufi order Maryamiyya developed in a syncretistic direction, with Schuon blending his own version of Islam with Catholicism, Indian dances and the like. Schuon would no doubt respond that *his* combinations aren't arbitrary or artificial, but rather express the real archetypes, but everyone else would surely call it syncretism! Judging by Oldmeadow's book, Schuon's admirers also have problems with his painting, due to certain similarities in style with that of Gaugin, a modern painter Traditionalists should repudiate. My main problem with Schuon, however, is the static anti-modernist perspective, especially the rejection of all forms of evolutionism. Nor is there any attempt to integrate goddess-centred religions in the perennial philosophy. The female archetype does play a central role in Schuon's spirituality, but only as a Madonna-like transmitter of Beauty, a perspective compatible with patriarchy.

“Frithjof Schuon and the Perennial Philosophy” has two de facto companion volumes, Michael Fitzgerald's “Frithjof Schuon: Messenger of the Perennial Philosophy” (which I haven't read yet) and “The Essential Frithjof Schuon”, edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Schuon's ideas are interesting, to be sure, and he said things even I found useful. Overall, however, I can't say I vibe with his particular version of Sophia Perennis…