Monday, October 12, 2020

New website and new videos about Schuon

A new website, https://accuratenews.net, deals with "News Accounts of the Frithjof Schuon 1991 Legal Ordeal." The events of 1991 are discussed in outline in my Against the Modern World, so I will not go over them again here. The website contains press cuttings and a short video of an old interview with Schuon himself (7 minutes), also available on YouTube, in which Schuon makes some counter-changes against Mark Koslow, his principal accuser in 1991.

The website, as is presumably its purpose, makes the case on the Schuon side. It contains no new information, but the video of Schuon is worth watching, for the overall effect, and also for the quotation from Dante and Schuon's claim (towards the end) that all he does is write books and answer questions.

There is no explanation of why this website has been launched now, but it may have something to do with the blog on the other side, Frithjof Schuon: A last minute lesson in discernment, run by Maude Murray, a former wife of Schuon and now (at 81) a vocal critic. The blog's current entry comments negatively on accuratenews.net. 

The blog also contains a rather longer video (31 minutes), also available on YouTube, in which Murray talks not only of what led to the 1991 charges, but also of Schuon's own view of himself as an Aryan quasi-prophet, referring in this connection to Gregory A. Lipton's Rethinking Ibn ‘Arabi (see earlier blog post). The website and video announce Murray's forthcoming book, Third Wife of the Muslim Shaykh Frithjof Schuon: My Lifelong Search for Truth, which can be pre-ordered here.

Most of what Murray says is confirmed by other sources, and nothing that she says is contradicted by any source known to me. It is interesting that while she charges Martin Lings and Seyyed Hossein Nasr with doctrinal errors taken from Schuon, she broadly excuses them--and especially Lings--from any guilt relating to the events leading up to 1991.

Thanks tho those who have recently drawn accuratenews.net and the Schuon video to my attention.


10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Schuon doesn’t come across as very reliable in the interview. First he says ‘I don't, I almost don’t know’ Koslow, and then he seems to know quite a lot about him. And at the end he basically denies leading a community, which we all know he was doing.

Maude Murray said...

He is lying all through. There were 30 to 40 people there, on several occasions, when he embraced those girls but also many wives of the fuqara. We were all instructed to lie, in detail, about our gatherings, and about his marriages, which we were to call spiritual - not needing a divorce. Two of us were convicted of perjury because the Jury had an answering machine tape, contradicting what we had been told to say. Afterwards, I apologized to the whole city, for lying, on tv..and I said I was apologizing for all of us. Soon some lawyers offered me $10,000 to leave town. Those people lied, at least from 1966. When I arrived then, to live in Switzerland, Catherine Schuon told me he didn't believe in truth on the plane of daily life. It sounded reasonable the way she said it. I had no idea how serious that was! He was one of the worst heretics who ever lived. His nature was also EXCEEDIGLY WELL-VEILED in illusions of every kind. One absolutely had to know the Criterion for judging true from false, and good from bad!

Maude Murray said...

Moreover, I am "the lady" he talks about in that video. He doesn't say my name, because I was his third "wife," and that was proven in an answering machine tape that is in the court records. The fourth "wife" left me a message on my answering machine- informing me that he said he could not divorce me, because he was a bodhisattva (!) and thus could not cause division. She and I had been told to lie and say our marriages were spiritual only, so we did. Then the Jury played that tape in front of us. We were convicted of perjury, shackled, handcuffed and brought into the court room, with her crying, because the metal cut her ankles, whereas I was fine and so detached by then that nothing bothered me: it was too insane! We were on the front page of the newspaper the next day, like that; but the charges were later dropped, because they were not pertinent to the case.

The source of lies was Frithjof Schuon, himself -then his first, only legal wife, Catherine Schuon, and the lawyer/faqir, Michael Fitzgerald, who orchestrated the lying and the public relations. He is the one in that video, asking who are these people who come to you,.like Sharlyn Romaine... Frithjof Schuon answers, saying that he's a philosopher, and people come to ask him questions. Well, he also made love to Sharlyn every single day - calling her a wife, for no reason at all other than that he said so. He showed himself off naked, and lied about it. So did his first wife. He took the wives of three of his closest disciples - just calling them his "wives," and he broke many of the major decrees of God - believing that he represented a belief that was HIGHER than all revelations and all Prophets. He was a megalomaniac, but exceedingly hard to unveil, due to Gnosis, traditional beauty, and gifts of every kind. This was a great spiritual drama for intellectuals and spiritual seekers in the end time. It is full of lessons, not easily abridged; and very good people played dreadful roles; but there is still time. I loved many, and pray they may realize their mistakes, repent and change. A few months ago, Catherine Schuon was dying a few months ago, at age 95. Both she and Michael Fitzgerald, were full of qualities. Life is not all black and white; but it's necessary to point out the black. Who wants others to go through terrible trials..rather do I pray for those who come after me. May you be guided aright and benefit from the immense compensations promised for those of us wh live in times like these. السلام عليكم وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه وأزواجه وذريته اجمعين

another anonymous said...

Thank you Maude for your comments, and thank you Mark for publishing them here. I think there must be many readers of this blog who understand the ongoing importance of this discussion. I still today have Guénon's works proudly displayed in my library alongside the Study Quran, which was of course edited by Schuon's friend (and disciple?) Nasr. But I cannot in good faith keep Schuon books to read for myself or to show to friends and family. I already felt when I first read his books that alongside the valuable skepticism of modernity and use of traditional sources there was some antinomianism dressed up in traditional language. But God alone knows best.

Anonymous said...

To another anonymous: Schuon, like Guénon, can still be useful if read carefully, as can the Study Quran. But the real Quran beats all of them.

Mark Sedgwick said...

Someone left a comment about the Prophet Muhammad that came to me for moderation and which on reflection I have decided not to publish, partly because many people would have found it offensive, but most of all because the comment was primarily about the Prophet Muhammad, and this blog is about Traditionalism, not Islam in general. To the person who left the comment: sorry.

Maude Murray said...

https://youtu.be/CsjV8RA2xJ4

That's me talking about Schuon, Lings and Nasr. I'm sorry: the first part is protecting my words forever more: I'm old and will die. There are too many lies already to leave any possibilities open for more! People see this video, and still ask me about Martin Lings and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Well, unless hey were appointed successors of another, orthodox Shaykh, they can't possible be true Shuyukh, because they were appointed by a heretic! Moreover, both their works have streaks of stains, due to the doctrines of their master. In addition, the actual life - in later years - of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, is stained by his being "above the law" like Frithjof Schuon. HOWEVER, both men are are marvels! Martin Lings biography of the Prophet is the best: his other works are great too. He might even have been a wali. I've no idea. Many people think so. Dr. Nasr is a Sharif, and will die purified, according to most interpretations of a line in the Quran. Seyyed Hossein Nasr is a treasure chest, full of BOTH knowledge AND wisdom. It would be tragic to discard him as a person or to stop reading his works! Moreover, both great men had some form of spiritual realization. I break all rules in criticizing Frithjof Schuon and several of his followers, because the truth of Islam is at stake: the Sunnah and the greatest companions and Gnostic Shuyukh made exceptions to the general rules about calumny and backbiting in cases in which the truth of Islam was at stake. That said, I keep quiet about repeating the faults and sins of others. My own are great, and I would not be forgiven. That's doctrine. I find it exceedingly unwise to spread criticism of the great Dr. Nasr. He is neither a true Shaykh nor a wali (at last hearing) but he's a treasurehouse, full of vast knowledge and wisdom. If ever anyone is worthy of respect and forgiveness, he's the one. I do realize how grave his faults have been, but so were mine, and those of a great many others! Being a disciple of Frithjof Schuon stained people, but Allah's forgiveness is beyond anything vast!

Anonymous said...

Mark, it's quite unfair to let Ms. Maurray ramble on like an insane person, but to censor the more lucid yet "controversial" comments. It seems as if you just want to milk this for all the drama it contains, like a sort of tabloid gossiping endlessly about celebrities.

In the end, the perception of someone's character doesn't negate the validity of their words. If someone in an asylum told you the sky is blue, it would be a true statement. If a demon told you the same thing, it would still be a true statement. If an angel told you the sky was yellow, it would be a lie. The Euthyphro dilemma comes to mind in this case and ought to be considered by all who truly care about the truth, all platitudes aside.

Not that I care for "traditionalists" at all, since in the end, something is true because it is true, but, what does it matter if all these allegations regarding Schuon and the like are true? How does it affect the validity inherent to their work? This is a question all ought to consider seriously, otherwise these "smear-games", lacking all maturity will go on endlessly. Esoterism is not a game of morality in the least, even the most elementary student within this domain ought to know this. Rather, it's simply about the Truth and the Truth isn't a moral thing at all. I alluded to this in my censored comments regarding prophet Muhammad as well.

Mark, please don't censor this, I believe this comment isn't at all "controversial" like my previous ones regarding the "prophet of the islamic religion".

Mark Sedgwick said...

In response to the latest comment by Anonymous, I do not in fact censor "more lucid yet 'controversial' comments" [plural). As explained on October 15, I did reject (OK, "censor") one comment about the Prophet Muhammad, for the reasons I explained. Otherwise, people are generally free to make comments as they like--although I wish people would do their best to be polite. Comments by Maude Murray are relevant to the focus of the blog, as is the question asked by Anonymous, about how certain matters might "affect the validity inherent to [people's] work.

Maude Murray said...

Sorry: No; it isn't Fitzgerald asking the questions, but another man. Tisnt important.