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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Post a Comment