Monday, October 03, 2022

Interesting Traditionalist conference

An interesting Traditionalist conference is currently underway at the University of Notre Dame, entitled “Converging Wisdom? Questioning the Continued Relevance of the Perennial Philosophy” (October 2, 2022 – October 4, 2022). The keynote is by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, on “What is Perennial Philosophy and Why is it Significant Today?” The most prominent speaker, then, does see the Perennial Philosophy as still relevant, as do many other speakers. 

The schedule is available here, and the speakers include both prominent members of the Maryamiyya and other notable Traditionalists, and perhaps even a few scholars who are not Traditionalists, though I am not sure of that. It was possible to register to follow the conferecne online, and registration still seems to be open.

Thanks to C for bringing this conference to my attention.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Guenon is turning in his grave, seeing the things that have come to be associated with him.

Anonymous said...

Could you possibly elaborate?…The conference in particular? The topics being presented? If not, or if so, I’d be interested to read a more fleshed out grievance about what it is in particular that would have Guenon participating in the monster mash. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

All of it, just read his books, the original ones and not the recent publications that may be suspect and then compare it with what these people have written and with what they are doing. The worst offense is the complete hijacking of his presentation of Tradition for what it is and confounding it with this "perennial philosophy" that in the end is just a creature of Schuon! Besides if you look around, you will find many online publications denouncing such debacles and with good reason to.

Procastinator said...

In his books, Guénon talks of "Tradition primordiale" hundreds of times. Arguing that this idea is so different from that of "perennial philosophy" seems, to me, a bit of a stretch. Also, it was Coomaraswamy (definitely not a Shuonian) who suggested translating "Sanatâna Dharma" with "Philosophia Perennis" and, as Guénon himself said, "il doit être facile de comprendre ce qu’est en réalité le Sanatâna Dharma: ce n’est pas autre chose que la Tradition primordiale"

Anonymous said...

"...Even trying to reject Guenon's regard for Freemasonry when even in Egypt, he remained a Mason!"
They were doing him a favor, since being involved in Freemasonry is so terribly embarrassing for someone with the intellect of Guenon. It's true though, until the end, Guenon believed that making some moves on a carpet was superior to, say, all of of the mystics and sages of Christianity during the Middle Ages.
Also, I'm reminded of that weird conference Guenon attended about with Ossendowski, but do go on about Guenon's being above all this nonsense.

https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=6593

Procastinator said...

Guénon wrote "il doit être facile de comprendre ce qu’est en réalité le Sanatâna Dharma: ce n’est pas autre chose que la Tradition primordiale"

you wrote "Sanatana Dharma is not the Primordial Tradition"

You disagree with RG, which is fine. Just let you know that your legitimate opinion is the opposite of what RG said.
Since you wrote that "perennial philosophy that in the end is just a creature of Schuon" I took the liberty of correcting you.

For Guénon (and Coomaraswamy) Sanatâna Dharma=Philosophia Perennis=Tradition primordiale [Ètudes sur l'Hindouisme, Sanâtana Dharma]

Anonymous said...

" It's true though, until the end, Guenon believed that making some moves on a carpet was superior to, say, all of of the mystics and sages of Christianity during the Middle Ages. " I never understood that criticism because it's all about efficiency. Someone can passionately work on a recipe but if they don't have the proper tools their cake will be horrible. Another could quickly work on the same recipe but with proper tools and bake a masterpiece.This is easy enough to see. Therefore in the esoteric field masonry as presented and understood by Mr. Guenon is something that offered actual tools whereas christian mysticism was a passive thing that was even an accidental phenomenon. According to Mr. Guenon this is why he dismissed it since it could not even be replicated whereas proper and actual masonic rituals could. Just thought i'd chime in i am not the original commenter btw.

Mark Sedgwick said...

Someone posted a comment addressed to the moderator complaining that they had been censored because their comment had not been published. In fact, a number of comments had not been published simply because I was away at a conference and have not had time until now to check my email. Sometimes this will happen--I am afraid that I cannot always moderate comments immediately, even if I would like to. All recent comments have now been moderated, one with some minor deletions (as indicated above). I am not publishing the comment that was complaining about censorship, as I think that was really addressed to me personally.

Mark Sedgwick said...


Here is the slightly edited comment: How can you say they were doing "him a favour" (...)? (...). Guenon dedicated an entire book to traditional Freemasonry, which was hardly embarrassing. He aided in the formation of a lodge towards the end of his life. Have you read that book in detail? Let us not mince words here, this denial of traditional Freemasonry is nothing other than a knee-jerk reaction of those with a simple adherence to certain faiths, who are unable to see anything beyond the innate bias these paths, in their outermost sense, impose on their adherents. Guenon was however above all of this sectarian and partisan bias, since traditional Freemasonry is something that came from Agarttha, like every other regular tradition and in fact provided the esoteric means of realizing spirituality, especially for the western man. It was involved in the construction of cathedrals and other spiritual centres in medieval times, for example. There's no point in going into detail on all of this, since the books are there for anyone with an open mind to see. At the very least, all these are Guenon's viewpoints. But of course, in order to aid in their "traditional careers", some people wish to distance Guenon from things that they feel the relatively mainstream may recoil from, in order to invoke him as some precursor. So it's better to reduce him to a mere seeker, who finally found solace in a simple faith, or to a conventional philosopher to make him more palatable for the masses, even though Guenon stressed he wasn't writing for the masses, countless times!

Regarding his conference with Ossendowski, this is not a secret and he in fact alluded to it in his book, the Lord of the World, in short, he merely used Ossendowski as confirmation for things he already knew, as a simple witness. The conference he held with him was meant to disseminate traditional information, it has nothing in common with this particular conference which has sprang forth from the twisting of his books not only regarding semantics, but concepts as well. Guenon mentioned a few times that he simply used beneficial opportunities to reveal more about tradition, just like the far-eastern masters of old did. Him meeting Ossendowski is simply an instance of that. There is nothing wrong with conferences, it is the nature and intent of these conferences that defines them. (...)

I see you mentioned almost ad verbatim, Schuon's critique of Guenon regarding authentic masonic rituals and that tells everyone all that they need to know about your stances. All in all, Guenon is definitely turning in his grave, when he sees people hijack the ideas he relayed and twist them for their own gain, when he sees people patronize him in a condescending tone and in all of this, arrogantly claiming to "do him a favour", especially by following Schuon, who caused Guenon so much pain in his final moments, given the evidence in the letters he himself wrote! (...)

Note that (...) above marks places where the blog moderator has removed text that related not to the topic of the discussion but to other parties in the discussion, as the moderator was concerned that this text might be thought to be offensive.

Anonymous said...

“I never understood that criticism because it's all about efficiency. Someone can passionately work on a recipe but if they don't have the proper tools their cake will be horrible. Another could quickly work on the same recipe but with proper tools and bake a masterpiece.”
That’s a point of view I hadn’t considered. Given the efficiency of Freemasonry, there must now be a sizable army of realized men ready to swarm the earth ushering in the golden age. It’s a pity we don’t get to hear of them. Whatever became of Guenon’s super efficient Lodge?

Anonymous said...

"Guenon was however above all of this sectarian and partisan bias..." Indeed! I recall when Evola told Guenon about his being hit by Allied bombing in Vienna, that Guenon insisted it had to be from a magic spell, as he often mixed orders of causation, in spite of being above all bias.

Btw, I never said the Ossendowski conference was "secret" (so Masonic!), but "weird", which it was, but also pointless.

"I see you mentioned almost ad verbatim, Schuon's critique of Guenon regarding authentic masonic rituals and that tells everyone all that they need to know about your stances." It's true, all you need to know is that Schuon hit the bullseye with this critique. Even more, he quite correctly identified that all of Guenon's many errors (Christian initiation, rejection of Buddhism, lack of aesthetic sense, paranoia, King of the Worldism, etc.) as being connected to his infatuation with Masonry. Just in passing, it's remarkable to note that my Uncle Charles is a Mason. I'll have to find out if he's a realized man prepping for the Golden Age.

Procastinator said...

As always, if we start from the assumption that Guénon had a "function" (which our Guénonian friends should be honest enough to define "traditionally": was he a prophet? the Pole? Why, unlike regular traditional initiates he kept his lineage secret? etc.) there is not much to discuss. He was infallible and we only need to justify his ideas.

Guénon was an intelligent man but, like all of us, he also wrote many absurdities that can be easily disproved ("Tibet has never been Buddhist", "the Dalai-Lama has never been a temporal ruler", "The Sanskrit letter Na is written as an upsidedown Nun", etc). But again, if every line of his books is a sort of "revelation", there is really nothing to discuss. So, I would like to ask our anonymous Traditionalist whether he thinks that Guénon ever wrote something absolutely and factually wrong (and what he thinks of my three examples).

Anonymous said...

This will be my last comment on this thread. I only ask that Mark be kind with his moderation, but I respect that this is his blog. I however believe I have the right of reply since two people have addressed me directly.

I will only address the points raised, first, regarding the christian mysticism, Guenon many times pointed out the difference between a mystic and an initiate. A mystic is passive and has no replicable technique, a mystic gets his results by accident or by the intrusion of some power he does not even understand. A mystic does not even have a doctrine or a proper understanding of it. An initiate on the other hand possesses a doctrine, a living initiation and a cause, an active side that allows him to pursue things from a much better standpoint. Guenon distinguished this in his last book on initiation, I believe. The cake-baking analogy made by someone else here was simply pointing that out, I take it.

It makes no sense to deride Masonry on account of its failures in the modern world. The same can be said for anything, should we await vatican priests after vatican ii to lead the way to the golden age? Or maybe this will come from the many broken down muslim sects? What about the hindus, shall we await it from them? Do you see? This silly game can be played in all ways. I was referencing Masonry in its purity, as it should be, not as it is, I do not deny that in its present state it has degenerated, but that's the outcome of everything that is born, it eventually dies. Furthermore, what of the two turuq that Guenon inspired? They too are mired in controversy and failure, which is what prompted my initial comment. Initiation also adds nothing to someone, it simply awakens what they inherently possess. If it appears to someone that no one of considerable repute is showing up, then that simply points to the many people of low possibility that are being born today. They don't have anything considerable to awaken to begin with.

I do not believe that Guenon was infallible, he himself said that it is the doctrine alone that counts and errors arise from individuality. However, the things I brought up about people hijacking his works and twisting them for their own ends are still true and this is what Schuon and his affiliates did, a fact that has been immensely documented at this point. You can deny it all you want, but the evidence is there for anyone to see and come to their own conclusions. For his sources, this should be evident to all that truly understood what he wrote, it comes from the supreme centre of the world, a point that many, especially those of abrahamic faiths, find immense difficulty with accepting. Revelation is something inherent only to these abrahamic faiths as a feature unique to them, it doesn't extend beyond them. I read recently an interesting critique of his works though that I mostly agree with, but I can't remember the blog name right now, myths of Guenonians or something like that. So your "anonymous traditionalist" does not really share those points of view of revelations and individual infallibility and so on, but he feels as though he must point to the truth from time to time.

Anyways, we are all free to do as we please, but those that side with reality will obviously get the best results in the end.

Procastinator said...

"the doctrine alone that counts and errors arise from individuality". so, are there aspects of the "doctrine" taught by Guénon that are wrong, in your opinion?