A new thesis sheds new and important light on Eugène Albert Puyou de Pouvourville (1861–1939), his understanding of Taoism, and his influence on René Guénon. It is "Chinese Whispers: Albert de Pouvourville, René Guénon, and Traditionalism’s Hidden 'Chinese Roots,'" by Davide Marino, submitted at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and available here.
The main significance of the thesis is that it argues that the impact of Pouvourville on Guénon was comparable to the impact that Ivan Aguéli had, an impact that, as I argued in "The significance of Ivan Aguéli for the Traditionalist movement" (see here), is greater than generally realized. Likewise, the impact of Pouvourville was greater than has been realized.
The thesis consists of an introduction, eight chapters arranged in three sections, and a conclusion. The chapters are
Part I: Framework
1. Occultism, Traditionalism and the Crisis of Authenticity
2. Orientalisms
Part II: De Pouvourville, Guénon and the Birth of Traditionalism
3. Albert de Pouvourville’s Colonial Occultism
4. De Pouvourville Meets Guénon
5. De Pouvourville’s Influence on Traditionalism
6. Making Masters and Losing Friends
Part II: Two Shades of Esoteric China
7. De Pouvourville’s Tradition orientale
8. Traditionalist China
The central argument is that "the orientalist interpretation of China proposed by the occultist Albert de Pouvourville become the metaphysical core of René Guénon’s esoteric movement (Traditionalism)," While Aguéli contributed the Sufi pair of bāṭin and ẓāhir to Traditionalism's pair esoteric and exoteric, and Aguéli's binary of traditional Sufism and modern reformism to Guénon's binary of tradition and modernity, Pouvourville's contribution was even prior to that, as Marino argues in chapter 5: "From fundamental elements of Traditionalism like intellectualism and the theory of 'multiple states of Being' to secondary aspects like a distaste for Buddhism and contempt for 'sentimentality,' de Pouvourville’s teachings can be found all across Guénon’s work."
11 comments:
Great thesis but how disappointing to learn that Guenon's mysterious "Taoist initiator was the adventurer Pouvourville who appears to have been barely a Taoist if at all.
According to the author , it is in Pouvourville's writings that we first meet metaphysical concepts which reappear later in Guenon : concepts such as the "spherical vortex " , the symbolism of zero , the difference between the indefinite and the infinite , the multiple states of being , Buddhi , etc.
Nevertheless , i think it can be said that if these ideas were mostly embryonic in Pouvourville , it was left to Guenon to develop and clarify them in quite ingenious ways.
Having said that, i still would like to know where Pouvourville got those ideas as i don't think concepts like the multiple states of being were part of the standard occultist repertoire at the time or since ?
Also , none of this explains Guenon's potent critique of modernity in the "Crisis of the Modern World" and "The Reign of Quantity". It certainly didn't derive from Pouvourville who was an evolutionist and who believed in progress.
Neither does it diminish the unprecedented excellence of Guenon's writings on symbolism which owe nothing to Pouvourville or Agueli or any known influence.
So now that light appears to have been shed on Guenon's mysterious Sufi and Taoist " initiators " , that only leaves the Vedantic initiator , assuming there was one , who remains as mysterious as ever. In that respect , was there anything comparable to "Man and his Becoming " available in the West before Guenon ? i don't think so but i stand to be corrected.
1. De Pouvourville was not a Daoist in the sense argued by Guénon, but his representation of the "Far East" is less fanciful than it may seem (I hope to discuss AdP engagement with his Vietnamese sources when\if my thesis becomes a monograph). The problem is that the Guénonian model simply does not work when applied to Chinese religion.
2. Concepts like "the multiple states of being" were in fact part of the occultist repertoire of the time (both Theosophy and Martinism elaborated versions of it). I believe de Pouvourville himself have learnt these things in the Martinist milieu.
3. De Pouvourville was in fact an evolutionist who believed in (spiritual) progress. However, he also saw in the "Traditional" political organization of China a model to which "The West" could learn.
4. "the Man and his Becoming" does not contain any idea that wasn't already available in Europe. Guenon's genius did not come from privileged access to (in my opinion non-existent) "oriental masters". Instead, he was an original "religious bricoleur", someone who was able to use the material available to him and to other Europeans to create a "system of thought" that was and still is appreciated by many.
Thank you for your nice words about my work.
Davide Marino
Thank you for your kind response to my comments on your thesis.
Could you elaborate a little on your answer , please ?
1.You mentioned that the "the Guénonian model simply does not work when applied to Chinese religion ". I assume that you are referring to his model of an exoteric and an esoteric dimension. However , i think he does say somewhere that this model is more applicable to the monotheisms than the Eastern traditions ?
However,Guénon seems to have regarded Confucianism as the exoteric and Taoism as the esoteric aspect of the Chinese tradition .
2. I would be very grateful if you could give me some references for the concept of " multiple states of being" in Theosophic or Martinist sources or any sources prior to Guénon , as i would genuinely like to read further about this.
Of course , there is this concept in Christianity of multiple states or a divine hierarchy but applied to the angelic realm , perhaps deriving from Dionysius the Areopagite ? In fact in " The Multiple States of Being " , Guénon does refer to the angelic states as symbolizing the multiple states of being.
3. Regarding " Man and his Becoming " , i'm unconvinced that the orientalist sources available to Guénon at the time he wrote this would have been enough to allow him to perform a feat of bricolage which resulted in that work . Obviously , i am unable to be certain of this as i am not so well acquainted with the written sources on Vedanta and Samkhya of the period which might have been available to him . There again , i would be very grateful if you could recommend some sources .
Looking forward to seeing your thesis published .
1. The problem with Guénon's interpretation of Chinese religion is that, in order to make it fit with his "esoteric-exoteric" distinction, he oversimplified the whole story to an extent that the Chinese spiritual tradition is hardly recognizable. I'll sketch a few points here, but the whole discussion would deserve an article (not sure who would publish that though!)
First of all, he totally neglected the role played by Buddhism(s) without which Chinese religion as we know would be totally unimaginable. Secondly, he reduced "Confucianism" to a social and moral doctrine, ignoring the millennial history of the intra-Confucian discussion on mystics/metaphysics. Lastly, "Daoism" has also a very rich and diverse history which went from the "Church-like/State-like" organization of the Heavenly Masters in Medieval Central China to aristocratic intellectualistic traditions such as the "Lingbao school". It cannot be reduced to Guénon’s occultist discourse about “the Triads” (another invented category).
Obviously, Guénon cannot really be criticized for his deficient knowledge of the Chinese world, which was largely unexplored in his days. Today we have thousands of good books about Chinese religion, many written by great scholars and I believe that “Guénon’s China” should be read today as an archaeological curiosity, an early stage of the European understanding of China.
2. As you said, the Neoplatonic tradition abounds of multileveled universes (especially Proclus). In modern times, Swedenborg talked of “spheres”, while Blavatsky and the Theosophists talk of “planes” (“planes of Existence” or “planes of Consciousness” or “Plan of Being” etc). In French, Max Theon in his Tradition Cosmique talked of “États”. Similarly, de Pouvourville’s Voie métaphysique clearly contains the same idea (btw I heard that the book will soon be available in English).
3. Man and his Becoming (one of Guénon’s most profound books in my opinion). I am not an indologist but I have yet to find any notion about Hinduism in that book that wasn’t part of the scholarly knowledge of his time. Again, I do not discuss the interpretation of such notions, I am just saying that the elements that make the book were already there, in English or in French. Also, even Traditionalist authors who were actually in contact with living Hinduism (e.g. Alain Daniélou) timidly criticized some aspects of Guénon’s interpretation. This is why I highly doubt the existence of a mysterious Hindu master. After all, his followers have claimed for decades that Guénon had Sufi and Daoist “oriental” masters. Now we know that they were Aguéli and de Pouvourville. Why should be any different for a religion that was much more known at the time (Hinduism)?
As for my thesis being published, I am in the hands of the Gods of academic publishing houses!
first thank for your contribution to the field of guenonian studies , however i would personally adopt a much more charitable approach to the man and his work.
The quality of Guenons work does not depend on his having a taoist or santa dharma initation.He never claims to have had such and one can hardly blame him for the vein imaginations of his fanboys can we?
As for his exoteric /esoteric stratification it was never meant to be some absolute distinction between two domains which he very much acknowledged overlaped.
guenon is merely asserting the obivous that confucian values and rituals were used in the social sphere to regulate every day life and the relatinship between different levels of society.When your house was haunted by a ghost or your business was failing you would go to the taoist master not the confucian gentlemean and scholar.Its quite simple. this exoteric and esoteric division and in no way did guenon assert that it was a clear line of demarcation.
As for buddhism,this may sound like a massive ommision and indeed it would be if geunons focus was to give an in depth socio cultural explanantion of chinese society.He wasnt ..he was trying to deal with the sinic psyche.The chinese understood buddhism in terms of concepts that preceded buddhism iself ? This is where guenons focus was as a metaphysician he was not playing anthropologist
.he did not in fact ignore buddhism completely ,in the great tried he does discuss the role of buddhism in relation to both taoism and confucianism and why it was able to act as a useful bridge between the two .
The Chinese are a practical race and they were often confcian buddhist and taoist at the same time, which shows that they clearly established these sperate domains of reponsibilty to each of the different traditions and therefore this only gives further credence to guenons thesis.If you live in any traditional chinese society you will see this even now being observed .
I don know what you mean by suggesting the great triad is an invented category.Please elaborate.The idea of the sage king as mediator between heaven and earth is ubiquitous and even maoism does not escape it.
The idea idea of multiple states of being of course had to exist prior to guenon according to his own terms as his whole sthick was that there is nothing new under the sun and that he was was merely a transmitter of existing knowledge not an originator. What cant be denied that guenons multiple state of being is more comprehensive an exploration of this theme than anything written at the time or untill now.
I quite agree that their is no factual information in man and his becoming that wasnt available in writing at his time, but their is something very groundbreaking in his presentation of the facts .
In principle his initiation into sufism (which was through an authentic chain of tradition) could have blessed him with an opening that could illuminate anything and bring it into the fold of a unified vision.
Finally guenon developed his view on many things later on in life especially buddhism and he rejected the role of a guru or religious author, therfore he would have been the first to admit that his work is not religous authority,merely opinion.
Also whilst i have not yet read your thesis( woud love to ) the opening page claims that the esoteric/exoteric formulation came out of his ideas about chinese culture??This is an adbsurd? It is alreayd very clearly establsihed in islam ,in Hinduism(jnanic and bhaktic paths and the caste system itself)..in freemasonry...its an obvious everyday truth that did not need the input of chinese culture to be made apparent??
His model and that of schuon is much more influenced by the shariah and tariqah, the zahir and batin distinction in Islam than anything to do with chinese culture.
Dear Nobodysonofnoone,
Thank you for your message. If you wish to read my thesis please contact me in private. It is currently under embargo, but I would be happy to share my work with you. Here are some of my opinions about your remarks.
“The quality of Guenons work does not depend on his having a taoist or santa dharma initation.He never claims to have had such and one can hardly blame him for the vein imaginations of his fanboys can we?” and “Guenon developed his view on many things later on in life especially buddhism and he rejected the role of a guru or religious author, therfore he would have been the first to admit that his work is not religous authority,merely opinion” Sure, his fanboys caused much harm to the memory of such an interesting thinker. However, it is untrue that Guénon never made claims of spiritual authority. He was intelligent enough to make veiled (very “esoteric”) references to his “higher sources” without giving away too much information (which would have been scrutinized). This is a well-known rhetorical strategy employed by gurus and pseudo-gurus of all kinds. See
Nous espérons pourtant qu’il nous fera l’honneur d’admettre qu’aucune tradition n’est «venue à notre connaissance» par des «écrivains», surtout occidentaux et modernes, ce qui serait plutôt dérisoire ; leurs ouvrages ont pu seulement nous fournir une occasion commode de l’exposer, ce qui est tout différent, et cela parce que nous n’avons point à informer le public de nos véritables «sources», et que d’ailleurs celles-ci ne comportent point de «références» ; mais, encore une fois, notre contradicteur est-il bien capable de comprendre que, en tout cela, il s’agit essentiellement pour nous de connaissances qui ne se trouvent point dans les livres?
If not in “profane books”, where did this knowledge come from? The subtext is very clear (by the way, in the “traditional society” it is normal to openly declare one's lineage, I wonder why Guénon was so “anti-traditional” in this).
“This exoteric and esoteric division and in no way did guenon assert that it was a clear line of demarcation” If Confucianism cannot be “esoteric” and Daoism cannot be “exoteric” I feel that the line is quite clear.
“In the great tried he does discuss the role of buddhism in relation to both taoism and confucianism and why it was able to act as a useful bridge between the two” Yeah, that is a Guénon’s invention. Buddhism was, at first, vigorously rejected both by Confucians and Daoists. Daoists and Buddhists fought for centuries to win imperial support. I never heard a Buddhist telling me that his doctrine was a bridge between Confucianism and Daoism. Ready to learn if someone has a Buddhist text/author which says so.
“I don know what you mean by suggesting the great triad is an invented category.” The triad heaven-earth-man is not invented (even though it is not called Grande Triade but tianrenheyi天人合一, which means roughly “heaven and humanity are united as one”). In my previous comment, I was referring to Guenon’s discussion of the “Daoist triads” which, as demonstrated by tons of literature, simply do not exist. All those pages about “the White Lotus” etc are just occultist sub-culture, a product of European imagination which has nothing to do with China.
“the opening page claims that the esoteric/exoteric formulation came out of his ideas about chinese culture??This is an adbsurd?” I could not find such a claim on the opening page of my work. I will not say that such a distinction is “an obvious everyday truth” except for that subset of the religious world known as “occultism/esotericism”. But that is another story. The main point of my work is to show that, before encountering Islam (via Agueli) Guenon was deeply influenced by (a version of) the “Far Eastern Tradition”, (de Pouvourville) and that Guenon’s metaphysics is largely based on de Pouvourvillian themes.
Overall, I avoid concepts such as “the Chinese race”, “traditional society” etc. I do not find them useful in understanding foreign cultures. At the end of the day, my point is that if one wants to understand Guenon should read his books, but if one wants to understand the rich spiritual culture of China it would be better if we avoid occultism and move towards serious interpreters of that tradition (I would start with the great Kristofer Schipper)
Thankyou for your detailed response, please do let me know how i can get in touch to read your highly anticipated thesis .
The idea of making your lineage clear is not at all a necessity in traditional religion, there have been many freelancers who were inspired by Khidr or the prophet directly ,the uwaisiyah for example ..Bawa Muhayeddin is a good example in Sufism who was accepted as a great authority by many people but never actually told anyone who his masters were.It just depends on the fruit of the man, if he can substantiate himself with evidence, he can get a pass.
My own teacher ( of Chinese ancestry) for that matter was also vague in terms of his own initiation and i only found clarity about it from my own experiences with a master from a totally different order many years after his passing.There are many reasons why a person would want to be vague about their lineage. Guenon did not set himself as a master who could initiate people .. People can take his ideas or leave them.He was merely a thinker.
He tried to hint he was more, but i would like to think , there was also a divine hand in this ( an upaya) that made people buy into him more and become drawn into his net...god is not a moral puritan by any means.
I do acknowledge that Guenon might have been elusive to further his mystique. A French Taoist is not as mythologically glamorous as real china man..yep there is always the sense that Guenon was trying to act more more initiated than he was....however guenon was not in traditional world at that time and i don't hold that too strongly against him.Alot of people give guenon credibility for the final article he became not what he was in his formative years.
If not in profane books.
I think sacred books would be more appropriate. But again i suppose this divergence in vision comes from wether one believes or not or if there is divine unveiling of the mysteries in the heart of the seeker.Guenon was able to see things in the literature that went beyond the literature itself.
If Confucianism cannot be “esoteric” and Daoism cannot be “exoteric” I feel that the line is quite clear.
Did guenon ever actually say that..he would be a dullard of the highest order if he did??
Regarding the assertion that no Buddhist ever felt his religion was a bridge??
The truth of this assertion does not depend on what Buddhist think,it depends on the evidence to show that in fact this is what happens in real life.
Im pretty sure you've heard of Caodaism in vietnam which suggest exactly this...and the tridharma movement in Indonesia. ALso i have heard many Buddhist say that other religions are complimentary aspects of Chinese culture/spirituality and in fact almost every traditional Chinese person i know (quite alot i would say) to some extent draw from all three traditions, even whilst being Christian in many cases.
Perhaps the irony is that more authentic chinese culture can be found outside China itself as a result of Moaism, although i have not visited China for many years now and cant claim to speak with any real authority on this.
I still don't get the point about the grande triad..i might have to refer back to the original text if i am serious...are you saying the white lotus clan never existed??
There was a Vietnamese Chinese family friend down the road from me who was in one of these secret societies...its not even so secret.
I am sure you understand that Guenon was trying to provide some grand outline of how principalities manifest on the material plain, as a above so below .I like many, happen to think he did a pretty good job of it ..although not a perfect one by any chance. Cultural movements and cults do not have to be aware of the great pattern they fall into to show that the pattern itself exist..that is precisely what metaphysics is.
The historical accuracy of all the details is not really that crucial and does not invalidate his overall thesis. Yes he deserves some criticism for speaking with a sense of entitlement he properbly didnt have a right to, but hey he was just a man trying to figure all this stuff out and he had to feel sure for his own stability in the process of extricating himself from the fine mess his occult dabblings got him into.
Feel free to contact me at davidemarino[at]link.cuhk.edu.hk I will be happy to share my work with you
Davide Marino
Post a Comment