A forthcoming edited volume entitled René Guénon and the East invites contributions.
Guénon famously placed ‘the East’ at the center of his intellectual project, conceiving it as the primary point of access to "the primordial tradition." Although his interpretations of Asian religious traditions have been highly influential, they have only rarely been examined critically by specialists in the relevant fields. This volume aims to address that gap.
The book welcomes historically, philologically, and theoretically informed contributions, including (but not limited to): critical analyses of Guénon’s readings of specific religious traditions; studies of the reception and practical use of Guénonian interpretations; reflections on the political, ideological, and Orientalist implications of Guénon’s concept of ‘the East’; and examinations of exceptional or contested cases such as Japan, Judaism, and Buddhism.
Contributions should not exceed 9,000 words, including notes and bibliography. A first draft is expected by September 2026. Further details regarding the timeline and formal requirements will be provided in due course. Interested scholars are invited to contact the editors for further information. Contact Roberto Corso and Davide Marino, davide.marino@theologie.uni-goettingen.de.
Now we need a volume of René Guénon and the Occult.
ReplyDeleteIn the spirit of honesty I think it's good if such things consider what Guenon thought of scholars, orientalists, experts, philosophers and academics, as well as occultists in the modern sense. Not only what he thought of them, but why he thought of them that way. It would be strange to judge his books by standards he never wanted to achieve, in fact he explicitly distanced himself from such institutions and their outlooks and stated many times that he was not writing for them. On that last point, a sufi, taoist, yogi and so on were/are not scholars, orientalists, experts, philosophers and academics, as well as occultists either and the people involved in such research as they call it should consider this!
ReplyDeletePerhaps a chapter on this is needed!
DeleteYes, we plan to have a contribution of his relationships with some "orientalists" of his time. "a sufi, taoist, yogi and so on were/are not scholars, orientalists, experts, philosophers and academics" some were/are. The point is simply that Guénon made claims about “Eastern traditions.” So let’s study those traditions in themselves, rather than starting uncritically from his own interpretations!
DeleteCool but, it is dishonest to act as if the scholar, academic, expert, philosopher, specialist and orientalist in the modern sense have anything in common with a sufi, taoist, yogi and the like. These modern mentalities and careers did not even exist during their day and the ones who are alive today are supposed to be a continuation of their predecessors. Also, you say "some were/are", which means that logically one can be a sufi, taoist, yogi and so on without being a scholar, since if some were, then others weren't. Some were also fishermen and merchants, shall we turn to fishermen and merchants to understand them then? Guenon did not fight orientalists of his day only, he fought their entire outlook in whatever form it shows itself including the form it show itself today. He was also already discredited by modern institutions like Sylvain Lévi who "critically" examined his thesis and found it lacking in terms of modern academic standards, which he was never trying to meet. It's therefore beating a dead horse but you do you I guess. I just hope these points can be honestly considered in your research since Guenon's readers are well aware of them.
DeleteHere's Titus Burckhardt on the same subject : " Let it be said at the outset that academic knowledge is only a quite secondary and very indirect aid in assimilating the intellectual content of oriental doctrines - indeed the scientific method which of necessity approaches things from the outside , and thus from their purely historical and contingent aspects , does not set out to promote such an assimilation . There are doctrines which can be understood only from the ' inside ' through a work of assimilation or penetration that is essentially intellectual ( by intellect is here meant not the reason or discursive thought , but the organ of direct knowledge or of certainty i.e. the pure light of intelligence which goes beyond the limits of reason alone . The theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church , and in particular Maxim the Confessor , calls this ' organ ' the Nous . Sufis would say that that the real ' seat ' of the intellect is the heart ( al - qalb ) and not the brain). Indeed , in so far as it is stamped with mental conventions ( not to speak of the agnostic and evolutionist prejudices which determine the outlook of most occidentals ) , discursive thought even becomes an obstacle ."
ReplyDeleteIn my view it is a mistake to assume that scholarly study of a religion has no spiritual relevance for its practitioners. While it is true that any living spiritual doctrine must ultimately be understood from within—through participation, practice, and commitment—it does not follow that external, critical inquiry is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteBefore modernity, there was little possibility of a fundamental conflict between these two standpoints. The “outside” perspective—what passed for objective or proto-scientific understanding—was not yet methodologically or institutionally separated from the symbolic and sacred structures of the tradition itself. In effect, the internal and external viewpoints were aspects of a single, coherent world.
With the emergence of fully developed historical criticism and scientific naturalism, a genuine epistemological split appears between: (1)
Internal understanding (participatory, symbolic, oriented toward meaning and transcendence), and (2) External understanding (analytic, historical, explanatory, oriented toward causal accounts).
This split cannot simply be ignored. It forces religious traditions into a set of structural responses, typically along lines such as: (1) Rejection: repudiating scientific or historical accounts in order to preserve the integrity of the tradition (e.g., creationist positions); (2) Reinterpretation: revising doctrines so they remain compatible with modern knowledge (e.g., liberal or reform movements); and (3) Stratification: introducing an esoteric/exoteric distinction, where literal claims (e.g., miracles) are reclassified as symbolic, pedagogical, or mythic. But this is not at all the same as the esoteric/exoteric distinction in earlier traditional terms.
What is at stake here is not merely whether scholars can understand practitioners, or whether practitioners can accept scholarship. The issue is far deeper: modernity has introduced a permanent fault line in the conditions of understanding themselves.
What Mircea Eliade sometimes called the “second fall” can be interpreted as precisely this: not exactly a loss of the sacred, but an irreversible division between modes of knowing that once could be unified. This undermines the very possibility of honestly taking any given tradition as spiritually normative and authoritative without reference to other magisteria.
This of course has nothing to do with whether spiritual experience and life are still possible, they are just as possible as ever, but they can no longer be understood in a pre-modern way.