Schuon's Path of Truth & Beauty

Q: You posed a question yesterday but did not give answer. Will the picture of society’s loss of faith change during times of worldwide violence? What is your opinion?
A: Of course, this is controversial. A number of people believe that if there is some major war then large collectivities will return to religion. Some prognosticators believe that is impossible. Some believe that it is possible. Jacob Needleman was the editor for Penguin and a well-known academic. In the 1980s he wrote to Schuon and had two interviews with him, followed by the men passing letters back and forth. Two of the letters are in the book of Schuon’s letters. Needleman believed that a major event, what he calls a “shock,” would turn people back to religion. Schuon responded—this is a question that has come up before—that “only individuals can be saved from modernism.” In Schuon’s reply, he talks at length about Needleman’s thesis that a shock could send people back to religion. Schuon points out that the French Revolution, then communism, fascism and Nazism were all shocks, but they were exteriorizing and people did not turn back to religion. The shocks that were interiorizing include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—these shocks were interiorizing. However, Schuon observed that the decay in today’s society has degenerated to a point where none of these more recent shocks that we listed had any lasting effect because they were exteriorizing. So, certainly wars will send “individuals” back to religion and back to prayer, but not “collectivities.” I’ll quote Schuon: “All this amounts to saying that in our century only individuals can be saved from modernism, not collectivities. In a way, modern man is a creature that stubbornly does not want to be saved.” The letter is quoted at length in the book of letters.

Q: Schuon says, “Modern science is engaged in a vicious circle of conjectures. Can you give us some examples?”
A: That is a fortunate question. When I originally prepared this lecture, I included a number of other slides that I was obliged to remove to shorten the lecture. One slide can answer this question. Let me see if I can find it. In 2011, the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to three men who carefully measured the velocity at which the galaxies are moving away from each other. They found that the velocity at which galaxies are moving away from their point of origin is continuously increasing with time. In his Nobel Prize acceptance lecture, Adam Reiss noted their findings “immediately suggested a profound conclusion.” Something is powering the acceleration of the universe. After more testing, they found: “The universe is filled with a mysterious dark energy that accelerates the universe.… We are not confident why it is there.” To laughter from the Nobel Prize audience, Reiss then quipped: “The theorists say they are working on it.” This is 2011. He went on to say, I want to end with a philosophical note. This is our universe; this is the recipe. It turns out it is very humbling…. Only about 4% of the universe is made of the stuff we are familiar with (planets, stars, and gas). 25% is ‘dark matter,’ which is quite mysterious; 70% is ‘dark energy,’ which is even more mysterious. Scientists have no idea what is happening to speed up the velocity at which our universe is expanding. The existing laws of physics prior to 2011 were shattered. So, they are “plastering over”—this is Schuon’s phrase—the old conjectures with some new conjectures. This new observation revises the origin of the cosmos as we know it, the universe as we know it. Have you ever heard of something that actually increases with velocity as it goes forward from an explosion in time and space—in this case the Big Bang? It is not normal. In any event, this is an example of what Schuon would say “plasters over” an outmoded theory with some new theory as they try to figure out what has happened here.

Q: How well accepted is the Perennial Philosophy in colleges?
A: It is not well accepted. Most academics in religious studies are focused on presenting a scientifically rigorous approach in order to have their work accepted by the wider academic community. For example, the two founders of the emergent academic field of “western esotericism”—Faivre and Hanegraaf—developed a methodology intended to be scientifically rigorous and not tainted with metaphysical discourse. Academia has now widely accepted this new methodological approach, known as “empirical research” and “empirical method.” The concern for scientific rigor under the guise of the need for empirical validity results in “the rejection of metaphysical premises” (Faivre) in the academic study of esotericism.
Faivre and Hanegraaf intended to exclude perennialism: “the first necessary step towards establishing the study of esotericism as a serious academic pursuit would be to demarcate it clearly from the perennialist perspective.” (Hanegraaf) “Scholars”, an academic summarized, “as scientists, can discuss religion only from the perspective of a one-tier cosmology, that of the empirical world, because scientific research can only be conducted about the observable world.” (Platvoet)
James Winston Morris, a friend, wrote years ago something to the effect—I paraphrase loosely—that almost every professor in religious studies has read Schuon but he is not used often in coursework because of the unique process of what Morris called “academic canonization.” I think that is pretty well said. Dr. Oldmeadow has just finished a book, Voices in the Wilderness, in which he profiles the leading Perennialists. Dr. Nasr wrote the Foreword. He sent Harry a list of about 50 of his students who now have their doctorate and are out teaching. So, there are some people in academia who are very familiar with the Perennial Philosophy, but I think it is safe to say that it is in ill repute in academia. I can no longer recommend that any student major in religious studies because of this scientific “empirical method.” One of the proofs of the dark times in which we live is that the academic study of religion and esotericism attempts to exclude a discussion of Perennialism and Divine Realties. Is it any wonder why there is an increasing loss of faith in God?

Q: As a traditionalist living in the modern world, how should one approach the use of modern technology? And how does one prevent modernism from intruding into one’s spiritual life?
A: Very carefully. There is no one simple answer other than “very carefully.” It is a question of discernment. On Day Three we will be talking about the role of art in the spiritual life. There are a number of stories that will be told about Schuon and you will see a film interview with him talking about this question. We will also see sacred art from throughout history and across the world in an attempt to help people understand what is possible in terms of aesthetics in the modern world. In the course of that lecture, we will talk about some specific suggestions that Schuon has in terms of concentrating on what is beautiful and not on what is ugly, which helps to create an environment that is conducive to a life of prayer.
Schuon himself did not use a typewriter or a computer. All his books and letters are handwritten. There was no telephone in his home in Pully. When Mrs. Schuon wanted to use the phone, she had to walk next door to the Perry house. So, Schuon himself was very guarded and very careful not to allow modernism to slip into his life. For most of us, it is impossible to avoid modernism in one or another of its guises. But we have talked about some of those guises and being aware of them and keeping them in your mind already provides a protection. And, then the protection provided by the umbrella of an intrinsically orthodox religion helps to be vigilant and helps to maintain good comportment.

Q: René Guénon, in his book, The Reign of Quantity, directly attacks physics and modern physics and he is against science also. Do you see any difference between Guénon and Schuon in this respect?
A: No. No, I do not see any meaningful di9erences. I said that our “primary quarrel” is not with science and that is true. Science, in principle, simply measures and reports what it has measured. I prefer to use the term “scientism” because, in my experience, people are more open minded to listen, ask questions and discuss if I use the term “scientism.” That term also lends itself to a discussion of “modernism” because scientism is “one of the guises of modernism,” to use Schuon’s phrase. In an analogous way, I prefer to use the term “modernism” rather than “the modern world.” As you heard from Schuon, he does not deny that there is some good in the modern world—It is a question of the lesser of evils and the greater good. But there is nothing good in modernism. It is similar with science and scientism—there are some good things in modern science, but nothing good in scientism. There is no meaningful difference between Guénon and Schuon on this subject because the pervasive nature of scientism means, de facto, that modern science is a problem. What I try to do in my lectures is to focus on the kernels of the problem: scientism and modernism.

Q: The Quran says “Kun”—“Be.” Does this command to “Be” refer to the Big Bang?
A: Yes, exactly. I do not remember precisely how Schuon puts it in the quote where he is talking about the Big Bang, but that is precisely it. Schuon in his quote does not come out 100% and say that he supports the Big Bang, but that is the clear implication. Schuon did not like the term the “Big Bang”—referring to the term as “in the jargon of Anglo-Saxon scientists”—but it is the current parlance and there is nothing I can do to change society’s vocabulary. The reality is that some type of enormous cosmic explosion, the cosmogenesis of the universe, began expanding outwards from the materialization of a super saturated Divine solution—what the traditional doctrines call emanation. This was the Big Bang—the moment that was the Divine origin of the physical world.

Q: In his work, Schuon refers to Shankara, an Advita Vedanta Hindu, as representative of his own thinking about the Sophia Perennis. But, he also refers to Ibn ’Arabî as doing the same. Shankara’s view is pantheistic—God and the universe are identical. And, Ibn ’Arabî’s view is generally interpreted as being panentheistic—God is in the world but is beyond the world. I wonder if in his writings or in your conversations with him, he made a distinction between these two metaphysical descriptions of ultimate Reality.
A: Well, I disagree with the fundamental premise that Shankara was a pantheist. As Schuon says, we should go to the three-part Vedic formula that summarizes Shankara’s doctrine: “Brahma satyam, jagan mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah.” God alone is real, the world is illusion, and God is not other than the individual soul. So, God is within each of us and, at the same time, God is beyond the world of forms. Shankara is not a pantheist. Shankara and Ibn ’Arabî’ are very similar in terms of their belief that there is a Divine Power that is both beyond all creation and within each of us.

Q: If the evidence for transformist evolution became overwhelmingly strong, would that undermine the perennial philosophy in your view? What would be lost? Would not metaphysics, morality, and values remain? Could there be a form of evolutionary creationism that is congruent with the Sophia Perennis?
A: There are three or four questions there. Let us start with the last one. Is there a form of transformist evolutionism that could be consistent with the Sophia Perennis? No. not in terms of transformist evolution, which, I believe, is what the question presupposes—the evolution of man. Schuon is very clear on that. There can be no evolution of religion. There can be no evolution of mankind to what de Chardin would refer to as the “omega point.”
That is a preposterous idea, as Schuon says in that quote, “the Eternal will always be Alpha and has always been Omega.” This is why I do not believe it is possible to prove transformist evolutionism. So, I cannot really speculate on something that I think is a complete 100% impossibility. There is no doubt that scientists will stand up and shout and say this finding or that finding proves evolutionism. They have been doing that for over a hundred years, and they will continue to do it. But there is no real proof. There are “the four glaring gaps.”

The “4 most glaring gaps” in the scientific explanations

1. Nothingness (before Big Bang) → Non-living matter (after Big Bang)
2. Non-living matter → Vegetative life (one-celled organisms, plants)
3. Vegetative life → Animals (sense-perception, consciousness)
4. Animals → Humans (rationality, language, objectivity, contemplate the Absolute)

And to this day, the various physicists and geneticists that are studying transformist evolution no longer use a phylogenetic tree. They use a “rootless tree” that just shows variations within a species because they have never found physical evidence in the fossil record of the evolution of one species to another species. As we spoke before, science has no response to the Four Glaring Gaps. So, I do not believe it is possible to find anything that would prove transformist evolution to what I will call a “coolheaded” or a “cold-headed” objective analysis.

Q: This is a more personal question. My professional work is in the empirical sciences, and I had the same response to what you called “the Four Glaring Gaps” when I encountered them 20 years ago. I continued my work but, in my heart, I took a different turn. Is there a point in trying to convince people, not necessarily through lectures, but individually—to try to convince people who may benefit from these kinds of words but who have in their hearts sidestepped these big questions?
A: There is a fundamental question. Does that person have tenure? Will speaking out jeopardize your livelihood? I know it sounds humorous, but it is absolutely true. Young PhDs who are just making their way in their profession are obliged not to create too many waves. It is just the reality of professional life. But, once you have attained stability in your job situation, you are free to speak your mind and your heart. I am lucky because I am not in academia. Schuon reports that someone once told him he should get his PhD. He responded to the effect that “why would I ever want to do that and have to engage in the politics of academia?” The perfect response. So, I want to encourage anyone who has a stable situation to write from their mind and their heart, as they see things. But, I can certainly understand that professional reality prevents that in some cases.

Q: A final question. The sermon on the mount tells us to store up for ourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust will not destroy them and thieves will not break in and steal them. There is a Lakota saying that “what you give away, you keep and what you keep, you lose.” Can you contrast this to modernism?
A: We spoke about materialism briefly. It is the result of ignoring the “seven deadly sins” of Christianity—ignoring your moral sense and wanting more, more and more. Materialism is the absolute antithesis of the American Indian way. Now, the reality is that we live in a circumstance when it is very difficult to be in abject poverty and give away everything. So, one has to be measured. In a number of conversations that I had with Mr. Schuon, I asked “how much should one put away and at what point do you back out of your professional life?” He said you have to have a sense of proportions and know when enough is enough. For me, I more or less backed out of professional life in 1998, when we started to really build up World Wisdom. Writing, publishing and speaking out became more important for me, and I tried to have a sense of when enough is enough. I think each person needs to address that question and consider what they are doing with their, to use the Islamic term, zakat— with their charity. How are they using it? In what ways can they help people?
I thank whoever wrote the question for drawing our attention once again to the American Indian wisdom. The saying is perfectly apt. You know, I like stories, so I am going to tell another story from 1971, the summer I lived with the Yellowtail family. Their son, his wife and six or seven of their grandchildren were living with them in this little cabin. I actually lived out and back, first in a tepee and then in a little trailer. They were poor. They did not have much money. I helped a lot with the groceries. And then one day a man walked up the long gravel road and driveway and introduced himself to Mr. Yellowtail. He had never known the man, but the man said he was a friend of Yellowtail’s father. He explained that his car had broken down and he was in difficult circumstances—even his boots had holes in them. Yellowtail took his best pair of boots, gave them to him, fed him, gave him $40, and helped him to get his car repaired so the man could go down the way. That taught me more about true generosity than any experience prior to that. It is still burned in my memory. We spoke yesterday about what it means to be an old-timer. As I said then, I cannot really tell you what it is about, I cannot put it into words. But these types of sacrifices that people make for their fellow humankind are heartbreaking. And it is just such a beautiful thing to hear
American Indian wisdom and see how they still practice that wisdom.

Q: Can you explain more about the latitude for personal affinity in art, the personal affinity?
A: First, one has to realize and recognize if something is sacred, profane, non-traditional, religious, infra-realism—what it is. For example, within naturalistic art—we saw several examples of it—if the subject is noble, it can have a certain interiorization quality. So, there is a wide latitude, but only within what I will call the traditional or acceptable boundaries. There are even some contemporary statues that are acceptable even though they are not sacred art, as such. So, there is wide latitude but one must recognize the different limits of each of the types of art.

Q: Why is it that many traditionally minded Catholics are not able to see the eruption of humanism into the church through non-traditional forms of religious art, such as St. Peter’s Basilica and the Sistine Chapel?
A: Well, we have at least one person who was here earlier, I do not see him right now, who left the Catholic Church precisely because of the ambience of the ugliness of the surroundings in the churches in Switzerland. It became too confining, so he left and sought a different path. So, in my personal experience there are people that this has impacted. The reaction should not be unusual if you look at the churches of the Baroque and Rococo periods, to pick two of the worst of all artistic periods. Unfortunately, those are the periods that produced much of the art that is in St. Peter’s Basilica. It is a work of what I will call human genius, but completely misapplied.
This is exactly what Schuon said about Michelangelo. Here is a genius, but it is misapplied. He was outside the protective umbrella of tradition, and it had its incalculable effects. When I look at his painting of the Sistine Chapel, I do not think of something that is sacred origin. It does not do that for me. Now, it may for some people, but I believe that the imperial nature of the basilica and the decadence of the gold and the various embroidery that you see, has driven out people of the Catholic Church. I do not know why this ugliness is not more widely recognized. Thank God, when Notre Dame was burned that they had the good judgment to rebuild it as it was. So, there is some good judgment left.

Q: Can we say that modern abstract art fund is fundamentally about breaking with tradition, whereas Islamic abstract art preserves and transmits tradition and sacredness.
A: Well said. I do not have anything to add to that. That is exactly it.

Q: Do you think Mr. Schuon’s poetic side is stronger or his philosophical side.
A: I do not think you can separate them very easily. The 3,500 poems that he wrote in the last three years of his life are what he called “didactic poems,” teaching poems. And if you look at them, everything is there. He even talks about some aspects of the spiritual life that he did not talk about in his published writings. So, it is remarkable, what he produced.
We would have lunch with him and each time he would say, “I am done. There are no more poems.” And we would all laugh, because each time there would be more poems. As he wrote in his final poem, “the poems came unbidden to my pen.” They were just like a flowing river.
The meanings of his poems were a major topic of conversation whenever we were together, what was each poem teaching. And then he said in this final poem, “And now I lay down my pen. I must prepare for other preoccupations.” The hair on the back of my neck stood up because he had told me that everything would be in order, certain practical things, before he passed. And I knew when I heard that poem that he was preparing to leave us; and he did, about 6 weeks later. So, the poems teach everything about life and are an integral part of his metaphysical doctrine.

Q: Would the speaker kindly elaborate on the pitfalls of treating beauty as an end in itself, particularly in modern contexts where it can become an idol or almost a religion?
A: This goes back to what Schuon was talking about in terms of the “ambiguity of beauty” because beauty can be very seductive. People, as he said particularly the Semitic peoples, will look at a sacred object and tend to idolize the object rather than see the Divine archetype within the sacred object. The sacred object could be many different things, the human body, for example. The human body is sacred, but there is a proliferation of skimpy, sexually provocative clothes all over the modern world—it manifests all over the media. Many people lack the metaphysical transparency of phenomena so they “idolize” the object and fail to see through the object to the Divine archetype. They lack “a sense of the sacred,” it is also a lack of moral sensitivity. People get sucked in; that is part of the sedution of the world, if you will. The world is a very seductive place, and it is therefore very important to have interiorizing beauty in your ambience and in dress, and of traditional art that allows you to see the sacred within it, if you will. This is the “sense of the sacred” and “the metaphysical transparency of phenomenon.”
Those two phrases: “sense of the sacred,” “metaphysical transparency of phenomenon.” That is the key. If you see the sacred within the symbol, you are fine. But otherwise, the objects can be seductive, and it is an ambiguity because the same object can produce completely different results.

Q: Could the speaker clarify the hierarchy of beauty in the spiritual life, especially the primacy of inner beauty of the soul, followed by speech, behavior, dress, and one’s living environment?
A: Tomorrow you will hear Schuon address that directly in a film clip from 1991. He talks about the importance of beauty, inner beauty, as well as beauty in one’s life, interiorizing beauty as a support. I see them as two sides of the same coin, if you will, because the beauty of comportment, “beauty of soul,” is what you are aiming to achieve with the “interiorizing beauty” that you surround yourself with. One is a result, beauty of the soul, the other is a method or a means of support to find one’s sacred center.

Q: What was Schuon’s reaction when encountering something ugly or negative?
A: To ignore it. As I related with the situation in the steel mills, he just would not address it. And then a few moments later, he focuses on something that is beau ful and that reminds him of God. And it was that way in everything that I recall with him. Always looking for something that can help support his inner life of prayer. All of the different forms of art that we spoke about were something that were very close to him.

Q: And final question, this at first quotes from a poem from the collection “World Wheel, Fourth Collection. ”When I decorate a house or an apartment, I keep in mind three artistic summits. The Maghreb, Japan, and the South Seas. Simple and beautiful. These are three formal languages and three spiritual worlds. For the ambience that is the framework of our everyday life is not indifferent. It should not be dull or heavy but close to nature, simple and free. The peasants’ wooden house can also be a model, a primordial dwelling even in our time. And the question is, Schuon has written multiple times about the importance of our ambience, both within our homes as described in the poem above, but also within our souls in practicing the virtues, avoiding what takes us away from God and doing what brings us near to him. What comments did Schuon make about the Plains Indians and their ambience, such as their clothing, decorations, and way of life?”
A: The first part is an important poem. I had it in my earlier lecture, but I reduced it realizing that I had done too much. Those are the three summits that Schuon looked toward in decorating. He loved the Japanese influence—shoji screens; South Seas—here is a Sumatran wedding sarong from 1900; and then the Maghreb. The Maghreb is one of the most still intact Islamic traditional civilizations that I have seen. In the Maghreb the crafts are still intact, especially when you are away from the cities in remote areas. This is just to say that those three material cultures are important to Schuon.
His interest in the Red Indians was very profound, as you know. He has a little museum in his house with a variety of Indian artefacts in them. What I will do is pull up for tomorrow a slide of the entry to his house where you see a feathered sun and a Cheyenne sacred pipe bag. The visitors who go into his house are greeted with the American Indian presence, the barakah. He wrote a quite a long letter to William Stoddard in the 1980s about American Indian traditional art. It is reproduced in the letters book and he turned it into an article which is in “The Feathered Sun” and there is a copy of “The Feathered Sun” in the other room for anyone who wants to look at it.
So, there is quite a lot that can be said. A very important support was the Plains Indian way. As I read at the beginning, in the very first day’s lecture, I believe: there are three spiritual worlds to which I belong, the Veda, then Sufism and then the world of the Red Indians.” That really summarizes the importance he placed on those traditions.

Q: Since we are on the subject of the American Indians, there is one I can find it. Please speak to Wakan Gli, seen briefly two summers ago at Yellowstone. Auspicious for the environment, good or bad, is the question.
A: Wakan Gli is the white buffalo calf that appeared two years ago. One actually appeared probably 12 years ago, briefly. Both of them appeared briefly and then went into some type of occultation after a time. Different people will interpret them in different ways. I happen to be at the home of Arvol Looking Horse, the 19th generation keeper of the original Sacred Pipe. He is a friend—we have been to his home three times, he has been to Indiana—and the subject came up. He believes this appearance is very auspicious but that it is also a warning. Let us go back to what we were talking about yesterday. You have both exteriorizing signs and interiorizing signs. He believed that, in a way, this appearance is both. He hoped the recollection of the revelation of the bringing of the Sacred pipe by the White Buffalo Cow Woman would be a sacred remembrance for people; but at the same time a warning because you had two things happen with the legend of the coming of the Pte San Win.
I will try to recap the legend briefly. A sacred being came toward two men who were out in the wilderness hunting. She was naked in the traditional teaching. One of the men looked at her and said, “I want her.” The other man said, “no, this is a sacred person. You must stay away.” But the man who had bad intentions went toward her and a cloud came up around them. Snakes came out afterwards and the man was dead, completely gone. And the Pte San Win then approached the other man and said to him, “I come with a gift for the people to heal the people. Tell the chief that I am coming.” And he raced away. He said, “There is a sacred woman who is coming.”
And then she walked into the tribe. There are different accounts of it, but she carried a Sacred Pipe and gave that Sacred Pipe to the chief, Hollow Horn Bear. Then later during that visit she gave them several of the seven rites of the Ogalala. Subsequently in visions she gave them the other seven, all seven rites of the Ogalala. So, it is a very important part. The Sacred Pipe, as Schuon said in the quote on Monday, is one of the items that connects most of the Indians, certainly in the West. It is common through all of the tribes, and it is something that Yellowtail prayed with in the morning, first thing, and in the evening, before bed. So this legend and the appearance is truly a warning and a gift, an interiorizing gift, to remind people to go back to their religion. But if they do not, then wrath will come, Divine Wrath. So, it is an important event, manifestation for the Indians. It is not surprising to me—it was in Yellowstone that the calf appeared most recently—that it would disappear because that warning took place; so now it is up to mankind, each individual, to decide how to respond. So, it is something major.

Q: The first question: “We have religious pluralism in America, many religions, many ideologies, many perspectives. A benefit or an inhibitor in coming to terms with the consequences of relativism?”
A: Let us start back farther. As you all know, each of the great religions had its own geographical area and there was very little communication between the religions prior to the 20th century. In the 20th century, communication between the religions happens more, and more, and more. And one of the consequences is that the outer forms of the religions conflict, so the conflicts create confusion in the eyes of believers. They question the validity of religion, as such. There really are only three ways to view religion: either there is no religion, or there is one valid religion, or there are multiple valid religions; but, if the latter, how do you explain the outer differences? This is an important question.
There is only one way it can be explained: through the idea of the “Transcendent Unity of religions” and through the Perennialist point of view; this includes the idea of the “inner Oneness within the religions,” and that each sector of mankind, over millennia and around the world, was given its own providential Revelation from God. There are obviously going to be differences that take into account the various tendencies and characteristics for each of these collectivities because God has many faces, many facets, many Archetypes. It is only logical that different Archetypes will manifest as different Revelations. When that happens, this Archetype is different than that one, so there are inevitable conflicting differences in the forms of the religions.
For example, we spoke yesterday about the conflicts arising because of the ambiguity of beauty; you have some religions that proscribe all human images, whether in painting or in sculpture—take Islam for example, at least in principle; then you have other religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, many of the Far Eastern religions, that see the essence within the symbol—they see through the symbol to the Archetype. We spoke about how Semitic peoples often look at a statue or a painting and tend to idolize the statue or the painting, instead of seeing through to the Essences; we call this the “metaphysical transparency of phenomena.”
Such conflicts create confusion and relativism is the beneficiary. We started seeing relativism in the Middle Ages; at first it progressed slowly, but the pace of relativism accelerated dramatically in the 20th century because, in part, the relativists can point to the apparent conflicts between the religions and say, “there is no religion.”
On Day Two we saw statistics about the accelerating loss of faith. That is, in my opinion, a direct result of scientism, but also of relativism; these are two of the “guises of modernism,” to use Schuon’s phrase. We only had time to study a few of the many guises of modernism; but, all of these facets of modernism encourage relativism. Again, one of the solutions, I would say the only solution, is for believers to understand that the common enemy of every religion is modernism. Whether you agree with different religion or not, you need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder to resist modernism, in all of its guises. I think that is the solution. And the esoteric ecumenism that we heard Schuon outline is really the right forum to do that.

Q: “Following on from what you are saying now, as we approach the end of the kali-yuga, do you expect an esoteric alliance centered on the Transcendent Unity of religions?”
A: Well, I hope for one. And in fact, I do think that there is already an esoteric alliance of sorts based on the Transcendent Unity of religion that is taking place slowly. I don’t know how far it will go, God only knows that; but I think that it will spread—that Truth will spread; it cannot help but spread. It will be, in effect, a counter to the forces of relativism and scientism. As more, and more people reject modernism, what are their alternatives? Well, they are going to have to go to this question of “esoteric ecumenism” and understanding the Transcendent Unity of religion. So, I believe it will happen; I don’t know exactly to what extent it will take place. As Schuon said, and we quoted it, “in our epoch, you can only save individuals; you can no longer save collectivities.” So, I think that the work and the conversations that take place will be largely between small groups and individuals, but everything is in God’s hands.
I had the great fortune to travel for three and a half weeks in the West with Titus Burckhardt, one of Mr. Schuon’s closest friends. In fact, Schuon wrote a poem; in the first verse, he talks about God occasionally gives people a brother soul to embellish the path; and in the second verse, he says “Titus Burckhardt was such for me, a friend from earliest time;” so, a great Perennialist. We were talking about the future, end of days, various things. He said that it is useless to try to interpret any prophecies or make estimates as to what is going to happen, or when, or how this or that is going to happen. He said that the great battle between good and evil is really taking place above our physical world—at the subtle realms and in the angelic realms. He added that prophesies are polyvalent—there are multiple levels at which they can be understood; we may or may not see various prophecies unfold; it is impossible to know. The point of this story is that all we can do is pray and focus on the virtues: prayer, virtue, interiorizing ambience, with the metaphysical certitude.
Many of the people here, most of the people here, have the vocation to understand metaphysics. One of the questions that came up earlier was , “is there an obligation to speak out for someone who teaches?” And my answer, somewhat humorous, but true, was “it depends on if you have tenure.” But the reality is that if you are in a position to do so, I think it is incumbent on everyone to speak out and speak the truth. As Schuon said in one of the quotations I just read, “it is man’s vocation to save oneself and one’s neighbor;” the way to do that is to manifest oneself properly in all ways, follow all of his various recommendations, and then speak the truth to the neighbor.

Q: “Could you explain the difference between eclecticism, acceptable syncretism and heterodox syncretism and also the difference between ‘intrinsically orthodox religion’ and ‘new age religion’?”
A: Let us start with “eclecticism.” Eclecticism combines diverse ideas from multiple sources into a single paradigm. Schuon:
Eclecticism is natural wherever different doctrines exist side by side, as is proved by the integration of Platonism or Aristotelianism with Christianity. The important thing in any case of the kind is that the original perspective should remain faithful to itself and should only accept alien concepts in so far as they corroborate its faithfulness by helping to illuminate the fundamental intentions of its own perspective.
We have engaged in eclecticism in our discussions of the ways different religions view Absolute Reality, cosmic cycles and modernity. Schuon notes other examples of eclecticism:
The Christians had no reason at all for refusing to be inspired by Greek wisdom since it was at hand, and in the same way the Moslems could not help making use to a certain extent in their mystical doctrine of Neoplatonic concepts as soon as they became aware of them. . .
It is helpful to have an overview of “syncretism.” In the context of religion, syncretism is the blending or merging of distinct elements from different spiritual traditions into a unified system. Schuon provides an overview:
Syncretism is a perspective which mixes different religious elements. This may not be a bad thing, and we have a certain right to do this slightly without disturbing orthodoxy. Some orthodox Sufi orders adopt Negro music and are orthodox none-the-less. If an orthodox Muslim displays the art or crafts of any other traditional culture in his home, he is being syncretic. However, if you mix the doctrine or the rites between religions into one methodical practice – it becomes heretical.
So, we have both “acceptable syncretism” and “heterodox syncretism,” depending on the circumstances. Many of us routinely practice “acceptable syncretism” when we display crafts from different religions in our ambience or listen to world music from different traditions. Schuon identifies the limit to maintain acceptable syncretism, “There have never been borrowings between two living religions of essential elements affecting their fundamental structures.” If that were to occur, the result is heterodoxy.
What is “heterodox syncretism?” Syncretism becomes heterodox when you mix ritual elements or essential doctrines from two spiritual traditions into one methodical practice. Schuon provides context:
It is notorious that heterodoxies always tend to adulterate either the idea of the divine Principle or the manner of our attachment to it; they offer either a worldly, profane or, if you like, “humanist” counterfeit of religion, or else a mysticism with a content of nothing but the ego and its illusions.
What is a “New Age religion?” So-called “New Age religions” are prominent and wide-spread examples of heterodoxy. These “new religions” employ a “pick and choose” approach that reduces religious praxis to a smorgasbord of personal preferences rather than a Divinely integrated doctrine and method. That is completely out!
Schuon points out that the line between acceptable syncretism and heterodoxy can be subtle:
We would like to say a few words concerning the integration of a foreign element into a particular traditional formalism; this problem places us between syncretism, which is intrinsically heterodox, and esoterism, which in certain cases can admit such coincidences. . . . Such exceptions depend upon certain subjective as well as objective conditions; therefore, we must ask not only what has been done, but also by whom and for what reason.
One such exception is the “dual participation” of many American Indians in both their ancestral traditions and Christianity. Dual participation can be acceptable syncretism on two conditions. First, participants do not mix the ritual forms or essential dogma of the two spiritual traditions. Many Plains peoples will fervently take part in their ancestral rites in a traditional manner, then later go to Church and pray in a Christian manner. As Trehero (1871 – 1985) noted: “It is ‘bad medicine’ to mix a practice from one religion into the rites of another religion.”
Second, dual participation is limited to a shamanistic tradition and a religion. Dual participation is not possible between two “religious formalisms.” Shamanistic traditions are supra-formal, whereas religions are crystallized forms. Shamanisms are also completely inclusive of all other religious traditions, whereas religions are exclusivist, either in principle or in fact. Other notable examples of dual participation with a shamanism and religion include Shinto with Buddhism in Japan, Bon-Po with Buddhism in Tibet, and Confucian and Taoist branches with Buddhism in China.
We are now full circle to Schuon’s recommendation to follow one “intrinsically orthodox religion.” We recall his criteria: “Divine origin, adequate doctrine, and an effective spiritual method.”
So, if in your spiritual search you find the ideas from a particular person or group are not consistent with orthodoxy, particularly if they want to blend rites of multiple religions: run! My wife and I, when we were looking for a spiritual path, drove all over the United States looking at different people that we were interested in meeting; and, then luckily my path came to Mr. Yellowtail. But the point is: look at what you are getting involved in; understand it, and make sure that it is not trying to integrate elements from multiple religions. Follow a religion, pick that. That is the uniform advice that you have had here. I think we have covered all the elements of the question.

Q: “How do I know which religion is best for me to practice? And while I determine what religion is best for me to follow, what should I do in the interim?”
A: Good question. Well, certainly studying the different fundamental parts of the religions, different religions, is important because this is where personal affinity can also come in. Schuon wrote, when he was about 88, to a doctoral student who was from Germany who came to interview him. Schuon was asked about finding his own spiritual path and he wrote basically, and I am paraphrasing loosely, that from his youth he was always very attracted to Hinduism, and this was the primary metaphysic that motivated him; but he could not be a Hindu because you have to be born into a Hindu caste, due to the different laws for each caste. What was primary for Schuon was finding a spiritual master, and he wrote, “the form did not matter to me,” “the form did not matter to me.” Martin Lings, one of his close friends, said later that “Schuon told me that if I did not love a religion, I would study it until I did love it.”
Both Yellowtail and Schuon are not suggesting a particular religion. They are suggesting “a religion”. Pick it; personal affinity comes in; and the relationship you have with whoever you are going to be close to, because I go back to what we spoke about: “Tell me who you frequent, and I will tell you who you are.” You are going to need the advice of other people; pick your friends and your path carefully. In the interim, I believe Schuon would say, “Talk to God. Tell God your troubles.” Remember: how do you resolve a problem? Well, first with your intelligence, then by asking others, then by prayer. We just heard that. So, these answers are not mysterious, but you have to talk to God. And in the end, it is establishing a comfortable equilibrium between yourself and God.

Q: “’Black Elk Speaks’ ends with the words, ‘The nation’s hoop is broken and scattered. There is no center any longer, and the sacred tree is dead.’ Could you say more about the role of Schuon played in helping to revive the Sun Dance Religion and of his relationship with Black Elk?”
A: My pleasure. First, I am searching for various quotations that I keep on hand that help me to cite Mr. Schuon more. . . . Now, let us start with, “what was Black Elk’s vision?” I do not know how many of you have read Black Elk. As we said, there are over a million copies in print—the most famous book about American Indians, and it is an incredible vision that this man had. Different attempts are made to put it in context. This is a letter in 1977 from Mr. Schuon to Joseph Brown; they maintained correspondence; Brown came here several times after Schuon moved, in fact stayed in our home; they kept a close relationship. Schuon, “
How does one explain to an academic that Black Elk, in his subtle form, was reabsorbed into the world of the Archetypes, passing through the subtle state and stopping at the threshold of the Archangelic World; . . . [snip of several principles required to understand Black Elk’s vision]; that the goal of spiritual methods is the abolition of the scission between individual consciousness and universal consciousness. How does one explain this to academics? And how can one understand the wisdom of the Indians without knowing all of that?
This puts into context the incredible nature of Black Elk’s vision. We spoke the other day about how Brown wrote to Schuon for spiritual advice in 1946; Schuon asked for books on the Indians; Brown sent him, among others, Black Elk Speaks; and Schuon said, “I think this man has more to say than he said in Black Elk Speaks. Please find him.” And Brown did. The relationship between Black Elk and Schuon became very close. Black Elk took Father Gaul, Erich Schuon, as his son; gave him the name “Lakota Ishnala,” “Lone Lakota.” He was a priest in a Belgium monastery who knew fluent Lakota; he was very close to the Lakota even before this time; this reinforces the point that “love of the Indians was a family tradition” with the Schuons, as we heard the other day. But, the real relationship was with Black Elk and Schuon. This is a quote from Brown’s letter to John Murray; I mentioned Murray earlier; a close friend of Schuon who was also writing to various American Indian elders. Brown:
He, Black Elk, said that he has told as yet no one about the sacred rites of the Lakota but was telling me because he believed it was connected with my being there and with the holy man who had sent me. The letter from the Shaykh has had tremendous impact on him. His son translated the whole letter, he is excellent at this, and you should also know that he has responded extremely well.
Brown in a subsequent letter:
One might mention, and I do not think that I have done so before, that one of the reasons why old Black Elk has been so receptive to us is the fact that some time ago he had a vision in which he saw that holy men, or representatives of them, would come to him and his people from the East and were to help him in his work. A few days ago, he told me that he is very happy, and he should die soon, but he knows that his work shall be continued by the Shaykh and others.
We spoke on Day 1 about the creation of The Sacred Pipe, the book, the seven sacred rites, preserving the wisdom, and also the week-long ceremonials that Brown sponsored where all the old men, almost 100, from different reservations came, brought their sacred pipes, apologized to God for having not prayed more often and promised to renew the tradition. I think that all of this is part of what Black Elk was talking about with Schuon continuing his work. As we saw when we brought the history up to date of the Indians, there is a flowering going on. There are multiple Sun Dances going on during the months of July and August on the Lakota reservations. I am delighted with the growth, and the growth with young people, in the Crow and the Shoshone Sun Dances. A sort of required reading for new, young Crow Sun Dancers is to watch the film that we produced, The Sun Dance Way. I am very pleased about that, and you heard what James Trosper had to say about the work that I have been blessed with doing. All of these things helped to renew the Sun Dance Way and they are the direct result of Schuon’s influence, both from prayer but also actively encouraging support of the American Indians. It is a precious, very precious, thing that happens and it is an incredible miracle that it takes place. I think that Mr. Schuon has had a material influence in the regeneration of that broken sacred tree; and it gave Black Elk a lot of solace.
At the end of Black Elk’s life, Schuon knew that he was very ill and had very little time left on this earth. So, the Schuons had the habit every evening of going to a place of solitude and praying on rosaries for Black Elk. At that same time, although in a much different time zone, Black Elk was having visitations from a holy man from Europe. When his daughter, Lucy Looks Twice, came into the room during these visitations, he shooed her out, saying “you have interrupted the presence of the holy man from the East.” Lucy Looks Twice was scared by this man from the East who was having this mystical connection with her father. She eventually thought that a Moroccan rosary that Schuon gave to Brown, and Brown gave to Black Elk, was the source of this mystical connection that was taking place. She took it away but then later, feeling very guilty, put the rosary in Black Elk’s in his coffin; so Black Elk is buried with a Moroccan rosary that once belonged to Schuon. This is recounted by Brown, but it is also recounted in Michael Steltenkamp’s book on Black Elk’s life—he is a Catholic priest. Was it Schuon? God knows best. But I certainly do not think it is simply a coincidence. There was a strong mystical and metaphysical connection between Black Elk and the Schuon. He gave Mrs. Schuon the name Wambli Oyate Win, “Eagle People Woman,” and said Schuon was the leader of the “eagle people.” So yes, there was a profound connection. I am very happy to report that traditional American Indian spirituality is strong.

Q: “Could you elaborate further on what Schuon calls the “ambiguity of beauty” and, in particular, of sacred nudity?”
A: Certainly. We spoke yesterday about the ambiguity of beauty—you have saints and sages from different religions who have a diametrically opposed point of view on sacred nudity, or any human figure. The conflicts are one of the causes for confusion, both with believers and with non-believers, that results in relativism. On the one hand, the average person, what I will call the exoteric believer, is the focus of most religions. They do not need to understand metaphysics if they pray sincerely and abstain from sin; if so, their faith can save them. This is the important point. On the other hand, there are those who have a vocation for metaphysics; they can understand the esoteric teachings. I summarize that as the “inner Oneness of religions,” or “the Transcendent Unity of religions.” People with that vocation look at various forms of human beauty, physical beauty, and see the Divine Archetype within the object, whether sacred art or the human body. For example, as we heard about Ramakrishna, a beautiful object would put him into a spiritual state, literally. This is what Schuon referred to as the “metaphysical transparency of phenomena” and “seeing God everywhere.”
This ability to see God everywhere is particularly evident in the Far East, as we saw with the many statues with sacred nudity. In fact, there was a time historically when the Brahmin women were prescribed to be bare breasted, so that they could share the barakah of their spiritual presence with the community, as a whole. With American Indians, also, some sacred nudity for women was historically the norm. This brings to mind a story.
The Pte San Win, the “White Buffalo Cow Woman,” brought the original Sacred Pipe to the Sioux. There are variations in the origin story, but I will summarize the key points.
Two men were scouting far from the village and saw a beautiful woman walking toward them. One man had impure thoughts about the maiden. The other man realized her sacred nature and warned his companion, but the companion went to her with bad intentions. He was wiped out in a cloud, with snakes coming out of his skull. The celestial maiden said to the survivor, “I am coming with a sacred gift for the people that will change their ways.” She later came to the tipi village, presented the Sacred Pipe to the chief and brought their sacred rites. As she left, she rolled on the ground four times. After the fourth time, she emerged as a white buffalo cow. That is the essential origin story.
Prior to 1980, the stories reported by the priests and anthropologists say that the Pte San Win came dressed in white buckskin. But in 1980 a book was published with translations of recordings that were made by the doctor at the Pine Ridge Reservation at the turn of the century—1899 through 1902—with a large number of the spiritual leaders of the Sioux. Those recordings recount that this celestial maiden, the revealer of the sacred rites of the Sioux, came naked. Scholars believe that the Christian missionaries were horrified when they first heard the accounts of the coming of a naked Indian goddess, so the Indians altered the original story to say she was clothed in white buckskin.
Schuon painted the “Pte San Win” naked starting in the 1960s. I was at lunch with Mr. Schuon, and I said “there are new accounts that have just come to light of the coming of the Pte San Win with sacred nudity, but you painted her naked years ago. How did you know?” He looked at me and said, “I just knew.” And I said, “Ya, Shaykh, that is just not satisfying. Please, you have to say more.” And he said, “The Pte San Win is the goddess of a primordial religion. As such, she had to be naked. It could not be otherwise. It is the same as Avalokiteśvara . . .” Schuon then identified seven or eight names of naked goddesses in Buddhism and Hinduism—on Day 3 we saw statutes of many naked goddesses from the Far East. For the oriental mind, and for the traditional Indian mind, sacred nudity is a way to shower humanity with blessings; for most of the Semitics, it is not; it leads to sin. Once again, you have the ambiguity of beauty, particularly regarding sacred nudity. The best way I can summarize is to say that both possibilities are fine; they are legitimate; no one should try to change the minds of someone if they have a strong belief in either point of view. This again points to the question, “do you have a vocation of metaphysics?” If not, fine; if so, fine.
Q: “Yesterday you reviewed several different types of beauty. Which forms of beauty are the most important as a support for the spiritual life?”
A: We heard Mr. Schuon explain the “four essential elements of his philosophy.” This is a very important summary. Number three is, “intrinsic morality,” which is “beauty of the soul.” They are synonymous, and intrinsic morality is imperative on everyone. I do not know what Schuon would say, but I believe that intrinsic morality is more important than the beauty surrounding us, of “interiorizing beauty.” The strong emphasis Schuon places on Interiorizing beauty is somewhat unique. This is an excerpt of a letter he wrote to Hans Kűry, his close friend:
I am glad you have found a good new place to live. I have always given a higher significance to living spaces and forms in the broadest sense, than is usually done. The body is the first form, dress the second, living space the third, the house is the fourth, landscape the fifth. Everything has its respective meaning.
I think that is the best I can come up with.

Q: “What is your advice or what do you think Schuon would advise for the younger generation given the state of the world?”
A: Let us start with advice for parents. Based on my experience, I believe that the two areas that are very important to communicate to children are a “sense of the sacred,” in the profound meaning, which includes belief in a God Who is both Transcendent and Immanent; and an understanding of what Schuon would call “the guises of modernism,” that is some sense that the fundamental premises of the modern world are false. And, if you can help a young person understand those two principles, then I think they have the proper foundation to address life’s challenges.
I think Schuon would advise individuals to learn basic information about the different religions and to understand metaphysics, to the extent you have the vocation. There are different degrees of metaphysical understanding—everyone can understand certain things, such as there is a God that is both Transcendent and Immanent. On Day 2, four different religious traditions provided answers to, “what is God?” The first one being Taoism, which says in effect that “God is ineffable and any attempt to define God is not the real God.” Then we have the Vedas, “’Brahman,’ or God, is Real; the world, or Maya, is unreal; and the individual soul is not other than God.” As Schuon says, “the Upanishads and Shankara’s wisdom is contained there.” Then you have the American Indians’ answer, and we will not go over that one again. Then you have the “Five Divine Presences”—the Sufi point of view. I have a particular fondness for that because I think it helps to understand the concentric circles through which the Divine emanates.
Then look both for a religion and a group of fellow travelers that you are comfortable with, that can help you to stay on a spiritual path and resist the temptations of modernity, because the temptations are manifest. Everyone, including me, is sucked into many of them. How do we resist those? We have heard Schuon’s thinking. Now you must “make your choice;” it comes down to that: “make your choice.” We held up all of the ideas that characterize modernism; those are absolutely accepted by the predominant society. And then we reviewed the “Perennialist” views that represent the Truth within each intrinsically orthodox religion. I hope you choose that path. Now you must make your choice.