RENE GUENON

A Teacher for Modern Times

Julius Evola

Translated, with an Introduction,

by Guido Stucco
Department o f Theology
St. Louis University

Foreword by the Julius Evola Society, Rome

SURE FIRE
PRESS
 © Holmes Publishing Group
1994
No part of this book may be used
or reproduced in any manner
whatsoever without written permission
with the exception of brief quotations
embodied in critical articles and reviews.

ISBN# 1-55818-229-2

First published in Italian under the title

Un Maestro dei Tempi Moderno: Rene Guenon
in the series, QUADERNI DI TESTI EVOLIANI, No. 19
by the Ju liu s Evola Society, Roma, Italy

The essays presented in this volume were published

originally in the following periodicals:

1. uCol Protesto di Conquistare la Terra U uom o ha Perduto il

Contatto della Realta Metafisica..”ROMA. Feb. 27, 1951

2. uUn Maestro dei Temp Modemi: Rene Guenon...” VITA ITALIANA 2 (1935)

3. uIl Dono delle L in gu e” CORRIERE PADANO. Feb. 10, 1938

4. “Ren6 Guenon la Scolastica Guenoniana."IL GHIBELLINO. Jan., 1953

Printed in the USA by

Sure Fire Press
(An imprint of the
Holmes Publishing Group
Postal Box 623
Edmonds WA 98020 USA
 I w ish to dedicate th is translation to
my teachers of old: Rudy Pont, Vittorio G.
R ossi, and Don Giuseppe Dossetti.
 INTRODUCTION

Who was J u l i u s Evola? C o nsidered by m any a p h ilo so p h er, o th ers

have c a s t h im in t h e ro le of a r c h - r e a c ti o n a r y . R e g a r d le s s , h is
philosophical w ritin g s have earned h im a place a s one of th e leading
representatives of th e T raditionalist school.
Like the A m e ric a n poet E zra P o u n d before him , the te r m “fascist"
has been a c c o rd e d Evola for being a m o n g th e opposition d u r in g WWII.
For th ree d e c a d e s h e w as sh u n n e d b y th e academ ic co m m u n ity w hich
took little in te r e s t in h is w ritings. Y et Evola h a s b een the o b jec t of an
in te r e s tin g r e v iv a l, a c q u ir in g a p o s t h u m o u s re v e n g e of s o r ts .
Conferences a n d sym posia devoted to th e an aly sis of his th o u g h t have
“m ushroom ed” in th e p a st fifteen y e a rs th ro u g h o u t E urope. Secondly,
Evola h a s e x e rc is e d a m agical s p e ll o n m an y people w h o , h av in g
lost faith in s o -c a lle d progressive id e a ls , have ta k e n a s h a r p tu rn
tow ard T ra d itio n in th e ir q u e st fo r so m e th in g m ore tr a n s c e n d e n t
or for s o m e th in g of a “h ig h e r o r d e r .” T h ese n e w view s c a n n o t be
readily fo u n d in th e w a ste la n d o f c o n te m p o ra ry so ciety . T hirdly,
his spiritual a n d m etap h y sical id e a s, far from being a n a p p e n d ix to
his W eltanschauung, re p re se n t th e v ery core a n d can n o longer be
ignored. E v o la’s id e a s call for a c r itic a l an a ly sis and a re a s o n a b le
response fro m s y m p a th iz e rs and c r itic s alike.
The read er of th e s e essay s will b e a b le to find detailed in form ation
ab out J u liu s E v o la ’s life a n d th o u g h t in R ichard D rak e’s w ritin g s.1
This in tro d u c tio n seek s to identify a n d to characterize th e com m on
th e m e s r u n n i n g t h r o u g h th e s e f o u r e s s a y s : — T H E PATH OF
EN LIG HTENM ENT IN TH E M ITHRA IC M Y STER IES: ZEN : THE
RELIGION O F TH E SAMURAI: TAOISM: THE MAGIC. THE MYSTICISM;
RENE G U EN O N : A TEACHER F O R M ODERN T IM E S . (H o lm es
Publishing G ro u p , 1994.) Let u s b e g in w ith the first th em e .
U pon a c u r s o r y re a d in g , it is im m e d ia te ly ev id en t t h a t Evola
establishes a d ich o to m y betw een c o m m o n , ordinary know ledge, a n d a
secret k n ow ledge w hich is th e p re ro g a tiv e of a se le c te d few. This
distinction, a ls o k n o w n to Plato, w ho d istin g u ish e d betw een doxa and

5
epistem e, has been th e legacy of the Mystery c u lts, of Mithraism, of
G nosticism , a n d of all in itiato ry chains, E a s t or West.
T he epistem ological d istin c tio n betw een e so te ric and exoteric
know ledge is rooted, a c co rd in g to Evola, in th e ontological classism
w h ic h separates people, th e m ultitudes, or the oipolloi, from the aristoi,
th e heroes, the kings, a n d th e men of knowledge (priests and ascetics).
O n e of th e constants in E vola’s thought, is his aversion for the empirical
su b je c t, who lives, eats, reproduces and dies; everything in his works
re p r e s e n ts a yearning for som ething which is m ore than ordinary
e x isten ce, more than t h a t condition of life w hich is heavily conditioned
b y routines, passions, crav in g s and superficiality, for w hat the Germans
c a ll meher als leben (“m o re th a n living”),—a s o rt of nostalgia for the
H yperuranium, for T ra n sc e n d e n c e , for “w h a t w as in the origins.”
E so tericism is the m e a n s to achieve the u ltim a te reality which all
relig io n s strive to achieve, though they call it by m any names, as the
la te Jo se p h Campbell w a s fond of saying. D uring his career as a writer,
J u li u s Evola w as involved in a n extensive, sophisticated study of esoteric
d o c trin es. In these e ssa y s we find Evola celebrating the metaphysical
p re m ise s and tech n iq u es of Zen and of operative Taoism; elsewhere he
s a n g th e praise of T a n trism 2 a n d of early B u d d h ism .3 In another work,
com m ended by Carl G. J u n g , he discussed H erm eticism .4 Scholars of
v a rio u s disciplines will n o t forgive this controversial and brilliant Italian
th in k e r his incursions in th e ir own fields of com petence, such as history,
religion, mythology, a n d psychology. And yet E vola succeeds in weaving
a colorful and suggestive p a tte rn , which slowly a n d gracefully evolves
in to a well articulated, m onolithic Weltanschauung.
A nother distinctive fe a tu re of these essays is J u liu s Evola’s firm
conviction in th e existence of a hierarchy to w h ich all states of being
a r e subject. These s ta te s defy the im agination of ordinary people. In
th e W estern religious tra d itio n one does not easily find an articulated
co sm o lo g y or for t h a t m a tte r a serio u s e m p h a s is on the soul’s
experiences in its q u e st for God. There are th e powerful exceptions
re p re se n te d by the w ritings of St. Bonaventure, St. Jo h n of the Cross,
J a c o b Boehme, St. T h e resa of Avila, and other m ore obscure mystics.
S in c e th e personal G od of theism is believed to have brought the
u n iv e r s e into being, C h r is tia n ity ’s focus, in te rm s of c u lt and
s p e c u la tio n , h a s s h ifte d from the cosmos to its C reator. Evola’s
know ledge of the C hristian tradition was not e q u a l to the erudition he
d isp lay ed in other su b jects. Nevertheless, he a tte m p te d to fill what he
c o n sid ered a vacuum in th e C hristian system. In the essay dedicated
to M ithras he describes th e states of being or th e spiritual experiences
of th e initiate to M ithraic m ystery tradition an d w isdom . These Mithraic
experiences are depicted a s three-dim ensional, heroic, cosmological
a n d esoteric a n d are ju x ta p o s e d to the tw o-dim ensional, devotional,
litu rg ical and exoteric s p iritu a l experiences of form al Christianity. In
th e essay on Zen he c e le b ra te s the hierarchical “five grades of merit,”

6
th ro u g h w h ic h t h e in itia te grow s i n w isd o m a n d p u r s u e s th e
p e rso n a l q u e s t fo r e n lig h te n m e n t.
A th ird a n d fin a l c h a ra c te ristic f o u n d in th e s e s e le c te d e s s a y s
is the rejection of th eism a n d the p o le m ic s with C h ristia n ity , w hich
in his essay o n G u e n o n is m erely o u tlin e d (see h is c o m p a ris o n of
the C h ristian a n d th e initiatory v iew s of im m ortality, f o u n d in the
essay on T aoism ). His penetrating c ritiq u e of th eism was a rtic u la te d
in the nam e o f “h ig h e r” principles a n d n o t by a n a priori h o s tility to
religion and to th e concepts of s u p e rn a tu ra l au th o rity a n d rev elatio n .
W hat he re je c te d in th e ism w as t h e id e a of faith , of d e v o tio n , of
abandonm ent in a higher power. To fa ith h e opposed e x p e rien c e ; to
devotion, h e ro ic a n d ascetical action; to th e God of th e is m , w ho is
believed to b e t h e u ltim a te re a lity , a s w ell a s th e b e lie v e r ’s goal
and esch ato lo g ical hope, Evola o p p o se d th e ideal of lib e ra tio n a n d of
e n lig h te n m e n t (see th e e s s a y on M ith ra is m ).
T h e se e s s a y s a r e a te s tim o n y to th e r e s tle s s c u r i o s i t y a n d
sp iritu al h u n g e r of a n o n sp e cia list w h o d a re d to v e n tu re in to the
dom ain of s c h o la r s a n d of sp e c ia liz e d d isc ip lin e s, only to e x tra c t
p rec io u s g e m s o f w isdom , u n b u r d e n e d by te c h n ic a l d e t a i l s a n d
m inutiae w h ic h a r e th e o b s e s s io n o f s c h o la r s a n d o f u n iv e r s ity
professors. It is m y sincere hope t h a t in te re s t in J u liu s E vola and
his id ea s w ill b e g e n e ra te d by th e tr a n s la tio n of th e s e e s s a y s a s
they r e p re s e n t o n ly a sm all p o rtio n o f m any u n t r a n s la t e d w orks
which have y e t to be brought to the a tte n tio n of th e E n g lish sp eak in g
world.

NOTES
1 Richard Drake, “Julius Evola and the Ideological Origins of the Radical Right in
Contemporary Italy” in Political Violence and Terror: Motifs and M otivations, ed., Peter
Merkl (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 61-89; “Julius Evola, Radical Fascism
and the Lateran A ccords,” The Catholic Historical Review 74 (1988): 403-19; and “The
Children of th e S u n ,” chapter in The R evolutionary Mystique and Terrorism in
Contemporary Italy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989).
2 Julius Evola, T h e Yoga of Power, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions,
1992) .
3 Julius Evola, T h e Doctrine of the Awakening, trans. G. Mutton (London: LuzacCo, 1951).
4 Julius Evola, T h e Hermetic Tradition, trans. E. Rhemus (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions,
1993) .

7
 FOREWORD

The Evola Society, Rome

Like J u liu s Evola, Rene Guenon is n o t a thinker in the co n te m p o ra ry
sense of the w o rd a n d he is not re p re s e n ta tiv e of th a t p h ilo so p h y
which, deprived of a n y higher reference point, h a s relegated m an k in d
to th a t m ental a n d c u ltu ral la b y rin th in w hich h u m an b e in g s have
been lost for c e n tu rie s ; nor c a n G u e n o n be regarded as m erely a n o th e r
History of R eligions scholar, th o u g h h is knowledge on th e m a tte r is
impressive a n d th e contribution he in d ire c tly m ade to the developm ent
of th is discipline is invaluable. In d e e d , th e finding of a G u e n o n ia n
influence is n o m ore difficult th a n e x a m in in g the w ork of M ircea Eliade.
The influence is well veiled, yet it p e rv a d e s Professor E lia d e ’s work
consistently. S im ila rly to Evola, G u e n o n s h u n s the e x p re s s io n of
personal o p in io n s or ideas. In this re g a rd , h e cannot be c o m p a re d to
the m ajority o f m o d ern intellectuals w h o a re striving in every way to
dem onstrate th e originality and p e c u lia rity of th e ir fin d in g s. These
“m oderns” y e a rn to be acknow ledged a s creators of ideas d e s p ite their
unconditional a d h e sio n to th e false d o g m a s which are p re v a le n t in our
age. The w ishful th in k in g of these n e w theorists produce a k illin g ground
of the Spirit w h o se lethal w eapons a r e e ith e r hopelessness o r m indless
conformity. F o r G uenon a n d Evola, how ever, th ere is O n e S uprem e
and Absolute T ru th , which is in d e p e n d e n t from m an , h id d e n th o u g h it
is in his in n e rm o s t being. This T r u th h a s been p ro cla im e d by the
founders of a ll th e great religions, b e in g th e source of in s p ira tio n for
saints, p ro p h ets, m ystics a n d in itia te s of all tim es and p la c e s. This
T ruth can be a c q u ire d by m an but o n ly w hen he desires to rid him self
of the intrinsic lim its of his individuality a n d to become the living Symbol
and the reflected im age of th e Infinite. Evola indicates th is is possible
only through th e resolute a n d u n y ield in g revolt of the /, w h ic h b reaks
its chains a n d su p p re sse s in itself ev ery th in g w hich m a k e s it merely
hum an, a n d t h u s subject to d iso rd e re d im pulses and p a s s io n s , an
inert and a c q u ie sc in g victim of its o w n restle ssn e ss a n d w eakness.
For G uenon, realization is th e fru it o f a gradual re-discovery of the
9
 A b so lu te , of th e im m obile C enter w hich m o v es everything else;
th is re-discovery becomes reality through the intuitive faculty, which
discrim inates, separates a n d annuls everything which overlaps it in
th e illusory appearance of the sensible process o f becoming. In Evola’s
view, realization is achieved through the will to overcome, or through
th e irresistible and sw eeping elan, which in th e course of an inner
conflict, conceived as a sacrificial act, destroys every obstacle and leads
b a c k again to th e Unity from which the m anifested world has originated
a s a free act of power a n d of self-affirm ation. In Guenon's view,
re a liz a tio n is achieved th ro u g h cognitive activ ity . This activity is
co nducted in silence a n d m editation and these m ethods are aimed at
a tta in in g the calm and super-rational vision of th e one and indivisible
E ssence. The heroic a n d the contemplative asceticism s are the two
g rea t p a th s of approaching the Truth; they are embodied in these two
figures, whose sim ultaneous apparition in a decaying world cannot be
co n sid e red to be a c a s u a l event. Evola and G uenon are the most
prom inent representatives of initiatory knowledge, which, in the context
of th e advance of “progress" appeared to be irrem ediably lost for the
W estern world engulfed in the darkness of a n arrogant and coarse
m aterialism an d a degrading and pernicious neo-spiritualism . Thanks
to th eir testim ony, we have learned of a higher view of existence, which
fo r m ille n n ia h a s in fo rm e d the grow th a n d th e development of
civilizations, characterizing a n d transfiguring th e lives of countless
generations. In this sense, these two authors c a n be joined together in
a n indissoluble binomial, ju s t as in the World of Tradition, Royalty
a n d Priesthood, S trength a n d Wisdom, A ction a n d Contemplation
co n stitu ted the primary d uality which sustains a n d guides the universe.

10
 MAN, UNDER THE PRETEXT OF
CONQUERING THE EARTH,
HAS LOST TOUCH WITH
METAPHYSICAL REALITY
This Is The Conclusion Reached By
Rene Guenon After Much Study
Rene G u en o n p a s se d aw ay at th e ag e of 65 in Cairo, E g y p t, w here
he led his life fa r aw ay from the E u r o p e a n environm ent. He w as a
teacher of o u r tim e s, th e defender o f “in te g ra l T raditionalism ,” a n d the
m ost o u tsp o k e n of “a n ti-m o d e rn ist” th in k e rs . D espite t h e fact th a t
several works of G u en o n 's have been tra n s la te d a n d p u b lis h e d in Italy
(I h a v e t r a n s l a t e d in to I ta lia n w h a t is p e r h a p s G u e n o n 's m o st
com prehensible w ork, nam ely La crise du monde m odem e [T he Crisis
of the M odern W orldl. he h a s not e n jo y e d the sam e p o p u la rity and
consensus of a u th o r s such a s K eyserling, O rtega y G asset, Spengler,
Massis, and J u n g . It is my opinion t h a t th e s e a u th o rs, as fa r a s spiritual
sta tu re and so b rie ty of doctrine are c o n c ern e d , certainly c a n n o t sta n d
at G uenon's sid e.
A c o n trib u tin g factor to th is lack o f “su c ce ss” m ay be t h a t G uenon
alw ays s h u n n e d a n y expedient a im e d a t w inning the fav o r of the
“intellectual” p u b lic . However, there is a n o th e r m ore im p o rta n t reason
why h is w orks h av e not acquired a m o re p o p u lar affection. O rdinary
readers find in th e th o u g h t of a u th o r s su c h a s th e o n e s previously
m en tio n e d , s o m e a ffin itie s a n d i n s i g h t s co n g en ial to th e i r own
Weltanschauung , even w hen they c ritic iz e them a n d c o n d e m n them ;
but w hen t h e s e sa m e re a d e rs a re c o n fro n te d by the w ritin g s of a
traditionalist like G uenon, they in stin c tiv e ly feel a lie n ate d . G uenon
does not h av e a n d d o e sn ’t w ish to h a v e a n y association w ith m odern
cu ltu re and m en ta lity . He re p re s e n ts a different world-view; he does
not speak h is ow n m ind, n o r does h e defen d his p e rso n a l view points,
but instead h e u p h o ld s a body of p rin c ip le s , perspectives a n d values
11
w h ic h a re objective a n d u n iv e rsa l, since t h e y a re the legacy of
civilizations which flourished prior to the individualistic and rationalistic
d e c lin e of W estern civilization.
T h u s, even w hen w h a t is m ost relevant in G u e n o n ’s work (such as
th e critiq u e of the m odern world and the analysis of the real causes of
its crisis) occasionally coincides with view points which have become
in c re a sin g ly accepted, it still h a s a different scope and is always
in te g ra te d with positive recom m endations. G uenon shines his intellect
o n a body of facts, s o c ie ta l c u rre n ts , h isto ric a l events, accepted
view p o in ts and sym bols a n d u n d er th is new light, there are fresh
m e a n in g s, candid insights a n d new ways of looking a t things which
c a n be perceived by the re a d e r who is capable o f ridding himself of the
in flu en ce and of the d isto rte d knowledge u p o n which contemporary
m e n ta lity is based.
It is im possible to p re s e n t in this context a sum m ary review of
G u e n o n ’s work, not o n ly d u e to its com plexity, b u t also because
ordinary knowledge c a n n o t be the sta rtin g p o in t. To classify his
w o rk is a difficult task, for w hat he expounds is not philosophy, or
th e h isto ry of religions, or sociology, or psychology, or comparative
m y th o lo g y , even th o u g h h e v e n tu re s into a ll of th ese domains,
a d v o c a tin g a p erspective of deep a n d e n ig m a tic knowledge. The
c o rn e rs to n e of h is e n tire system is the n o tio n of a transcendent
re a lity which towers above the world of re a s o n an d of the senses,
h i g h e r th a n m y s tic is m , s e n tim e n ta lis m o r philosophical
s p e c u l a ti o n . T he p r e - m o d e r n c iv iliz a tio n s k n e w the w ays to
e s ta b lis h an effective c o n ta c t with su ch a rea lity . This is how, in
th e context of a prim ordial tradition, a “sa c re d ,” “non-hum an” and
p e c u lia r knowledge o rig in a te d and m a in ta in e d itself. This unique
k n o w le d g e g e n e ra te d th e lo s t, fo rg o tte n , a n d m isu n d ersto o d
d is c ip lin e s and scien ces (the so-called “tra d itio n a l sciences”), as
w e ll a s th e only p rin c ip le s c a p ab le of e s ta b lis h in g a tru e and
u n f a ilin g a u th o rity , o f g e n e ra tin g effective h ie ra rc h ie s , and of
c o n fe rrin g a higher m e a n in g to every h u m a n activity. This was
t h e n u c le u s of the “t r a d i t i o n a l c iv i li z a ti o n s .” T hough each
civ ilizatio n w as different in form a n d esse n c e , a n identical spirit
a n im a te d them .
T his traditional world h a s been swept away—first in the West, and
now , so it seems, in the E a st a s well—by degenerative and spiritually
in v o lu tio n a l processes. W ith the excuse of c o n q u e rin g the earth,
m a n k in d has broken all effective contacts w ith m etaphysical reality,
t h u s causing the rise of form s typical of the “m o d ern world”, which is
a p u re a n d simple negation of Tradition. A gainst the confused myths
a n d th e m ost recent su p e rstitio n s of this world, G uenon continuously
em p h asizes th at which in th e traditional world is never considered a
“relic of the past,” but w hich h a s a normative v alu e, a n d is the standard

12
m easure for e v e ry th in g th a t c a n be c o n sid e re d “norm al” in a higher
se n se .
The d eath o f G u e n o n r e p r e s e n te d a te rrib le loss. H is b o o k s,
having been tr a n s la te d into various la n g u a g e s continue to exercise
an influence o n h e a r ts and m inds. U n fortunately, th ere is n o one
today who c a n w orthily replace him o r elim inate from h is w ork the
unilateral in sig h t a n d dogm atism o f so m e of h is views.

RENE GUENON: A TEACHER OF OUR TIMES

The name of R ene G uenon is still little know n in Italy, ex cep t by
some closed g ro u p s a n d by those w ho b ecam e fam iliar w ith h is ideas
through a series of rec e n t articles (w ritten u n d e r the p se u d o n y m Ignitudj
which were p u b lis h e d on the p h ilo so p h ical section of the bi-m o n th ly
periodical Regime Fascista.
T h is g e n e r a l ig n o r a n c e a b o u t R e n e G u e n o n is d e p lo r a b le ,
considering t h a t a popularization of th e id ea s of foreign a u th o r s such
as Keyserling, M assis, Spengler and B e n d a is well o n its w ay. It is true
that Guenon h a s b e e n boycotted in F ra n c e , his native c o u n try , by
occult forces, for th e m ost p a rt co m p o sed of a n ti-tra d itio n a lists, who
have gone as fa r a s attem p tin g to ta k e h is w orks o u t of c irc u la tio n , by
m eans of h id d en m aneuvers. It is also tr u e th a t the ideas of th is au th o r,
in v irtu e of t h e i r ow n n a tu r e , s h u n a n y c o m p ro m ise a im e d a t
ingratiating th e a m a te u r is h and g e n e ra l public. G u e n o n him self,
b e c a u se of h i s s e r io u s c o m m itm e n t to re m a in im p e r s o n a l a n d
anonymous, h a s system atically avoided th e spotlight. H ow ever, these
accidental c irc u m s ta n c e s do not alter th e fact th at G uenon's personality
absolutely c a n n o t be p u t on the s a m e level of th e above m entioned
writers who a r e becom ing in creasin g ly popular in Italy in so far as
spiritual s ta tu re , serio u s p h ilo so p h ica l views, specific p re p a ra tio n s
for th e field o f tra d itio n al disciplines, a n d necessary self-know ledge
are concerned.
For in s ta n c e , w hile th e re a d e r c a n d etect in S p e n g ler, M assis
and in B enda, n o t to m ention th e “p a rlo r-p h ilo so p h e r” K eyserling,
the sense of a p e rs o n a l theory, o r a n artificial view point m ore or
less dictated by th e a u th o r's own p a s s io n s , and th u s u n lik e ly to be
“objective”, t h is is n o t th e case o f G u e n o n . He never g re w tired of
repeating t h a t w h atev er of h is own p ersonality m ay be fo u n d in his
books s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d as v a lu e l e s s . He even a s k e d once,
polemically, if we could really be s u r e th a t a “R. G uenon” tru ly existed
or w hether t h a t n a m e w as ju s t a sy m b o l. In th is iro n ic re m a rk
there is indeed som e tru th , w hich im m ediately refers to o ne of the
m ain tra d itio n s, according to w hich a th o u g h t worthy o f its salt is
something s u p e r-p e rso n a l. The w orld of principles is u n iv e rs a l, and
it is very d iffe re n t from everything w h ic h reflects the o p in io n s and
13
th e p e rso n a l ten d en cies of single individuals; th is world becomes
c o n tin g e n t when it e x p re sse s itself in a given place and at a given
tim e th ro u g h vario u s p e o p le . I will soon e x p o u n d the practical
ap p lic atio n s of such a view, which h a s nothing to do with common
r a tio n a lis m .
G uenon's activity d a te s b a c k more th a n a decade; his books obey a
w ell established pattern, a n d they have followed one another according
to a logical plan. In the periodical Vita Italiana, I discussed the political
a n d social aspects of G uenon's work; however, it is impossible to discuss
th e s e im plications aside from th e rest of his id e a s. Guenon’s method
is rig o ro u s ly d e d u c tiv e . H is re a c tio n a ry , “re v o lu tio n a ry ” and
tra d itio n alist Weltanschauung is in primis et a n te omnia a spiritual and
m etap h y sical one. The fact th a t his socio-political insights and his
c ritiq u e of the m odem w orld are inspired by th is higher plane and are
alw ay s coherent with it, confers on G uenon’s views a different scope
t h a n th e views of other well intentioned au th o rs, even when his views
h a v e common tra its w ith th eirs. Thus, a t this p o in t, it is necessary to
p re s e n t a n overall view of G uenon’s works.
T he initial ta s k w h ic h G uenon se t before h im se lf was purely
n e g a tiv e . The W estern w o rld , w hich is c a u g h t in the pincers of
m ate ria lism , h a s felt a c o n fu sed yearning for som ething “different.”
In t h is q u e s t, it h a s o n ly developed e q u iv o c a l, irra tio n a l and
in d is t in c t form s of s p ir itu a lity , w hich are a cou n terfeit of true
s p iritu a lity and which c o n s titu te a danger a s rea l and as serious
a s th a t posed by that m aterialism which they h a d set out to defeat.
T h u s , G u e n o n a tta c k e d w ith a d e v a s ta tin g c ritiq u e the “neo­
s p iritu a lis t” currents w h ich enjoyed the most su c c e ss in the modem
w orld. He did th is for o th e r reasons also. D u e to th e mentality of
s o m e , it is v irtu a lly im p o s s ib le to talk t o d a y a b o u t anything
t r a n s c e n d e n t , or a b o u t a n y th in g w hich i s b e y o n d the trivial
c o n c e p tio n s of m a te ria lis m , sc ie n tism , a n d a d e a d scholastic
p h ilo s o p h y , w ithout b e in g a c c u s e d of m y stic is m , theosophy or
spiritu alism . U nfortunately, I have h ad in Italy a sim ilar experience.
In ord er to avoid gross m isunderstandings, G u en o n began his work
by se ttin g the record s tra ig h t.
The first target of G u e n o n ’s critique was spiritualism . His book
L ’erreur spirite (Paris, 1923) deserves to be re a d because it contains
a n u n p a ra lle le d mise au p o in t on th e s u b je c t. It is necessary to
u n d e rs ta n d th at Guenon is n o t denying the reality of such phenomena
a n d he is even willing to ad m it that there is m ore to them than an
o rd in a ry spiritualist w ould adm it. Assum ing th e point of view of a
gen eral doctrine reflected in som e aspects of C atholic tradition and in
th e teachings of Oriental c u ltu re s well versed in psychic phenomena,
G uenon claims th at such m edium istic phenom ena have no real spiritual
v a lu e at all and, indeed, a n y interest people m a y have in these things
(very far from being a d e ta c h e d and objective an alysis), is morbid and

14
degenerated. F in ally , th e sp iritu a list h y p o th e s is (according to w hich
the actin g fo rc e b e h in d th e s e p h e n o m e n a a re th e d i s i n c a r n a t e
s p ir its of t h e d e c e a s e d ) , b e s i d e s b e i n g a r b i t r a r y i s in i t s e l f
contradictory, a n d th e p s e u d o -re lig io n w h ic h it fo sters in c e rta in
environm ents is a b e rra n t, to say t h e le a s t. If one w an ts to rem a in
within the p a r a m e te r s of a n a u th e n tic “s p iritu a lity ”, it is p o ssib le
to create o p e n in g s, a t tim es even b r o a d o n es, looking b e y o n d the
“norm al,” b u t o n ly th ro u g h different m e th o d s a n d th ro u g h a q u ite
different in n e r a ttitu d e . The m ain v iew a d v o c a te d by G u e n o n , in
this initial c ritiq u e of the “s p iritu a lis t d a n g e r”, is th e need to becom e
aw are th a t t h e r e is a “s p i r i t u a l i t y ” w h ic h f a r fro m h a v in g a
s u p e rn a tu ra l c h a r a c te r , m erely c o n s t i t u t e s a r e g r e s s io n to p r e ­
personal and s u b -s p iritu a l stages. T h is s p iritu a lity h a s in flu e n ce d
the majority o f c o n tem p o rary m o v em en ts. These m o vem ents delude
them selves w h e n th e y th in k th e y a r e a n ti- m a te r ia lis t a n d a n ti-
rationalist, a n d w h e n they a tte m p t to go “beyond” those tra d itio n a l
teachings w hich th e y no longer c o m p re h e n d .
In relation to th is , G u e n o n ’s s e c o n d a tta c k is d ire c te d a g a in s t
the A n glo-Indian th e o s o p h y and i t s o c c u ltis t, h u m a n i ta r ia n a n d
internationalist by -p ro d u cts. G uenon b r a n d s collectively th e s e c u rre n ts
as theosophism in h is book, Le th eosophism e Histoire d ’u n e p seu d o ­
religion, (Paris, 1921). G uenon proves to b e very well in fo rm ed about
the private a n d se c re t dealings of th e T heosophical Society, a n d does
not hesitate to ex p o se them , in o rd er to show its tu rb id m ilie u . At the
same time, h e b rin g s to light all th o se th in g s w hich in theosophism are
m erely the m o r b i d d ig re s s io n s o f c o n f u s e d m in d s , m ix e d w ith
extravagant d is to r tio n s of an c ie n t o r e a s te rn doctrines a n d filtered
through the w o rs t W estern p reju d ices. G u e n o n ’s a n ti-sp iritu a lism does
not proceed fro m a h y p o c ritic a l p o s itiv is m (quite th e c o n tra ry !).
Likewise, his a n ti-th e o so p h ic a l s ta n c e originates exclusively from the
need to restore to th e ir pristine sp le n d o r c e rtain traditional a n d spiritual
doctrines, w h ic h theosophism claim s for itself w ith d is a s tro u s resu lts,
i.e. generating h a rm fu l c o u n te rfe its a n d falsifications. It s h o u ld be
noted that all of G u e n o n ’s c o n s id e ra tio n s a n d criticism s d o n o t have
an abstract o r m erely theoretical c h a ra c te r ; he is m ore c o n c e rn e d with
the con seq u en ces w hich m ay arise in th e social aren a, in th e sen se of
a greater co n fu sio n of the collective p s y c h e . These c o n seq u e n c e s, which
may go u n n o tic e d by the m ajority o f th e people, b u t w hich a re no t any
less real, a re c a u s e d by a c e rta in c o n fu s io n of id eas a n d by the
m odern in s a n e flig h ts of th e im a g in a tio n . F inally, G u e n o n does
not hide th e fa c t th a t he h a s b e e n given an in tr o d u c tio n to the
com prehension of w h at he calls “tra d itio n a l reality” by th e stu d y of
Oriental te a c h in g s a n d personal c o n ta c t w ith them . The E a s t today,
aside from t h e d e a d c o m p ila tio n s o f “o r ie n ta lis ts ” s p e c ia liz e d in
v a rio u s d i s c i p l i n e s , e v o k e s i m a g e s o f th e o s o p h y , p a n t h e i s m ,
G andhi, Tagore a n d com pany. A c c o rd in g to G uenon, th e s e im ages

15
h a v e n o th in g to do w ith all th a t in H in d u ism is severe, virile,
lu m in o u s and capable o f providing th e d e e p e s t insights into the
problem of the crisis of o u r civilization and of o u r society; he wrote
h is com m ents on the m a tte r in his Introduction generate aux doctrines
indoues (Paris 1921). In th is book he began to com pare Western
a n d E a ste rn civilizations a n d to criticize the m o d ern world.
T h ese them es are developed in a system atic an d complete form
in h is late r works: Orient et Occident (Paris, 1924), La crise du monde
m odem e (Paris, 1927) a n d Autorite spirituelle et pouvoir tempore1(?aris}
1930). These books are m o re accessible to the general public and are
m ore likely to provide th e m e a n s of a higher vision into the greatest
social a n d political problem s of the m odern era. In these books we find
a rad ic al criticism of W estern civilization or, to be m ore precise, modem
civilization. According to G uenon, the real opposition is not between
E a s t a n d West, b u t betw een m odem a n d ancient civilization. Ancient
civilization, or “traditional civilization,” h ad followed common principles
in b o th E ast and West th ro u g h different forms of expression, which
w ere relative to time, ra c e , m entality and geographical location. The
s y s te m a tic denial of th e s e u n iv ersal p rin c ip le s, culm inating in a
com plete anti-traditionalism , is the m ain characteristic of the modern
w orld. This denial of p rin cip les stands in total opposition not only to
th e E ast, but to the a n c ie n t W est at its best. F or Guenon, this denial
c o n s t i t u t e s th e b a s is o f th e W estern w o r ld 's d eep a n d dark
in te lle c tu a l and social c ris is , a crisis of the in te rio r as well as the
exterior.
The negative and d e c ad e n t character of the m o d ern world, according
to G u e n o n , c o n sists e s s e n tia lly in its lo ss of c o n ta c t w ith the
“m etap h y sical” reality. A nd in the ensuing ex tin ctio n of living and
do m in atin g traditions w h ic h derive their right to be a n d their authority
from a body of values a n d teachings of a “m etaphysical” nature.
W hat does Guenon m e a n by “m etaphysical” a n d by “metaphysical
r e a lity ? ” This is a f u n d a m e n ta l iss u e , w h ic h m an y will fail to
u n d e rs ta n d , since it re fe rs to spiritual horizons which are virtually
u n k n o w n in our times a n d w hich are unlikely to be reduced to any
category employed in our m o d ern civilization. W hen Guenon talks about
m etaphysics, he specifies th a t by this term he d oes not at all mean a
“philosophy,” and not even a particular branch o f the discipline which
c a lls itself “philosophy.” T he term “m etaphysics,” in Guenon’s works,
fin d s its m eaning in reference to an essentially super-rational plane.
B eyond what is conditioned by time and sp a c e a n d so subject to
c h an g e an d soaked in p a rticu la rism and in th e sensible world, there
e x ists a world of intellectual essences. These esse n c e s do not exist
a s m ere hypotheses or a b stra ctio n s of the h u m a n mind, but as the
m o st real of all possible realities. Man could “realize” this world, in
o th e r words, he could h a v e a direct experience of it as certain as
th a t m ediated to him by th e physical senses, only if he succeeded in

16
elevating h im self to a su p e r-ra tio n a l s ta te , w hich G u en o n c a lls of
“pure intellectu ality .” In o th er w ords, th is state could b e achieved
only if man p ro v e d him self c a p a b le o f a tra n s c e n d e n t u s e of h is
in te lle c t, a n i n t e l l e c t fre e d f ro m a n y s p e c ific a lly h u m a n ,
psychological, affective, individualistic a n d even “m ystical” elem ent.
G uenon e m p lo y s th e te rm “m e t a p h y s i c s ” in r e l a ti o n s h ip to a
transcendent re a lis m a sso ciated w ith a n in n er a sc e tic ism , w hich
aims at going b e y o n d the world, a s it is conceived by religions. He
who h a s been involved in th ese s tu d ie s c a n testify th at th is position
is not new a t all. Besides, G uenon d e c la re s his u tte r o p p o sitio n to
everything w h ic h is “new ” a n d “m o d e r n .” He also c o m p la in s th a t
one of the m o s t p e c u liar d eviations o f th e contem porary m in d -se t
consists in c o n sid e rin g a doctrine to b e im p o rtan t only in so fa r a s it
is “original” a n d “personal,” rath er t h a n being tru e . In th e doctrine
of “m e ta p h y sic a l re a lity ” G u en o n m e re ly w a n ts to p o in t o u t the
prem ise w h ich w a s alw ays a c k n o w le d g e d by every n o r m a l a n d
creative c iv iliz a tio n .
From contact w ith the m etap h y sical reality, it is possible to derive
a body of p rin cip les which facilitate a n o n -h u m a n way to an a ly z e and
to organize h u m a n affairs. These p rin c ip le s constitute u n s h a k a b le
reference p o in ts from which, by a d a p ta tio n to various p la n e s , it is
possible to d e d u c e fu rth er principles relative to a specific know ledge
and to specific d o m ain s, w hich are a lw a y s ordained in a h iera rc h ica l
fashion a ro u n d th e sam e s u p e r n a tu r a l axis. T his is th e n a tu r e of
“traditional sc ie n c e s ” and of th e a n c ie n t civilizations, in s ta r k co n tra st
to the inductive, exterior, p a rticu la ristic , analytical, and p u re ly profane
modem sciences, w hich lack a u th e n tic principles an d w hich a re unable
to lead to tru e knowledge. The criticism w hich G uenon levels against
modem scientism in all of its m aterialistic, pragm atist and evolutionary
trajectories, is th e m ost serious and th e m o st radical of all th e criticism s
ever made.
On the o th e r h a n d , once it is a p p lie d to a social a n d p ractical
plane, any k n ow ledge which tra d itio n d raw s from its m eta p h y sic a l
prem ises c a n b e tr a n s la te d into p r in c ip le s w h ich c a n p ro p e rly
situ ate and o rg a n iz e m u n d a n e a c tiv itie s and bestow o n th e m a
higher m eaning; th e se principles c a n also create in stitu tio n a l forms
adequate to th is purpose a n d prolong “life” into som ething w hich is
“more than life .” In th is context, G u e n o n 's d e d u c tio n s a s s u m e a
radical c h a ra c te r: hierarchical, a ris to c ra tic , anti-in d iv id u alist, a n ti­
social and anti-co llectiv ist. His d e d u c tio n s go beyond th e d u alism
typical of a P la to n ica lly inclined W eltanschauung s u c h a s J u lie n
Benda's. A ccording to G uenon, the s p irit's fate is not to be exiled to
a s tra to s p h e ric h eavenly region; lik e w ise , th e s p ir it- b e a r e r s are
not destined to play in this world th e p a rt of exiles overw helm ed by
sorrow, or “fro zen ” in a stoic d e ta c h e d a ttitu d e , nor th at o f pow erless
Utopians. T h a t w h ich does not b e g in a n d does not e n d w ith the

17
“h u m a n ” e le m e n t, a c c o r d i n g to G u e n o n , o c c a s io n s precise
re la tio n sh ip s of “dignity”, qu ality and differentiation in the various
form s of life. This is how tru e hierarchy is b o rn ; th a t hierarchy was
k n o w n by the great tra d itio n a l social organizations. The last of its
ech o reverberates into th e feudal and Catholic-im perial Middle ages
to w h ic h G uenon n a tu ra lly a ttrib u te s a sp e cia l m eaning of value
a n d sym bol. The force w h ic h created these g re a t historical realities
did n o t merely derive from contingent, social a n d economical factors,
b u t ra th e r from the irre sistib le power from above which flows from
a liv in g c o n ta c t w ith t h e m e ta p h y sic a l r e a lity ; th is contact is
e v e n tu a lly tra n sla te d in to precise re la tio n s h ip s characterized by
th e prim acy of spiritual a u th o rity over tem poral power. For Guenon,
th e world of “principles” is no t at all a feeble w orld of abstractions,
b u t ra th e r a world of forces whose action, d e sp ite being invisible, is
n o t any less effective. O n th e contrary, these forces are even more
irresistib le, inexorable a n d fatal than th a t w hich is typical of material
a n d sim ply h u m an forces. Moreover, G uenon’s considerations are
t r u l y e n lig h te n in g w h e n h e a ttr ib u te s to th e s e invisible and
u n s u s p e c te d facto rs, h is to r ic a l form s a n d e v e n ts , the common
know ledge of which is n o th in g but chronicle. G uenon proves to be a
r e a l m a s te r in th e a r t of p e n e tra tin g the “in te llig en c e s” which
re g u la te history and its g re a t spiritual law s (su c h as the cyclical
laws) in a n enigmatic w ay; w hat he h a s to say on the matter is not
o n ly tr u e in a n d of its e lf, b u t it also and esp ecially acts as the
specification of a new m eth o d . This m ethod play s, historically, the
s a m e role of investigating w h at eludes the p e rip h e ra l and ordinary
c o n s c io u s n e ss a n d w h a t proceeds from d eep a n d hidden causes,
w hich psychoanalysis p la y s toward a dim ension of the hum an psyche
a n d w hich eludes the o rd in a ry , tw o-dim ensional psychology.
T he sam e m ay be s a id a b o u t the world o f sym bols and myths.
G uenon, who upholds a tra d itio n al viewpoint a n d strenuously opposes
m o d ern views even in th is m atte r, does not see sym bols and myths as
a rb itra ry and fantastic sto ries, a s lyrical inventions, or as naturalistic
tran sp o sitio n s. Symbols a n d m yths are often su i generis expressions
of e lem ents endowed w ith a m etaphysical ch aracter; a s such, they are
su sce p tib le of being referred to a content w hich is more valid than
b o th th e rationalistic a n d th e positivistic data. This is not a detail in
th e context of all of G u e n o n ’s works; the ric h e s t w itnesses of the
tra d itio n s and of the in stitu tio n s which have m o st fascinated Guenon,
a re expressed mainly in th e form of symbols a n d m yths. Rene Guenon
an aly zes them an d brings o u t their objective a n d universal meaning.
His com parative m ethod g e n e ra te s some kind of “un-variable,” namely
som ething which is valid “alw ays and everyw here,” in the context of
in s titu tio n s , religions a n d of the genuine p a th s w hich attem pt to
tra n s c e n d the hum an condition.

18
 It is here t h a t G u e n o n 's h ie r a r c h ic a l- u n iv e r s a lis tic p o s itio n
clearly tra n sp ire s. He does n o t view u n iv e rsa lism the w a y m o d ern
deviations d o , n a m e ly a s a le v e llin g p r o c e s s o r a s u n if o r m ity .
According to h im , th e u n iv e r s a l i s t r u e in v ir tu e o f b e in g a
hierarchical a p e x , a n d a p rin cip le w h ic h is c h ro n o lo g ic a lly p rio r
and above all p o ssib le differences; it co ex ists w ith the h ig h e s t level
of differentiation. It is the sp iritu a l a n d u n c h a n g in g u n i ty to w a rd
which every p a r tic u la r reality converges a n d from w hich it derives
its order, its m e a n in g and its re a s o n of being. T he s a m e g o es for
every domain, in c lu d in g the socio-political and religious o n e s . From
a social point of view , G uenon f in d s th e tra d itio n a l h ie r a r c h ic a l
ideal e x p re sse d in a ll th o se p o litic a l s y s te m s w h ich fo llo w th e
principle su u m cuique (“to each h i s o w n ”); in th e s e s y s te m s , th e
individuals, in v irtu e of playing a fu n c tio n conform ing to th e i r n a tu re
and to their n a t u r a l vocation, a re g a th e r e d in c la s s e s o r c a s te s .
Each caste is endow ed with its own fe a tu re s , prerogatives a n d rights,
and is arranged in a strict h iera rc h ica l order w hich b e st sa fe g u a rd s
the primacy of th e spiritual over th e tem poral. In regard to th is , as
an ideal m odel, G u e n o n often re fe rs to th e h ie ra rc h ic a l s y s te m of
the old Hindu society, in w hich th e m e rc h a n t c la ss p r e s id e d over
the working c la s s a n d the w arrio r a ris to c ra c y over th e m e r c h a n t
class. At th e to p o f the social p y r a m id , th e re w ere e li te s w h ich
re p re s e n te d p u r e s p i r i t u a l a u t h o r i t y a n d p u r e i n t e l l e c t u a l
(m etaphysical) k n ow ledge. G u e n o n e x p la in e d th a t t h i s is n o t a
contingent o r s itu a tio n a l schem e, b u t a p rin cip le of o r d e r w hich
has found e x p r e s s io n in every p l a c e w h ere th e n o r m a l ty p e of
civilization a n d society existed, th o u g h th ro u g h various fo rm s which
are complete in different degrees. T h is social o rd er e x is te d in the
West up to th e M iddle Ages, d u rin g w h ich a su p e r-ra tio n a l division
of people w as m ad e , into the s e p a ra te classes of c o m m o n ers, third
estate, nobility a n d clergy.
This is a lso the case of w hat c o n s titu te s the c o rn e rsto n e of every
great tradition or religion. In the te a c h in g s , sym bols a n d th e ritu a ls
and cerem onials of each of these g re a t traditions, there a re various
expressions (differing as to place, tim e a n d other varian ces) of one,
“primordial” tra d itio n . This sem inal te r m should be taken in a spiritual
and m etaphysical ra th e r th a n a h is to ric a l and chronological sense.
The suprem e referen ce p o int in t h i s “p rim o rd ia l” tra d itio n , is the
convergence of th e two powers, n a m e ly th e sp iritual prin cip le a n d the
royal principle; th is convergence is in d ee d the h e a rt of every social
organism d raw in g from above the s a p essential for its o w n life. Here
one finds th e p e a k of pure universality, a n d , in its external application,
the principle of every Sacrum Imperium. In the uniq u e w o rk e n title d Le
Roi du Monde (Paris, 1927), G u en o n attem p ted to d e m o n s tra te the
recurrence, in v a rio u s a n d d ifferen t tra d itio n s, of th e id e a of the
“Universal R u le r” a s well a s its co n cretizatio n a s the id e a of th e one

19
s o u rc e of the forces w hich have traditionally o rd ain e d the greatest
h isto ric a l cycles. J u s t a s, beyond the variety of form s and the degree
of c o n s c io u s n e ss , the v a rio u s tra d itio n s may refe r to one body of
know ledge, which is su p erio r a n d prior to them all, likewise, beyond
th e v a rio u s c e n te rs w h ic h visibly dom inate, in different degrees,
th e g re a t c u rre n ts of h isto ry , there should be only one center, only
one fu n ctio n of suprem e s p iritu a l governm ent, com pared to which
all th e o n es which we k n o w about sim ply play a subordinate role.
S u c h a notion, ju s t as t h a t of a “prim ordial tra d itio n ,” should be
ta k e n in a m etaphysical a n d super-individual sen se. W hether an
h y p o th e s is , or a m y ste rio u s reality, G uenon’s considerations still
d e m o n stra te th a t the u n ifo rm aspiration of trad itio n al m an is to go
beyond w h at is p articu lar a n d contingent, in o rd er to integrate his
tr a d itio n in a s u p e r-tra d itio n , the existence of w hich is vaguely
in tu ite d , a n d w hich c a rrie s tra its w hich are im perial and spiritual
a t t h e sa m e tim e ; th is s u p e r - tr a d itio n is t h e su p re m e norm ,
prec isely in virtue of its m etaphysical n a tu re . Again, this is what
w as symbolized by the ecum enical Middle Ages a n d by the ideal of
D a n te ’s view of the Imperator. Incidentally, G u en o n w as the author
of a book entitled L'esoterisme de Dante (Paris, 1925), and of a short
e s s a y on Saint B ernard.
A ccording to G uenon, th e sense of tra d itio n h a s progressively
becom e dim, both in the E a s t and in th e m odem W est, in which the
la s t expression was rep re sen te d by C atholicism . It is interesting to
rea d w h at Guenon has to say in order to highlight th e catholic (katholicos
in G reek m eans “universal”) content of Catholicism , in the sense of
rediscovering in teachings, ritu a ls and symbols of the Church one of
th e possible expressions of th e “prim ordial trad itio n .” The Reformation
a n d H um anism brought a b o u t a complete h ia tu s a n d an acute phase
of th a t involutional process w hich Guenon sees a t work in history, and
w hich he interprets according to the traditional teach in g s of the cyclical
law s a n d of the “ages of th e world.” Following th e Reformation and
H um anism , the m etaphysical perspective was su b stitu te d with a merely
h u m a n perspective. G radually, a decadent culture becom es established
w hich presents certain se c u la r and rationalistic tra its. Rational faculties
tak e th e place of “pure intellectuality;” philosophical abstraction, true
k n o w le d g e ’s; im m a n e n c e , tra n s c e n d e n c e ’s; th e in d iv id u al, the
u n i v e r s a l ’s; m o v e m e n t, s ta b ility ’s; a n ti - tr a d i t io n , tr a d itio n ’s.
S im u ltan eo u sly , the m a te ria l and practical a s p e c t of life becomes
hypertrophied and takes over everything else. New m anifestations of
w h a t is “h u m an ”, of m oralism , of sentim entalism , of a glorification of
th e Ego, of frantic fretting a n d running around (activism), of a tension
w ith o u t light (voluntarism) a n d of “life” in its irrational and pre-personal
a sp e c ts, creep everywhere in the modern world. This takes place in
th e c o n tex t of a n a b so lu te lack of tru e principles, of a social and
ideological chaos, and of a contam inating m ystique of becoming which

20
sets a hurried p a c e for people to follow. From E urope t h i s c a n c e r
spreads e lse w h e re , a s a n e w form o f b a rb a r is m ; a n ti - tr a d i t io n
penetrates everyw here, “modernizing* th o s e civilizations, w h ic h , a s in
the case of India, C hina or Islam, still preserve to a c e rta in degree
values and r u le s of life of a different o rd er. Sporadic r e a c tio n s to
this trend are sh o rt-reach in g ; take th e ca se of th e n e o -s p iritu a lis t
deviations, w h ic h re fle c t in t h e m s e lv e s th e t y r a n n y o f s u b ­
intellectual fa c u ltie s an d th e lack o f u n d e rs ta n d in g o f a h ig h e r
reality. From a social point of view, G u e n o n w as th e first to recognize
as an h isto rical t r u t h , not th e a d v e n t of progressivism , b u t th e
descent of political power from the h ig h e r to the lower c a s te s ; from
the spiritual e lite s to the w arrior c a s te ; from th e w a rrio r c la s s to
the capitalist bourgeoisie; from the la tte r to the m asses, th e an cien t
caste of the serfdom , e.g., socialism .
Thus G uenon asce rta in s th a t sin c e a cycle is ending, a n d since
it is impossible to go any “lower,” o n e c a n only expect a fin al crisis
followed by a tim id recovery a n d by a reconstructive p h a se. However
Guenon is n o t c e rta in w here and h o w th is is to take p la c e . The
fundam ental t a s k c o n s is ts in c r e a tin g som e elites in w h ic h th e
sense of m e ta p h y s ic a l rea lity m u s t b e re k in d le d a n d w h ic h will
formulate new p rin cip les n e c essa ry to e sta b lish a new o rd e r. B ut
where is the s ta r tin g point? In o ne of th e previous tra d itio n s ? As
far as the W est is co n cern ed , the t a s k w ould befall C a th o lic ism .
However G u en o n , also b ecau se of sp e c ia l p erso n al “e x p e rie n c e s ,”
seems to have lo st th a t partial o p tim ism which he h a d e x p re sse d
in h is early b o o k s . He h a d th en c o n c e iv e d for C a th o lic is m the
possibility of becom ing reintegrated, by arriving a t the full a n d living
knowledge of t h a t “traditional” c o n te n t w hich it once p o s s e s s e d . but
which is now co n fin ed to a la te n t s ta g e , and by lim ita tio n s of a
partisan e x c lu siv ism .
Should th e n one tu rn to th e E ast? B u t w hat E ast? His refe re n c e s to
oriental doctrines, form ulated in w orks su c h as L’homme et so n devenir
selon le Vedanta (Paris, 1925) and Le symbolisme de la croix (Paris,
1930) which w ere aim ed a t a rtic u la tin g a doctrine su p e rio r to both
East and W est, sh o u ld not deceive u s . The E ast is c u rre n tly either
decadent or on its way to m odernization. It is ab o u t to u n d e rg o the
same social a n d spiritual crises from w hich W esterners them selves
are trying to e sc a p e . E m bracing m e ta p h y s ic a l e le m e n ts th e E ast
still preserves in som e environm ent o r in some crystallized tradition
amounts to th e sam e as turn in g to sim ilar elem ent w h ich th e best
and most a n c ie n t W estern tradition still h a s to offer. Thus, th e attem pt
to utilize the principle of continuity o r to take im petus from a n y tradition
seems to d e stin e d to fail; th ere is a req u irem en t now for creative and
heroic action.
At this p o in t th ere is som ething to be discussed w h ic h G uenon
has not yet d e a lt with, b u t th at h e still needs to consider, if he is to

21
th o ro u g h ly study the possibilities of th e m odern world from his own
p o in t of view. There are several areas in which th e West is burning
w ith restle ssn e ss and w ith a feeling of revolt a g a in s t the most visible
form s of th e m odern political a n d intellectual disintegration. Hence,
th e n e w c o n c ep t of “r e v o lu tio n ,” even on t h e so cial plane; this
c o n c ep t is often a synonym of an authentic counter-revolution and
b e g in s to dom inate and to give a direction, in several countries, to
w id e s e c to rs of th e n e w g e n e ra tio n s. It w o u ld be in te restin g to
d e te rm in e to w hat degree a n d in w hat form th e s e currents, which
a re ra d ic a lly opposed to dem ocracy an d to so c ia lism (especially
c e r t a i n c u r r e n ts in Ita ly in w hich a s y n th e s is of tra d itio n and
re n e w a l is well u n d e r w ay), can provide th e s u p e rio r foundation
n e c e s s a ry to begin the a rd u o u s task of rein teg ra tio n in the sense
in d ic a te d by Guenon, a n d th u s a work endowed w ith a metaphysical,
tra n s c e n d e n t, ethical a n d social character.
An analysis of this k in d would be of g rea t u tility and it would
e le v a te G u e n o n ’s d o c t r i n e s to a h ig h e r d e g re e of p ra c tic a l
e ffe c tiv e n e s s a n d c lo s e n e s s to th o se e le m e n ts w hich virtually
p o s s e s s the capability of com prehension a n d w hich are beginning
to a c q u ire power. If, on th e one hand, it is d e sira b le that Guenon
w ould begin th is kind of analysis, on the other h a n d , the knowledge
a n d th e study of the w o rk s of this author s h o u ld be recommended
to th e b est elem ents a n d to those who are m o st anxious to receive
a n a u th e n tic spiritual o rien tatio n in our new Italy. These elements
w o u ld find in G uenon’s w o rk s perspectives w h ic h are far removed
from an y particularism a n d personalism . They would also discover
w ide horizons, pow erful, p u re and u n c o n d itio n e d ideas, an d new
w ays a n d m ethods to recover a greatness w hich does not belong to
th e p a s t bu t to w hat is su p e rio r to time and o f a perennial actuality.
I fe e l th is to b e c a se , s in c e the p rom ise o f G u e n o n ’s “radical
tra d itio n a lism ” is the s a m e a s M ussolini’s id e a l of th e attainm ent
of a “p e rm a n e n t and u n iv e r s a l rea lity ,” w h ic h is the n ecessary
re q u ire m e n t for any p e rs o n who w ishes to a c t spiritually in the
w orld w ith a “dom inating h u m an will.”

EAST AND WEST- THE GIFT OF LANGUAGES

G u e n o n ’s Man and H is Becoming According to Vedanta (London,
1945), which h a s recently been translated into Italian, will draw the
a tte n tio n of the well tra in ed a n d qualified reader. Of course, it will also
becom e the source of m isunderstandings for a c e rta in category of “third
r a te ” critics and intellectu als who oscillate b e tw e en platitudes and
p o litical and spiritual fan c ies. On m ore th a n one occasion I have
declared without h esitation th a t Guenon is o n e of the rare spiritual
te a c h e rs of the m odern age, a n d that he is in a different “league” than

22
authors such a s Keyserling, B enda, M a ssis, R opps and o th e r s of
their bent. R ene G uenon is one of t h e few who really p o s s e s s e s
principles and gives authoritative w itn e s s to Tradition. H e d o e s so
in the higher, m etaphysical a n d su p e r-p e rs o n a l sense of th e word
and o u tside o f a n y p h ilo s o p h ic a l s c h e m e or e m p ty c la im to
“originality” a n d lim ita tio n s of a c o n fe s s io n a l a n d p ro s e ly tiz in g
nature. As th e above m entioned b o o k h a s been tra n s la te d , I feel
the need to c le a r u p any potential m isu n d e rsta n d in g s. T h is is not
the place to d is c u s s the book itself sin c e th is w ould ta k e u s into
the technical d o m ain . It is ra th e r to in d ic a te the persp ectiv e from
which the book sh o u ld be considered th a t is my aim.
Let me s ta te im m ediately w here th e larg est m is u n d e rs ta n d in g
may lie. A significant part of G u en o n ’s w ork consists in a th o ro u g h
critique of m o d e rn civilization. T h is c ritiq u e is very e fficie n t a n d
destructive, since it is void of p a ssio n s a n d is rigorously fo u n d e d on
an im passioned a n a ly sis of facts, e v e n ts a n d ideas from th e point
of view of th e p rin c ip le s w hich a r e ty p ic a l of every n o r m a l (i.e.,
traditional) civilization. The m ost sig n ific a n t work by G u en o n , using
this point of view, nam ely La crise d u m onde modeme (P aris, 1927),
has recently b e e n tra n s la te d into I ta lia n . It is only n a t u r a l th a t
those readers w ho have followed G u e n o n ’s critique, w h e th e r they
agreed or d isag reed with him , are n o w curious to learn a b o u t the
positive c o u n te rp a rt, consisting of th e values a n d d o c trin e s to be
opposed to th o se of the m odern w orld. It is also n a tu ra l t h a t these
readers wish to know w hat is th is “tra d itio n ” a n d the “tra d itio n a l
spirit” so g reatly em phasized by G u e n o n , and w hich h e co n sid ers
to be the p resu p p o sitio n of any g e n u in e reconstructive w ork. It is
possible that m an y people m ay th in k th a t G uenon’s last b o o k serves
this purpose, especially because it is so heavy on doctrine; however,
considering t h a t th is book c o n c e rn s its e lf with H indu th e o rie s , it
is easy to p redict w hat is going to h a p p e n over an d over a g a in . There
will be a c c u s a tio n s th a t G uenon is in fa tu a te d with th e E a s t and
that he is a “th eo so p h ist” a n d a p a n th e is t, attem p tin g to d istra c t
the West fro m its own tr a d i ti o n s o f C a th o lic ism a n d W e ste rn
personalism a n d , th u s , s u b s titu tin g schools of exotic d o c trin e s in
their stead. T h e se critic ism s m ay je o p a rd iz e th e c o m p re h e n s io n
of som ething so im p o rta n t th a t t h e v a lu e th ere o f is d iffic u lt to
overstate.
Thus, in o rd er to prevent this fro m happening, it is n e c e s s a ry to
establish th e following points.
Guenon’s w ork undoubtedly r e p r e s e n ts the best t h a t h a s ever
been written a b o u t H indu m e ta p h y sic s. This book s h o u ld also be
considered a s th e necessary key fo r th o se who wish to u n d e rta k e
in a truly se rio u s way, outside the a rb itra ry reconstructions of official
orientalists, philosophers a n d th eologians, the study of th e E astern
traditions in g en eral. W hen he w ro te th is book, G u e n o n d id not

23
in te n d to limit himself to th is task. Starting w ith th e presupposition
t h a t th e various trad itio n s a n d religions, in w h a t they have to offer
w h ic h is tr u ly valid a n d s u p e r - p e r s o n a l, a r e j u s t different
e x p re ssio n s of th e sam e one universal body of knowledge, Guenon
em ployed the theories fo rm u lated by Vedanta, in the same way in
w hich a polyglot may u s e a particular language in order to express
id e a s frequently ex p re sse d in other idioms. T herefore, the fear of
a n d th e reactions to G u e n o n ’s employment of “oriental” references,
on th e p a rt of some, a re really unfounded. G u en o n himself does not
f a il to p ro v id e m u ltip le e x a m p le s w h ic h d e m o n s tra te the
c o n c o rd a n c e betw een t h e H indu tra d itio n a n d o th er traditions,
in clu d in g W estern ones, a b o u t the m ain doctrinal points.
It is legitim ate to w onder why Guenon chose V edanta in order to
give a generic example of th e “traditional” way to look a t the world and
m a n a n d his becoming, if indeed the choice of d o ctrine was indifferent
a n d if his intent was to in d ic a te a positive and constructive counterpart
to h is criticism of the e rro rs of the modern w orld. It can be objected
t h a t h is choice was not very expedient. This objection is valid, if one
m e a n s “expediency” in th e m ost vulgar and im m ediate sense of the
w ord. No doubt th a t if G u e n o n had chosen som e W estern teachings as
th e b a s is of h is Weltanschauung, su c h as m edieval Catholic and
H erm etic teachings, in ste a d of Vedanta, he w ould have encountered
le s s opposition from ill-intentioned and incom petent people. However,
th a t w as not to be the c a se .
First of all, according to Guenon, one sh o u ld not foster illusions
a b o u t this: as far as m en tality is concerned, th e m odern West is not
a n y m ore distant from th e E ast than from the a n c ie n t and traditional
W est. In their true essence, th e teachings of th e ancient West have
becom e so alien to m odern m ankind a s those of th e “exotic” Far East.
C onsidering the recu rren t cases of m isunderstanding, one should not
th e n be deceived into h o p in g th a t if Guenon h a d assum ed an ancient
W estern “foundation,” h e w ould have had a g re a te r success.
Secondly, various facto rs which cannot be exam ined in this context,
have caused the traditional teachings to ap p ear in the main Western
tra d itio n , not in a p u re a n d m etaphysical s ta te , b u t in a mostly
“religious” adaptation. Therefore, to attem pt to “sp eak ” through the
language of W estern tra d itio n without lowering th e standards, would
re q u ire a ra th e r com plex w ork of “in te g ra tio n ” a n d of “esoteric”
interp retatio n (Dante a n d St. Thomas would say “anagogical”) which is
n o t exem pt from practical dangers. One of these d an g ers would consist
in p ro v o k in g a n o u t c r y from th o s e w ho a r e c a lled C atholic
“trad itio n alists,” and w ho, a s a consequence of th e ir short-sightedness
a n d of their confusing th e essential with the non-essential, would easily
b e inclined to believe in a n attem pt to falsify, “violate” and distort their
ow n tradition. It is sufficient to look at the scope of the mental horizons
of “intellectual” Catholic traditionalists, such a s Papini, Manacorda,

24
Bargellini, Comi a n d so on, to realize t h a t th is danger tr u ly ex ists
and th at the “re a c tio n s ” would not b e a n y less virulent t h a n a n ti-
Eastern reactio n s.
When challenging these C atholic tra d itio n a lis ts , the a d v a n ta g e
consists in being able to introduce a s y s te m which is com plete in its
own being, and n o t in need of help fro m o th e r traditions, a s far a s a
correct and m etap h y sical c o m p reh en sio n is concerned. O n e sh o u ld
not forget that G u en o n always writes for a n elite a n d that h e is firmly
persuaded th at only by re-establishing c o n ta c t with a tra d itio n al body
of knowledge in a n unadulterated, o rig in a l and com plete form , it is
possible to overcom e the cadaveric stiffe n in g of form s w h ic h have
exhausted th e ir p o te n tia l a s well a s to overcom e the p e rv e rs io n
represented by new a n d “m odern” form s. “Religion” to him w a s sim ply
not enough. E verything contained in relig io n s is tru e, but o n ly w h e n it
takes the form of symbols, p ersonifications and points of referen ces
for faculties w hich are definitely not th e highest, su c h as feelings an d
a reason b a sed o n theological d isc o u rs e ; b u t everything w h ic h in
religious traditions is expressed in fo rm of faith, dogm a a n d theology,
in the traditions of a m etaphysical ty p e ta k e s on the m eaning of su p er-
rational evidence, tra n sc en d e n t know ledge, and of “being;” n a tu ra lly ,
on this plane th e sam e principles m a y have a different sc o p e a n d
lead to horizons w hich are very h a r d to a tta in th o ro u g h a n o th e r
way.
Because of th is reason, Guenon h a s ch o sen the “lan g u ag e” proper
to Vedanta, w hich is essentially a m eta p h y sic a l tradition. T h is affords
him the possibility of achieving tru ly enlightened in sig h ts in to the
knowledge of m a n , h is nature and d e s tin y , which m ake tabula rasa of
so many fa ls e p ro b le m s a n d u s e l e s s c o n s tr u c tio n s o f p ro fa n e
philosophies. H ere everything is re s to re d to a grandiose d im e n sio n of
incomparable c e rta in ty and of an a lm o s t O lym pian tra n s p a re n c y .
Everything is pervaded by the s e n sa tio n of infinity and of eternity,
beyond both “p a n th e ism ” a n d “p e rs o n a lis m .” The first r e s u lt is the
destruction of th e sm all-m inded p ersp ectiv es typical of the insignificant
Ego. Mysterious co n tacts are esta b lish e d . One has th e feeling of having
come from very far away, an d of p ro c e e d in g tow ard n e w horizons,
through m ultiple sta te s of co n scio u sn ess, in an ad v en tu re in which
death becomes a virtually insignificant event and in w hich “life,” the
way it is u s u a lly und ersto o d , w ith all its fret a n d w orries, c a n be
compared to a jo u rn e y in the night. T h is is not a philosophical theory:
it is a prim ordial knowledge, which h a s found in G uenon a faithful
and im personal in te rp re te r. T hose w ho have achieved th e in n er
“realization” (this is th e only thing t h a t m atters), cannot h e lp b u t smile
down on those who attack either th e m y th of the East or of th e West,
because they know the term s of th e tr u e synthesis: on th e one hand,
the profane ig n o ra n c e w ith its v a r io u s m en tal and s e n tim e n ta l
trajectories; o n the other h a n d the b e a re rs of true knowledge, united

25
in a com m on front, even w h e n they are not aw are of it and when
th ey give all of their en erg ies to see th e triu m p h of the spirit in the
co n tex t of a given people a n d of a given civilization.

RENE GUENON AND THE “GUENONIAN”

SCHOLASTICISM
R ene Guenon should certainly be considered a s a Master of our
tim es. His contributions to th e critique of the m o d ern world and to the
c o m p re h e n s io n of th e “w o rld of T ra d itio n ”, of sym bols and of
m etaphysical teachings, a re truly invaluable. I have been myself, for
m ore th a n thirty years now , one of the very first w riters to make Guenon
k n o w n in Italy (and even in central Europe), by m eans of essays,
tra n s la tio n s and quotes. I rem ained in a cordial epistolary relationship
w ith him alm ost until th e tim e of his death. If, on the one hand, one
h o p e s th a t Guenon's th o u g h t will exercise an a d eq u ate influence, on
th e oth er hand, one sh o u ld beware of a danger, nam ely the emerging
of a G uenonian “scholasticism .” This kind of “scholasticism ” consists
in following passively j u s t a b o u t every view ever form ulated by Guenon,
w ith a p e d a n tic a t t i t u d e , w ith o u t any t r u e in v e s tig a tio n or
d isc rim in a tio n , and w ith a real fear to m a k e even the slightest
c h a n g e in the m aste r's fo rm u latio n s.
While it rem ains tru e th a t “originality” is definitely out of place
in th is dom ain, the in flu e n c e of a tea c h e r is tru ly effective not
w h e n it generates slav ish a n d stereotypical repetitions, b u t when
it generates the im pulse for further developm ents, and, if necessary,
for revisions, th a n k s to a n a b u n d a n c e of p ersp ectiv es. While an
acknow ledgm ent of w h a t is valid a n d un iq u e in G uenon's work is
d u e , th is should not p re v e n t the observation of some of his limits,
d u e to his “personal e q u a tio n ” and to his forma mentis. It is precisely
th is critical approach t h a t leaves room for potentially fruitful work.
T h e p e rs o n a l o r i e n t a t io n of G u e n o n h a s e s s e n tia lly been
in tellectu al and “sap ien tial.” In all of his w orks, anything which is
“e x is te n tia l” a n d p ra c tic a l, h is personal e x p e rien c e , any specific
d ire c tiv e facilitating t h e in n e r realization b e y o n d pure doctrine,
a ll th is is alm ost n o n e x iste n t. Hence the d a n g e r of a Guenonian
“s c h o la s tic is m ” (in th e n eg ativ e se n se of th e term ), w hich can
r e d u c e ev erything to s o m e th in g w hich is b o th inoperative and
a b s tr a c t, despite the c la im s (without a proof) advanced by many
followers of Guenon, of having attained a know ledge which should
b e “realizing” a s well.
The proof th a t such a danger is real, is given by the orientation
ta k e n by some G uenonian cliques of “strict observance.” An example
is also found in Italy, by th e periodical “Review of Traditional Studies,”
w hich was started last y e a r in Turin, and w hich im itates the French

26
Guenonian p e rio d ica l Etudes traditionnelles even in its e d ito r ia l
contents. The tra n sla tio n s made in it of old articles w ritten by G u en o n ,
along with some tex ts or theoretical o rie n ta tio n s , m ay be h elp fu l.
However the tone of th is review is a p e d a n tic one. One can freq u en tly
notice in it an academ ic inclination, n a m e ly th e style of sp e ak in g ex
cathedra and ex tripode in a final and pedagogical tone, a n d w ith a n
authority which no m em ber of the e d ito ria l staff p o ssesse s, e ith e r
because of spiritual statu re or because o f valid works being p u b lish e d .
In this way, th a t contem ptible “individualism ” (one sh u d d e rs only a t
hearing phrases su c h a s “individual re a liz a tio n ”) finds a viable outlet;
what in psychoanalysis is called Geltunastrieb h as the possibility of
affirming itself, u n d e r the cover of im personality, whenever som ebody
puts on the air of being a spiritual “te a c h e r.”
It is rather stran g e that I w as th e victim of su c h a “k n ow -it-all”
attitude in an e ssa y featured on the f o u rth issu e of th is review. Since
this essay was featu red in the section called “Book Reviews,” it would
be natural to th in k th a t a recent book of m ine had j u s t been reviewed.
That was not th e case, as the book review ed was The Doctrine of the
Awakening (London, 1951), which w a s published twenty y e a rs ago,
and is now o u t of p rin t.1 Considering t h a t th is review was n o t lim ited
to this book of m ine, b u t that it takes is s u e w ith various id e a s u p h eld
by me in other places, the author of th e review should have co n sid ered
this book in th e context of my entire production. The critic m istook
open doors for m assive walls, and vice v ersa, all the while displaying
a partisan a n d ten d entious spirit.
This is not th e place to set things rig h t, since, am ong o th e r things,
that review does no t deserve too m u ch im portance, and I w o uld have
to repeat considerations which I have a lre a d y expounded several tim es
in other places. I will therefore limit m yself to say th a t th e a u th o r of
that book review is wrong in th in k in g th a t the special fo rm u latio n
given by Guenon to traditional teachings, on the b asis of h is “personal
equation,” is th e only one possible a n d th a t it has th e c h a ra c te r of an
absolute revelation, and th a t therefore everything which I th o u g h t I
could and sh o u ld have expounded in a different sense, is n o t as
legitimate. The suprem acy of contem plation (“knowledge”) over action,
upheld by G uenon, is disputable, sin c e it is based on a n arb itrary
schematization of th e two concepts, w hich bestow s on a c tio n only
negative a ttrib u tes an d on contem plation (“knowledge”) positive ones.
There is a trad itio n al path of action a s well as a path of knowledge,
both being qualified to lead toward th e objective of overcoming of the
human condition. See for instance w h a t K rishna said in the Bhagavad-
Gita (Chapter 11) w hen he exalts th e w ay of action by a ttrib u tin g to it
his supreme form of m anifestation.
From a practical point of view, in ord er to prevent th e growth of
any “s c h o la s tic is m ,” a c tio n m u s t b e g ra n te d th e p rim a c y . The
traditional p rin c ip le of post laborem scientia m u st be u p h e ld ; the

27
specific practiced and a s c e tic a l attitu d e of e a rly Buddhism is the
o n ly a d e q u a te one. T o d a y a s never before, th e challenge to the
p rim a c y of sp iritu a l a u th o r ity over regal a u th o r ity co nstitutes a
p a rtic u la r topic relative to a greater dom ain, a n d is the cause of
th e problem of estab lish in g w hat are th e m ost adequate traditional
fo rm s for the W est, e s p e c ia lly w hen the s p ir i tu a l a u th o rity is
ab u sively and u n ilaterally identified w ith th a t of a Brahm anic and
priestly type. This is am p ly contradicted by all th e m ain traditional
civilizations. In China, a n c ie n t India, J a p a n , Egypt, Peru, Greece,
a n d in old Nordic sto ck s, a t th e top of the h ie ra rc h y , one always
fin d s sacred regality, a n d never a king su b ject to a priestly class;
th e early Ghibelline tra d itio n , for instance, w a s inspired by these
a s p e c ts of the prim ordial Tradition.
In the initiatory dom ain, specific reservations m u st be made about
th e sem i-b u reau cratic view of initiation, a s it w as understood by
G uenon. I am talking a b o u t th e view which only ta k e s into account the
a g g reg atio n (which m a n y tim e s is totally inoperative) to “regular”
organizations. These organizations in the m o d ern world have either
c e ase d to exist or are a lm o st unreachable, o r continue to exists in
d e a d a n d even perverted form s (such a s in M asonry, which is another
a r e a of my disagreem ent w ith Guenon).
G u e n o n ’s in itia l e v a lu a tio n of B u d d h ism w as plagued by an
a sto n ish in g lack of u n d e rsta n d in g . This evaluation w as suppressed in
th e English edition of Orient et Occident (Paris, 1924); Guenon later
m odified it in part, by m ak in g some concessions to a “Brahmanic”
v e rsio n of B uddhism , w h ic h is truly a B u d d h ism evirated of the
sp e cific and valid e le m e n ts it possessed a t its inception. These
specific elem ents concerned a n autonom ous w ay of realization. In
th is realization, the a c tio n of a qualified in d iv id u al who strives to
a tta in th e U nconditioned, even by m eans of violent efforts,2 is the
n e c e ssa ry counterpart o f th e descent of a force from above, which
d o e s not need “initiatory bu reau cracies.” W hat Guenon had to say
in a n u n fo rtu n a te e s s a y co n cern in g “The N eed for a Traditional
E x o te ric is m ,” m u st a ls o b e reje cte d , sin c e it offers dangerous
in c e n t iv e s a n d a lib is to a re a c tio n a ry a n d p e tty -b o u rg e o is
c o n fo rm is m . The p e d a n t i c r e p r e s e n t a ti v e s of G u e n o n ia n
scholasticism should r a th e r strive to reach a deeper understanding
of th e tru e m eaning of th e Way of the Left H an d , which is not any
le s s tra d itio n al than th e W ay of Right H and, a n d which h a s the
a d v a n ta g e of em p h a sizin g th e tra n sc e n d e n t dim ension proper of
every tru ly initiatory re a liz a tio n a n d a sp ira tio n . An a b stra ct and
in te lle c tu a liz in g G u e n o n ia n sc h o la stic ism , ty p ic a l of “research
in s titu te s ,” may well ignore th e real m eaning of the Way of the Left
H and. In our day and age, there is a deep a n d irreversible scission
betw een the forms of th e external life or traditional exoteric residues
a n d any possible tra n s c e n d e n t orientation. T h is gulf is deep and

28
irreversible. T herefore, alm ost all of th o s e who do not h a v e th e
possibility or th e vocation to com pletely d e ta c h th e m se lv e s from
the world, will find it very difficult to realize a “traditional” o rie n tatio n
in other terms th a n th e ones which I h a v e illu strate d in m y la s t
book, Cavalcare la tiare [Riding the T iger].
I cannot refer here to other d isto rtio n s which my critic's review
in the Review of Traditional Studies w a s guilty of. As I h a v e said,
these are things w hich I have d isc u s s e d in books and in a rtic le s
which my critic either does not know o r p retends to be u n a w a re of.
Let me give you one more in sta n c e o f h is lack of objectivity. He
makes me say th a t when I reviewed B u d d h is t ethics I recom m ended
the use of women a s objects to those w ho are not capable to follow
the precept of c h a stity . Never m ind re a d in g in m y M etafisica del
Sesso [Metaphysics of Sex 3] w hat I h a v e said a b o u t sex a n d th e
possibilities w h ic h it a ffo rd s; w h a t I h av e w r itte n in th e
incriminating p a ssa g e , provided it is p ro p erly u n d e rsto o d , is th a t
one should g r a n t to a p h y sic a l i m p u ls e to w a rd sex t h e m e re
satisfaction w hich is also given to t h e n eed for food. In fac t, any
puritanical rep re ssio n of th is im p u lse co u ld build inner te n s io n s
and intoxications w hich are notorious im pedim ents to the sp iritu a l
life, or the cause of its pollution by m e a n s of “tran sp o sitio n s,” a s in
the case of certain forms of C hristian m ysticism . I am told th a t the
author of the review is a judge. I sin c e rely hope th a t in th e co u rt
he will not d e m o n s tr a te th e s a m e “o b je c tiv ity ” a n d la c k of
understanding w h ic h he d is p la y e d to w a rd me th r o u g h o u t h is
criticisms.

MY CORRESPONDENCE WITH GUENON

Rene Guenon (1886-1951) has b e e n considered one of th e leading
representatives of traditionalism , b e c a u se of his system atic critique of
the modem world (see La crise du m onde m odem e(Paris, 1927) a n d Le
regne de la quantite et les signes des temps, (Paris, 1945) w hich was
issued in English in 1953), a n d b ecau se of h is m asterful p rese n tatio n
and interpretation of sapiential a n d m etap h y sical d o ctrin es, both
Eastern and W estern. Personally, I h a v e h a d a cordial relatio n sh ip
with Guenon a n d pursued a correspondence which lasted to the end
of his life. The following are excerpts from his letters, concerning topics
of general in te re st, th a t is, not c irc u m sc rib e d to the e so te ric and
initiatory dom ain which w as the fo c u s of our exchange of ideas.
Since the follow ing e x c erp ts are r e p lie s to my q u e s tio n s , it is
necessary for me to explain the to p ic s which they cover.

In connection to the suggestion of in stituting an “O rder,” Guenon

wrote me on J u ly 7, 1950:
29
As far th e institution of a n O rder and your p ro ject are concerned, I
really do not know what to tell you. Unless it is p o ssib le to establish an
a u th e n tic and regular tra d itio n a l connection, w h a t will come into
existence will merely be a n association like m any o thers; in that event,
even if th is “O rder” was com m itted to explore th e esoteric domain,
it co uld degenerate into a m ere “study group,” w ithout any effective
c o n ta c t with th at m etaphysical reality which it is trying to achieve.
D espite of their good intentions, I do not believe t h a t formal associations
are capable of producing se rio u s results; thus, in m y view, this project
w ould ju s t be a waste of tim e and energy. In s u c h cases, instead of
settlin g for some kind of tra v e sties, I th in k it is p referable to do nothing
a t all. Obviously, it would be a different story if a connection with an
a u th e n tic “initiatory ch a in ” could be established, b u t like you, I do not
see how th at would possible.

The theory of the cycles of civilization belongs to traditional teachings

(e.g., the Hindu doctrine of th e four yugas ); it h a s re-emerged in authors
s u c h a s Vico, and, m o re recently, in O sw ald Spengler’s famous
th e s is of the “Decline of th e West” a s the e n d of a cycle. Guenon
w rote (June 24, 1948):

The end of a cycle is certainly som ething difficult to comprehend, and

it n e e d s to be expounded w ith a s m uch clarity a s possible. It m ust be
u n d e rsto o d that what is ta k in g place is, somehow, a sudden “downfall”
tow ards a new beginning, a n d not a gradual re-ascent; this is so because
th e lowest point of the cycle eventually coincides w ith the highest point.
A fter all, th ere c a n n o t b e closed cycles, b e c a u s e the universal
Possibility, which is tru ly infinite, cannot involve a repetition. The
th eo ry of closed cycles w ould be the equivalent, on a macrocosmic
p la n e , of w hat the th e o ry of reincarnation is o n the microcosmic
p lan e; both theories a re liable to the same criticism . Conversely, a
rep re sen ta tio n in term s of open spirals, so t h a t the beginning and
th e end are such only in correspondence w ith each other, without
in te rm in g lin g , c a n n o t b e e q u a te d to an e v o lu tio n a ry doctrine,
b e c a u se the cycles are p o rtray ed to be consecutive only in a symbolic
w ay; therefore, this d o e s n o t resem ble an evolutionary model. In
r e g a r d to th is, the w id e s p re a d ten d en cy to a p p ly the tem poral
perspective to dom ains to w hich it cannot b e meaningfully applied,
is a source of confusion.

I h a d d isc u s s e d w ith G u e n o n th e p o s s ib ility th a t a set of

circu m stan ces may have b ro u g h t about as a consequence the paralysis
w hich affected me tow ard th e end of WWII. In h is letter dated February
2 8 , 1948, he wrote:

C e r ta in ly it is not im p o s s ib le t h a t “s o m e th in g ” exploited the

30
opportunity to a c t ag a in st you; w h at is n o t clear is from w h a t
quarters it came and why. In regard to w h a t you tell me, th e re are
things which rem inded me of what h a p p e n ed to me in 1939. At th a t
time, I was confined in bed for six m o n th s , u n a b le to m a k e th e
slightest move. E verybody th o u g h t t h i s w a s a severe c a s e of
rheumatism, b u t th e tru th is th at it w a s som ething else, a n d we
all knew who a c te d a s the u n c o n s c io u s vehicle of a m a le fic e n t
influence (this w as the second time so m e th in g like this h a p p e n e d
to me; the first tim e however, was n o t a s bad). Some m e a s u r e s
were taken to send th is person away a n d to ensure th at h e w ould
never come b ack to Egypt (where G u e n o n lived] again; ever since
then, nothing like th a t has ever occurred to me again. I a m telling
you this so th at by reflecting upon it y o u m ay be able to d isc e rn if
something of th is sort may have h appened to you. Obviously, since
so much time h a s elapsed, it is not p o ssib le to be absolutely sure.

Guenon had suspected that som ething like this h a d h a p p e n ed to

another traditionalist writer, the viscount Leon de Poncins (a u th o r of
the book Le guerre occulte). This o ccurrence posed the pro b lem of
sorcery, and my question to Guenon w as w hether the elevated sp iritu a l
stature of a given person (I was referring to Guenon himself, a s well a s
to de Poncins) w as not in itself a g u aran tee strong enough to fend off
such obscure curses. Guenon responded:

As far as curses (envoutements) are concerned, there is a difference

between true sorcerers, such as the o n e s I h a d to deal with, a n d plain
“occultists;” the latter, despite their p rete n ses, never produce a u th e n tic
results. When you suggest th at these a c tio n s should not affect those
who have a h ig h s p iritu a l s ta tu r e , it is n e c e s s a ry to m a k e a
distinction. If you are referring to th e psychological a n d m en ta l
domain, you are absolutely right; h o w ever things are d iffe re n t in
the physical dom ain, in which anybody ca n be affected. After all,
considering th a t according to a tra d itio n some s o rc e re rs c a u se d
the Prophet [Mohammed] himself to b e sick, I do n ot really see who
could boast of being safe from their a tta c k s.

He also wrote:

Since you are inquiring about my age, I will tell you: I am at p re se n t 62

years old. I knew you had to be younger th a n me, b u t I did not know
that the difference between our ages w a s so great. As far as y o u r request
for my photo is concerned, I regret n o t being able to h o n o r it. The
truth is that I have none, and th at is so for a num ber of reasons.
First of all, because of a m atter of principle, which requires me, as
you have s a id , to n e g le c t e v e r y th in g w h ich h a s a m ere ly
individualistic character. Besides, I have also realized t h a t keeping

31
a p h o tograph can be d a n g e ro u s; fifteen years ago I was told that a
Je w ish lawyer, here in E gypt, w as looking everyw here for a photo of
m in e , declaring to be w illing to pay any p rice for it; I have never
le a rn e d w hat he truly w a n te d to do with it, b u t, in any event, his
in te n tio n s were far from benevolent. Therefore, since one can easily
lose a photo, I have com e to th e conclusion t h a t it is more prudent
n e v e r to take one!

A p a rt of G uenon’s le tte r, dated J u n e 13, 1949, was dedicated to

th e problem of initiatory organizations:

W h at I have w ritten in m y la s t letter about m y rejoining initiatory

organizations (though I do n o t like at all talking ab o u t these matters,
w h ich are of no interest to anybody b u t me), w as in reply to your
se n te n c e in y o u r previous letter: “m ore often th a n not, outside of
t h a t sect, there have b e e n som e who had a b e tte r grasp of initiatory
m a tte rs , as you have p ro b ab ly noticed yourself.” This caused me to
be concerned th a t you th o u g h t that, in my c a se , it was a matter of
p a rta k in g of one of th o s e alleged in itia tio n s lack in g any regular
c o n n e c tio n w hatsoever; a s far as I am c o n c ern e d , I repute these
ty p e s of initiation to b e p u re ly im aginary. Incidentally, I have to
call your attention to th e fact th a t in my book Apercus sur Virdtiation
(P aris, 1946) I have d e v o te d a n entire c h a p te r to explain why the
w ord “sect” is totally o u t of place in in stances s u c h a s the one which
y o u have m entioned.
You are saying th a t in th e Apercus sur Virdtiation no mention is made
of C hristian-H erm etical organizations; but, o n th e contrary, I have
m entioned them expressly in th e same note y o u are referring to. I have
n o t talked about them a t greater length b e c au se those organizations
of w hich I learned the existence, allow such a restricted number of
p eople in, th a t they a r e for all practical p u rp o s e s , inaccessible. I
a lso see th at you have n o t u n d erstood the e x a ct sense in which I
w rote about a “complex issu e ;” by th is expression I meant an issue
w h ic h includes m any o th e r elem ents b e sid e s th o se which can be
k n o w n th ro u g h a s tu d y c o n d u c te d “from th e o u tsid e;” therefore,
th is is exactly the opposite of what you have thought.

In the same letter G u e n o n talked about M eyrink, the famous author

of th e Golem:

T here are cases in w hich th e influence of counter-initiation is clearly

v isib le. Among these c a s e s we m u st in c lu d e th o se in which the
tra d itio n al elem ents a re p re se n t in an intentionally “parodistic” form;
th is is, in particular, th e case of Meyrink. O f course, this does not
m e a n th a t he w as clearly aw are of the influence which was exercised
u p o n him . T herefore, I am su rp rise d to le a r n th a t you seem to

32
respect M eyrink, also becau se he jo in e d th e m ovem ent fo u n d e d by
Bo Yin Ra, for w hom you did not p a rtic u la rly care. On t h i s m a tte r, I
have to m ak e th e follow ing r e c tific a tio n : no d o u b t B o Y in R a is
partially g u ilty o f c h a r la ta n is m a n d m y s tific a tio n , y e t t h e r e is
something m o re to him , since he w a s co n n ected to a v e ry p e c u liar
o rg a n iz a tio n , lo c a te d s o m e w h e r e in T u r k e s t a n , a n d w h ic h
represented a m ore or less u n o rth o d o x version of T a n tris m . I can
affirm this for s u re (and m aybe I a m th e only one who c a n ), since,
when the f u tu r e Bo Yin Ra was s till c a lled J o s e p h S c h n e id e r a n d
studied p a in tin g in P aris, some m e m b e r s of th e above m e n tio n e d
organization in tro d u c e d him to m e o n e d ay a s th e o n ly E u ro p e a n
member. L a te r o n I even saw t h e p o r tr a it w h ic h Bo Y in R a h a d
made of his “M a ste r,” whom I reco g n ized very well. In t h a t occasion
I realized t h a t ev en h is clo se st d i s c i p le s did n o t k n o w a n y th in g
about it, a n d I, on m y p art, was v e ry ca re fu l not to s h a re w ith them
what I knew.

G u en o n a n d I h a d d iv e r g e n t v ie w s c o n c e r n in g M a s o n r y . I
acknowledged th a t M asonry in th e b e g in n in g (such a s th e so-called
operative M asonry) h a d a n in itia to ry , a n d th u s s p iritu a l c h a ra c te r;
but later on, sin c e it increasingly b e c a m e politically o rie n ted (as in the
case of th e s o -c a lle d sp e cu la tiv e M a so n ry w h ich b e g a n w ith th e
foundation of th e G reat Lodge of L o n d o n in 1717), it to o k o n a very
different c h a ra c te r a n d historically it p layed a n a n ti-tra d itio n a l role;
as one of th e societes de p en see , it p r e p a r e d the ground fo r th e French
Revolution. T h e M asonry of the S c o ttis h Rite p re se n ts a n inorganic
and disorganized syncretism of d e g re e s a n d of “dignities” o f every kind,
and for the m o s t p a rt it is reduced to sh allow vestiges. G u e n o n , on the
contrary, a ttr ib u te d to M asonry t h e c h a ra c te r of a re g u la r initiatory
organization, a n d alm ost co n sid ered it to be th e only o n e left in the
West. Even th o u g h he readily a d m itte d th e sta te of d e g e n e ra tio n of
contem porary M asonry, because o f h is form alistic way o f looking at
things, G u e n o n believed th a t M a so n ry h a d virtually p re s e rv e d its
initiatory c h a ra c te r. Besides, he lim ite d M asonry’s a n ti-trad itio n a lism
to some of its form s. On th is m a tte r h e w rote m e on J u n e 13, 1949:

W hen I a m ta lk in g a b o u t M a s o n ry w ith o u t a d d in g a n y f u rth e r

specifications, I am alw ays referring to th e traditional M a so n ry , which
exclusively in c lu d e s the th ree d e g re e s of Apprentice, C o m p a n io n and
Teacher, to w h ic h th e B ritish degrees of “M ark” a n d “Royal A rch,” totally
unknown o n th e “co n tin en t,” may b e a d d e d . In regard to th e m ultiplicity
of degrees w h ic h you are alluding to , it is evident th at th e connections
which som e have claim ed to see b e tw e e n them , are e n tire ly artificial.
Regardless o f how they becam e in c o rp o ra te d in Masonry, th e s e spurious
degrees c a n n o t be a n integral p a rt o f it. A nother point on w h ic h I would
like to d r a w y o u r a tte n tio n to is t h a t w hen you c la im t h a t those

33
lodges which did not p a rtic ip a te in the “speculative” schism (which
o rig in ated a politicized a n d ideological version of Masonry) still did
n o t do a n y th in g to a r r e s t or to rectify th e consequences of this
sc h ism , it seems to m e t h a t you fail to take in consideration things
w h ic h h a v e a c e r t a i n im p o r ta n c e . I a m r e f e rr in g to th e re­
estab lish m en t of the degree of Master, which h a d been totally ignored
by M asonry in 1717, o r to the action exercised by the “Great Lodge
of th e Elders” which c o n tin u e d to enjoy a n independent existence
u n til 1813. I am u n d e r th e im pression th a t you exclusively focus
on w hat M asonry has becom e in Italy and in F rance from a certain
perio d on, and th a t you have no idea of w hat Anglo-Saxon Masonry
is all about.

In a letter dated J u ly 20, 1949:

I th in k it is very difficult for u s to agree on th e topic of Masonry. In

w h a t you have to say on th e m atter, there are th in g s which truly surprise
m e. F irst of all you m a k e m e say u n co n d itio n ally (though I have
s p e c ifie d th a t th is w a s o n ly lim ited to th e W est) th at the only
in itia to r y o rg a n iz a tio n s w h ic h a re still e x is tin g today are the
C om panionship and M asonry. You seem to ignore the existence of
O rie n ta l in itiato ry o rg a n iz a tio n s, some of w h ic h have members,
m o re or less n u m e ro u s , even in Europe. O ne m ore thing: I have
s a id th a t in th e W e ste rn world th ere still a re (besides Masonry)
so m e organizations w h ic h a re connected to C h ristian esotericism,
a n d whose origins can be traced back to the Middle Ages. I have not
p u rs u e d them because they are so closed to outsiders (one of them,
w hich I know better th a n others, limits the n u m b e r of members to
twelve), that th e possibility of being adm itted to them is practically
n il.... The date of 1717 does not m ark th e beginning of Masonry,
b u t th a t of its decline. In ord er to be able to ta lk about the utilization
of “psychic residues” (vestiges) in th a t period, one should suppose
t h a t operative M asonry a t th a t point ceased to exist; however, that
is n o t tru e , sin ce M a s o n ry still ex ists in se v e ra l countries; in
E ngland, between 1717 a n d 1813 it intervened effectively to complete
som e things a n d to s tra ig h te n up others, a t le a s t in the measure in
w hich it was still possible, since Masonry w as red u ced to nothing more
th a n a speculative organization.... After all, w hen there is a regular
a n d legitimate filiation, th e decline in progress does not interrupt the
in itiatory chain; it m erely reduces its efficacy, a t least in general, since
d e sp ite everything else th ere can be some exceptions. In regard to the
an ti-trad itio n a l work of M asonry which you have mentioned, some
differences should be e sta b lish e d between, say , the Anglo-Saxon and
th e Latin Masonry. In a n y event, this merely dem onstrates the lack of
u n d e rsta n d in g on th e p a rt of the majority of th e members of both
M asonic organizations; it is ju s t a m atter of fact a n d not of principle.

34
What can b e s a id is th a t M asonry h a s fallen victim to in filtratio n s
of the m o d ern s p irit in th e exoteric d o m ain j u s t as in th e c a se of
the Catholic C h u rc h . Of course I a m n o t trying to p e rs u a d e you, b u t
I am m erely p o in tin g o u t to you t h a t th e problem is m u c h m ore
complex t h a n w h a t you a re in clin ed to think.

A c la rific a tio n is n e c e ssa ry in r e g a r d to th e being w h o in the

F a r-E a stern tra d itio n is called R e a l M an, a n d who is believ ed to
realize all th e p o ssib ilitie s of t h e h u m a n being. On t h is m a tte r,
Guenon w rote to m e in a letter d a te d J u n e 13, 1948)

The doctrinal problem w hich you a r e telling me about is le s s difficult

than what it m ay first ap p e ar to b e . Every Real Man h a s realized all
the possibilities of th e h u m a n co n d itio n , b u t each one h a s done so in
a way which is typical of him alone, a n d w hich d ifferentiates him from
all other R eal M en. If th at w as not th e c ase, how could th e r e be room,
in our world, even for beings who h a v e n o t achieved t h a t level? At a
different level, th is applies also to th e T ra n sc e n d e n t Man [a n o th e r Fair-
Eastern ideal) a n d to the jivan-m ukta [the Hindu “lib e rate d while still
in this life”]; b u t th a t is th e totality o f th e possibilities of a ll th e states
of being. As o d d a s it m ay seem, th o s e beings w ho have achieved the
same level, so m etim es m ay be “in d isc e rn ib le ” from the o u tsid e , even
in their bodily outlook; th ere are ev e n th o se who embody a “type” which
does no lo n g e r have any individual ch a ra c te ristic , esp ecially in the
case of th o se w ho exercise special fu n c tio n s. Their “type” h a s become
identical w ith th e function itself; th is m ay induce p eople to believe
that it is a lw a y s th e sam e one p e rs o n to exercise this fu n c tio n in the
course of a p eriod of several c e n tu rie s , while, in reality, th is is not
the case.

NOTES
1 Julius Evola, The Doctrine of the Awakening Translated by E. Hutton.
(London: Luzac & Co., 1951).

2 A Gospel verse talked about a “violence” which is required to attain to

the kingdom of heaven.

3 Julius Evola, Metaphysics of Sex (Rochester, Vt: Inner Traditions, 1983).

35