Guenon's "Crisis of the Modern World"

[daniel]

Today I reviewed some notes on Rene Guenon’s work, "Crisis of the Modern World", which I would recommend to people interested in this forum.

Like Evola, Guenon has a "traditional" perspective that is quite autocratic and "right wing" in our definition of the term. But actually, their belief system goes far beyond our concept of "right wing," as they thought the only effective form of government was a "spiritual autocracy" where the rulers would be the greatest "initiates" of the age. This situation bears no relationship to any modern state except pre-invasion Tibet.

Interestingly, considering the present state of world affairs, Guenon converted to Islam and lived (I think) in Morocco. He published in the first decades of the Twentieth Century.
I am curious if visitors to this discussion board have heard of Guenon before.

What follows are quotes from "Crisis of the Modern World" and some comments:

"We have in fact entered upon the final phase of this Kali Yuga, the darkest period of this dark age, the state of dissolution from which there is to be no emerging except through a cataclysm, since it is no longer a mere revival which is required, but a complete renovation."

The Tibetan name for Kali Yuga means "the age of impure residues," "the time when impurities grow more and more."

"One must not disguise the gravity of the situation: It should be viewed such as it is, not only without optimism but also without pessimism, since, as has already been remarked, the end of the old world will also be the beginning of the new one. … The present phase must also have its appointed place, like any other, in the complete course of human development."

"It may be added that, as with every change of state, the passage from one cycle to another can be completed only in darkness. This is another law of great importance possessing manifold applications."

Guenon recognizes the evolutionary necessity of the temporary "triumph" of Western science and industrialism: "These lower forms of knowledge, so insignificant to anyone possessing knowledge of a different order, had nevertheless to be realized, and this could only occur at a stage where true intellectuality had disappeared."

Modern Civilization and its conflicts with the East: "a civilization which recognizes no superior principle and is really based on nothing but a negation of principles finds itself on that very account deprived of the means of arriving at an understanding with other civilizations."

"The real traditional outlook is always and everywhere the same, regardless of what form it may assume; the various forms that are specially adapted to suit different conditions and different circumstances of time and place are but expressions of one and the same truth."

(This idea is also developed by Gurdjieff, who speaks of esoteric and exoteric traditions, esoteric traditions develop internal "conscience" rather than imposed "morality," which is the province of exoteric religious systems. Systems of morality can clash, but two consciences will never disagree).

"The truth of the matter is that the West stands in great need of being defended, but solely against itself and against its own tendencies which, if driven to their logical conclusion, must lead inevitably to ruin and destruction; one ought, therefore, to speak of the "reform of the West," as such a reform, if it were all that it should be, in the sense of a real traditional restoration, would also entail an understanding with the East as a natural consequence."

(I think the full accuracy of this statement can now be recognized by any thoughtful person. Guenon doesn’t explicitly say what I now suspect: The "biogeochemical" destruction of the planetary environment is actually an evolutionary goal of the present age, which is going to force a rapid spiritual evolution in humanity left after the "catastrophe bifurcation.")

Guenon thought the only possible work in this time consists in assisting the preservation "of those elements which are destined to escape the shipwreck of the present world and become the seeds of the future one."

"Knowledge alone provides the means of escape from this realm [the modern Kali Yuga] and from its inherent limitations, and when it attains to the unchanging, as in the case of principals or metaphysical knowledge, which is knowledge in its essence, it becomes itself possessed of immutability, since all true knowledge is essentially identification with its object."

The following is prescient considering CNN, etc: "The most conspicuous feature of modern times is a craving for ceaseless agitation, for continuous change, for ever-increasing speed like that with which events follow one upon another." (But he doesn’t make the leap that Arguelles makes, putting a misconception of time as the essential error of modern civilization)

Presaging nuclear weapons and waste, biological weapons and unleashed GMOs, etc., Guenon noted: "It is therefore to be expected that discoveries, or rather mechanical and industrial inventions, will go on being developed and multiplied, and with increasing intensity, until the end of the present age has been reached; and who knows whether, with the danger of destruction which follows in their train, these inventions may not become one of the chief agents in the ultimate catastrophe, should things reach a pitch after which this cannot be averted?"

"The truth is that there really is no such thing as a "profane realm" opposable to a "sacred realm;" there is simply a "profane point of view," which is really nothing but the point of view of ignorance."

Another knock on modern science: "Modern science, arising out of an arbitrary limitation of knowledge, within a certain particular order, which is indeed the most inferior of all, namely that of material or sensible reality, has as a consequence forfeited all intellectual value."

(The next two comments are not ones most Westerners will appreciate, as we are bound up in egoistic notions of specialness and the "cult of the genius.")

"Genius understood in the profane sense of the word really amounts to very little, and it is in no wise capable of making up for the lack of true knowledge."

"A true idea cannot be "new," since truth is not a product of the human mind."

[sidecross]

As someone who reads science, I would agree on Rene Guenon's quote, "…Modern science, arising out of an arbitrary limitation of knowledge, within a certain particular order, which is indeed the most inferior of all, namely that of material or sensible reality, has as a consequence forfeited all intellectual value."

Fascinating as science is, they seem to be changing their point of view regularly. Einstein's professed greatest blunder concerning a "cosmological constant", is now the most recent possibility. If it were not for all the widgets that applied science provides through engineering and technology, one could easily blow the whole thing off. But modern humans do have an addiction for what these widgets can do.

Giving the current notion, yes a science notion, that the arrow of time can only move in the direction of the future, the great question or conundrum is whether we can retrieve the "Archaic Revival" McKenna wrote and talked about?

A book by Rene Daumal entitled A Night of Serious Drinking which is sadly out of print and costly to obtain opens with this forward; I will copy it here for your consideration:

TO BE READ BEFORE USE

"I refuse to accept that a clear thought can ever be inexpressible. Appearances, however, are against me. For just as there is a level of pain at which the body ceases to feel because, because should it become involved in its pain, should it groan but once, it would seemingly crumble and return to dust; and just as there is a peak at which pain takes to the air on its own wings - so there is a level of thought where words have no part to play. Words are made for a certain exactness of thought, as tears are for a certain degree of pain. What is least distinct can not be named: what is clearest is unutterable. And yet things merely appear so. If human discourse is capable of expressing perfectly no more than a level of thought, it is because the mean of humankind thinks with this degree of intensity; it is to this level it assents, it is to this measure of exactness that it agrees. If we fail to make ourselves clear, we should not blame the tool we use.

Clear discourse presupposes three conditions; a speaker who knows what he wishes to say, a listener in a state of wakefulness, and a language common to both. But it is not enough for a language to be clear in the way that an algebraic proposition is clear. It must also have a real, not simply a possible content. Before this happens, the participants must have, as a fourth element, a common experience of the thing which is spoken of. The common experience is the gold reserve which confers an exchange value on the currency which words are; without this reserve of shared experiences, all our pronouncements are checks drawn on insufficient funds; algebra in fact is no more than a vast intellectual credit exercise, a counterfeiting operation which is legitimate because it is acknowledged: each individual knows that it has its object and meaning in something other than itself, namely arithmetic. But it is still not enough for language to have clarity and content, as when I say "that day, it was raining" or "3 + 2 makes 5"; it must also have a goal and an imperative.

Otherwise from language we descend to chatter, from chatter to babble, and from babble to confusion. In this confused state of languages, men even though they have a common experience, have no language with which to exchange its fruits. Then, when this confusion grows intolerable, universal languages are invented, clear and hollow, where words are but counterfeit coins no longer backed by the gold of authentic experiences, languages which allow us from childhood to swell our heads with false knowledge. Between the confusion of Babble and the sterile esperantos, no choice is possible. It is these two forms of non-understanding, but more particularly the second, which I shall describe."

[Jomo]

Daniel, I am so glad you mentioned Guénon. It was that very book, Crisis of the Modern World, that transformed the intellectual dimension of my spiritual life several years ago. Just wanted to point out the spiritual connection between Guénon and Huston Smith, author of Cleansing the Doors of Perception. Huston Smith is a member of the same Sufi order that Guénon belonged to in Cairo, Egypt. Many of the most prominent followers of Guénon who have converted to Islam belong to this Sufi order. I have met Huston Smith (Sidi Jalâl al-Dîn) several times at Sufi gatherings. What a wonderful, lovable old man he is. Perhaps our greatest living authority on entheogens in religion. As soon as I finished reading your book, I immediately turned to Huston Smith's book.

This is not to suggest that his Sufi order approves of ingesting any consciousness-altering substances. It isn't part of their spiritual method. However, reading Huston Smith's book has persuaded me of its validity as a spiritual technique, given the proper grounding in traditional metaphysical understanding and right intent (not just as a lark). I am fascinated at the coincidence that somehow you, Daniel, of all people, have discovered Guénon. If you think Guénon is all that, maybe you would also like to check out Frithjof Schuon, whose spiritual depth is extraordinary; he synthesized Islam and Tantra.

These thinkers are not connected in any way with entheogens, except for the remarkable Huston Smith, who stands at the nexus of so many spiritual currents, he's a one-man Parliament of Religions.

Love

[ March 28, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Jomo ]

[daniel]

Very interesting! I didn't know about the connection of Guenon, Smith, and the Sufis. What do you know about that sect?

I wasn't that impressed with "Cleansing the Doors..." Of course it is important that such a mainstream figure espouses psychedelics as a tool.

Is there any relation btw Guenon and Gurdjieff?

I thought "The Great Triad" was a fantastic book. But I could not get into "Initiation and Spiritual Realization" at all. Guenon can seem very pinched and negative sometimes, with too strong a sense of his own authority. Also he promoted a revival of Catholicism. Any of his other books you recommend?

[steve]

Jomo, do you know which Sufi order that is?

[Jomo]

Daniel, I don't think there is any connection between Guénon and Gurdjieff. They may have been in Paris at the same time in the 1920s, but I don't know if they ever met. Guénon was a very private gentleman and didn't like talking about himself. He concentrated all his energy on the ideas he wanted to get across, to the exclusion of his personal stuff.
Here is an essay by one of his Sufi colleagues who knew him well near the end of his life...
http://www.sophiajournal.com/Vol1Num1/Article02.html

It wasn't so much that Guénon wanted to revive the Catholic Church. It was that he thought it could be a possible vehicle for reviving the lost esoterism of the West, if an inner core of Vedantic initiates could be planted in the Vatican. It didn't work out that way. Would have been a long shot anyway.

I would hesitate to accuse Guénon of pushing his own authority, because his work was so egoless. I think he saw the traditional doctrines as carrying their own authority. But yes, he sure can be austere and difficult to approach. He's notorious for that. Frithjof Schuon presented the same traditional doctrines, but with the soul of a lover and a poet, a much more warm and human approach. Schuon's mystical poetry is achingly beautiful. Schuon also loved primordial shamanism, like you, Daniel, and he was adopted into a couple American Indian tribes.

Guénon's best work is probably Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta. Another book by him that is more readable and enjoyable that you might like is Fundamental Symbols: The Universal Language of Sacred Science.

Steve, Huston Smith is fond of quoting a Taoist saying: "Know ten secrets, tell nine." This particular Sufi order prefers not to present itself as such to the public. I feel I ought to honor their wishes. Those who read the books written by its members (they include quite a few world-renowned scholars who publish a lot of books), if they're determined to find it, will eventually read enough to connect the dots and find them, if one's intention is sincere. They welcome serious students but not dilettantes. There are plenty of other Sufi orders that advertise themselves to the public.

[ April 19, 2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Jomo ]

[daniel]

Jomo,

Thanks for that info. I will pick up those two books by Guenon. What works by Schuon do you recommend?

Also, how did you first encounter Guenon's book on modernism? What do you think of Evola? Have you looked at "Revolt Against the Modern World"?

[steve]

Jomo, I completely understand your reluctance to reveal all. Didn’t mean to pry. I looked through the website with the article on Guenon. Very interesting journal, that Sophia. Reading about Guenon was also fascinating, some very evocative, memorable passages which certainly conveyed a sense of his depth and sincerity.

But it brings up something I’ve been puzzling with for some time, which is esotericism’s occasional associations with what Daniel called above the ‘"traditional perspective that is quite autocratic and right wing". I do appreciate Daniel’s further remark that “their belief system goes far beyond our concept of right wing, as they thought the only effective form of government was a spiritual autocracy where the rulers would be the greatest initiates of the age”. (Which sounds like Plato; but then I have some problems with the Republic, too. Nice idea in the abstract; just please don’t try to realize it on earth!)

A different but maybe connected matter is the general condemnation of modernity in some of these folks and the sanctification of “traditionalism”. Now, it seems to me that neither of these terms are very well understood, or at least well defined. In particular, it is ironic to me that the view of pre-modern societies as static and traditional and run by spiritual values was in large part created by the imperialist cultures as a justification for colonialism, for the ‘mission civilisatrice’. This of course was the earliest education that Guenon would have had: pure French colonial discourse. His novelty is that he took the side of the colonized, not the colonizers, and a great novelty this was. But it looks like he never abandoned the orientalist paradigm. But it is true that this discourse has now been adopted by many Muslims, usually those of either a political or religious right (as they search for “traditional Islamic architecture” the Cairenes build an Andalusian mosque, Istanbul contemplates Mamluk tombs for a bridge, Sa'udis lay out a Moroccan village…)

But then what happened in the past is notoriously hard to settle on, much less interpret. In the end, I am more concerned with the present.

In the Guenon article the writer says (and I assume this is supposed to reflect Guenon’s attitude?) “But thanks to the caste system with the Brahmins as safeguarders of religion we have today a Hinduism which is still living and which down to this century has produced flowers of sanctity”. This is a bit shocking to me. Doesn’t he see the horrific side of the caste system? Maybe he does, but the lack of the simplest acknowledgement troubles me, gives the impression he’s not much concerned.

I realize I may be overvaluing “humans” or individual identity as if it were something real. And I don’t say this facetiously. Here perhaps is the real crux of the problem: my humanitarian, liberal side ascribes a reality to individuals (compassion, the welfare state) that my metaphysical side does not. It is less moralistic, because it doesn’t even see itself as real, much less other people; it sees suffering as temporary and unreal too. However, the implications of that are a not a little scary for society, for morality, for a decent living order in the world.

Personally, I believe that esotericism melds sometimes into right-wing ideology because the epistemology is basically elitist. That is, those who consider themselves on a path of esoteric initiation (not necessarily the same as those who really are, of course) are basically saying, I know something that most people do not; indeed I have access to a WAY of knowing that most people do not. This is fine and even true, at least sometimes. But it may lead imperceptibly into a sense of privilege, of self-righteousness, and ultimately, if it is institutionalized, to political oppression. The connection between right-wing ideology and esotericism is not necessary by any means. It has to do with ONE structure of thinking held in common. But if that structural similarity is not watched (and it often isn’t) then the slide becomes much more likely.

I believe that modernity has a lot to answer for, but also a lot to offer, and one of the things it does offer is democratic values. I believe that it is our task in this age NOT to revive or return to the archaic or traditional, but to salvage the higher meanings from those cultures while recognizing that they were also full of deep injustice, violence and oppression. Likewise, I believe that we need to salvage what is worthwhile about the “modern”, its democratic ideals for one. This is what entheogens are all about: they have the potential to democratize spiritual experience

Similarly, a lot of bad things can be said about empiricism, but at least it is democratic, if done correctly (which of course, it isn’t usually, insofar as it often becomes institutionalized, privatized, politicized. But then, let’s throw out the practitioners, not the practice.) That is, its proofs and verifications can be shared. Of course, we need to realize that empiricism can check and confirm certain formulated scenario’s, but these scenario’s have to be dreamed up by creative insight, intuition, revelation. But then again, when we use a screwdriver as a hammer and it doesn’t work, the problem is not in the screwdriver, its in us. Empiricism is hopelessly limited, but it isn’t ‘wrong’.

In the end, where are we going? I don’t think anywhere like either the past or the present, but someplace entirely new. The archaic and the modern both have legitimately devastating critiques of the other. It’s not to pick sides that we’re here (its all God’s creation anyway), it’s to pick up the best and move on.

[Proteus]

Originally posted by steve:
Personally, I believe that esotericism melds sometimes into right-wing ideology because the epistemology is basically elitist. That is, those who consider themselves on a path of esoteric initiation (not necessarily the same as those who really are, of course) are basically saying, I know something that most people do not; indeed I have access to a WAY of knowing that most people do not. This is fine and even true, at least sometimes. But it may lead imperceptibly into a sense of privilege, of self-righteousness, and ultimately, if it is institutionalized, to political oppression. The connection between right-wing ideology and esotericism is not necessary by any means. It has to do with ONE structure of thinking held in common. But if that structural similarity is not watched (and it often isn’t) then the slide becomes much more likely.Great post, Steve, as usual. Too right about the elitism that is (paradoxically) liberated when one has experienced the Totality. When i read people like Huxley and McKenna advocating the use of entheogens by a relatively small & elite handful of "researchers," of their wish to make the big discoveries in the (ex)terra incognita of Inner Space so they can compare notes and authorize "the" system of knowledge, interpretation, and dissemination, makes it obvious that we haven't learned very much from the sad destructive history of most of the world's major religions. Do we really need another priestly class sniffing at those with unpure motives for tripping? Do we really need a Brahmin class to protect the mysteries from the grubby hands (and minds) of the less educated and less serious-minded? Is the Truth so fragile that it must be freeze-dried into glib creeds & protected with armies and dungeons from heresy? One of the impulses that entheogens seem to liberate is the one that says: "cast off the yolk of the priests & make your own discoveries." Yet, as you point out, there's an equally strong impulse to say (indeed as i have said): i've seen the Truth--listen to me!

It's one of the great puzzlements i've got about what a post-transition world would be like. How can we find the balance between the Absolute which we experience directly through various compounds & the highly circumscribed, perspectival, and ultimately incomplete view that the individual has while operating in consensual reality? Too much Absolute & we can say: life doesn't matter since individual existence is an illusion. Too much of the conditioned perspective & we can't see beyond ourselves to a more universal perspective.

Lots of questions today & no answers of any kind.

[daniel]

Steve and Proteus,

Thank you for these great posts. I was hoping Jomo would jump in, but since he hasn't I will throw in some comments.

Personally, I found my solutions to these dillemas in Rudolf Steiner's ideas - one of many reasons I am so enamoured of his vision. Steiner sees democratic individualism, egotism, rational empiricism, etc., as necessary aspects of human evolution. We needed to evolve toward freedom, so we could choose to explore the supersensible realms without atavism or too much worshipfulness - we could recognize ourselves as equals, in a sense, as evolving spiritual beings in a spiritual cosmos. Steiner insists that we see the human will as sacrosanct, and that we recognize the sacredness in all humans - no matter how difficult this can be. He points to Christ's attitude: When a disciple pointed out the rotting corpse of a dog, Christ responded: "But look at his beautiful teeth."

The buddhists have a similar attitude when they have you meditate on all living beings as your mother, because they may have been your mother in a previous life.

If your "esoteric initiation" doesn't make you more deeply human and compassionate, then it has gone in the wrong direction. On the other hand, you should have a broader perspective, because you recognize that the difficult experiences people go through have to do with past karma that they are working out over successive lives. You do what you can for them, but you don't have to do what you can't.

[seeker]

Originally posted by daniel:

Is there any relation btw Guenon and Gurdjieff?

Guenon can seem very pinched and negative sometimes, with too strong a sense of his own authority.
I don't think the two actually met, but Guenon knew of Gurdjieff and had a low opinion of him. Alexander de Salzmann knew Guenon and had a similar opinion of him as you expressed above.

You will find some information about Guenon and Gurdjieff in James Moore's biography of Gurdjieff and in James Webb's book The Harmonious Circle about Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.