JAAR 44/4 (1976) 715-719

Frithjof Schuon's The Transcendent Unity of Religions: Con

RICHARD C. BUSH Y now this book by Frithjof Schuon is well known, certainly to those who are interested in relationships among religions and who welcome any effort in the direction of religious unity. The new Harper Torchbooks revision of the 1953 English translation by Peter Townsend (Pantheon) was distributed at a reduced price at the 1975 AAR Annual Meeting and has been reviewed in several journals. During a session of the Philosophy of Religion and Theology section of the AAR in 1973, Schuon's thesis was the basis of radical disagreement between Huston Smith and myself. Professor Smith was convinced that I had misunderstood Schuon at several points, so we agreed a few months afterward to write reviews from our respective points of view, to be published at the time of the publication of the revised edition (1975). I have delayed this undertaking for an unpardonable length of time and apologize for it. Professor Smith has edited and provided an introduction to the revised edition of The Transcendent Unity of Religions. Certain sections have been omitted in the revision, notably for me the section which I seem to have grossly misunderstood. The substance of the book remains in an attractive, small volume. A brief biographical sketch of the author would be helpful, even if only a few sentences on the back cover. Schuon asserts that the unity of religions can be realized and known only on an eternal, metaphysical level, that knowledge of the divine reality can only be intuited by man's intellect, which Schuon, like Meister Eckhardt, identifies with what is uncreated and uncreatable in the soul. All religions are one insofar as they proceed from and manifest that transcendent essence which is ultimately real and true. At various points the author identifies this esoteric realm of unity with God or the Word or with love, knowledge of which is only by direct intuition which is based neither on belief nor reason and needs no proof or belief, but abides in "metaphysical certitude, [which] is absolute because of the identity between the knower and the known in the Intellect" (xxviii-xxix)*. Metaphysics is different from and superior to philosophy for Schuon, since philosophy employs reason and therefore involves the pretension to autonomy, and is also superior to religion which is based on belief.
'Since all quotations are from the volume under review, I have dispensed with footnotes and placed all page references in parentheses following a quote or reference The above paragraphs at various points follow very closely certain statements made in my paper in the Philosophy of Religion and Theology 1973 Proceedings, for the AAR edited by David Gnffin. RICHARD C BUSH (Ph D , Chicago) is Professor and Acting Director, School of Fine Arts and Humanistic Studies, Oklahoma State University, where he teaches courses dealing with Asian religions, philosophies, and humanities. He is the author of Religion in Communist China and of a short work on religion in China to be published as part of a high school textbook series in

7,5

716

RICHARD C. BUSH

In contrast to the esoteric realm discussed above, the exoteric side of religion is to be found in its various expressions and forms (not the Platonic forms), which are the doctrines, practices and organizations of various religious groups. Most people confuse these expressions with reality and do not look beyond their own circles for the truth, so the unity of religion cannot be grasped at the exoteric level. Thus we begin with an ultimate metaphysical unity which may be described as
absolute, categorical, undifferentiated Unity Anthropologically this Unity precludes final distinction between human and divine, epistemologically between knower and known It bespeaks a knowing that becomes its object, or rather is its object, for temporal distinctions are likewise inapposite at this point, (xni)

We must remember that this ultimate unity "defies visualization or even consistent description." It is not known by revelation or reason but through the Intellect intuitively. Glimpses of this esoteric Unity appear in unspecified "revealed religions" but as Smith goes on to say:
it is hidden and secret not because those who know will not tell, but because the truth to which they are privy is buried so deep in the human composite that they cannot communicate it, not in any way the majority will find convincing (xv)

Those who do "realize that they have their roots in the Absolute" constitute an esoteric minority, whereas an exoteric majority does not know or regards as sterile what the esoterics are talking about. Esoterics, to whom alone certainty about the ultimate is accessible, are "a spiritual elite which becomes ever more restricted in number." (xxx) There are two closely related problems in this thesis. I have no problem with the assumption of the Reality or Mind or God who is complete and utter unity, that He or It transcends our efforts to know Him, that His ways are not our ways, etc., but the conviction is fairly widespread in the major religious traditions, with a measure of philosophical support, that this reality is much more closely related to the world in which we live, even to the exoteric realm, than Schuon allows. If this is the case, then whatever knowledge is possible of the ultimate must extend beyond esoteric circles. In the world of religions, gods make themselves known in part at least, and people claim to know and be known by such gods. We are presented with some evidence, such as the "spirit-filled life," the change that takes place in an individual or a community, the test of time. Even the Tao Te Ching, which tells us that "the Tao which can be named is not the Tao," goes on to say that the Tao is like water, an infant, woman, a valley, or an uncarved block. Even that most enigmatic of philosophical concepts is not as esoteric as claimed. Reason cannot be used to support or oppose the transcendent unity which Schuon posits. Scientific investigation is out. Every observable facet of religious life in the world belongs to the exoteric realm and cannot be cited to support any contention about the esoteric. All we can do is accept the word of Schuon and his fellow esoterics that they have intuited this transcendent unity, which is to say we exercise our faith which in turn is exoteric. My second problem at this point is the resulting deep division between esoteric and exoteric. Professor Smith, disturbed as I am at the differences which have divided religious traditions and communities from each other, finds in Schuon's scheme a basis for the unity of religions. I am impressed neither by the unity envisaged nor with the possibilities for communication of it, and, moreover, am deeply troubled because of the further division between an elite few, however much they know and can share in their esoteric circles, and the masses of human

SCHUON'S THE TRANSCENDENT UNITY OF RELIGIONS CON beings who cannot participate in the transcendent unity. A metaphysical dualism has been avoided at the expense of an epistemological and anthropological dualism, both of which are grounds for a subtle arrogance which is hardly becoming in those who desire religious unity. A strong Neo-Platonic flavor permeates Schuon's thinking, notably the concept of grades of being, with the consequent notion that lower and inferior levels are absorbed into higher levels, leading to the ultimate esoteric level containing both good and evil, the latter being regarded as an imperfection or "dissipation." Also Neo-Platonic is the view of divine reality as an impersonality, which is supra-personal, essential, and universal, opposed to God as he is revealed through the particular or personal, which is a "privation." In connection with his discussion of such matters, Schuon turns to a priceless gem of biblical interpretation with the stories of Solomon and his parents. Exoteric in building the Temple of Yahweh, but esoteric in his recognition of the divine in non-Hebraic religious forms, Solomon suffered blame in the Bible, because the Bible affirms essentially only Judaic monotheism, but was still recognized for his wisdom and "the person of the Sage himself was unaffected by the infraction" (40). Judaic particularism gives way to universalism in such an interpretation, which may be an advance, but does the interpretation, Koranic incidentally, really do justice to the story and its setting7 This is nothing compared to the handling of the story of David and Bathsheba, for David's appropriation of Bathsheba is a "transgression" only from a legal, moral, exoteric perspective which characterizes the Bible. The "Impeccability of the Prophets," and David is classed as a prophet, is attuned to "a deeper reality than can be attained by the moral point of view." Esotencally, David's desire to marry Bathsheba could not be a transgression, since the quality of Prophet can only attach to men who are free from passions, whatever may be the appearances in certain cases. What must be discerned above all in the relationship between David and Bathsheba is an affinity or cosmic and providential complementansm, of which the fruit and justification was Solomon, he whom "Yahweh loved" (42). Moreover, let us not be concerned with Uriah the Hittite, for "a heroic death with face turned toward the enemy" in a Holy War is a soldier's goal, which is surely the motive of David's "Prophetic intuition." However, the choice of Bathsheba and the sending of Uriah to his death, although cosmologically and providentially justified, nonetheless clashed with the exotenc Law, and David, while benefiting, by Solomon's birth, from the intrinsic legitimacy of his action, had to bear the consequences of this clash; but the very fact that an echo of the clash appears in the Psalms, which is a sacred Book because Divinely inspired its existence proving, moreover, that David was a Prophet shows once again that David's actions, though having a negative aspect on an outward plane, nevertheless do not constitute "sins" in themselves One might even say that God inspired these actions with a view to the Revelation of the Psalms, of which the purpose was to record, in Divine and immortal song, not only the sufferings and glory of the soul in search of God, but also the sufferings and glory of the Messiah (43). Eat thy heart out, Wayne Hays! Thou shouldst be able in this hour to call upon so clever a defender as this. Forgotten is the "prophetic intuition" of Nathan: "Thou art the man." Overlooked is David's confession: "I have sinned against the Lord." These are but further exoteric data which fade from view as

717

718

RICHARD C. BUSH

they are absorbed in the esoteric wisdom identified with Solomon. One must observe that this handling of biblical passages is an illustration of Schuon's catholicity, for he has employed and credits Islamic interpreters at several points. Regardless of background, one cannot ignore the fact that the "essence" of the prophetic movement with its inherently ethical thrust has been distorted completely. I have devoted more space to this nonsense than it deserves because Schuon regards the story and his handling of it as an excellent example of the distinction between esoteric and exoteric. Schuon's treatment of the David and Bathsheba story is typical of his use of historical or biblical data to fit the point he is trying to make. If Muhammed is a true prophet and not a false one (certainly an acceptable condition), then the biblical "passages referring to the Paraclete must inevitably concern him not exclusively but eminently for it is inconceivable that Christ, when speaking of the future, should have passed over in silence a manifestation of such magnitude" (108-9). There follows the assertion that Jesus' words concerning false prophets must certainly not be read as applying to Muhammed. Why cannot we regard Muhammed as an authentic prophet and exclude him from the ranks of the false prophets without distorting Jesus' words to apply to a man six centuries later? Surely those of us who have grown tired of hearing the beast of the Book of Revelation identified successively as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., should be able to make our point without distorting our scriptures or any other. Obviously one may choose a method by which to interpret scripture or historical records which best elicits meaning for him. Interpretations of historical data which absorb all personalities, experiences, and events into one all-inclusive whole abound in the Vedanta and in mystical movements in many religions and certainly are to be considered among others as we search for that which binds us together. When, however, such interpretations ignore, blur, or distort historical or biblical research in any tradition, then I suspect that the resultant unity is also a distortion. I am also suspicious of any system which can so lightly brush aside ethical concerns. It is not so much the breaking of a moral code that forbids adultery or killing, but rather the side-stepping of an ethical principle rooted in most cultures which asserts that human life has value and therefore that human beings are not to be manipulated for one man's pleasure. To live according to this and other ethical principles is to live in unity with the ultimate in just as authentic a manner as it is to intuit an absolute essence of religion. Many are the mystics whose experience has appeared to lead them beyond the ethical, notably the great soul who said, "Love God and do what you please." The ones whom I respect are those for whom this does not mean license or facile twisting of what has been done, but rather those whose higher experience means living according to a higher morality which in turn inspires me to that higher life. This reference to mystics leads to my error in a discussion of Schuon in the previously mentioned paper for the 1973 AAR meetings. The last chapter of the 1953 edition of Transcendent Unity is a discussion of Christian spirituality which has been severely shortened in the Torchbook edition. In that section of the older edition (p. 176), after quite critical remarks concerning Christian mystics, Schuon observes that "the conditions necessary for the growth of mysticism have become general only in the Christian world, where mysticism has consequently become the normal mode of spirituality . . ." (None of this remains in the Torchbook edition.) Possibly because I was thinking of different Western Christian mystics

SCHUON'S THE TRANSCENDENT UNITY OF RELIGIONS CON

719

from those Schuon had in mind, or of the language of mysticism which runs throughout the book, I applied that "only in the Christian world" statement to Schuon's esoterism, thus equating mysticism with esoterism. Thatofcoursewasa mistake, which I duly acknowledge. I had no intention of saying that Schuon gave Christians any edge or any advantage in intuiting that ultimate esoteric unity. His many references to Islam, Sufis in particular, and to Vedantin and Neo-Platonic ways of thinking, preclude any Chnstian bias. To repeat, however, he would be lost without the language of Christian mysticism, which like Sufism, of course, was profoundly influenced by Neo-Platonism. There are many other points which could be raised. I suppose the introduction to a volume is no place to engage in criticism of the author's work, but I would like to see a more critical appreciation of Schuon by Professor Smith. That may be set forth in an article I have not read, or perhaps a more critical approach is forthcoming in Smith's The Primordial Tradition which will probably be in print before this review. At any rate, we shall look forward to a systematic treatment in that work of the Schuonian perspective to which Huston Smith has directed us during these years. To conclude on a more positive note, an approach to the unity of religions which I find much more responsible and defensible is one involving a divine reality which I would call God but which others look upon as many gods or spirits, or as an impersonal Mind which is truly Real, or as a process. Such a reality is present and active in the vast sweep of human cultures and is certainly the power, the loving presence, which is responsible for what has emerged in various religious traditions. As a historian of religions my studies suggest that leaders, saints, and thinkers, as well as "common believers," are inclined toward such a reality because of certain indications, evidences, or happenings which they or their forbears have experienced in the common life. The old proofs for the existence of God don't mean much any more, but there is something about the natural world, whether you talk about order or interaction of yin and yang, which suggests a higher order or a cosmic interaction. There are the bibles, including of course the holy books of at least the major traditions, whose/ words about gods or nirvana or Brahman or the dialectic of history constitute the Word. There are the common concerns, expressed in simple, specific, doctrinal statements, which touch me deeply: "What must I do to be saved?' "Praise to the Saving Lord Amida Buddha." "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful." "From the Unreal lead me to Real." People who say such things, in the saying itself, are my kinsmen, whether they gather in church, temple, mosque, or in splendid solitude. The examples could be multiplied. They are exoteric to the core, rooted and grounded to be sure in an ultimate reality called by various names in the exoteric experiences, but the unity is in the realm of human experience in which no secret wisdom is kept for an esoteric elite, but may be known and enjoyed by any human being. Before such a unity the so-called "transcendent unity of religions" is a vague, shadowy reflection of true reality. Please label me an exoteric.

The American Academy of Religion announces the publication of this volume as the second in its "Aids for the Study of Religion" series.

John Calvin Selecations .from his Writings

Edited by John Dillenberger

Feu men have had a greater Influence upon Western h ~ s t o r )than J o h n C a h ~ n . the s~xteenth-centur! Keformer Though not a Puntdn. ~t h a s he u h o l a ~ dthe f o u n d a t ~ o n \of P u r ~ t a n ~ s m from u h ~ c h preu thc Prote\tdnt e t h ~ cThough not a pol~tlc~,in. u a s he u h o , long before ~t Montc\qu~eu. \poke of the need for g o \ e r n m e n t u ~ t hc h e c k s a n d haldnce\ the h a \ ~ of the I'nited States r C'on\t~tut~on

The e d l t o r hd\ cho\en d \driet\ ol texts to \ h o u the rdnge of C a l \ ~ n ' s l ~ f e and urltlngj commentdrle\. \ermon\. letter\, c a t e c h ~ \ m \ . trdctj a\ uell broddhdsed theolog~cal u o r k s Also prollded 1s a l u c ~ d~ n t r o d u c t ~ ob Dr ! n D~llenberger C a l \ ~ n ' \l ~ f e thought to dnd

.A\a~lable through Scholars Press Prlce. $7.00 ($5.00 to member\)

. -

SCHOLARS= WNERSITY OF MONTANA

MSSOULA. MONTANA 59812