|
Others ~ Selected Correspondence Traditionalism & Perennialism
It is important to know that AC is not even Buddhist. He is part of the ‘Traditionalists’ like Guenon. ‘The fundamental tenets of this school or philosophy may be stated as follows:
He was nominally a Catholic supposedly but there is evidence that his family was actually liberal Protestant. However he was also a Freemason, and he became a Hindu in 1907. He had nothing but contempt for both Europeanized Indians and Europeanized Ceylonese. He state that they were Indian or Ceylonese only in name. Furthermore he in on record saying that schools and churches were to blame for the decay of eastern culture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_School) What Guenon, Schuon and Coomaraswamy teach is fraudulent. AC (Coomaraswamy) once said: ‘Who that has breathed the clear mountain air of the Upanishads, of Goutama, Sankara and Kabir, of Rumi, Laotse and Jesus2 can be alien to those who have sat at the feet of Plato and Kant, Tauler Behman and Ruysbroeck, Whitman, Nietzsche and Blake.’ Once being an Eastern Orthodox Christian and practicing Eastern religionist I know that though Hinduism and Orthodoxy are both delusional, they nonetheless are very different religions. Lipsey, a biographer of AC stated ‘Coomaraswamy had been dourly and profoundly influenced during his English boyhood days by John Ruskin and William Morris’s anti-industrialist, back-to-nature writings and activities], he was far from having initiated this heresy, but he merely picked it up from the milieu in which he was born …’ Says Seyyed Hossein Nasr: ‘If Guénon was the master expositor of metaphysical doctrines and Coomaraswamy the peerless scholar and connoisseur of Oriental art who began his exposition of metaphysics through recourse to the language of artistic forms, Schuon seems like the cosmic intellect itself impregnated by the energy of divine grace surveying the whole of the reality surrounding man and elucidating all the concerns of human existence in the light of sacred knowledge.’ Te me this is perhaps more ridiculous than even the actual traditional religions themselves. AC (Coomaraswamy) is in many ways merely a puppet of Guenon. As Guenon’s work is a crazy mishmash of wild esotericism and intellectual elitism, that put Coomaraswamy in poor company. These are fellows who are obsessed with ‘secret messages’ in the arcane ‘wisdom’ of the world’s religious texts. Schuon wrote about the ‘Kabbala’, thinking this ridiculous superstition ‘profound’. Maybe we should worship Madonna as ‘The Goddess’. Schuon’s writings show a rigid/dogmatic set of metaphysical principles. They have nothing of a creativity or evolution but are re-hashes of the same arcane principles from different vantage points. More than either Guénon or Coomaraswamy, it seems that Schuon’s belief system has no flexibility whatsoever. They all twist what actual religions teach in order for them all to appear part of a non-existent ‘Perennialist’ tradition (well it exists now, but it is a modern creation of combining paganism and eastern religion, and even having the gull/stupidity of trying to assimilate Christianity, and claiming these are all ‘one’ tradition-this is rejected by most serious scholars, but in a world where Joseph Cambell is consider a ‘great scholar’ this would pass most non-professionals by). AC (Coomaraswamy) was ‘Firstly, he was definitely an apologist of Hinduism, a defender of Hindu values and traditions (including the caste system) against the numerous misconceptions and prejudices common among the Western and anglicized-Indian audiences’. AC (Coomaraswamy) said: ‘There is no true opposition of Buddhism and Brahmanism, but from the beginning one general movement, or many closely related movements. The integrity of Indian thought, moreover, would not be broken if every specifically Buddhist element were omitted; we should only have to say that certain details had been less adequately elaborated or less emphasized. (…) [The Buddha] in a majority of fundamentals does not differ from the Atmanists, although he gives a far clearer statement of the law of causality as the essential mark of the world of Becoming. The greater part of his polemic, however, is wasted in a misunderstanding.’68 The ‘misunderstanding’ concerns the seeming opposition between the Upanishadic notion of Self (âtman) and the Buddhist doctrine of Non-Self (anatta/anâtman’. More from AC (Coomaraswamy): ‘Either Gautama was only acquainted with popular Brahmanism, or he chose to ignore its higher aspects. At any rate, those whom he defeats in controversy so easily are mere puppets who never put forward the doctrine of the unconditional Self at all. Gautama meets no foeman worthy of his steel, and for this reason the greater part of Buddhist polemic is unavoidably occupied in beating the air. This criticism applies as much to modern as to ancient exposition.’ From the above I don’t think Coomaraswamy would see idea to eye either on Buddhism or ‘perenialism’’. Coomaraswamy claims, ‘It may readily be granted that Buddhist thought is far more consistent than the thought of the Upanishads. The Upanishads are the work of many hands and extend over many centuries; amongst their authors are both poets and philosophers. The Buddhist Dhamma claims to be the pronouncement of a single rationalist, and to have but one flavour. Gautama propounds a creed and a system, and it is largely to this fact that the success of his missionary activities was due. (…) No one will assert that the Upanishads exhibit a consistent creed. But the explanation of their inconsistencies is historical and leaves the truth of their ultimate conclusions quite untouched. (…) we find in point of fact that the essential thought of the Upanishads is never grasped by the Early Buddhists, and, is sometimes but obscurely apprehended by modern exponents.’ 75 AC (Coomaraswamy): ‘In comparing Buddhism (the teaching of Gautama, that is) with Brahmanism, we have then to understand and take into account the difference of the problem to be solved. Gautama is concerned with salvation and nothing but salvation: the Brahmans likewise see in that summum bonum the ultimate significance of all existence, but they also take into account the things of relative importance; theirs is a religion both of Eternity and Time, while Gautama looks upon Eternity alone. it is not really fair to Gautama or to the Brahmans to contrast their Dharma; for they do not seek to cover the same ground. We must compare the Buddhist ethical ideal with the (identical) standard of Brahmanhood expected of the Brahman born; we must contrast the Buddhist monastic system with the Brahmanical orders; the doctrine of Anatta with the doctrine of Atman, and here we shall find identity. (…) Buddhism stands for a restricted ideal, which contrasts with Brahmanism as a pars contrasts with the whole’. 79 AC (Coomaraswamy) says of Buddhism as compared to Hinduism: ‘[Buddhism]is not really a middle path, and (...) remains, in contrasting the bright state of the Wanderer with the dark state of the Householder, if not all morbidly ascetic, nevertheless unmistakably a rule of abstention, rather than moderation.’ Gautama hardly contemplates the possibility that freedom may also be attained by those who are still engaged in worldly activities. I don’t see how any of this relates or could ever relate to an actual freedom from the human condition. Buddhism is clearly an ascetic, world denying religion, and the ‘Perrenial’ tradition is a dishonest contrived history of religion. This has been one of the most pathetic, ridiculous objections to actualism yet. And that others, who are likely ignorant of AC, were so quick to jump on this Ananda Coomaraswamy bandwagon, only shows that some here would accept (or ‘use’) Don King’s, Scott Perterson’s, or any other fraud’s opinion as a valid objection to actualism. Wow, the human condition produces ‘beautiful bleeding tumours’ indeed. Source: http://www.bharatvani.org/books/wiah/ch10.htm, http://www.geocities.com/orthopapism/akk.html, No 66, 4.5.2005
Great. I knew that would happen. There is so much bullsh*t on the web. Good job for adding to it. Just read Coomaraswamy’s original writings and judge for yourself. Already done so. Have you? You cannot place Guenon, Schuon and Coomaraswamy together. Duh, they are all of the Traditionalist and Perennialist schools of thought. They have nothing to do with each other. Not so Coomaraswamy never met neither Schuon nor Guenon. Not relevant He had only a dozen letter exchanges with Guenon. So what. Coomaraswamy had also no teaching. Hmmm … maybe you have not really read any of his complete works. He was the Keeper of Indian and Islamic arts in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston for most of his life. He was much more than that. Anyway I am not here to defend anybody against ridiculous propaganda. No, you defend ridiculous Traditionalist and Perennialist propaganda like all get out. Either you can think for yourself or you cannot. Indeed, I hope you realize your ‘parasite’ doesn’t what you to ever think for yourself. Things might be a little clearer after realizing that insight. No 66 to No 81, 4.5.2005 * Addendum: I wish to correct a badly written part of a previous post. Coomaraswami was not a ‘puppet’ or follower of Guenon, but he was influenced by Guenon’s works later in life. They both fit into what can be called the Perennialist (or Essentialist or Traditionalist) philosophy. This is a very contrived (and possibly dishonest) way of forcing all the religious/spiritual traditions into a certain ‘mould’ to give the false impression that they are ‘one’ or teach ‘essentially’ the same thing. That was my main point. He is in shady company, irregardless of how much contact they had with each other (which as you pointed out, they did have some). The problem is more that they were both infected with the same type of ‘traditionalist’ wishful thinking. They were both reactionary thinkers, and if any society were to adopt there views, it would send civilization back centuries. AC was a ‘puppet’ of a contrived, wishful thinking, superstitious, archaic, irrational, and largely crazed philosophical viewpoint, that could not help but seep through in his writings. But enough of this Traditionalist twaddle. One will get no where fast with those intellectual elitists. No 66 to No 81, 5.5.2005 Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust |
