Desenmascarando el perennialismo

En el Nombre de Allah,
el Misericordioso, el Compasivo

Ramakrishna, maestro consumado según René Guénon, y Sarada Devi,
a quien enfocó como la Diosa, digna de adoracion

Las siguientes líneas se ofrecen a fin de aclarar confusiones en el plano doctrinal que se han deslizado en particular en la difusión del Islam en Occidente.  La convivencia pacífica de las comunidades religiosas, la cooperación en asuntos permitidos por la Sharia (como sería la cooperación conjunta contra el ateísmo, el materialismo, u otros males de la época), y el respeto recíproco de la convivencia dentro de marco de la regulación en esta materia propia de la Sharia, se dan por aceptados y no son materia de esta entrada, centrada exclusivamente en el plano doctrinal intra-islámico.  

Dicho sea de paso, el perennialismo, como su aparente antítesis, el agnosticismo, son ambos nocivos no sólo para el Islam y nuestra Ummah sino para otras comunidades religiosas en sus respectivas identidades.  Nuestra Ummah, en toda relación de convivencia, no podrá ofrecer algo sólido a las poblaciones o comunidades más que siendo ella misma sólida.  De allí la importancia, para nosotros como musulmanes, de las reflexiones tales como las que siguen a continuación.

EL ERROR DEL PERENNIALISMO:

EN TORNO A RENE GUENON Y EL SUFISMO

Ponemos en conocimiento de los lectores la publicación de un libro en dos volúmenes examinando en detalle las doctrinas de René Guenon o del llamado perennialismo, escuela de pensamiento difundida entre ciertos sectores intelectuales de personas que han ingresado a tariqas sufis en Occidente, y que cuenta entre sus cultivadores a autores como Rene Guenon, Titus Burckhardt, Martin Lings, Frithof Schuon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, entre otros.

El minucioso libro (en dos volúmenes), escrito por un murid de una tariqa en Ahlus Sunnah wal Yamaah, Samir Hariche, puede adquirirse aquí:

El Perennialismo a la luz del islam

Aquí está la introducción y el primer capítulo del libro:

http://hispanotiyanis.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/el-perennialismo-a-la-luz-del-islam-vista-previa-intro-cap-1.pdf

No hemos conocido el contenido del texto, aunque en su resumen se menciona que el objetivo del libro es poner en claro a la comunidad islámica de Ahlus Sunnah, en particular a los miembros de las turuq, los errores que descalifican las doctrinas de René Guenon o el perennialismo como doctrinas desviadas respecto al Islam.

En relación a este tema, previamente se ha escrito ya en algunas oportunidades al respecto, dejando en claro que si bien el esfuerzo de Rene Guenon puede tener méritos en ciertos aspectos (en relación sobre todo a la crítica del sistema del mundo moderno), es una obra cuyas líneas de fondo no dejan de estar erradas desde la perspectiva del sufismo islámico.

El perennialismo, como se le ha dado en llamar, afirma que las grandes religiones actuales (Islam, cristianismo, judaísmo, budismo, hinduismo, taoísmo) (y en cierta medida también formas no religiosas como la Masonería o el hermetismo), son formas tradicionales que evidentemente difieren entre sí en sus formas exotéricas o externas, aunque son igualmente válidas entre sí desde el punto de vista esotérico o interno.  Para el lector de mente sofisticada que comprenda este punto, entonces, entrar a una religión no es nunca un fenómeno de conversión, sino en todo caso de elección entre la forma o tradición más a mano.

Una doctrina como ésta, que resulta manifiestamente contraria a lo sostenido los por ulama y awliya de las turuq de Ahlus Sunnah wal Yammah, ha sabido sin embargo ganarse prestigio con recursos intelectuales que, en el fondo, explotan simplemente el ego contemporáneo profundamente nihilista o relativista, esto es, ubicado en las antípodas del siervo de Dios.

Por cierto que esta doctrina es también contraria a la enseñanza de Maulana Shaykh Nazim al Haqqani.

No faltan, sin embargo, personas que dentro de las tariqas le adscriben a Guenon una importancia que ni siquiera él mismo jamás afirmó de sí, ante la manifiesta falta de declaraciones en dicho sentido de parte de los grandes shaykhs y awliya de Ahlus Sunnah.

El libro que se ha publicado, es un esfuerzo adicional en desenmascarar uno de los rostros de Batil con Haqq y esperamos que sirva para que el lector desprevenido tome conciencia de los riesgos del nihilismo propiamente modernista que anida, más allá de las palabras, en tales doctrinas.

Inna dina indallahi-l-Islam (Sagrado Corán): la única religión aceptada en la Divina Presencia es el Islam que trajo el Mensajero Muhammad (saaws), desde que él recibió la encomienda de proclamar Haqq, hace más de 1,400 años atrás, y hasta el Yaum al Qiyamah.

Algunas declaraciones de Maulana Shaykh Nazim en el sentido de la primacía del Islam, manifiestamente incompatibles con cualquier perennialismo, se encuentran aquí:

La Primacía del Islam

Las Religiones Orientales

Hinduismo y Budismo

Y cuando Sheykh Abdul Kerim Effendi al Haqqani fue a escuchar un discurso de Seyyed Hossein Nasr, ya que había escuchado a tantos en Estados Unidos mencionarle a esa persona, se le acercó y le hizo un par de preguntas para poner a prueba la realidad del conocimiento que la gente piensa que posee tal autor. 

Cuando nos comentó esta anécdota, nos dijo: “Bah.  Tanta erudición, y no le ha servido de nada”.

Varios murids en Occidente ingresan al Islam y a una tariqa tras la lectura de obras de este tipo, pero después es su deber conocer más profundamente el Islam y dejar atrás el bagaje incompatible con el mismo, si quieren beneficiarse de una mayor proximidad al Mensajero de Allah (saaws), y alejarse de un peligro espiritual propio del relativismo perennialista.

Copiamos a continuación de un artículo escrito antes al respecto lo siguiente:

No es que digamos que el perennialismo produce un sincretismo religioso.  Ciertamente Guenon escribió en contra del sincretismo.

El problema de fondo que presenta, sin embargo, es otro.

Para decirlo de modo bastante diáfano.

Si le preguntan a un tradicionalista: ¿en qué crees, a quién adoras?

Responderá: A Dios, claro, la Trinidad más allá de la creación, a Allah, Parabrahman, el Tao, verás, hay un Último referible diversamente, y de hecho hay referencias y conexiones al mismo en que no se ‘le’ o ‘lo’ adora precisamente, como en el budismo, formalmente ateo, por lo que ya ‘adorar’ es una vía bakhtika, devocional, mientras que a su vez, principialmente, existe otra vía alterna pero que llega a la misma ultimidad radical y es como la del advaita vedanta, contemplativa, o jgnana.

Ya. Es decir, no adora.

La relación con un símbolo, con un constructo teórico pluriforme, con una hipóstasis simbológico-conceptual, NO es una relación con Dios.

A tal ‘dios’ del perennialismo, cuando se le reza, no se le reza en verdad (bil haqq); cuando se le pide perdón, no se le pide perdón en verdad. Etc.

Pero, si miramos a los místicos o, por encima de ellos incluso, a los grandes maestros espirituales, por ejemplo, del Islam, nada podría estar más asombrosamente lejos de su entrega incondicional a Allah, glorificado y exaltado sea, que esta aproximación pretendidamente ‘tradicional’.

El tradicionalismo, en el fondo, no ha podido vencer la herencia de escepticismo que introdujo en el alma la modernidad a la que tanto dice combatir.  Me aseguro pensando que todas las religiones son igualmente válidas, moral, doctrinal e incluso esotéricamente, ya que, claro, ¿cómo decir que una de ellas es la más sobresaliente y la Vía a seguir en vez de otras? (Valga la aclaración de que este problema del ismo perennialista, moderno al fin y al cabo a su pesar, se refiere a quien lo asuma enteramente, pues hay asimismo grados, en los casos particulares, en los que una simpatía o admiración por el perennialismo no llegan con todo a asumir las consecuencias mencionadas de asumirlo enteramente).

* * *

Copiamos a continuación un texto en inglés que se escribió por un murid que después dio bayat en la tariqa naqshbandi, en relación a algunos hechos que dejan en claro la heterodoxia de René Guenon incluso después de su elección (que no conversión) del Islam.  Pocos saben, por ejemplo, que el perenialismo considera a un gurú hindú que abandonó la práctica del salat diario después de haber dado shahadah, como uno de los maestros totalmente realizados en el espíritu.

El texto se reproduce y ha sido editado por él mismo para esta ocasión.  El texto original fue escrito el 19 de mayo del 2007.

* * *

Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim

As salam alaikum

Allah's way to guide me to Islam was through the feeling that awoke some things in my heart trough the reading of Guenon's books. He loved Islam in a time when most of europeans had not even considered the possibility of coming to Islam, and he surely must have had the custom to make salat an nabi!

If we see it in a wider perspective, his writings paved the way, someway somehow, to make possible for at least many groups of westerners to consider, some years after him, that Islam is something ENORMOUSLY more interesting and profound that what they would have otherwise considered, masha'Allah.

There are some insightful critics of modernity there that are very valuable and a general awakening of the importance of the Transcendent aspect of Reality (haqa’iq, spirituality).

But to be fair, I had to realize soon after entering in Islam that Guenon's ideas are sometimes very different and surprisingly mistaken if you compare them to traditional and pure Islam.

By the way, by traditional and pure Islam I mean: Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamah with the four schools of law, the two schools of aqida, the sunni tariqats, the teachings of greatest awliya such as Ibn Arabi, Abdalqadir al Jilani, ash-Shadhilli, Shah Bahauddin Naqshband and, of course, in my case, the Grandshaykh of my beloved tariqa, Mawlana Shaykh Nazim al Haqqani.

Just to clarify, I don't know and it is not our affair to know that at all, anyway, what Guenon ultimately (I mean, minutes or seconds before dying) thought or believed, or what is of him and his condition in the afterlife (I like to think anyway that he is probably in a good position).

So, as sometimes the discussion about his work arises diferent feelings, I thought necesary to say this before so that I am not misunderstood.

But certain people are currently talking about the value of his teachings and praising him in many aspects and for newcomers to Islam it may lead them to think about his books as being really representative of traditional (Sunni) Islam, or the teachings of tariqas of tasawwuf.

Beyond his life, his personal merits, and the way to approach many of us to Islam, Guenon's teachings and writings remain there as such and it is about their traditionality (real sunni character when writing about Islam) that I am talking about now.

I will quote some things from him that would make us think three or four times before putting him in a position as teacher of traditional Islam.

He wrote over a number a years. He still wrote long after he attached himself to Islam. I don't think I am being unfair with the understanding of his teachings –which is a claim that all the guenonists always use against critics to his doctrine- as I simply was a total devout of his whole books and comments in letters and everything that came from him.

But here are some real facts to ponder before praising his doctrinal teachings too much. I am not speaking now about his critics to modernity but about his more doctrinal teachings.

I know also that a lot of perennialists have gone far beyond himself in these fields (such as Schuon, for example, whom even Guenon considered as erroneous and guilty of sincretism). So I don't think to be interpreting Guenon through the works and examples of others after him, but simply through his own writings which I have read extensively once and again some six and five years ago [note: counting from 1997].

AN ACTIVE ESOTERIC FREEMASON

Guenon was indeed an active fremason esoterist much years after he *attached* to sufism.

His engagement in the french Lodge The Great Triad is the proof that, as with any other things he named in his writings as ‘Tradition’, he never ceased to help to rediscover the supposed validity of freemasonry.

Important freemasonic esoterists say this, and you only have to look on the web to find that.

For example, in the web page: www.geocities.symbolos there are dozens of articles exploring the guenonist teachings on freemasonry. Particularly useful as an overview is

http://www.geocities.com/symbolos/s23fariza.htm (Masonry in Rene Guenon's work).

[His teachings were well received in France -the Gran Lodge there has renewed interest in him- and in Spanish and Italian masonic circles -there is even one 'Operative' Grand Lodge structured in accordance to Guenonnian teachings and redesigned masonic rituals, and if you want to know how much Guenon modified the curse of freemasonry in his willing to purify it you can read just Jean Tourniac or Denys Roman].

It could be interesting to note, for example, that his last article on Freemasonry, titled The Lost Word and the Substitute Names, dates from 1948, many years after he attached to Sufi Islam.

Guenon was a contributor for the Journal 'Speculative Mason' from 1934 to 1940, where he answered to the freemasons readers of the journal, teaching them to rediscover the authentic esoteric operative freemasonry, while writing from Egypt and signing with his Muslim name. But he didn't speak about Islam but about a supposed spiritual operative ('authentic') Freemasonry.

Guenon, from Egypt, was closely supervising, through letters received from and sent to Denys Roman, the creation of a new masonic Logde: The Great Triad.

As Denys Roman informs, from his letters with Guenon, Guenon was in charge of "an attempt of [traditional] 'restauration' of the 'scottish' [masonic] rituals".

In a letter dated december 4th, 1948, Guenon wrote: "The report of the Committee of rituals had a success greater than what we expected; there was, in fact, a fear that the considerations [he did] which were expounded were a bit complex for some who were not accustomed [to them], but fortunately there was none of that".

This information comes from the article: Denys Roman, guenonian and freemason and it is in:

http://www.geocities.com/symbolos/s10jddv.htm

SOME QUOTES AND COMMENTS

1.- He said: 'the fact of the matter is that I am attached to the Islamic initiatic organizations for thirty years, which, of course, is completely different' ... [than 'embracing the muslim religion'].  I have read by myself this phrase, denying conversion, in his work.  So, it has been commented the following:

"Guénon's attachment to Islam is not a "conversion," but an application of his "universal initiation" in order to fulfill his function, after the attempt to generate an "extraordinary" organization failed. "Guénon declared more than one time that he was never `converted' to anything, and, in 1938, in a letter to Pierre Collard, that he even did not `embraced the Muslim religion,' more
or less recently, as some ones try to make people believe for some obscure reasons. And he added: `the fact of the matter is that I am attached to the Islamic initiatic organizations for thirty years, which, of course, is completely different'" (Gilis 57)."

(In: http://www.religioperennis.org/Document/Tamas/TReneGuenon.html)

2.- In a Letter to Vasile Lovinescu, dated october 14, 1935, Guenon writes:

(From: http://www.geocities.com/symbolos/s17lov3.htm)

"I thank you that you had communicated to Mr. Avramesco what could be of interest for him of my letters; I don't think he has interest in quitting Judaism, because notwithstanding how much restricted are in it the possibilities of initiation, they however exist, while in Christianism it seems to me more than doubtful".

3.- In his book Initiation and spiritual realization, Guenon writes:

People often speak of 'conversions' very inappropriately and in cases where this word, understood in the sense just given above, could never be applied, that is, the case of those who, for reasons of an esoteric and initiatic order, adopt a traditional form different from that to which they would have seem to be linked by their origin. This could be either because their native tradition furnished them with no possibility of an esoteric order, or simply because their chosen tradition, even in its exoteric form, gives them a foundation that is more appropriate to their nature, and consequently more favorable to their spiritual work. Whoever places himself at the esoteric point of view has this absolute right, against which all the arguments of the exoterists are of no avail, since by very definition this matter lies completely outside their competence. Contrary to what takes place in 'conversion', nothing here implies the attribution of the superiority of one traditional form over another. It is merely a question of what one might call reasons of spiritual expediency, which is altogether different from simple individual 'preference', and for which exterior considerations are completely insignificant.

(From: http://www.rosenoire.org/archives/guenon-conversions.htm)

4.- The following was published in "Le Monde Nouveau", June 1930, and after that in "Etudes Traditionnelles", November 1937:

"Authentic India is that which stays loyal to the remains that its elite transmit through the centuries among them. It is the one that preserves the totality of the deposit of a tradition whose spring traces back to a period before and beyond humanity; it is the India of Manu and of the Rishis, the India of Shri Rama and Shri Krishna.Through the uninterrupted chain of their Wise men, their Gurus and their Yoguis she remains through all the problems of the exterior world, unshakeable as the Meru; and it will last as much as the Sanatana Dharma (wich could be translated as Lex perennis, as exactly as an occidental language permits it) and it will never cease to contemplate all the things , through the front-eye of Shiva, in the quiet immutability of the eternal present. All the hostile attempts will finally crash against the only force of the truth ..."

5.- In his book about Taoism, The Grand Triade [written when he was long ago attached to sufi Islam], he writes:

"It is also known that in China exists a "secret society" , or what has come to be called like that, that has received in Occident the same name of Triade . . .

The real name of this organization is Tien-ti-houei, which can be translated as "Society of Heaven and Earth".

We have indicated elsewhere which is the true nature of all the organizations of this kind: as a fact, they must be considered always as coming from the taoist hierarchy, which has caused them and wich leads them invisibly ...

When we are talking here about Taoism, and when we say that these or those things depend of it, which is the case of most of the considerations that we will have to describe in this study, we must indicate that this must be understood as referring to the actual state of the tradition of the far East.

No doubt that this organization, by itself, is not of those that enable to reach them [to its members], but it can at least prepare them, even as far as it may be, for those qualified and so it stands as one of the atriums that may give, those qualified, access to the taoist hierarchy, whose degrees are not other ones but those of the initiatory realization itself."

6.- In Chapter 12 of "Initiation and spiritual realization", Guenon writes something that could be unthinkable to any serious murid in  a tariqa, let alone a shaykh Kamil or wali of Allah [see below why]:

“Besides the case of those who 'take up their abode' in a traditional form because it puts at their disposal the most adequate means for their interior work they have yet to accomplish, there is another that we must also mention. [B]This is the case of men who, having reached a high degree of spiritual development, adopt outwardly one or another traditional form according to circumstances and for reasons of which they are the sole judges, especially since these reasons are generally those which escape the understanding of ordinary men. Because of this spiritual state they have reached, these men are beyond all forms, for whom they are only a matter of outward appearance, unable to affect or modify their inner reality in any way. Not only have they reached that understanding spoken of earlier, but they have fully realized, in its very principle, the fundamental unity of all traditions. To speak of 'conversion' in this case would be absurd. Nevertheless, this does not prevent certain people from writing seriously that Sri Ramakrishna, for example, had 'converted' to Islam during one period of his life and to Christianity during another. Nothing could be more ridiculous than such assertions, which give a rather sorry idea of the authors' mentality. For [I]Sri Ramakrishna it was simply only a kind of 'verification' by direct experience of the validity of the different 'ways' represented by the traditions to which he temporarily assimilated himself. Is there anything in this that could closely or distantly resemble 'conversion' in any way?”

Yet see the following interesting facts about Ramakrishna, praised by Guenon as an accomplished and perfect spiritual master:

THE PERENNIALIST PERFECT MASTER

"In 1861 Bhairavi Brahmani (a nun) came to Dakshineswar to initiate Sri Ramakrishna into Tantric disciplines. The Master practiced sixty- four methods of Tantra and attained perfection thorough all of them. After completing his Tantra sadhana (disciplines) he practiced vatsalya bhava (the affectionate attitude towards God) under Jatadhari, a Vaishnava monk, and then madhura bhava (the sweet mood), in which a devotee approaches God as a lover. After these spiritual practices Tota Puri, a Vedanta Monk, came to initiate Sri Ramakrishna into sannyasa (monastic vows). The Master attained nirvikalpa samadhi, the highest Vedantic experience, in three days.

In 1866 Sri Ramakrishna practiced Islam under the guidance of a Sufi names Govinda Roy. The Master later mentioned to his disciples: "I devoutly repeated the name of Allah, and I said their prayers five times daily. I spent three days in that mood, and I had the full realization of the sadhana of their faith."

In 1868 Sri Ramakrishna went on a pilgrimage with Hriday, Mathur (the temple manager) and Mathur's family. He visited Deoghar, Varanasi, Prayag, Vrindaban, and also Navadwip. Mathur, after having served the Master for fourteen years, died in 1871. The following year Sarada Devi (Holy Mother) came to Dakshineswar and Sri Ramakrishna worshiped her as the Divine Mother.

In 1873 the Master met Shambhu Charan Mallik, who would read to him from the Bible and talk to him about Jesus of Nazareth. One day Sri Ramakrishna visited Jadu Mallik's garden house, which was adjacent to the Dakshineswar temple. In his living room, the Master saw a picture of the Madonna with the child Jesus sitting on her lap. While he was gazing at it, he saw that the figures of the Mother and Child were shining, and that the rays of light coming forth from them were entering his heart.

For the next three days he was absorbed in the thought of Jesus, and at the end of the third day, while walking in the Panchavati, he had a vision of a foreign-looking person with a beautiful face and large eyes of uncommon brilliance. As he pondered who this stranger could be, a voice from within said: "This is Jesus Christ, the great yogi, the loving Son of God, who was one with his Father and who shed his heart's blood and suffered tortures for the salvation of mankind!" Jesus then embraced Sri Ramakrishna and merged into his body.

After realizing God in different religions as well as in different sects of Hinduism, Sri Ramakrishna proclaimed: "As many faiths, so many paths".

(From: http://www.kalimandir.org/library/libraryhome.asp?page=articles&item=18_rk_bio.xml)

* * * *

That is, Ramakrishna thought he "had the full realization of the sadhana of" Islam and then quitted from Islam and never more made salats.

Indeed he thought he was 'above' Shariah and 'above' the Din, of course. And this is a man that Guenon considers a completely realized spiritual master!

Not even the greatest of awliya consider that they have traversed all the grades and spiritual realizations that come to a servant of Allah when the servant walks in the Path of Islam, yet we have here a guru stating the he did so in three days.  And after that, he never again made salat to his Lord, deeming it ‘unnecessary’ for him.

That is the kind of ‘faith’ and ‘examples’ that a guenonist is called to praise and consider as a good practice for himself if he enters in (or rather merely chooses) Islam.

That kind of rarified, altered and impoverished ‘faith’ is not the one that may help us to cross on Yaum al Qyamah the Siratal Mustaqim.

It will be unnecessary to quote from great grand shaykhs of tasawwuf (great awliya of our Ummah) what they say regarding he who leaves 'forms' thinking he is upon them.

As we know, Islam is high upon every other religion and has abrogated all the other religions. We come to Islam and we are invited by Allah himself to accept that.

Why does it seem to be much difficult for some muslims who come to Islam through Guenon's books to continue learning from real traditional sources? Those sources are available and they teach us traditional Islam.

We look to people in other religions with mercy for them and the highest mercy is Islam, is connecting in a true way to Allah Almighty.

May Allah forgive me for mistakes. May Allah give blessings in the afterlife to each person that has made a single salat an nabi with love, if Allah so wills.

May we be near after Yawn al Qiyama to the Seal of Universal Wisdom, the MASTER of whole Prophets, the inner source of whole sainthood for whole Ummahs, the light of this Creation, Sayyidina Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, the most honored servant in Divine Presence.

May we live his (saaws) way: Islam. 

As salam alaikum

Vínculos relacionados:

El valor de la Metapolítica

La aniquilación del nihilismo