UNSURPRISINGLY, perhaps, my study of Frithjof Schuon’s approach to the ultimate coming-together of human spirituality at the supreme level of primordiality will be centred around The Transcendent Unity of Religions (1948). It seems fair to suggest that this seminal text, written in the immediate aftermath of a global conflict that had devastated Europe and much of the world for a second time, became an important springboard for the views that Schuon would retain for the remainder of his long and productive life.

References and quotations used throughout the course of this series will therefore relate solely to the work in question, examining whether its claims and observations stand up to scrutiny and what relevance they may or may not have for those of us living in the twenty-first century. A period, as most of us will agree, when the rampant materialism that is destroying the world and corroding the souls of humankind must be challenged by a revival of faith at the expense of atheism, tradition at the expense of counter-tradition, and the sacred at the expense of the profane.

At the beginning of his ‘Preface,’ the Swiss author informs us that The Transcendent Unity of Religions is not a work of philosophy but something which is grounded in metaphysics. Ordinarily, metaphysics itself is regarded as a dimension of philosophy and one that is committed to the study of first principles and abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time and space. Contesting the widespread idea that metaphysics should be regarded as a part of philosophy, Schuon explains that

the practice of linking the two together in this manner, although it can be traced back to Aristotle and the Scholastic writers who followed him, merely shows that all philosophy suffers from certain limitations that even in the most favourable instances such as those just quoted, exclude a completely adequate appreciation of metaphysic. In reality, the transcendent character of metaphysic makes it independent of any purely human mode of thought. In order to define clearly the difference between the two modes in question, it may be said that philosophy proceeds from reason (which is a purely individual faculty), whereas metaphysic proceeds exclusively from the Intellect. (p.xxix)

Following the German theologian, Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), Schuon argues that part of the human soul remains both “uncreate and uncreatable” and that this distinction pertains to the intellect. It is, therefore, a transcendent aspect that cannot be reduced to more earthly or measurable parameters in the way that philosophy concerns itself with reason. What Schuon regards as “intellectual knowledge” is said to lie beyond the capabilities of the individual, thus revealing its ultimately divine character and distinguishing it from those lesser methods of discourse that one finds taking place in university lecture halls and the wider realms of academia.

When presented in its true character as intellectual knowledge, metaphysics even transcends the theological domain that is itself superior to philosophy. Theology, originating from God, cannot be regarded as the equal of philosophy and yet must take second place to metaphysics. This, Schuon explains, is due to the fact that

whereas metaphysic proceeds wholly from intellectual intuition, religion proceeds from Revelation. The latter is the Word of God spoken to His creatures, whereas intellectual intuition is a direct and active participation in divine Knowledge and not an indirect and passive participation, as is faith. In other words, in the case of intellectual intuition, knowledge is not possessed by the individual insofar as he is an individual, but insofar as in his innermost essence he is not distinct from his Divine Principle. (p.xxx)

To elaborate, Schuon believes that intellectual intuition is not available to an individual on the basis of that same individuality, but as a result of his or her “innermost essence” being equated with the divine principle.

What Schuon calls “direct and active participation” is rather similar to the intellectual intuition that one finds in Platonism, said to be perfectly encapsulated by the ecstasy of the poet. In German Romantic philosophy, on the other hand, Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829) discusses the importance of an intellectual intuition that employs creativity as a way of using self-knowledge to approach the Absolute. Similarly, it was Friedrich Schelling (1775-1854) who believed that the medium of art can function as the basis for intellectual intuition and that nature works through the artist with conscious intent. Returning to Schuon:

Thus metaphysical certitude is absolute because of the identity between the knower and the known in the Intellect. If an example may be drawn from the sensory sphere to illustrate the difference between metaphysical and theological knowledge, it may be said that the former, which can be called “esoteric” when it is manifested through a religious symbolism, is conscious of the colourless essence of light and of its character of pure luminosity; a given religious belief, on the other hand, will assert that light is red and not green, whereas another belief will assert the opposite; both will be right insofar as they distinguish light from darkness but not insofar as they identify it with a particular colour. (p.xxx)

The purely revelatory aspect, which has been revealed to man by God, is not something that is attainable for each believer but reserved for the likes of Moses, Muhammad and various other religious mystics who have engaged with the supernatural in a more direct fashion. The revealed scripture of theology is “symbol or form,” whilst the intellectual intuition of metaphysics is “supraformal Truth”. The former provides a provisional insight into something beyond the veil, the latter an esoteric context that can only be grasped by a tiny few.

Theology is nonetheless pivotal in that it translates the metaphysical into more comprehensible and accessible language, whilst retaining the supernatural flavour. However, only intellectual wisdom can venture into the very heart of the mystery. By occupying a position beneath its theological and metaphysical counterparts, therefore, the inferior rationalism of philosophy

cannot by itself reach any transcendent truth; if it may nevertheless serve as a means of expressing suprarational knowledge—as in the case of Aristotelian and Scholastic ontology—this will always be to the detriment of the intellectual integrity of the doctrine. Some may perhaps object that even the purest metaphysic is sometimes hardly distinguishable from philosophy inasmuch as it uses arguments and seems to reach conclusions. But this resemblance is due merely to the fact that all concepts, once they are expressed, are necessarily clothed in the modes of human thought which is rational and dialectical. (p.xxxi)

Philosophy – providing it is practised with honesty and integrity – is thus a presentation of human knowledge without embellishment: what you see is what you get. Conversely, metaphysics uses signs and symbols to transmit spiritual truths in a more faithful and untainted manner.

Schuon makes the point that philosophy is designed to address some kind of doubt, with the inevitable consequence that it is centred on rectifying some kind of falsehood or inconsistency. Metaphysics, however, sets out to communicate something that is already certain and incontestable. When a maths professor corrects a student’s error, for example, he is not setting out to question the latent immutability of the formula itself.

Schuon provides an example of his own, outlining the subtle contrast between the philosopher who tries in vain to either prove or disprove the existence of God based entirely on the application of reason; the theologian who, whilst never questioning his religion is prepared to accept that proof is indemonstrable and dependant on belief; and the metaphysician who is concerned with nothing but

direct evidence, of intellectual evidence that implies absolute certainty; but in the present state of humanity such evidence is only accessible to a spiritual elite that becomes ever more restricted in number. It may be added that religion, by its very nature and independently of any wish of its representatives, who may be unaware of the fact contains and transmits this purely intellectual Knowledge beneath the veil of its dogmatic and ritual symbols, as we have already seen. (pp.xxxii-xxxiii)

The reader will note that this system may be applied to virtually any form of religion or spirituality and that what is under discussion is not the different manifestations of truth but the categorical methodology that maintains the descending hierarchy of metaphysics, theology and philosophy.

Having established the universalist nature of this threefold relationship, Schuon is keen to emphasise that when profound esoteric truths become increasingly manifest at a time when Traditional values are forced to contend with the atheistic disinterestedness that characterises the modern world, something which may seem curiously “abnormal,” it is due to the fact that we have arrived at

the end of a great cyclic period of terrestrial humanity—the end of a mahā-yuga according to Hindu cosmology—and so must recapitulate or manifest again in one way or another everything that is included in the cycle, in conformity with the adage “extremes meet”; thus things that are in themselves abnormal may become necessary by reason of the conditions just referred to. (p.xxxiii)

Ironically, therefore, what to the modern mindset seems inappropriate for the times is actually more appropriate than ever. True esotericism, the author insists, is based not on the fraudulent secrecy of counter-initiatory organisations that seek to muddy the waters but on timeless truths that have been there all along and which make themselves available to us on various levels of comprehension.

Schuon’s opus, The Transcendent Unity of Religions, may have been written seventy-seven years ago but is a timely response to those who continue to exaggerate the alleged incompatibility of the world’s vast tapestry of spiritual beliefs. The unity of which he speaks is not something that can be achieved in an external sense – resulting in a predictable clash of interests between deeply held notions of belief, doctrine and ritual – but involves examining the inward, spiritual form in a way that maintains the outward appearance of each religion. As Schuon suggests, the

antagonisms between these forms no more affect the one universal Truth than the antagonisms between opposing colours affect the transmission of the one uncoloured light (to return to the illustration used already). Just as every colour, by its negation of darkness and its affirmation of light, provides the possibility of discovering the ray that makes it visible and of tracing this ray back to its luminous source, so all forms, all symbols, all religions, all dogmas, by their negation of error and their affirmation of Truth, make it possible to follow the ray of Revelation, which is none other than the ray of the Intellect, back to its Divine Source. (p.xxxiv)

As we shall see, it is this source which Schuon identifies as the primordial root of all spirituality.