ALTHOUGH, as we have seen, the esoteric dimension is superior to that of the exoteric, Schuon believes that the former is essential as a means of fulfilling the inner and outer missions of Revelation. Dogma, to use his expression, is both limited and unlimited at the same time:

To give an example, we may say that the dogma of the unicity of the Church of God must exclude a truth such as that of the validity of other orthodox religious forms, because the idea of religious universality is of no particular usefulness for the purpose of salvation and may even exert a prejudicial effect on it, since, in the case of persons not possessing the capacity to rise above an individual standpoint this idea would almost inevitably result in religious indifference and hence in the neglect of those religious duties the accomplishment of which is precisely the principal condition of salvation. (p.7)

The widespread prevalence of religious sectarianism down the centuries would certainly indicate that this is the case, although it remains a fact that a Traditionalist – i.e. an individual who accepts the existence of a universal truth beyond the confines of a single religion – would be able to attend a Catholic mass whilst appreciating that a Muslim at a nearby mosque was connected to the same primordial root.

Needless to say, this extremely open-minded approach to spirituality is not practised by the vast majority of religious worshippers and yet much of the theology that one finds in the dogma of the world’s main faiths tells of a principle that can be applied to the entirety of humankind. This propensity towards universalism, even whilst it is restricted to a given set of religious ethics or modes of behaviour, nonetheless fulfils a wider scheme in the sense that it offers each individual a specific path for the achievement of a transcendent ideal. This goal may appear to involve nothing more than the possibility of ending up in a decidedly Catholic heaven, or a specifically Islamic hell, but unbeknown to most of its followers the paths themselves also offer each human soul a role in the completion of a unified, esoteric plan:

One must not therefore confuse the function of the exoteric viewpoint as such with the function of exoterism as a spiritual means: the viewpoint in question is incompatible, in one and the same consciousness, with esoteric knowledge, for the latter dissolves this viewpoint as a preliminary to reabsorbing it into the centre from which it came; but the exoteric means do not for that reason cease to be utilisable, and will, in fact be used in two ways: on the one hand, by intellectual transposition into the esoteric order—in which case they will act as supports of intellectual actualisation; and on the other hand, by their regulating action on the individual portion of the being. (pp.8-9)

It would be foolish to downplay the role of exoteric religion completely, despite its obvious limitations in comparison to the esoteric, even if none but a small minority of people are capable of making sense of the relationship that exists between the two. Schuon understands that the narrow-mindedness of mainstream religion makes it incredibly difficult for a bishop, rabbi or imam to do anything other than present their own religious system as the be-all and end-all of spirituality, something he labels “autocracy,” but the worst thing that can happen is for an individual to become so disenchanted with this widespread prevalence of theological covetousness that he or she begins to stray into the realms of the pseudo-spiritual and, thus, the eager hands of the more insincere and questionable “occult” groups:

So it is that religion, according to the measure in which it denies metaphysical and initiatory realities and becomes crystallized in a literalistic dogmatism, inevitably engenders unbelief; the atrophy that overtakes dogmas when they are deprived of their internal dimension recoils upon them from the outside, in the form of heretical and atheistic negations. (p.9)

Despite the crucial interaction between the esoteric and exoteric, the former always remains independent of its counterpart. However, if the underlying “nucleus” that connects them is shattered, particularly when cosmic forces bring to an end the most destructive epochs in human existence, the external aspects of religion descend into what Schuon calls “literalism and sentimentality”. In other words, a preoccupation with the most basic details of spiritual observance at the expense of the fundamentals.

Two signs that indicate how a religion is becoming entrenched within the minutiae of its own theology, especially in a more behavioural sense, are the loss of interest in both scriptural mysticism and sacred art. Without that which Schuon calls “metaphysical and initiatory exegesis,” there can be no interplay between the intellect and the Divine. Although this means that the worshipper of a degenerated faith has no access to mystical language or artistic symbolism, the esoteric remains unaffected. Nonetheless, it remains the case that

the presence of this transcendent dimension at the centre of the religious form provides its exoteric side with a life-giving sap, universal and Paracletic in its essence, without which it will be compelled to fall back entirely upon itself and, thus left to its own resources, which are limited by definition, will end by becoming a sort of massive and opaque body the very density of which will inevitably produce fissures, as is shown by the modern history of Christianity. In other words, when exoterism is deprived of the complex and subtle interferences of its transcendent dimension, it finds itself ultimately overwhelmed by the exteriorized consequences of its own limitations, the latter having become, as it were, total. (pp.10-11)

Curiously enough, despite most worshippers having little or no understanding of the more transcendent aspects of spirituality – much of it lying outside the more accessible or exoteric facets of their favoured religion – Schuon believes they have a right to object to its intrusion within the everyday realities of their faith. Notwithstanding, that is, the unfortunate historical tendency to root out the merest “heresy” in accordance with the worst excesses of religious persecution.

There are some who argue that metaphysics is an irrelevance, much like the idle musings of the philosopher who sits in his ivory tower, but if metaphysics has brought someone closer to salvation then it cannot possibly be irrelevant at all. Taking up metaphysics and devoting oneself to its study either within a particular sphere or in general, is itself a vocation and for Schuon this cerebral-driven propensity on the part of a religious seeker involves the utilisation of our God-given intelligence and draws one towards the Creator:

No one will contest the fact that intelligence is not a feeling but something infinitely greater; it follows, therefore, that the word “love” as used in the New Testament to indicate the relationship that exists between man and God, and especially between God and man, cannot be understood in a purely sentimental sense and must mean something more than mere desire. On the other hand, if love is the inclining of one being toward another, with a view to union, it is Knowledge that by definition, will bring about the most perfect union between man and God, since it alone appeals to what is already divine in man, namely the Intellect; this supreme mode of the love of God is therefore by far the highest human possibility and no man can wilfully ignore it without “sinning against the Holy Ghost”. (pp.12-13)

Intelligence is thereby conferred upon certain individuals for a higher purpose, so to deny a metaphysician the right to use his or her own particular attributes for the attainment of salvation is nonsensical and possibly a consequence of modern society’s anti-intellectualism.

Indeed, Schuon himself suggests as much by conceding that if salvation is linked to action then metaphysics – based, as it is, on contemplation and reflection – may, by comparison, appear passive. In the worst cases, metaphysics is associated with rationalism and

there are people who are quite ready to attribute to intelligence a luciferian aspect and who speak without hesitation of “intellectual pride,” as if this were not a contradiction in terms; hence also the exaltation of “childlike” or “simple” faith, which indeed we are the first to respect when it is spontaneous and natural, but not when it is theoretical and affected. (p.13)

To those who would contend that metaphysics results purely in “deification,” rather than a more humble or less complicated state of religious grace, Schuon reiterates the fact that human intelligence is bestowed upon its recipients for good reason and is, necessarily, vocational. It is not a matter of personal choice, let alone desire, but falls into the category of what Schuon terms a “logical and ontological” fulfilment of one’s transcendent being.

Unlike metaphysics, the way of beatitude is not always dependant upon the conscious participation of the individual. The purely exoteric, or outer aspects of religion, are therefore relative:

Every exoteric doctrine is in fact characterized by a disproportion between its dogmatic demands and its dialectical guarantees: for its demands are absolute as deriving from the Divine Will and therefore also from Divine Knowledge, whereas its guarantees are relative, because they are independent of this Will and based, not on Divine Knowledge, but on a human point of view, that of reason and sentiment. (p.14)

This point is absolutely vital if one is to understand the wider implications of Tradition. The fact that ancient forms of spirituality such as Hinduism and Buddhism remain steadfast in the face of more recent forms of spirituality such as Christianity, Schuon argues, is an indication that no single religion may claim to have won the sole approval of the Divine and that human nature is so incredibly diverse that the truth comes in a variety of different shades.

However, this emphasis upon the relative “proofs” of faith – be they centred on history, theology or plain old sentiment – is no match for the ultimate reality that transcends the peculiarities of each individual disposition:

Every exoteric perspective claims; by definition, to be the only true and legitimate one. This is because the exoteric point of view, being concerned only with an individual interest, namely, salvation, has no advantage to gain from knowledge of the truth of other religious forms. Being uninterested as to its own deepest truth, it is even less interested in the truth of other religions, or rather it denies this truth, since the idea of a plurality of religious forms might be prejudicial to the exclusive pursuit of individual salvation. (p.15)

But why, Schuon asks, is it the case that the hard-won “proofs” of each religion appear to operate independently of Divine Will? This, quite simply, is the result of an essential separation between religious veracity on the one hand and the inner workings of faith itself on the other. Less important, then, is the theological obsession to prove the alleged superiority of one religion over another than the realisation that behind each respective path towards redemption lies the transcendent mystery that one detects in all forms of Divine Revelation. As the author suggests, to

return to the exoteric plane where alone this question is relevant the Revelation in its essential aspect is sufficiently intelligible to enable it to serve as a vehicle for the action of Grace, and Grace is the only sufficient and fully valid reason for adhering to a religion. However, since this action of Grace only concerns those who do not in fact possess its equivalent under some other revealed form, the dogmas remain without persuasive power—we may say without proofs—for those who do possess this equivalent. (pp.16-17)

Naturally, this grace accounts for the majority of religious conversions and few have been swayed by the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

If, as Schuon contends, one religion’s monopoly on truth cannot be proven due to the supremely esoteric reality at the core of each, then what are we to make of Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any other form of spirituality that seeks to advance an “orthodox” system both in and of itself?

Despite what has already been said, Schuon claims that for one to assume that the limited role of the exoteric somehow precludes any possibility for truth to exist within each of the religions themselves would lead one to draw an “artificial” conclusion, since all religions harbour “implicit” proof of their respective orthodoxies. This, however, only refers to their intrinsic truth on the basis of Divine Revelation and not the idea that one religion in particular is more verifiable than another. Clearly, in light of their inherent limitations this is an impossibility:

There are, therefore, irrefutable proofs of the truth of a religion; but these proofs, which are of a purely spiritual order, while being the only possible proofs in support of a revealed truth, entail at the same time a denial of the pretensions to exclusiveness of the form. In other words, he who sets out to prove the truth of one religion either has no proofs, since such proofs do not exist or else he has the proofs that affirm all religious truth without exception, whatever the form in which it may have clothed itself. (p.18)

Despite its multifarious pretensions, therefore, the exoteric cannot present itself as the sole arbiter of truth. Each form is but one cog in the machinery of religiosity and is forced to exclude anything which threatens its own organisational and dogmatic thesis. In actual fact, by seeking to promote its own doctrine at the expense of others implies that a religion is conscious of its own limitations. Not its potential for expansion, necessarily, but certainly in terms of adopting a categorical form that either lacks or contains something already being offered by one of its theological counterparts. Those tenets of dogma which a religion will actively seek to exclude from its carefully guarded parameters, are not merely a way to consciously differentiate its own unique system from those of its rivals, but of inadvertently concealing the deeper unity that exists between them all. It is, if you will, an exercise in contained multiplicity. One aspect is formal, the other universal.

Universal truth is not always concealed at the exoteric level, of course, for there are certain harmonious points of accordance which indicate – to borrow an English expression – how each is singing from the same hymn sheet. The purveyors of Comparative Religion, after all, have created an entire institution out of it.

Here we are reminded of the popular expression “God moves in mysterious ways,” because if the apparent paradox between closed religious systems and their shared connection with a less discernible Tradition seems difficult to swallow we must remember that the Absolute is the driving force behind it. God not only deigns to bring to an end spiritual civilisations that have endured for many centuries, but allows for the continual proliferation of new religions that seem inferior by comparison. This should not infer that God is anything other than good and merciful, only that human folly adheres to an eschatological stratagem which governs the laws of the universe.

Taking the example of the Eucharist, something of fundamental importance within the Christian faith, Schuon demonstrates that as a means of grace it appears to accord with a primordial reality. At the same time, he insists, the Eucharist is not quite as unique as those who use it to commemorate the death and resurrection of Jesus claim:

Reality cannot have only one manifestation to the exclusion of any others, for in that case it would not be universal. It is no use objecting that this rite concerns the whole of humanity, on the ground that it must be taken to “all nations,” to use the Gospel expression; for the world in its normal state, at least since the beginning of a particular cyclic period, is composed of several distinct humanities who are more or less ignorant of each other’s existence, though in certain respects and under certain circumstances the exact delimitation of these humanities may be a highly complex question owing to the intervention of exceptional cyclic conditions. (pp.21-22)

The outward manifestations of religion therefore have a practical function in terms of providing their worshippers with a means of salvation, which Schuon believes is epitomised by the negative attitude of both Christ and the Old Testament prophets towards the pagan religions that predate them. The methods of the past, it is suggested, have “outlived their usefulness” and must not interfere with the living dynamism of a new revelation. The same is true of Islam, although when the religion speaks of Christianity and Judaism it is not setting out to question their “orthodoxy” but merely acknowledging their existence as part of human history.

Schuon even accepts that whilst one religion naturally wishes to differentiate itself from another, it may deliberately misinterpret the theological beliefs of its rivals in order to accentuate or reinforce those external dissimilarities:

For example, the Moslem misinterpretation of the Christian dogma of the Trinity is providential, since the doctrine contained in this dogma is essentially and exclusively esoteric and is not capable of being “exotericized” in any way whatever; Islam had therefore to limit the expansion of this dogma, but this in no way prejudices the existence, within Islam, of the universal truth that is expressed by the dogma in question. (p.24)

Whilst it is perfectly commonplace for the Christian preacher to adopt a universalist tone, a tendency that also appears in scripture, Schuon advances the idea that this fact does not undermine the religion’s fundamental division of humanity into a number of different “worlds”. One of these, as you might expect, involves the esoteric realm and expressions relating to individuals “that have ears to hear” are a way for exegesis to appeal to the more advanced sensibilities of those capable of understanding the complex subplot. Nonetheless, Jesus – eager to communicate the universalistic mission of the Christian faith – always made it clear that He was synonymous with the world as a whole and within

His capacity as a Divine Incarnation and in conformity with the universal essence of His teaching, always spoke from an absolute standpoint, that is to say. He symbolically identified certain facts with the principles that they translate, without ever placing Himself at the point of view of those for whom the facts presented an interest in themselves. (p.29)

This enigma pertaining to the simultaneity between universality and transcendence will be discussed at more length in the next chapter, but to conclude this section it must be emphasised that the correlation or interaction between the exoteric and esoteric dimensions is a juxtaposition of “form” and “spirit”. The latter, pertaining to the esoteric, acts as a law unto itself and consistently defies the boundaries and limitations observed by the exoteric. Each form is a fulfilment of the spirit in the sense that one, as contradictory as it may appear, is complemented by another that bears the esoteric hallmarks of something it lacks. These relative aspects, according to Islamic mystic Ibn ʿArabī (1165–1240), are tasked with “shattering the form in the name of the spirit”. However, the esoteric not only denies the exoteric forms it readily accepts their legitimacy through revelation. This is the ultimate paradox.