Much has been made of Guenon’s initial rejection of Buddhism as a “Traditional” religious form, and his subsequent recantation of that position under the influence of some of his close colleagues. It is important to note the reason for that. Guenon accepted the common belief that Buddhism taught “anatman”, or the doctrine of “no-self”, which Guenon rejected as not Traditional. However, he was persuaded that the original and pure Buddhism did indeed teach “atman”, but was perverted by later Buddhism. Thus, Guenon accepted early Buddhism as Traditional, as did Julius Evola. For a rather enthusiastic advocacy of this position, visit attan.com.
However, T R V Murti offers a more subtle interpretation in his masterful study, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. He points out that the Madhyamika is epistemological and says nothing about the ontological. Thus it denies both the “doctrine of the self” as well as the “doctrine of the no-self”. What is emphasizes in practice is the direct intuition of realtiy as opposed to rational discourse or speculative metaphysics.
But what makes it interesting from our perspective is Murti’s suggestion that “the Madhyamkia Absolutism can serve as the basis for a possible world-culture.” Murti was well aware of Rene Guenon and his use of the terminology of the Vedanta as a vehicle to express Traditional doctrine. A Hindu himself, Murti recognized that the Vedanta only makes sense within a Hindu framework (this is the reason Guenon stated for his decision to join a Sufi group rather than become a Hindu).
Mahayana absolutism and the Advaita Vedanta are valuable as providing the basis on which a world-culture can be built. It is only absolutism that can make for the fundamental unity of existence and at the same time allow for differences. Catholicity of outlook and tolerance of differences are their very soul; both insist on the universality of the Real and transcendence of the ego-centric standpoint. The Vedanta, however, is traditional in outlook and is bound to the authority of the Veda, and perhaps it presupposes a specific milieu in which alone it can thrive. The Mahayana is quite liberal, and it has proved its capacity to accomodate itself to various religious and social structure, to revitalise and absorb them.
This project, if undertaken, would have the advantage of incorporating the techniques and philosophy of a non-dogmatic Buddhism, including Tantrism. Murti does recognize that this won’t be the work of a scholar, but rather of a “spiritual genius”. (This brings to mind Leo Strauss’ prediction that the next world class philosopher would arise out of Asia.)
Leave a Reply