Correspondence Cairo-Amiens (5): unpublished letters of René Guénon
Contents
Unpublished letters of René Guénon
Throughout his life, René Guénon kept up a very abundant correspondence, chiefly with French-speaking people who had taken an interest in his work. The passages we publish here are extracted from a correspondence comprising 73 letters written between 1932 and 1950. The recipient of these letters was a Frenchman living in Amiens, an assiduous reader of Guénon’s works, who played an important part in the emergence of a Sufi way on Western soil. Through the answers and clarifications Guénon offers his correspondent, one can glean elements of information on doctrinal points, but also certain practical aspects and counsels for the use of those drawn to an attachment to a Sufi way while living in a non-Muslim country such as France.
I was recently sent a long questionnaire on the zakat, the kinds of investment permitted and forbidden, and so forth; I answered it as exactly as I could, basing myself on what is habitually done here (in Egypt). It is certain that all this is only secondary, even though a traditional form must be taken in its entirety (I am not speaking of things such as dress, etc., which have absolutely no obligatory character); in any case, it must be acknowledged that all this is rather difficult to adapt to life in a European environment, especially with all its present complications, and I believe one should not want to become attached to too many details, all the more so since the general rule in this respect is to keep always within the limits of what can reasonably be done.
[…]
The ternary Sat - Chit - Ananda is certainly, in Hindu doctrine, what has most similarity with the Christian Trinity; yet I wonder whether it is easy to establish the correspondence term by term: the Word, insofar as it is identified with Wisdom, would seem to have to be assimilated to Chit, which yet, on the other hand, constitutes the link between the two other terms as the Holy Spirit is said to be between the Father and the Son. It is the question of the Holy Spirit, incidentally, that above all constitutes a very obscure point on which the theologians themselves seem rather undecided; in any case, it is difficult to draw anything very clear from all they say of it… It is evident that, according to the points of view, there can be a multitude of ways of envisaging divine attributes forming a ternary, and that even when there is a certain correspondence, this may still be only partial and valid only in certain respects… On the other hand, it is exact that there is an analogy between the distinction of the divine attributes and that of the personality of the different beings in the Principle; one might even wonder to what extent these are not simply two aspects or two applications of one and the same thing.
There is certainly nothing in what I have written that contradicts the point of view of Shankaracharya; one must only understand that the other points of view, such as that of Ramanuja for example, while going less far and less deep, are nonetheless true at their respective levels; the essential is always to know well at what degree each thing must be situated.
[…]
Pantheism, a simple philosophical theory, relates solely to the manifested world and denies the transcendence of the Principle in relation to it; that is, in sum, its very definition, and that is why it is in sum only a variety of ‘immanentism’. When we place ourselves beyond manifestation, we are thereby as far as possible from the point of view of pantheism, to which that domain is completely closed, so that one might say that the mere fact of envisaging it implies by itself the negation of pantheism.
Letter to L. C., Cairo, 15 January 1937
On the question of al-Hallaj, Massignon’s interpretation is altogether open to question, since there is always in him the ulterior motive of seeing everywhere nothing but ‘mysticism’ and Christian influences. However, all interpretation aside, I would prefer a form other than that of al-Hallaj, which lends itself more easily to this kind of distortion; it is besides the imprudence or clumsiness of his expressions that caused his death… It is certain that no general exposition of Islamic esotericism exists, and that this is a most regrettable gap; but what is to be done? I confess I cannot manage everything; I would always have wished that others could carry out works in the same direction, for this or for many other questions still; but unfortunately I have so far seen no one who at once has the sufficient data and can bring to it the required spirit; who knows whether that will present itself one day or another?…
There is assuredly no drawback, from the point of view of meditation properly so called, in calling upon the Vedanta or any other traditional form; one must only avoid mixing in what is in direct relation with the rites.
Reading the Qur’an can most certainly ‘open’ a great many things, but, of course, on condition that it be done in the Arabic text and not in translations. For this, and also for certain esoteric writings, it is a matter of something that has no relation to the outward and grammatical knowledge of the language; I was again being cited the other day the case of a Turk who understood Muhyi-d-din Ibn ’Arabi admirably, though never in his life had he been able to learn even ordinary Arabic properly; whereas I know professors at al-Azhar (in Cairo) who cannot understand a single sentence of it!
[…]
In Europe (for a Muslim) it is not always possible to dispense with attending a foreign rite, if only for reasons of simple courtesy, as in the case of attending a wedding or a funeral for example; in such a case it is evidently enough to keep a neutral attitude for this to be unable to have any grave drawback; but I do say a neutral attitude, and not a hostile one, which first would have no raison d’être, and secondly would be the best means of drawing unpleasant reactions in return, to say no more. But the case of Easter communion is something quite different, and in reality the question cannot even arise, since there are conditions imposed by the Catholic Church that it is impossible to fulfil.
Letter to L. C., Cairo, 26 June 1937
Certain of the things S. has said to you show that his character is still one of excessive touchiness; that is certainly what makes it so difficult to avoid every more or less disagreeable incident. But what is most worrying at present (and he too seems to be much worried by it) is what is happening in Mostaganem, of which you have surely had echoes from those who went there lately. […] The state of mind reigning in that milieu has changed most regrettably, and so rapidly that it is hard to explain; if it continues, the ‘propagandist’ tendency will before long stifle every remnant of the initiatic spirit… In these conditions, S. is no doubt not wrong to think that the best course will be to reduce relations to a minimum. […] I have the impression that very little would be needed to bring about a complete rupture between Mostaganem and Basel, which it would be better to avoid if possible!
[…]
The dhikr is always accompanied by rhythmic movements, but it is obvious that they must not be exaggerated and degenerate into a more or less violent agitation, for it is then above all that their repercussion risks being limited to simple psychic effects. […] In any case, for the state sometimes accompanying the dhikr in which, as you say, all is but vibration, I will ask you to refer to my article ‘Verbum, Lux et Vita’ (cf. Aperçus sur l’initiation), for I was thinking especially of that state when writing it.
Letter to L. C., Cairo, 26 October 1937
The ‘disintegration’ I spoke of (in the article ‘De la confusion du psychisme et du spirituel’) relates naturally to the individual being; it is quite obvious that it cannot concern the ‘Self’, which is immutable; but this total ‘loss’ of the being’s present state of manifestation is nonetheless grave, at least as long as one does not place oneself at the viewpoint of absolute totality, in relation to which all the rest is necessarily nothing…
[…]
It is well understood that no distinction is to be made between possibility and reality; but, on the other hand, certain possibilities imply manifestation, and one cannot say that this is in all cases a passage from the formless to the formal, since there are also states of formless manifestation; would you give this further thought?
Next letter: Correspondence Cairo-Amiens (6)
