Arthur Osborne - The Quest Begins #2,3

[Guest guest]

 

THE QUEST BEGINS

...................

 

Before carrying the story further I should say something

about Guenon and his influence. In the second quarter of this

century he wrote a series of books and numerous articles

expounding the inner unanimity of the religions (or ‘traditions’,

as he preferred to call them), the meaning of symbolism, the

possibilities of initiatic training, and the true hierarchical basis of

society or civilization. His teaching can be summarized as follows:

Being is One, and therefore by realizing your true Self

you realize your identity with Divine, Universal Being. This is

the essential teaching of all religions, although it may be

proclaimed openly, as in the Eastern religions, or veiled and

confined to esoteric societies, as in the Western. Therefore all

religions are unanimous in their essence, although divergent

and even incompatible in their more external applications, that

is in doctrine, theology, ritual, and the social organization and

code of conduct they sponsor. Every religion, so long as its full

spiritual integrity remains, has initiatic organizations in which

the aspirant can obtain guidance on the path towards ultimate

Realization of the Supreme Identity. These organizations, in

order to be valid, must descend in an unbroken chain from the

origin, each guru (since the word ‘guru’ has been accepted into

the English language as signifying ‘spiritual guide’, I use it for

the sake of convenience in this book, whether it applies to a

Hindu guide or any other) being appointed by his predecessor.

What the aspirant has to do is to find a guru, no matter in what

religion, who has both vertical and horizontal authenticity, that

is to say, who is a realized man and also the validly appointed

successor to a chain of gurus, and seek initiation and guidance

from him. However, having chosen any religion, he must follow

it scrupulously in its outer organization of life and worship, its

ritual and observances and moral code, as well as its more essential

teaching, since each religion is an organic whole.

 

This for the individual, but for the organization of

mankind in society he taught no less emphatically that normally

and traditionally a spiritual purpose underlies, and a spiritual

authority controls, the whole of civilization. Any civilization

which breaks away from its spiritual roots and bases itself on

rationalist and materialist values is a monstrosity and cannot

have stability or endure for long. Therefore our modern

civilization, far from being the highest achievement of mankind,

is an aberration foredoomed to destruction by its very nature,

while our modern sciences consist of such knowledge as

traditional civilizations would not have thought worthwhile

accumulating, since they have no spiritual basis and do not

further the spiritual development of those who acquire them.

All this he expounds with brilliant lucidity, vast erudition,

and unshakable conviction that he was right and scathing

contempt for all who disagreed.

He usually was right but not always. For instance, he asserted

that no Hindu believes in reincarnation, which he declared to

be a travesty of Hinduism invented by modern Western

misinterpreters. Even more serious — he dismissed Buddhism

as a spurious religion. Bearing in mind his axiom that there is

no neutrality in religion, that everything is initiatic or counterinitiatic

or in plainer language, of divine or satanic origin, this

implies the assumption that the whole of Buddhism, with all its

saints and poets, its Arhats and Bodhisattvas is based on error

and evil. He admitted, indeed, that such Buddhist currents as

had passed through China had been purified and spiritualized

by the Chinese influence, but this involved the assumption that

the Chinese sages had chosen a satanic vehicle into which to

pour their influence!

Before the end of his life he did indeed retract this error,

though without admitting that he had previously made it and

even then insofar as concerned Mahayana, which he declared,

in defiance of history, to be the original Buddhism.

Strangely enough, even errors of this magnitude did little

to impair the value of his work. So vast was its sweep, such an

affirmation of truth pervaded it, that errors seemed swallowed

up in the sea of truth. Not that any of us would have admitted

at that time that there were errors. Even though there were,

they were due to his faulty application of the principles he

proclaimed, whereas the merit of his work was that he did

proclaim true principles on which to base the conduct of life,

the understanding of its meaning and the judgement of a

civilization, instead of personal ideas and prejudices.

His influence was less widespread than his clear insight,

lucid exposition and vast erudition would have justified. Perhaps

this was due to his extreme militancy and refusal to compromise.

 

For instance, an orientalist who felt vaguely the sublimity of

the ancient texts he was handling, without however grasping

their meaning and implications with the clarity which Guenon

demanded (and there have been many such) would not be

disposed to learn from one who dismissed his whole science as

‘learned ignorance’. Similarly, a psychologist who was prepared

to admit spiritual springs to men’s actions could obviously not

express agreement with a writer who denounced modern

psychology in toto as of ‘counter-initiatic’, by which he meant

‘satanic’, origin. Even social, political and economic reformers

would find little common ground with one who denounced

not merely this or that aspect of modernism but modern

civilization as a whole, root and branch.

However, what his influence lost in scope it gained in

profundity, for those who did accept his teaching did so wholeheartedly,

many of them indeed, changing not merely their

outlook but their whole attitude to life. And in the course of

time some of them also began to write and to exert an influence

in less tangible ways, thus carrying forward the influence that

Guenon had originated.

For myself, I was predisposed to accept his teaching as

regarded civilization no less than the meaning and the purpose

of life for the individual, since, as I have already said, I had

intuitively revolted against the mechanism, materialism and

vulgarity of our age and had never really reconciled myself to

it. Now at last I had the doctrinal justification of what I had

long felt intuitively.

 

 

How far did the impact of Guenon immediately change

me, and how far did it merely set in motion a lengthy process

of change? The theory of conversion changing a man’s nature

in a twinkling, as held in some Protestant sects, is too facile.

Deep-rooted tendencies and predispositions are not so easily

eradicated. Only in the rarest cases, when a man is already

concentrated and already, without knowing it, ripe for selfsurrender,

will a single mental conviction, a single vision, or

even a single flash of realization (as in the case of the Maharshi)

suffice to effect an immediate and permanent change. Normally

the most it can do is to turn his mind in a new direction and

convince him of the necessity of working to achieve the

permanent change.

 

As for myself, it is necessary to differentiate between what

were weaknesses of character and what were mere symptoms of

frustration. The latter disappeared naturally with the eradication

of their cause, the former had to be fought; and it was a long

and arduous fight. And when I say that I never relinquished the

quest or turned aside from it, that only means that I never

doubted and never ceased to aim at the one goal; it does not

mean that no harmful thoughts or wrong actions due to

weakness of character ever intervened to create unnecessary

difficulties on the path. They did only too often.

To be more specific: the desire to be a famous writer, the

horror of routine professional existence, the inclination to

Communism and the longing to go off alone faded out

naturally, not being qualities of character but merely symptoms

of revolt against the meaningless life which I had hitherto faced.

On the other hand, I was a very conceited young man and the

quality of conceit, instead of being eradicated, was simply

transplanted from my own supposed abilities to the truth of

which I was now aware while others were not. Indeed, a certain

arrogance which, in Guenon, might be the impersonal

arrogance of truth towards error, was apt to infect even disciples

who were less inclined that way by nature than I was. Like so

many new converts, I was agog with enthusiasm to convert

others. Basically this was a warm-hearted eagerness to share with

them the new wealth I had discovered, but it was tainted also

with conceit, with the desire to prevail in argument and prove

myself right. It would not be true to say that I proselytised

indiscriminately — for instance, I did not try to do so with my

colleagues or students at the college where I taught; but

whenever I met any one who seemed able to understand I would

try in some way or other to draw him into an argument, quite

confident of my superior artillery and skill in using it once the

argument started.

 

I also sent Guenon books to the few friends who I thought

would understand. I sent The Symbolism of the Cross to Morgan.

A few months later, when we were in England and I called on

him, he simply said that he thought it able but not quite sound.

I sent one (I forget which) to Rosamond and she wrote back

that it was a nice book. Furious at such faint praise, I wrote her

a scathing reply, but it was really I who was at fault. I ought to

have sent her a careful and detailed explanation of what it all

meant and then followed this up with one of the more

elementary books. Perhaps I had the same inability at this time

as Martin to give a simple explanation. Truth is simple, only

men’s minds are complicated and seek complexity.

It was through Martin that my wife and I were drawn to

Guenon and thereby indirectly to Bhagavan.

 

Perhaps one cannot know what people will understand or, even if they show initial

understanding, pursue the path to a good end. If a man’s life

really rests on a spiritual basis, some air of serenity and power

will radiate from him and draw those who are interested to seek

guidance even without argument; that is to say, if it is his nature

and destiny to influence people in this particular way, by drawing

outsiders into the circle. A Master may feel who are his people

and draw them to himself, but even that is no guarantee that

they will overcome evil: Judas was among the close followers of

Christ and Devadatta among those of Buddha. And Mohammad

was told: “You cannot save whom you will but whom God wills.”

 

It has nothing to do with intellectual ability as commonly

understood. A great scientist can fail to understand spiritual

science, denying it altogether or having merely the exoteric faith

of the simple churchgoer, or getting caught up in some freak

occultism; a philosopher can be receptive to the Perennial

Philosophy, reading spiritual texts without grasping their

implication; a psychologist can remain ignorant of what underlies

the mind. On the other hand, a spiritual master need not be an

intellectual. Ramakrishna had the mind rather of a peasant

than a philosopher. And Ignatius Loyola was temperamentally

so averse to study that it required an immense effort for him to

take his degree, and he was middle-aged before he did so.

................

 

taken from Arthur Osborne's MY LIFE & QUEST