1

Presented in Ist Asian Philosophy Congress, 6-9 March 2010

An Appraisal of Perennialist Approach to Comparative Philosophy A stract Muhammad Maroof Shah Research Assistant, DIL, Nowshera Srinagar Kashmir Home Address Rajbag Co on!, Nagba , "anderba , Kashmir, #$%%%& marooof#'()!ahoo*com Ce + $,#$%-.-/., $-$-#.-'.' 0erennia ists reread entire 1hi oso1hica 2meta1h!sica tradition, es1ecia ! the 3estern tradition which the! accuse of unforgi4ab e sin of ob i4ion of true meta1h!sics and thus 1hi oso1h! 1ro1er* 5heir rereading is cha enging, 1ro4ocati4e and seems to throw ight on certain otherwise irreso 4ab e debates in 3estern thought* 5he! see6 to show transcendent unit! of re igions 7a11arent ! di4ergent traditions of 8uddhism and Is am are ingenious ! inter1reted to demonstrate this transcendent unit!9 and of a traditiona 1hi oso1hies* 5he conce1t of uni4ersa orthodo:! 1ro1ounded b! Schuon integrates and ju:ta1oses otherwise ;uite di4erse and di4ergent trends in 1hi oso1hica traditions of the wor d* Coomaraswam! has forcefu ! argued for the essentia unit! between 0 atoniosm and <edanta* 5aoism and Sufism are admirab ! integrated in a common 1aradigm b! I=atsu* Semitic and nonSemitic traditions are reconci ed with great con4iction b! such masters of Sophia perennis as Schuon* >4en archaic 1hi oso1hica thought though couched in m!tho ogica terms and that informs their re igion and cu ture is shown to be essentia ! simi ar to ?nitarian2monistic meta1h!sics of <edanta, Sufism and 5aoism* An insightfu and forcefu criti;ue of both e:oteric theo ogica and rationa ist2em1iricist 1hi oso1hica a11roaches steers c ear of man! 1rob ems that modernit! and 1ostmodernit! ha4e raised* It c arifies and adds 1recision to certain fundamenta notions of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* Redefines meta1h!sics, articu ates difference between reason and inte ect, c arifies differences between different senses of intuition, sees Ma!a or Di4ine Re ati4it! in a im1ortant 1hi oso1hica 2esoteric traditions, reconci es creation ex nihilo and emanationist accounts or creation2manifestation ideas, 1osits Abso ute as more 1rimordia conce1tion of Di4init! that is to be found in a major traditions and thus reconci es @atheisticA or transtheistic 8uddhism and 5aoism with Semitic theism* A these 1oints ma6e 1erennia ist a11roach a better candidate for doing com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* A so some semina 1rob ems in 1ostBAristote ian 3estern 1hi oso1h! that continue to generate debate are better reso 4ed b! ado1ting 1erennia ist a11roach* It 1ro4ides a more com1rehensi4e and integra 4iew of re ation between science and re igion and re igion and 1hi oso1h! for which most Asian 1hi oso1hica traditions ha4e traditiona ! stood*

2 3hat is the subject matter of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!C 3hat is its sco1eC 5he traditiona 4iew as e:1ressed b! MassonBDurse states that @5he sco1e of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! is uni4ersa histor! and cosmosA7#9* He goes on to dec are that true 1hi oso1h! is com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* 8ut 1ostmodernit! is s6e1tica of such grand c aims on beha f of 1hi oso1h! and com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* Man! modern 1hi oso1hers wou d a so contest 1ossibi it! of de4e o1ing such a com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* 5he 4er! notion of 1hi oso1h! stands discredited in the e!es of 1ostmodernists and a wide range of s6e1tica 2re ati4ist thin6ers from 4arious ;uarters* How is it 1ossib e to s1ea6 now without embarrassment of such a conce1t of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!C 3hat about the notion of traditiona 1hi oso1h! as ;ueen of sciences, as a wa! of ife, 1ursuit of wisdom, communion with "od2en ightenmentC 5he 1resent 1a1er see6s to address these ;uestions from a 1ers1ecti4e that has, unfortunate !, been arge ! neg ected b! the academic wor d* In an en4ironment where 1hi oso1h! in the traditiona sense cu ti4ated from mi ennia across ci4i i=ations is dec ared dead or ban6ru1t or a bunch of ies or contaminated with rhetoric this 1ers1ecti4e s1ea6s thunderous ! for the rights and ta c aims of 1hi oso1h! and e4en identifies broad counters of what ma! be ca ed as wor d 1hi oso1h! that has been, according to them, the common 1ro1ert! of traditiona ci4i i=ations* 5his 1ers1ecti4e de1 o!s a range of conce1ts to ma6e 1ossib e to demonstrate the unit! of 1hi oso1hies across traditions* Asian 1hi oso1hies cou d be studied under one umbre a or in a meaningfu dia ogue with one another b! its means* Not on ! si: s!stems of Indian 1hi oso1h! but a so soBca ed heterodo: 1hi oso1hies of 8uddhism and Eainism are seen to con4erge at fundamenta e4e * Confucianism and 5aoism are seen as e:oteric and esoteric formu ations of a wisdom that finds e:1ression in "ree6, Christian, Eewish and Mus im 1hi oso1hies and esotericisms* African and archaic 1hi oso1hies too are brought in the ambit of 5radition* It is rationa istic modern 3estern 1hi oso1h! a ong with reactions such as 8ergsonian intuitionism and e:istentia ism and misoso1hica cu t of 1ostmodernism that are branded as heterodo:, as not ;ua if!ing for the worth! tit e of 1hi oso1h!* 8efore embar6ing on the itt e a11reciated 1erennia ist 4iew of 1hi oso1h! and com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! I wish to sett e terms with 1ostmodernists who c aim that there is no sco1e for 1hi oso1h! as traditiona ! understood* A 1hi oso1hies c aiming 1ossibi it! of access to truth and wisdom or 1ursuing mo6sa2 en ightenment etc* are found fundamenta ! f awed* 0hi oso1hies are com1arab e in their essentia b indness to their own unwarranted c aims* According to them our 1hi oso1h! shou d be reso ute refusa to affirm an!thing, to s1ea6 an!thing, to 6now an!thing, to be ie4e an!thing and to indu ge in meaning ess e:ercises of wor6ing for com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* Logocentric idea istic meta1h!sica traditions 7as a traditions are inc uding the 3estern9 shou d be transcended or thrown o4erboard* 5hat 1hi oso1h! is not wisdom as the "ree6s understood it has been the centra 1oint of recent trends in 1hi oso1h!* <irtue is dis1ensab e* >thics has hard ! an! ro e in a11roaching or a11ro1riating truth* 0hi oso1hers need not be sages and idea ! shou d not be* 0hi oso1h! has nothing to do with truth* Certaint! and not truth shou d be its aim though now certaint! too has been dis1ensed with* 0hi oso1h! canFt be an aid in en ightenment* 0hi oso1h! is just ana !sis of conce1ts or a c arification of anguage* A these are fashionab e 4iews on 1hi oso1h! in recent 3estern thought* 0ostmodernism has disa owed a 1hi oso1hi=ing e:ce1t 1aganism* Gor it 1hi oso1h! is rhetoric, mere o1inion from which 0 ato 4ain ! tried to distinguish rea 6now edge* It is just a 1ower com1 icit discourse or 1ower game* In 4iew of such a disturbing scenario and e:treme ! constricted estimate of 1hi oso1h!Fs sco1e an! 1ros1ect for com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! and that too as MassonnBDus en and 1erennia ists wou d ha4e it and bac6 home Radha6rishnan and such scho ars as 0* 5* Raju wou d ha4e it seem to be b ea6* 5he on ! a ternati4e to resuscitate 1hi oso1h! and s1ea6 meaningfu ! of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! is to search for a ternati4e foundations of 1hi oso1h! or a ternati4e wa!s of doing it and critici=e the 4er! foundations of modern 3estern 1hi oso1h! that has u timate ! ed to its suicide and distrust of the 4er! acti4it! that traditiona ! distinguished man from anima s and made his ife meaningfu and ga4e him access to truth and sa 4ation* I thin6 that it is the 1erennia ist schoo that best 1resents such an a ternati4e 4ision that resists 1ostmodern criti;ue and restores to 1hi oso1h! its ha owed status that a traditions had gi4en it* 5his a ows us to ha4e a genuine basis for com1arison of 1hi oso1hies and e4en s1ea6 about a wor d 1hi oso1h!*

3 0ostmodern deconstruction of ontotheo ogica thought, subject, truth, meaning, 1ur1ose, anguage, "od, 6now edge etc is b!1assed b! ;uite different understanding of a these things* 5he 1erennia ist c aim is that a 1remodern ci4i i=ations inc uding the 1remodern Christianit! and 0 atonic 1hi oso1h! 1ossess a common meta1h!sics and that meta1h!sics is not the meta1h!sics of 1resence which Derrida and other 1ostmodernists cou d 1rob emati=e* 5he best and most so1histicated e:1ression of this 1hi oso1h! is Advaita Vedanta* Howe4er it is the 8uddhist 4ersion of this meta1h!sics that best a11ro1riates 1ostmodern cha enge though we cou d find integra meta1h!sics that resists and 1roceeds be!ond 1ostmodernism in Sufism, 5aoism and 0 atonism and e4en in Christian m!sticism* 5he idea of a 1erennia 1hi oso1h! 7philosophia perennis9 has recei4ed different articu ations throughout the histor! of 3estern 1hi oso1h!* It was origina ! formu ated in the >ast and ater was formu ated in the 3est, in 1articu ar, b! 0 ato, b! Meister >c6hart in the Christian wor d, and is a so to be found in Is am with Sufism* 5he search for a uni4ersa , 1ermanent, and a Bencom1assing 1hi oso1h! can be traced to the Neo1 atonism of 0hi o of A e:andria or the 0 atonicBChristian s!nthesis of St* Augustine* Howe4er, we find the term 1erennia 1hi oso1h! has been e:1 icit ! used on ! b! the time of the Renaissance* More 1recise !, it was Agostino Steuco 7#,$-B#/,&9 who coined this term to refer to the prisca theologia or philosophia priscorium of Marsi io Gicino, a unif!ing 1hi oso1hica s!stem based on a s!nthesis of 0 atonic 1rinci1 es and Christian doctrines* 5hroughout the histor! of 1hi oso1h!, the term 1erennia 1hi oso1h! or philosophia perennis was a so used as a s!non!m for Scho asticism and 5homismH as the fina goa of 1hi oso1h! b! Leibni=H as the regu ati4e idea of 1hi oso1hica 1ractice b! Eas1ersH and as a wor d 1hi oso1h!, s!nthesis of >ast and 3est, b! Radha6rishnan* Howe4er here it is used to s1ecifica ! refer to a schoo of thought s1earheaded b! the trinit! of Rene "uenon, Grithjof Schuon and Ananda Coomaraswam! that a11ro1riates a these idea s and notions* 0erennia ists be ie4e in an o4er !ing abso ute or uni4ersa truth, which can be found in fundamenta 1rinci1 es that ha4e been shown to be uni4ersa inheritance of man6ind, a uni4ersa orthodo:! for a 1eo1 e across a times* Common to a these conce1tions, howe4er, is the idea that a 1hi oso1hica 2meta1h!sica current e:ists that has endured through centuries, and that is ab e to integrate harmonious ! a traditions in terms of a sing e 5ruth which under ies the a11arent 1 ura it! of wor d 4iews* 5his unit! in human 6now edge stems from the e:istence of a sing e u timate rea it! which can be 1ossib ! a11rehended b! a men through inte ect2 inte ecti4e intuition* Philosophia perennis, as Nasr states, 1ertains to a 6now edge @which has a wa!s been and wi a wa!s be and which is of uni4ersa character both in the sense of e:isting among 1eo1 es of different c imes and e1ochs and of dea ing with uni4ersa 1rinci1 es* 5his 6now edge which is a4ai ab e to the inte ect is, moreo4er, contained in the heart of a re igions or traditionsA7'+/,9* 7Inte ect, nuous, in the traditiona ist meta1h!sica 1ers1ecti4e is a su1raBindi4idua facu t! distinct from reason though the atter is its ref ection on the menta 1 ane9* 5he philosophia perennis 1ossesses

branches and ramifications 1ertaining to cosmo og!, anthro1o og!, art and other disci1 ines, but at its heart ies 1ure meta1h!sics, if this ater term is understood as the science of ? timate Rea it!, as a scientia sacra not to be confused with the subject bearing the name meta1h!sics in 1ostB medie4a 3estern 1hi oso1h!A7'+/,9* 5he 1erennia ist schoo be ie4es that there is a 1rimordia tradition which constituted origina or archet!1a manFs 1rima s1iritua and inte ectua heritage recei4ed through direct re4e ation when Hea4en and >arth were sti Iunited*F 5his 0rimordia 5radition is ref ected in a ater traditions, but the ater traditions are not sim1 ! its historica and hori=onta continuation* 5his conce1t of tradition is 6e! conce1t of this 1erennia ist schoo that has arisen as a res1onse to modernism and humanism* 3hat is traditionC It is the 6now edge of Girst 0rinci1 es or ?ni4ersa 0rinci1 es, the meta1h!sica core or 6erne of a traditiona re igious and wisdom traditions which are the 1rerogati4e of soBca ed 1rimiti4e men 7and that ancient age

4 is the Age of "o d, in contrast to which modern age being the most degenerate age signa ing the end of the wor dBKali YugaBIron Age9 and @barbaricA Africans and Asians J in short the third wor d, the 1remodern wor d or non >uro1ean or co oni=ed wor d* 5radition means truths or 1rinci1 es of a di4ine origin re4ea ed or un4ei ed to man6ind and, in fact, a who e cosmic centre through 4arious figures en4isaged as messengers, 1ro1hets, avatars, the Logos or other transmitting agencies, a ong with a the ramifications and a11 ications of these 1rinci1 es in different rea ms inc uding aw and socia structure, art, s!mbo ism, the sciences, and embracing of course Su1reme Know edge a ong with the means of its attainment 7/+&.9* In its more uni4ersa sense tradition can be considered to inc ude the 1rinci1 es which bind man to Hea4en* Lord Northbourne defines it as the chain that joins ci4i i=ation to Re4e ation* Rene "uenon thus s1e s out the essence of tradition+ Kthose institutions are traditiona which find their u timate juistification in their more or ess direct, but a wa!s intentiona and conscious, de1endence u1on a doctrine which, as regards its fundamenta nature, is in e4er! case of an inte ectua orderH but this inte ectua it! ma! be found either in a 1ure state, in cases where one is dea ing with an entire ! meta1h!sica docrtrine, or e se it ma! be found ming ed with other heterogenous e ements, as in the case of re igious or other so1ecia modes which a traditiona doctrine is ca1ab e of assuming*7(+.$B$%9 It isnFt to be confused with theoso1h!, s1iritism, occu tism, re4i4a ism, fundamenta ism, sentimenta re igion, mora ism and the i6e* It demands inte igence and intuition both of which are absent in the modern wor d according to 1erennia ists* 5he scientist neither 1ossesses objecti4e inte igence nor inte ecti4e intuition* Modern 1hi oso1h! and iterar! theor! and a so the soBca ed higher criticism a ong with 1ro iferation of so man! @ismsA such as scientism, rationa ism, re ati4ism, materia ism, 1ositi4ism, em1iricism, secu arism, 1s!cho ogism, indi4idua ism, bio ogism, e4o utionism, e:istentia ism, are seen as some of the 1rime fo ies of modernist thought* 0ostmodernism fears no better* Modernism which forms the ideo ogica bac6ground of co onia ism is characteri=ed as antitraditiona and thus such derogator! e1ithets as 1rogressi4e, humanist, rationa ist, materia ist, e:1erimenta , indi4idua ist, free thin6ing and intense ! sentimenta ideo og!* Modern 3estern man is cut off from the 4ertica dimension or the sense of transcendence and ac6s 6now edge of meta1h!sica 1rinci1 es* 5he ;uantitati4e dimension of rea it! which science treats isnFt dee1ening of 6now edge but Idis1ersion in detai *F Natura sciences are concerned 1rimari ! with 1ractica a11 ications and in man! cases this is combined with a wi to 1ower and thus man! modernists confuse science with techno og!* 3esterners in genera donFt cu ti4ate science for 6now edge, e4en of an inferior order but for a11 ication, mani1u ation, a11ro1riation, objecti4ation and desecration of en4ironment* Science thus techno ogi=ed has fue ed co onia ist engine* 5he 3estern wor d, a4er 1erennia ists, has ost its connection to the 0rimordia 5radition un i6e other cu tures* @5his too6 1 ace first in the C assica era, was rectified b! Christianit!, which reBintroduced a modified form of the 0rimordia 5radition, but the se4erance began again at the time of the Renaissance*A 7,+,&9 5raditiona meta1h!sica conce1tion of "od as Infinite and Abso ute counters deconstructionist cha enge ;uite effecti4e !* 5raditiona meta1h!sics is not what Derrida ca s meta1h!sics of 1resence* It is not the rationa conce1tua 6now edge of the Abso ute* As there is no thought, no subjectBobject dua ism so 1oststructura ist criti;ue is b!1assed* "od is im1ossibi it! or imit of signification* "odLs words 7kalimaat9 canLt be e:hausted* 5ota or com1 ete truth is 6nown on ! to "od* A human 1ers1ecti4es are conditioned* 5his conditioning is transcended com1 ete ! in meta1h!sica rea i=ation as 6nowing and being become one* It is not the 1erce1tion of the senses or the e!e of the mind or the imagination that sees the 5ruth* @No s1eech and thought has e4er defi ed the abso ute*A Noncategorica su1raconce1tua a1ro1ositiona 6now edge which is not seeing but being rea ! esca1es Derridean and re ated 1ostmodern criti;ues* "od or 5ruth is m!ster! 7 gayyib9* M!ster! cannot be 1inned down or rationa ! e:1 ained awa!* 5hat is the meaning of the tradition of negati4e di4ine* 5here is no

5 dua ism, e:c usion or tota i=ation in4o 4ed* Meta1h!sica conce1tions of 8e!ondB8eing and A B0ossibi it! are inc usi4ist but not tota ist* Here it is not 1ossib e to ma6e a detai ed stud! of these 1oints* No binar! thin6ing, no as!mmetrica hierarch!, no inguistic 1ro1osition, no truth c aim, no e:c usi4e meta1h!sica or theo ogica c aim, no meaning c osure, no ta 6 of 1resence and identit!, no dua ism of an! sort cou d be im1 icated in the first 1rinci1 e of meta1h!sics that 1erennia ists attem1t to e:1ound* In the act of meta1h!sica rea i=ation as distinct from m!stica rea i=ation 7that has become focus of e:tensi4e studies in the disci1 ine of 1hi oso1h! of re igion and that has ed to ne4er ending debates on cogniti4it! of re igious e:1erience, ana !sis of fundamenta 1ro1ositions9 indi4idua domain is a together eft out* 5here is no room for fee ing and sentimenta ism* 5he mind or e4er!thing that contributes to a se1arati4e distincti4e se fhood or subjecthood has to be transcended com1 ete ! in order to e:1erience the di4ine in the fu est sense of the term in the >astern conte:t* In fact as "uenon has 1ro4ocati4e ! remar6ed there is no such thing as m!sticism 7and re igious e:1erience in the modern sense of the term in the >ast* Here we must 1oint out, from the 1erennia ist 7more 1recise ! the "uenonian reading of it9 1oint of 4iew the difference between re igion and meta1h!sics* As "uenon 1oints out the meta1h!sica 1oint of 4iew is 1ure ! inte ectua whi e as in the re igious or theo ogica 1oint of 4iew the 1resence of a sentimenta e ement affects the doctrine itse f, which doesnFt a ow of it com1 ete objecti4it!* 5he emotiona e ement nowhere 1 a!s a bigger 1art than in the @m!stica A form of re igious thought* Contrar! to the 1re4a ent o1inion he dec ares that m!sticism, from the 4er! fact that it is inconcei4ab e a1art from the re igious 1oint of 4iew, is ;uite un6nown in the >ast 7(+ #',9* 5he inf uence of sentimenta e ement ob4ious ! im1airs the inte ectua 1urit! of the doctrine* 5his fa ing awa! from the stand1oint of meta1h!sica thought occurred genera ! and e:tensi4e ! in the 3estern wor d because there fee ing was stronger than inte igence and this has reached its c ima: in modern times* 7(+#'/9 Modern theistic a11ro1riations of m!stica e:1erience b! choosing to remain at the e4e of theo og! and not cogni=ing the meta1h!sica 1oint of 4iew 7that bri iant ! and con4incing ! a11ro1riates such a11arent ! di4ergent 4arieties of m!stica and meta1h!sica rea i=ation as that of 8uddhism and Christianit!9 cannot c aim tota truth as theo og! itse f cannot do so* And it is not a wa!s 1ossib e to fu ! trans ate meta1h!sica doctrines in terms of theo ogica dogmas* Dn ! one e:am1 e wi suffice here* 5he immediate meta1h!sica truth @8eing e:istsA gi4es rise to another 1ro1osition when e:1ressed in the re igious or theo ogica mode @"od e:ists*A 8ut as "uenon sa!s the two statements wou d not be strict ! e;ui4a ent e:ce1t on the doub e condition of concei4ing "od as ?ni4ersa 8eing, which is far from a wa!s being the case in fact 75i ich comes c ose to ho ding this 4iew of "od9, and of identif!ing e:istence with 1ure 8eing or what the Sufis ca Zat or >ssence which is meta1h!sica ! ine:act* 5he end ess contro4ersies connected with the famous onto ogica argument are a 1roduct of misunderstanding of the im1 ications of the two formu ae just cited* It is the inade;uate or fau t! meta1h!sica bac6ground that contributes a ot to contro4ersies on either side of the debate on re igious e:1erience in modern discourses of 1hi oso1h! of re igion* As "uenon sa!s+ ?n i6e 1ure ! meta1h!sica conce1tions theo ogica conce1tions are not be!ond the reach of indi4idua 4ariations* 5hose who discuss such matters as the @1roofs of "odFs e:istence,A shou d first of a ma6e sure that in using the same word @"odA the! rea ! are intending to e:1ress an identica conce1tion* Howe4er this is hard ! the case usua ! and we see a together different anguages being used* Antimeta1h!sica anthro1omor1hism comes to the fore in this rea m of indi4idua 4ariations 7(+#'.B#'$9* In the 1erennia ist 1ers1ecti4e meta1h!sics constitutes an intuiti4e, or in other words immediate 6now edge, as o11osed to the discursi4e or mediate 6now edge which be ongs to the rationa order* Most 1rotagonists as we as critics of conce1t of re igious e:1erience hard ! ea4e this rationa order in their discourse* @Inte ectua intuition is e4en more immediate than sensor! intuition, being be!ond the distinction between subject and object which the atter a ows to subsist*A 7(+ #&.9 Subject and object are

6 here identified com1 ete ! and this com1 ete identification is not an attribute of an! inferior or nonB meta1h!sica t!1e of 6now edge* A conse;uence of this is that 6nowing and being are fundamenta ! one or two inse1arab e as1ects of a sing e rea it!* Knowing and being are indistinguishab e in the s1here where a is @without dua it!A 7(+#&$*9 Grom such a 1ers1ecti4e the 4arious @theories of 6now edgeA with meta1h!sica 1retensions which occu1! such an im1ortant 1 ace in modern 3estern 1hi oso1h! 7which dominate e4er!thing in case of Kant9 are 1ur1ose ess* 5he debate o4er cogniti4it! of re igious e:1erience simi ar ! a11ears 1ur1ose ess in the meta1h!sica 1ers1ecti4e* As "uenon sa!s such theories arise from an attitude of mind that originated in Cartesian dua ism and is shared b! a most a modern 1hi oso1hers* 5his attitude consists in artificia ! o11osing 6nowing and being* 5his is antithesis of true meta1h!sic* 5he identit! of 6nowing and being is not mere ! dogmatica ! affirmed but rea i=ed as we in the integra meta1h!sic 7(+#-%9* 5he theor! and meditationa and other 1ractices are a means or aids to such a rea i=ation* It need not and cou d not be certified or 4erified b! other means, other 1ersons or an! 6ind of tests* Df course these considerations a11ear strange to 3estern 1eo1 e* M!stica rea i=ation is on ! 1artia and rather distant a11ro:imation or ana og! of meta1h!sica rea i=ation 7(+ #-'9* Meta1h!sica rea i=ation is common to a Drienta thought and @m!sticism*A 0erennia ist wou d agree with HeideggerFs criti;ue of rationa meta1h!sics that it concentrates on the notiona surface and @remains in what is*A 5ruth is not the 1ro1ert! of 1ro1ositionsH it is the unhiddenness of being* 8ut Heidegger himse f was committed to the rea m of finitude* He cou dnFt reach the su1reme meta1h!sica 1rinci1 e of 8e!ondB8eing and considered 8eing finite which reduces meta1h!sica 1oint of 4iew to bare onto og! 7,+#-9* It is on ! the idea of infinit! which estab ishes the 1ossibi it! of meta1h!sics 7and thus 1ro4ides grounding to re igion9* @Infinit! be ongs to the combination of 8eing and NonBbeing because this combination is identica to uni4ersa 1ossibi it!A7#(+/$B&%9 How cou d 8eing a one ref ect the ?n imitedC As Maisar comments+ @How cou d being a one ref ect the un imitedC Heidegger mere ! un4ei ed a few a!ers of the finite but ne4er reached the infinite* 8! affirming the absence of "od, he cut the roots of meta1h!sicsA 7,+#-9* Des1ite their o11osition to rationa ism Heidegger a ong with Niet=sche cou d not e:tricate himse f from rationa ist 1resum1tions and tra1s* >:1 aining the difference between rationa and meta1h!sica 6now edge, Shah=ad Maisar writes+ meta1h!sica 6now edge is attained b! inte ect a one* Inte ect has a direct 6now edge of the 1rinci1 es for it be ongs to the uni4ersa order* Strict ! s1ea6ing, inte ect is not an indi4idua facu t! otherwise meta1h!sics wou d not ha4e been 1ossib e* How is it 1ossib e for an indi4idua to go be!ond himse f* 5he attainment of effecti4e indi4idua consciousness of su1raindi4idua states B the objecti4e of meta1h!sics is on ! 1ossib e through a non indi4idua facu t!* 5he meta1h!sica truth is not e:terna to inte ect but ies in its 4er! substance* Know edge is identified with the object itse f resu ting in the identit! of 6nowing and being* A reci1rocit! is thus de4e o1ed between thought and rea it!* 5he 1rocess of reaching the heart of Rea it! is b! 4irtue of inte ectua intuition for it is not obstructed b! the !awning chasm of subjectBobject dua it!* Inte ectua intuition is su1raindi4idua as com1ared to intuition of certain contem1orar! 1hi oso1hers which is infraBrationa * 5he former is abo4e reason im1arting 6now edge of the eterna and immutab e 1rinci1 es whereas the atter is be ow reason tied to the wor d of change and becoming* Inte ectua intuition is contem1 ation whereas the rationa ca1acit! is ogica * 5he infa ibi it! of inte ect is deri4ed from its own nature with abso ute meta1h!sica certaint!* Re igion is e:istentia formu ation of meta1h!sica thought* Grom meta1h!sica 1oint of 4iew it binds man to a su1erior 1rinci1 e* Re igion com1rises a dogma, a mora aw, and a form of worshi1* Dogma be ongs to the inte ectua order and it does not di4est itse f from its essentia meta1h!sica character* Gee ing has a cogniti4e content and dee1ens inte igence and estab ishes a uni;ue form of certitude* Mora aw is de1endent on the re igious doctrine and has both

7 meta1h!sica and socia character* 5he form of worshi1 is s!mbo ic e:1ression of the doctrine7,+((B(,9* If b! rationa ism is meant an attem1t to bui d a c osed s!stem embracing the who e of rea it! and based u1on human reason a one, then this begins, as Nasr 1oints out, not with Aristot e 7in whose 1hi oso1h! there are meta1h!sica intuitions which can not be reduced to sim1 e 1roducts of the human reason9 but with Descartes, since for him the u timate criterion of rea it! itse f is the human ego and not the Di4ine Inte ect or 0ure 8eing* 5his is right ! criti;ued b! both 1erennia ists and 1ostmodernists* If 1hi oso1h! is defined as rationa in;uir!, sta!ing within the imits of reason and not acce1ting an! other facu t! be!ond reason 7ca ed inte ect u1 to the #- th centur!9 then certain de4e o1ments in modern 1hi oso1h! and 1ostmodern turn has indeed discredited it* Meta1h!sics as Kant correct ! 1ercei4ed is ridd ed with antimonies as ong as we a11roach it b! means of reason* 5raditiona meta1h!sics is not the rationa meta1h!sics* It is not concerned with the 1henomena wor d or e4en 8eing but in4isib es or ?nmanifest* 5he most im1ortant tas6 for 1hi oso1h!, according to Ananda Coomaraswam!, is understanding com1arati4e re igion* A meta1h!sica reading of re igion as a11 ied b! 1erennia ists disso 4es the major criticisms against re igious thought or against re igious basis of 1hi oso1h! in the >ast* Grom a meta1h!sicoBm!stica 4iew1oint re igion is not a narrati4e, a stor!, an e:1 anation of things, be ief in a set of 1ro1ositions, so 1ostmodern ins1ired criti;ue of it is unwarranted though of course it ma! ha4e certain re e4ance in criti;uing e:otic itera ist theo og!* Gundamenta ism that reduces re igion to an ideo og! and 1resents it as if it is a metanarrati4e cou d be criti;ued on 1ostmodern grounds but m!sticism and e4en meta1h!sics if 1ro1er ! understood in 1erennia ist terms, esca1es 1ostmodern criti;ue because there is no 1ri4i eging and margini i=ation of an! term whatsoe4er, no binaries, no categorica conce1tua inguistic 4ocabu ar! at a , no 1ro1ositions with which the ogician or rationa ist dabb es* 0erennia ists reread entire 1hi oso1hica 2meta1h!sica tradition, es1ecia ! the 3estern tradition which the! accuse of unforgi4ab e sin of ob i4ion of true meta1h!sics and thus 1hi oso1h! 1ro1er* 5heir rereading is cha enging, 1ro4ocati4e and seems to throw ight on certain otherwise irreso 4ab e debates in 3estern thought* 5he! c aim transcendent unit! of re igions 7a11arent ! di4ergent traditions of 8uddhism and Is am are ingenious ! inter1reted to demonstrate this transcendent unit!9 and thus unit! of a orthodo: traditiona 1hi oso1hies* 5he conce1t of uni4ersa orthodo:! 1ro1ounded b! Schuon integrates and ju:ta1oses otherwise ;uite di4erse and di4ergent trends in 1hi oso1hica traditions of the wor d* Coomaraswam! has forcefu ! argued for the essentia unit! between 0 atoniosm and <edanta* 5aoism and Sufism are admirab ! integrated in a common 1aradigm b! I=atsu* Semitic and nonSemitic traditions in re igion are reconci ed with great con4iction b! such masters of Sophia perennis as Schuon* >4en archaic 1hi oso1hica thought though couched in m!tho ogica terms and that informs their re igion and cu ture is essentia ! simi ar to ?nitarian2monistic meta1h!sics of <edanta, Sufism and 5aoism* 5he meta1h!sica 2traditiona understanding of some 6e! conce1ts such as the Rea , Abso ute, Infinitude, A B 0ossibi it!, "ood, Se f differs from theo ogica and 1hi oso1hica understanding of them* 5heo ogica notions are trans ated in terms of meta1h!sica ideas* Scri1tures are subject to meta1h!sica reading* Litera ist e:oteric account is substituted or com1 emented b! esoteric s!mbo ist one* It is the absence of such notions as Infinite, 0ure 8eing and ignorance of inte ect that ha4e com1 icated 1rob ems for 3estern 1hi oso1h!* 0hi oso1hica and theo ogica dua ism ha4e been the bane of 3estern and e:oteric a11roaches* 5he inade;uate conce1tion of se f is at the root of man! errors of theo ogica and 1hi oso1hica thought* Modern thought began as a rebe ion against traditiona thought of the wor d and ga4e rise to hitherto un6nown 1rob ems* 3oefu imitations of rationa ism and em1iricism and attem1t to construct a rationa meta1h!sics and fai ure of such attem1ts and more recent c!nicism with res1ect to the who e 1hi oso1hica enter1rise show how 1rob ematic has been the modern 3estern 1roject* Sentimenta ism, mora ism, irrationa ism, subjecti4ism and a host of other one sided ideo ogies that ha4e f ourished during the modern 1eriod are a sad comment on modern manFs attem1t to 1hi oso1hi=e in the

8 absence of inte ection and inte igence ca1ab e of objecti4it! and certitude* It is difficu t to see genuine basis for unit! among 1hi oso1hies in the framewor6 of modern 1resu11ositions and 1rejudices* In such a conte:t 1erennia ist discomfort with modern 1roject and search for a ternati4e foundations for 1hi oso1h! is better a11reciated* 3ithin the imits of reason or e:1erience 7 imited to conscious mode and ignoring a tered states of consciousness of which sages and m!stics s1ea69 a one J ta6ing no consideration of transcendence J attem1ts to bui d wor d4iew or do 1hi oso1h! ha4e 1ro4ed ;uite 1rob ematic* In the absence of mora 1urification there can be no 1ursuit of wisdom, no true 6now edge according to traditiona 1hi oso1hers from different ci4i i=ations* 5he tragic di4orce of fact and 4a ue, of 1henomena and noumena, of samsara and nir4ana, of 6nowing and being we find in modern 1hi oso1hies necessitate search for such a ternati4e 1ers1ecti4es such as the one 1ro4ided b! 1erennia ists* Some sa ient 1oints in 1erennia ist 1ers1ecti4e that ha4e a bearing on the enter1rise of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! are isted be ow* A s!stematic discussion of this a11roach to com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! is not 1ossib e in this short s1ace* I sha be content with 1resenting broad out ine of it* In a tone reminding of certain 1ostmodernists 1erennia ists ash on modern 3estern 1hi oso1h!* 5he great citade of 3estern 1hi oso1hica thought 7es1ecia ! 1ostBAristote ian modern 1hi oso1h! e:c uding m!stica and scho astic medie4a trend9 is based on co ossa ignorance of 1ure meta1h!sics and thus fundamenta ! f awed* Certain acc aimed names in modern 1hi oso1h! such as Kant and Kier6egaard are dismissed as not deser4ing the name of 1hi oso1her according to 1erennia ists* Kier6egaard is rejected as debaser of inte igence* KantFs e1istemo og! is aughed awa!* Descartes is 1rojected as a 4i ain who brought the end of genuine 1hi oso1h!* 8! em1 o!ing the notion of inte ect as against reason and foreground meta1h!sica 2m!stica instead of 1hi oso1hica 2theo ogica reading of basic conce1ts of 1hi oso1h! and re igion 1erennia ists cha enge dua istic e:oteric theo og! and e:cesses of scho asticism, dua istic rationa istic 1hi oso1hies, e:c usi4ist c aims of theo og! or certain 1articu ar 1hi oso1hica tradition, a tota istic 1hi oso1hica s!stems and ideo ogies, >astern or 3estern, uniformitarianism and s!ncretism in com1arati4e re igion and 1hi oso1h!, a 1hi oso1hies of 8eing that ignore the more fundamenta notion of NonB8eing or 8e!ondB8eing and reduction of 1hi oso1h! to anguage game, to socia 1ra:is, to handmaiden of modern science, to e1istemo og! 2onto og!, to mere ! rationa enter1rise is cha enged* Agnosticism of a sorts and so1histic re ati4ism are rejected in thunderous and unambiguous terms* 5he greatest and most uncom1romising critic of 3estern 1hi oso1hica and re igious thought, the arch enem! of rationa meta1h!sics, Niet=sche is accommodated without much difficu t! b! the 1erennia ists* @Antiessentia ist,A @agnosticA or @atheisticA re igious figures such as 8uddha are 1romu gated as 1ro1hets* Christ and 8uddha, San6ara and Nagarjuna, >c6hart and Ibn Arabi, Niet=sche and 0au are a reconci ed and ju:ta1osed* It is intriguing to see how the 1erennia ists 1ut in conte:t and reconci e the a11arent ! 1o ar o11osite thin6ers* 0o emics of San6ara and Nagarjuna against each other are e:1 ained awa! without sacrificing the uni;ueness and 1articu arit! of each thin6er and each tradition* Certain assertions that are found in a most a wor6s on 1hi oso1h! b! 3esterners and which ma6e 1ros1ects of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! b ea6er are contested b! 1erennia ists* 5here is hard ! an! such thing as materia ism and natura ism in the modern sense of the terms in the ancients* Gor instance in ancient "reece* "enera understanding of "ree6 0hi oso1h!, es1ecia ! 0 atonic and 1reBSocratic 1hi oso1h! is based on great ignorance of traditiona anguage, terms and s!mbo ism* Confounding of reason and inte ect and different senses of notion of intuition 7 subrationa and su1rarationa 9 and certain other confusions are standard in modern te:tboo6s and reference wor6s* 5he e ements of which "ree6s and other traditiona thin6ers ta 6 are crude ! understood in itera 1h!sica terms* 5he 3ater of which 5ha es ta 6ed and the Gire of which other great 1hi oso1her ta 6ed are g orious ! misunderstood b!

9 most modern historians of 1hi oso1h!* 0!thagoras is a so the 4ictim of gross misunderstanding at the hands of those who fai to understand traditiona mathematics and its connection with traditiona meta1h!sics and cosmo og!* Heidegger had accused 3estern 1hi oso1hica thin6ers of fundamenta errors in understanding "ree6 0hi oso1h!* 0erennia ists e:tend this criti;ue and argue that the! commit more fundamenta errors in not on ! understanding certain fundamenta notions of "ree6 1hi oso1h! but a traditiona 1hi oso1hies b! ha4ing 4er! 1artia understanding of 1ure meta1h!sics, s!mbo ism and traditiona sciences* Modern scienceFs inf uence ooms arge on modern 1hi oso1h! and that ma6es it co ossa ! ignorant of the rea idea and understanding of 1hi oso1h!* 5here are great aberrations rather 1er4ersions in modern understanding* According to 1erennia ists modern science is neither true nor a wa! to c arif! 1hi oso1hica 1rob ems* It can ha4e no bearing on traditiona meta1h!sics* Modern science is an abuse of inte igence* A 1hi oso1h! e:ce1t the modern 7which therefore doesnFt ;ua if! to be ca ed a 1hi oso1h!9 are connected to moksa idea * As R* 8a asubraminian notes+ @5he conce1tion of 1hi oso1h! as criti;ue of science or as a criti;ue of anguage, or e4en an ana !sis in the most com1rehensi4e sense, is a far cr! from the ancient conce1tion of 1hi oso1h! as 6now edge in genera about man and the uni4erse*A It c arifies and adds 1recision to certain fundamenta notions of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* Redefines meta1h!sics as the science of su1ra1henomena , articu ates difference between reason and inte ect, c arifies differences between different senses of intuition, sees Ma!a or Di4ine Re ati4it! in a im1ortant 1hi oso1hica 2esoteric traditions, reconci es creation ex nihilo and emanationist accounts or creation2manifestation ideas, 1osits Abso ute as more 1rimordia conce1tion of Di4init! that is to be found in a major traditions and thus reconci es @atheisticA or transtheistic 8uddhism and 5aoism with Semitic theism* No re igion abso uti=es 1ersona "od* De1 o!ing a series of distinctions such as meta1h!sics and theo og!, esoterism and e:otericism, form and substance, "od and "odhead, it unifies a11arent ! conf icting traditions and schoo s* Gor instance, 5aoism is understood as an esoteric dimension of Confucianism* Dua istic and monistic currents in different schoo s or within the same tradition are easi ! reconci ed* 5a6ing theo ogica 2re igious stand1oint is justified at its own 1 ane though it is associated with dua istic 4iew1oint* 8ut it must be borne in mind that it is nondua ism 7e4en the term monism is found ine:act b! 1erennia ists in describing <edanta and other nondua istic traditions9 that best describes the heart of a wisdom* It finds 1o !theism and 1antheism absent or ;uite margina in traditiona ci4i i=ations* <edanta or Sufism has nothing to do with 1antheism* Describing them as 1antheistic is t!1ica orienta ist fa ac!* It finds no m!sticism in >ast* Not to s1ea6 of 1ositi4ism, atheistic e:istentia ism, Mar:ism and other major schoo s of modern 1hi oso1h! which ha4e e:1 icit ! secu ar or antire igiuous2antitraditriona out oo6, it has no 6ind words for e4en such things as theistic e:istentia ism 7it finds its subjecti4ism and irrationa ism ;uite offensi4e9, intuitionism of 8ergson 7seeing it as subrationa and thus dangerous, 1er4erted idea9 and 1rocess 1hi oso1h!* Ramanuja and Shan6ara and e4en Nagarjuna and Shan6ara are bri iant ! reconci ed and subsumed in the 1ers1ecti4e of uni4ersa orthodo:!*

Meta1h!sica 1ers1ecti4e distinguishes itse f from re igious 1osition that is formu ated 6ee1ing in 4iew the sa 4ation of men rather than ogica coherence* > i1tica and e4en seeming ! contradictor! and scanda ous use of anguage in scri1tures is not ;uite res1ectfu of ogic and rationa it!* Howe4er a meta1h!sica e:egesis of scri1tures is enough to disti a meta1h!sica core of scri1tura statements that ma6es 1erfect sense* Re igions are interested in sa4ing 1eo1 e rather than satisf!ing their 1hi oso1hica ;ueries* In the interests of sa 4ation certain as1ects of truth ma! go into the bac6ground and others o4erem1hasi=ed* "oethe has we e:1ressed the 4acation of

10

man in the wor d+ @Man is not born to so 4e the 1rob ems of the uni4erse, but to find out what he has to do and to restrain himse f within the imits of his com1rehension*A 0rometheanBGaustian attitudes are u timate ! suicida * Modern man 4ai ! attem1ts to read the mind of "od, to disso 4e the M!ster! at the heart of e4er!thing b! ratiocinati4e means rather than o1en himse f u1 to the M!ster! and get disso 4ed as a se1arate autonomous subjecti4it! 7ego9 and get redeemed* It is 4ain to attem1t to scan "od* N A meta1h!sica 2s!mbo ist reading of 6e! theo ogica notions disarms the critics who em1 o! 1ure ! ogica and 1hi oso1hica too s in dismissing theodic!*N It em1 o!s meta1h!sica notions which are not reducib e to traditiona theo ogica counter1arts but subsume the atterH it a11ro1riates and transcends theo ogica 1ers1ecti4e* Modern criticism of theo og! and re igion are not a11 icab e to meta1h!sics* Modern rejection of meta1h!sics a11 ies to an im1o4erished conce1tion of the atter rather than to the sacred science of su1ra1henomena accessib e to inte ect* 5he rea is 6nowab e as Hege wou d sa! against Kant or there is no such thing as 6now edge* Mi ennia intuitions and e:1eriences of sages and 1ro1hets canFt be written off b! an! Kant or 1ositi4ist* Man is made for the Abso ute and he is e;ui11ed fu ! for the tas6* Modern 1hi oso1h! is ignorant and that is wh! it wa ows in the mud of re ati4ism and un1rotected against s6e1ticism which im1 ies im1ossibi it! or 4anit! of a 1hi oso1hi=ing* Modern 1hi oso1hers, genera ! s1ea6ing, ha4e itt e use for the treasured writings of traditiona ci4i i=ation and that accounts for its e:c usi4ism* 0erennia ists can s1ea6 for most of humans or human co ecti4it! as such as the! rres1ectfu ! a11ro1riated* A the canonica sacred scri1tures are 6e1t in the bac6ground and not critici=ed as is fashionab e in man! modern circ es but a11roached and inter1reted meta1h!sica !* If dominant a11roach of modern 1hi oso1h! is ta6en as the !ardstic6 the ga a:! of traditiona 1hi oso1hers, m!stica thin6ers, sages, 1ro1hets and masses fo owing them are a thrown out of the court as gu ib e or wide ! mista6en ignorant creatures* Re igions ha4ing 1roduced great ci4i i=ations with a the armor! of art, 1hi oso1h!, sciences are rejected as 1roducts of mista6en e1istemo og! and meta1h!sics b! 1redominant ! secu ar modern 1hi oso1hies* How is it 1ossib e to e4o 4e a g oba 1hi oso1h! or meaningfu dia ogue of different 1hi oso1hies in the modernist or 1ostmodernist framewor6 that out aws a traditiona 1hi oso1hies that ta6e transcendence or the sacred to be of 1rinci1ia significance* 5he 1erennia ists as6 for no crucifi:ion of reason, no recourse to m!ster! mongering and re ! on no ad hoc or arbitrar! theses that ha4e to be swa owed* 5he! fee hard ! an! warrant for 6ee1ing mum in the face of ine:1 icab eH the! re ! on no si encing strateg!* 5he! concede much of the modern 1hi oso1hica criti;ues of theo og! and theodic! as 1racti=ed in e:oteric theo ogica circ es*
It considers demonstrating transcendent or meta1h!sica unit! of a traditiona re igions as the most im1ortant tas6 of 1hi oso1h!* In its ree4a uation of modern trends in stud! of re igion and re igious mo4ements it irrationa ist inter1retations of m!sticism which debun6 ogic and reason are rejected* Krishnanmurti and Dsho i6e figures are rejected for distorting tradition and misunderstanding the significance of forms and traditiona s!mbo ism* Gor theoso1h! are reser4ed the harshest words as great distortion of traditiona out oo6* 0o1u ar conce1tion of reincarnation is rejected as incom1atib e with traditiona thought* "od is the on ! transmigrant as for San6ara* 0rofound corres1ondences are found in a11arent ! di4ergent re igious conce1tions* Neo<edanta of <i4e6ananda is found to be serious ! imited and e4en accused of

11 certain fa sification of tradition* 5hough Rama6rishna is e:to ed as e:em1 ar! sage <i4e6ananda is not seen as his correct inter1reter on certain accounts* 5he huge arm! of gurus and guru cu ts that ha4e s1read is most often critici=ed* 0erennia ists find 1seudom!sticism and 1seudos1iritua it! in them* Ramana Maharishi is e:to ed high ! and he is among the few great m!stics that the! recogni=e* Aurobindo and 5ie hard de Chardrin are critici=ed for their e4o utionism* Most of modern gurus are counterfeit gurus* In its major ree4a uation of 1hi oso1hers from the 1erennia ists 4iew1oint it e:to s 0 ato and 0!thagoras, the who e of Dr1hic tradition, medie4a 1hi oso1h!B Eewish, Christian and Is amic J on the who e des1ite the imitations of scho asticism* San6ara, Nagarjuna and in fact a thin6ers in the framewor6 of uni4ersa orthodo:! which com1rise a ga a:! of sages, traditiona 1hi oso1hers and traditiona scho ars and commentators in 4arious traditions are acce1ted* Nagarjuna, 0 ato, San6ara, Ibn Arabi and >c6hart are the re1resentati4e thin6ers of different traditions that are mentioned in the same breath as e:1ounding the same meta1h!sica truth in different anguages and e:1ressions* Gusion of >astern and 3estern thought is best 1ossib e on the firm foundations of 1erennia 1hi oso1h! which transmits the Light of "od that be ongs e;ua ! to >ast and 3est* 5here is no such thing as a dar6 age in 1hi oso1h! or human thought as the Midd e Ages are genera ! be ie4ed to be* Howe4er Christianit! and histor! of Christianit! is censured for its com1romising or e4en destruction of 1rimordia tradition* Rama Coomaraswam! has described this 1oint in one of his im1ortant boo6s* Gor modern 1hi oso1h! the! ha4e, on the who e contem1t though such thin6ers as Leibnit= are acce1ted in certain measure* Renaissance is, as for > iot, de4i ins1ired mo4ement* >n ightenment thought is ;uite dar6 and accused of ab!sma ignorance of traditiona heritage of man6ind in genera and the 3est in 1articu ar* Rationa ism on the who e has debased inte ect and therefore reason as we * 0ostmodern criti;ue of >n ightenment 0roject is antici1ated though from a different 1ers1ecti4e* 3ho esa e rejection of 1hi oso1h! in the name of m!sticism is censured* In fact 1erennia ists differentiate between m!stica and meta1h!sica thought* It finds no m!sticism in the >ast in the strict sense of the term* Debun6ing some traditiona 1hi oso1hies as m!stica whi e auding rationa ist thought and ma6ing the 7modern9 3estern 1hi oso1h! the standard of judging other 1hi oso1hies is turned on its head* Gor 1erennia ists 1hi oso1h! in the 1rimordia sense of the term 1re1ares one for death and assimi ation to "od as 0 ato said and is not a rationa ogica abstract disci1 ine on ! and is a ied to gnosis, a wa! of ife or rea i=ation of the good* It is not a 1rerogati4e of ratio or menta facu t! of reason but of nous, the su1raindi4idua uni4ersa facu t! of inte ect* Meta1h!sics, the science of su1ra1henomena uni4ersa 1rinci1 es, the Infinite, that transcends a binaries and dua isms that ha4e 1 agued the 3estern 1hi oso1hica and theo ogica tradition, and reso 4es a contradictions in the Dne, the Abso ute, coincidentia oppositorum, is inte ectua 7nonBdiscursi4e inte igence9 rather than rationa disci1 ine and 1ostmodern criti;ues are hard ! re e4ant to it as it is not dua istic, @structura ist,A or to be identified with meta1h!sics of 1resence* It is not a mere theoretica rationa in;uir! but a rea i=ation, inte ection or noetic 4ision that transcends subjectBobject dua it! and demands something i6e ethica disci1 ine that 0 ato argued for* Logos of which 0 ato, Neo1 atonism and the 1erennia ists s1ea6 is not renderab e e:c usi4e ! as reason or discursi4e reasoning 7 dianoia9* @It cou d mean di4ine s1eech as we as noetic a11rehension of the first indemonstrab e and sacred 1rinci1 es, archet!1es*A So Derridean and Dshoean criti;ue of ogocentric 1hi oso1h! and rationa meta1h!sics doesnFt a11 ! to the traditiona understanding of 1hi oso1h! understood in this sense J Dr1hicB0!thagoreanB0 atonic sense J and to nondua istic meta1h!sics cu ti4ated in India and e sewhere* 0hi oso1h! in the traditiona Dr1hicB 0!thagorean sense is wisdom and o4e combined in a mora and inte ectua 1urification in order to reach the @ i6eness to god*A It is contem1 ation of 8eaut! and "ood* 5his is attainab e

12 b! gnosis* 5he "ree6 word nous co4ers both s1irit and inte ect 7 intellectus, a l9 of Medie4a Christian and Is amic e:icon* 0 atonic 1hi oso1h!, understood as a s1iritua and contem1 ati4e wa! of ife eading to i umination or en ightenmentH an inte ectua disci1 ine based on inte ection cu minating in union 7 henosis9 with idea GormsH his @Dr1hicABIndian conce1tion of 1hi oso1her as one who see6s re ease from the whee of c!c ica term concurs with the 4ision of 1erennia ists and esca1es 1ostmodern criti;ues* So we conc ude that 1hi oso1h!, understood in the abo4e sense of the term, has e4er been a i4e and is not dead 1ace Derrida and Rort!* It is traditiona meta1h!sics that can come to the rescue of 1hi oso1h! in the 1ostmeta1h!sica 1ostmodern age and rec aim for it its ost dignit! and sanctit! attac6ed b! science ins1ired 1ositi4ism and inguistic turn in 1hi oso1h!* 0erennia ist criticism of 1ure ! discursi4e rationa thought, theo og! and 1hi oso1h! and 1 eading for a nonBdiscursi4e awareness or 4ision has great significance* Cu ti4ation of this awareness is the common 1oint of most New Age s1iritua thin6ers* Creati4e a11ro1riation of Is amicBSufistic, 5aoist and 8uddhist thought is idea ! suited to an audience that is wi ! ni ! 1ostmodern J 1ostmeta1h!sica , 1osttheo ogica and 1ostsecu ar and 1ostrationa ist* 5here can be no 1rogress in 1hi oso1h!, the assertions of 1rogressi4ists not withstanding* "uenon has 1ro4ocati4e ! remar6ed that there are no new truths to be disco4ered* Dur tas6 is on ! to understand the ancients who ha4e disco4ered the fundamenta meta1h!sica and sa4ing truths* Human effort isnFt re e4ant at a in disco4ering the 6e! to e:istence and its meaning* 5here can be 1rogress in certain 1eri1hera areas but none in disco4ering or u1dating our 6now edge of Rea it!, of hierarch! of e:istence* 5here can be no denia that man has made great strides in understanding the outward rea it! with the he 1 of modern science which was a 1roduct of certain tendencies in modern 1hi oso1hies* 8ut what 1erennia ists 1oint out howe4er is that meta1h!sics concerns the 6now edge of su1ra1henomena rea ities and nothing is understandab e here e:ce1t with reference to the onto ogica ! su1erior rea ities* Modern science has rejected s!mbo ist s1irit of traditiona sciences and that is wh! it fai s to ma6e sense of the 4er! big and 4er! sma where other un6nown dimensions of rea it! are being ref ected or im1inge more c ear !* 0erennia ists 1oint out that there has been on the who e retrogression and degeneration in 1hi oso1hica thought from ancient times onwards* 0rogress in the abso ute sense of the term is categorica ! denied rather than in e4er! sense* 5here can be nothing new in truth, in re4e ation and inte ection* It is a so to be remar6ed that it is not modern inte ectua s who ha4e ad4ocated it* Iamb ichus had ong before seen 0 ato and 0!thagoras 7and indeed a 1agan "ree6 1hi oso1hers, with the e:ce1tion of materia ists9 as 1art of continuing source of true 6now edge* His unified theor! inc uded not on ! "ree6 1hi oso1hers and 1oets, but a so >g!1tians, Cha deans, and other nonB"ree6 1agans* 5he ater 1agan Neo1 atonists embraced Iamb ichusF 4ision* 0 atonism is the 1art of the "o den Chain of 6now edge, u timate ! secured from the highest rea ms of the uni4erse, from the gods and the Dne itse f* 5he unit! of re4e ation that the Muran c aims is demonstrab e in histor! on ! if we assume the 1erennia ists notion of "o den Chain* 5he 6e! to com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! is the notion of 1hi oso1her and 1hi oso1h! in different traditions* 3e wi here e:1 ain it with reference to four traditions J "ree6, Indian, Is amic and Chinese* As Schuon has noted+ Gor Herac ites, the 1hi oso1her is one who a11 ies himse f to the 6now edge of free nature of thingsH for 0 ato, 1hi oso1h! is the 6now edge of the Change ess and of the IdeasH and for Aristot e it is the 6now edge of first causes and 1rinci1 es, together with the sciences that are deri4ed from them* In addition, 1hi oso1h! im1 ies for a of the Ancients a mora conformit! to wisdom+ on ! he is wise, sophos, who i4es wise ! 7-+#(&9* 5o umin has a so obser4ed in his Philosophers! "ast and #est that on ! sage can be a 1hi oso1her in orienta ci4i i=ations and in modern 3estern 1hi oso1h! this is not a re;uired ;ua ification and

13 e4en idea ! it is a hindrance* Schuon suggests to reser4e the name of 1hi oso1hers for sages and to describe rationa ists for 1rofane thin6ers* 7.+#(&9 0hi oso1h!, according to the best of the "ree6s, is to e:1ress b! means of reason certainties @seenA or @ i4edA b! the immanent Inte ect 7.+#(.9* 0 ato has maintained that the 1hi oso1hers shou d thin6 inde1endent ! of recei4ed o1inion* 8ut, as Schuon notes, he refers to Inte ection and not to ogic a one* 5his is in shar1 contrast to Descartes who reached such a conc usion from the starting 1oint of s!stematic doubt and thus for him 1hi oso1h! is s!non!mous on ! with rationa ism and sce1ticism* 5his is, according to Schuon a first suicide of inte igence inaugurated b! 0!rrho and others* 3hat has been hai ed as "ree6 mirac e is @the substitution of the reason, of the fact for the 0rinci1 e, of the 1henomenon for the Idea, of the accident for the Substance, of the form for the >ssence, of man for "odA 7-+#,,9* 5o refer to the standard Chinese 4iew of 1hi oso1h! and 1hi oso1her I ;uote Gung Ou Lan @ 5he 1ur1ose of 1hi oso1h! is to enab e a man, as a man, to be a man, not some 1articu ar 6ind of man*A Chinese ethics is meant to fashion this man and this idea man is one @ with sage iness within and 6ing iness without*A 7.+##9* 5his is what 0 ato ca ed the 1hi oso1herB6ing*A Is am en4isages the 0ro1het as teacher of 1hi oso1h! 7 hikmah9 in accordance with the Muran 7&/+'9* Certain Sufis be ie4e 0!thagoras and 0 ato to be 1ro1hets* 5heir sagehood is not doubted at a * Certain Mus im 1hi oso1hers are traditiona ! referred to as sages and a Mus im 1hi oso1hers were 1ious be ie4ers at east* "ha=a iFs in4eighing against the 1hi oso1hers not withstanding who unwarranted ! wishes to reser4e for the Sufis the mono1o ! of s1iritua 6now edge as if, as Schuon obser4es, @faith and 1iet!, in combination with inte ectua gifts and with graceB didnFt 1ro4ide a sufficient basis for 1ure inte ection 7-+ #(- 9* @It is to the credit of Mus im 1hi oso1hers that the great "ree6s 0 ato, Aristot e and 0 otinus cou d be integrated* Indian 4iew of the 1hi oso1her hard ! needs to be reiterated* It is a:iomatic that on ! sages are 1hi oso1hers* Significance of 1erennia ists a11roach for Indian 1hi oso1hers ies in its e e4ation of nondua ism as formu ated in <edanta as the most 1erfect e:1ression of meta1h!sics, as the standard b! which a other 1hi oso1hies ma! be judged in a wa!* 5here is abso ute ! no reason for being a1o ogetic or tr!ing to 1resent nati4e 1hi oso1hies in terms of a ien and constricti4e framewor6 and jargon of 3estern 1hi oso1h!* Radha6rishhnan and others ha4e fe 4ictim to this tra1* 5here is an o1en ad4ocac! of su1eriorit! of 3estern 1hi oso1h! or modern 1hi oso1h! and its methodo og! b! certain Indian 1hi oso1hers and man! are conscious ! or unconscious ! under the im1ression that the 3est has indeed 1rogressed in 1hi oso1hica thought and we need to 4er! res1ectfu towards it* "reat abour is di4erted to 1ro4ing antecedents of Derrida, 3ittgenstein, Kant and other in c assica Indian thought and e4en connect 8uddha with modern rejection of re igion and theism* "reat names in 3estern 1hi oso1h! are drastica ! cut to si=e and dwarfed in com1arison with the great names J 1hi oso1herBsages in >astern traditions* Schuon finds it eas! to condemn Descartes and Kant as 1hi oso1hers* In the ast centur! Indian 1hi oso1h! has grown under the shadow of 3estern 1hi oso1h!* 0erennia ists, bringing in the witness of count ess traditiona sages throughout the wor d regard ancient 1hi oso1h! as essentia ! a wa! of ife+ not on ! inse1arab e from @s1iritua e:ercises,A but a so in accord with cosmo ogica m!ths and sacred rites* In the broader traditiona sense, 1hi oso1h! consists not sim1 ! of a conce1tua edifice 7be it of the order of reason or m!th9H but of a i4ed concrete e:istence conducted b! initiates, or b! the who e theocenrtric communit!, treated as a 1ro1er ! organi=ed and we guided 1o itica and @theurgica bod!A attended to the 1rinci1 e of maat BB @truthA and @justiceA in the ancient >g!1tian sense of the word 7.+:i9* 5his e:1 ains wh!, considering ancient 1hi oso1h! as the norm, 1erennia ists condemn modern 3estern 1hi oso1h! a @rather monstrous and corru1ted creature, s!stematica ! reduced to a

14 1hi oso1hica discourse of a sing e dogmatic 6ind, through the fata oneBsidedness of its 1rofessed secu ar humanistic menta it!, and a crucia misunderstanding of traditiona wisdomA 7.+:i49* Ancient 1hi oso1hers tried to awa6en the di4ine ight through the noetic 4ision 7 noesis9 and to touch the di4ine Inte ect* 0erennia ists reject the be ief of modernists that 1hi oso1h! is an abstract 1hi oso1hica discourse based on rationa istic scientific method and its methodica ! obtained @truths*A 0erennia ists reject the account of modern te:tboo6s on 1hi oso1h! that be ie4e that 5ha es first used rationa method* Gor the Safa4id 0ersian Ha6ims identified the water of 5ha es with the 8reath of the Com1assionate of the Sufis, and considered the 1reBSocratic 1hi oso1hers to ha4e used a s!mbo ic anguage to re4ea the unit! of 8eing* As ?=da4in!s 1oints out+ @5o con4entiona ! assume that 5ha es sim1 ! o11osed m!th to @rationa accountA 7 ogos9 is to misunderstand the "ree6 word ogos and fo ow the modern reductionist tendenc! to render it e:c usi4e ! as reason or @discursi4e reasoningA7 diaonia9A 7.+:i49* 8ut 0 ato made no c ear distinction between attitude to m!th and 1hi oso1hica reasoning* 5he "ree6 word ogos can mean di4ine s1eech, what >g!1tians meant b! the demiurgic word Ra rendered into o1erati4e wisdom b! 5roth as we as noetic a11rehension of the first indemonstab e and sacred 1rinci1 es, archet!1es, or gods in addition to meaning 1ro1ortion and ana og!* 8! 1hi oso1hi=ing ancients meant @both noetic acti4it! and s1iritua 1racticeH and this was attributed not on ! to 4arious He enic 1hi oso1hers who be onged to haireseis 7schoo s or theoretica ! founded wa!s of ife9, but a so to the >g!1tian 1riests, Cha deans and Indian "!mnoso1hists 7.+:4i9* Contrar! to the 1re4a ent 4iew of modern historians of science and 1hi oso1h!, the ancient He enes 7whom modern considers their forefathers, considered themse 4es to be students of much o der Drienta ci4i i=ations* @0 ato 1ara1hrased Dr1heus e4er!whereA as D !m1iodorus asserted* 0 atonists be ie4ed in the re4e ation gi4en to the ancient sages and theo ogians, i*e*, to di4ine ! ins1ired 1oets and hiero1hants* 5he 1rimordia re4e ation was 4iewed as unchangeab eH there cou d be nothing @newA regarding meta1h!sics and di4ine truths* According to Ce sus, 0 ato ne4er c aimed to ha4e disco4ered an!thing new* 0 otinus a so didnFt c aim 7.+:4iii9* ?=da4in!s further 1oints out that can be reduced to1 0!thagoreans and subordinated to the re4ea ed wisdom of the ancient >ast* 3hat distinguishes the theo og! of 0 ato from that of the >g!1tian, 8ab! onian, and Ass!rian initiates as we as the Homeric, Dr1hic, and 0h!thagorean sages, is its scientific and demonstrati4e character 7.+P:i49* Socrates described 1hi oso1h! as di4ine ! ins1ired madness* Socrates was referred to as sa4iour b! Hermias of A e:andria* According to him, , Socrates was sent to the wor d of becoming as a benefit to man6ind and to turn sou sB each in different wa!B to 1hi oso1h!* Not on ! 0!thagoras, Arch!tas, Socrates and 0 ato, but a so ater 1hi oso1hers such as Ammonius, Saccas, 0 otinus, 0or1hr!, Iamb icus and S!rians K be onged to the re4e ator! and soterio ogica tradition of 1hi oso1h!A7.+::4i9* According to 1erennia ists there is no ground whate4er u1on which a men can be in abso ute agreement, e:ce1ting that of meta1h!sics* And this meta1h!sics is the basis and the norm of a re igious formu ations according to them* Howe4er e4en though the 1erennia ists em1hasi=e u timate identit! of re igion and meta1h!sics the! are acute ! aware of the res1ecti4e differences both at doctrina and 1ractica e4e * As Coomaraswam! has e:1 icated+

8road ! s1ea6ing, the distinction is that of Christianit! from "nosticism, Sunni from Shia doctrine, Ramanuja from Sam6ara, of the wi from the inte ect, 1artici1ation 7 bh$akti9 from gnosis 7$nana9, or 6now edge of 7avidya9 from 6now edgeBas 7vidya9* As regards the 3a!, the distinction is one of consecration from initiation, and of 1assi4e from acti4e integrationH and as regards the >nd, of assimi ation %tadakarata9 from identification 7tadbhabva9* Re igion re;uires of its adherents to be 1erfected, meta1h!sics that the! rea i=e their own 1erfection that has ne4er been infringed 7e4en Satan is sti 4irtua ! Lucifer, being fa en in grace and not in nature9* Sin, from the stand1oint of re igion, is

15 mora H from that of meta1h!sics, inte ectua 7morta sin in meta1h!sics being a con4iction or assertion of inde1endent se fBsubsistence, as in SatanFs case, or en4! of the s1iritua attainments of others, as in IndraFs97$+#-B#.9* Re igion, in genera , 1roceeds from the being in act 7 karyavastha9 of the Girst 0rinci1 e, without regard to its being in 1otentia it! 7 karanavastha9 whi e meta1h!sics treats of the Su1reme Identit! as an indisser4erab e unit! of 1otentia it! and act 7$+#/&9* 5o the 1ostmodernistsF reasons against reason Schuon re1 ies+ Natura ! the most @ad4anced @ of the modernists see6 to demo ish the 4er! 1rinci1 e of reasoning, but this is sim1 ! fantas! 1ro domo, for man is condemned to reason as soon as he uses anguageH un ess he wishes to con4e! nothing at a * In an! case one canFt assert the im1ossibi it! of asserting an!thing, if words are sti to ha4e an! meaning 7-+#,/9* 5here is nothing new in 1erennia 1hi oso1h!H there canFt be b! definition* 0erennia ists 1resent the most we articu ated cha enge to >urocentricism and its co onia ist ideo og!* 5here are im1ortant 3estern 1hi oso1hers and thin6ers who ha4e asserted that genuine 1hi oso1h! doesnFt e:ist outside the 3est* 5o this 1erennia ists wou d re1 ! that genuine 1hi oso1h! or wisdom 7as 1hi oso1h! is understood in the 1rimordia sense9 1hi oso1h! e:ists on ! outside the 3est, es1ecia ! the modern 3est* "reat 1hi oso1hers such as 0h!hagoras and 0 ato and their notion of 1hi oso1h! as a 1athwa! of communion with "od has not been acce1ted b! the 1osterit! in the 3est* If the criterion is 1ure meta1h!sics as the 1erennia ists contend it to be 1ostB Aristote ian 3estern 1hi oso1h! fa s short of attaining it* Notorious 1rob ems in 3estern 1hi oso1h!, which are a egac! of form matter dua ism of Aristot e, are not encountered in traditiona nondua istic meta1h!sica wor d4iews* Inso ub e 1rob ems in 1ostBDescartean e1istemo og! and meta1h!sics are b!1assed b! 1erennia ists* 5he utter 1o4ert! of modern 1hi oso1h! is demonstrated and the 4a ue of a ternati4e traditiona 1hi oso1h! asserted with great force and con4iction* 8ig names in modern 1hi oso1h! are aughed awa! or cut to si=e and their b inded 1ointed out* 0erennia ist 1roject is the most ambitious, most com1rehensi4e, most wide ranging and inc usi4e 1ers1ecti4e on com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* It not on ! 1enetrates the di4ersit! of re igions, m!tho ogies, theo ogies, 1hi oso1hies, artistic e:1ressions, cosmo ogica doctrines of a traditiona cu tures but gi4es us an a ternati4e a11roach that disso 4es certain 1ernicious and difficu t 1rob ems in modern thought* It o11oses much of what has been cherished in the 1ast few centuries but it does so in the name of that which has been cherished b! a traditiona cu tures, b! a re4e ations, b! sages and great traditiona 1hi oso1hers of a ages* It e:1oses sha owness of most modern a11roaches to meta1h!sica ;uestions and re igions* It shows how ho ow are the standard te:t boo6s of 1hi oso1h! such as Russe Fs, how great a mass of uninte igence 1ermeates modern thought in genera and modern 1hi oso1h! in 1articu ar, how 1recarious and 1rob ematic is that which constitutes the distinguishing character of modernit! and 1ostmodernit!, how artificia and se f im1osed 4arious cha enges to 1hi oso1h! and rationa it! from certain modern and 1ostmodern ;uarters, how incoherent and ground ess modern criticisms of meta1h!sics are, how unscientific and uninte igent and unem1irica foundations of modern scientific thought and cu ture* Defining figures of modern 1hi oso1h! such as Descartes, Kant, Kier6egaard, Heidegger a are cut to the si=e in com1arison with the giants of traditiona thought* 0erennia ists forcefu ! argue how itt e 1ositi4e achie4ement in com1arison with enormous retrogression in 1hi oso1hica thought the ast few centuries ha4e recorded* 3estern co onia ism and e1istemic chau4inism which ha4e been the 1ainfu rea ities of the modern wor d are subject to a most de4astating criti;ue b! the 1erennia ists* Modern academ! 7e1itomi=ed b! uni4ersit!9 is discredited as ha4ing fai ed to de i4er coherent or unified 6now edge for guidance, for ethics and thus fashioning sou s*

16 Schuon refused to acce1t an in4itation for de i4ering ectures in an! modern uni4ersit!* 0erennia ism is not nosta gia for the 1ast but for the truths that 1ast 1eo1 e embodied2 understood better than their modern inheritors* 0erennia ism a11 auds objecti4it! 7and that is wh! e:treme ! subjecti4ist e:istentia ists are ruth ess ! condemned, rationa it! 7that is wh! a H criticisms of rationa it! and rationa ism from irrationa ist e:istentia ists and 1ostmodernists are rebutted9, coherence consistenc!, ogic, and are ;uite res1ectfu of a em1irica facts or rather ta6e it as a 1oint of de1arture from those who imit it to sensoria rea m 7their criticism of Kant is because he refused to concede concrete e4idence for re igious e:1erience that has been serious ! ta6en b! count ess 1eo1 e from a the ages* Gor 1erennia ists different s!stems of Indian 1hi oso1h! are not incom1atib e 1hi oso1hica s!stems but different com1 ementar! 4iew1oints* 5his a11roach is finding increasing su11ort from 4arious scho ars in recent !ears* Studies of di4erse 1hi oso1hica traditions are unearthing common 1oints that 1erennia ists see6 to high ight* 0 ura ism is 1ro4ided sound 1hi oso1hica grounding b! 1erennia ism* As against mere to erance or indifference towards other re igions 1erennia ism 1ro4ides a warrant for a traditiona re igions and re igion in6ed traditiona 1hi oso1hies* &oksha 7though understood somewhat different !9is the u timate though not the immediate goa of Indian 1hi oso1h!, Mus im 1hi oso1h!, 0 atonicB0h!thogorean 1hi oso1h!, Chinese 0hi oso1h! and man! other traditiona 1hi oso1hies* &oksha has ser4ed to @gi4er a 1ur1ose and direction to 1hi oso1h! and 1ro4ed to be a bu war6 against batt ing in the c ouds, which Sri Aurobindo ca s the Ibesetting sin of meta1h!sics,F and which is the bane of unbrid ed, direction ess thin6ing for thin6ingFs sa6e* 0ra:io ogica commitment ma6es a the differences* Modern 3estern 1hi oso1h! ac6s such a serious 1ur1ose, direction and orientation* Nobod! 6nows what it is out to do* Ancient 1hi oso1h! aimed at en ightenment and fe icit! with or without sa 4ation at the great denouement, whereas current 1hi oso1h! aims at dr! c arit! and mechanica 1recision on their own accountA 7#%+$,9* 0erennia ist 1ers1ecti4e on 1hi oso1h! foregrounds mo6shacentrism of different 1hi oso1hies inc uding 1remodern 3estern 1hi oso1h!* <a ues are not written off in an! traditiona 1hi oso1h!* 5hat e:1 ains c ose association of re igion and 1hi oso1h! in traditiona cu tures* 5here is a g oba 1hi oso1h! and we need not den! uni;ueness of different traditions in 1hi oso1h!* It is not 1ossib e to ha4e a dogmatic or fina formu ation of 1erennia 1hi oso1h!* "uenon changed his 4iews on some issues such as 8uddhism* 5here are s ight ! different readings in different writers on 1erennia 1hi oso1h!* Some are more o1en for serious dia ogue with modern and 1ostmodern 1hi oso1hies* 5he detai s of the conce1tion of modernit! and 1ostmodernit! in 1erennia ist writings ma! be dis1uted* 5oo dismissi4e and rejectionist a 4iew of modern science and modernit! ma! not be warranted* "reat figures in modern 1hi oso1h! from Hege to 3hitehead ha4e been m!stica ! oriented* A dee1er and more s!m1athetic reading of modernit! re4ea s con4ergence with m!stica thought currents* 0ostmodernists are not ;uite off the mar6 in their criti;ues of rationa ist 1hi oso1hies and inguistic constructions* Some New Age thin6ers canFt be summari ! dismissed as man! 1erennia ists do* Modernit! canFt be b!1assed as if it is a 1er4ersion* If scanda s must come as 1erennia ists often remind us and modernit! is a scanda we need to be 4er! conscious of the im1ortance of these scanda s at their own 1 ane* 5he notion of heterodo:! em1 o!ed to reject modern 1hi oso1h! seems to be too constricting* 5he need is to ha4e a more constructi4e dia ogue with modern 3estern 1hi oso1h! rather than a straightwa! rejection of it* 5here are few detai ed in de1th studies of modern 1hi oso1h! 1ub ished b! 1erennia ists* 0erennia ists ha4e !et to a11 ! their insights on man! concrete issues such as c ass conf ict and some 6e! socia issues in a satisfactor! manner* 0erennia ists do 1ro4ide the out ines of g oba 1hi oso1h! but a ot of wor6 sti needs to be done in the a11 ication 1art J there are

17 man! issues raised b! modern thought, some too disturbing and com1 e: to be com1 acent ! written off* It is a huge cha enge to demonstrate that there are no significant differences between different traditions in 1hi oso1h!, between Nagarjuna and Shan6ara or Lao 5=u and Confucius* 0erennia ists are 4ita ! re e4ant in a11roaching some ong standing issues in com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! and difficu t 1rob ems in 3estern 1hi oso1h! and the cha enge from anti1hi oso1hica thought currents and scientism* 3e need to gi4e more attention to them* 0hi oso1hi=ing after 1ostmodernism is not an eas! tas6 and 1erennia ists cou d 1ro4ide 4ita c ues* 0erha1s a s!nthesis of 1erennia ism and 1ostmodernism as seen in Ken 3i ber wi be of interest* 0hi oso1h! de1artments shou d introduce a 1a1er on 1erennia ist thin6ers such as Coomaraswam! who has been ate ! re4i4ed in certain >uro1ean uni4ersities* 5his ma! go a ong wa! in defining and de4e o1ing contours of Asian 1hi oso1h! as an integrated entit! and ma6e 1ossib e a dia ogue between @orthodo:A and @heterodo:A 1hi oso1hica s!stems, between the >ast and the 3est, between theo og! 7or auto og! as Coomaraswam! wou d sa!9 and 1hi oso1h!, between tradition and modernit! and 1ossib ! between seeming ! antagonistic socia 1hi oso1hies* 5he contradictions in Ca1ita ist societies and 1rob ems in Mar:ist ana !sis of them cou d be 1rofitab ! a11roached b! ta6ing recourse to 1erennia ist 4iew of man and societ! which ta6es transcendence into consideration missing which the former antagonistic wor d4iews are handica11ed in e4o 4ing a com1rehensi4e 4iew of man, the meta1h!sica anima , the meaning see6ing anima , the 'omo religious( A range of ethica , socia , economic, 1hi oso1hica 1rob ems encountered b! us demand fresh a11ro1riations and ada1tations of wisdom traditions of the wor d* Com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! is dire ! needed* And amongst different a11roaches to it 1erennia ist a11roach seems to be a better candidate* If 1hi oso1h! is a wa! of ife and its end communion with ? timate Rea it! and ethics or cu ti4ation of 4irtues integra ! connected with it and not science of ratiocinati4e arguments or mere inguistic ana !sis or c arification of conce1ts then 1erennia ist contention that there is unit! amongst different J in fact a J traditions, Semitic and nonSemitic, archaic and @ad4ancedA ones can be granted without much difficu t!* A traditions teach the doctrine of two se 4es, one ower and the other higher di4ine one* A traditions are for se f transcendence* A traditions ad4ocate a 4ision of hierarch! of e:istence consisting of a series of gradations from matter to S1irit* A traditions be ie4e in the other or dee1er wor d that encom1asses or com1 ements this wor d* 5he 1rimac! of the mora but transcendence of goodBe4i binar! b! sages is discernib e in a major traditions* Grom the ?nitarian meta1h!sica 4iew1oint doesnFt com1are traditions or 1hi oso1hies in terms of 1resence or absence of 1ersona "od in them or such binaries as 1ro1hetic 4s* m!stica , thiswor d ! 4s* otherwor d !, rationa 4s* irrationa , 1antheistic 4s* theistic or transcendenta ist, idea ist 4s* rea ist, theo ogica 4s* 1hi oso1hica * Dua istic binar! thin6ing is transcended in the meta1h!sica stand1oint as 6nowing and being become one* 5he inc usi4e 1otentia of 1erennia ist a11roach is e4idenced from the fact that it is ab e to bring into its ambit so much from re igions and 1hi oso1hies across the wor d* It finds itt e to reject in the traditiona wor ds* It dubs as 1er4erse or heterodo:ica dominant mode of ast few centuries of 3estern thought* It sees modern 3estern ci4i i=ation as an anoma ! in human histor!, as something bui t on sand* 8! e:c uding modern e1isteme on 1rinci1 e grounds J dubbing it ignorant of the twin sources of 6now edge inte ection and re4e ation and ignorant of the se f and committed to fa se 4iews of scientism, e4o utionism and 1rogress and the cu t of the ug ! J it is ab e to ma6e senmse of traditiona uni4erses* I donFt thin6 it is too great a cost for a 1roject that see6s to reco4er the ost ight of tradition that unifies so com1rehensi4e !* 0hi oso1hies are not static or mono ithic but do e4o 4e in some sense though not in the manner concei4ed b! most modern historians of 1hi oso1h!* 5hat there can be no new disco4er! of truth concerning our u timate destin! and most fundamenta issues is a c aim that runs counter to modernist e4o utionar! thin6ing* Humanism and indi4idua ism are the 1rime fo ies of modern age against which 1erennia ists wage war* 5he 4er! notion of 1rogress is counter to traditiona ist thin6ing* S1ea6ing so c ear ! and unambiguous ! for

18 the sacred science J scientia sacra J of meta1h!sics that com1rehensi4e ! 1ro4ides a foundation for a sciences and arts and thus for unit! of 6now edge which modern wor d misses so terrib !*

Re igions ma! no onger be credib e to man es1ecia ! when s!mbo ic nature of its anguage is forgotten and because of the inf uence of nonBobjecti4e e ements in them and because the! fa short of the certitude reser4ed for 1ure truth to which meta1h!sics a one can c aim access* 5a 6ing about uni4ersa histor! and cosmos in the 1ostre igious or 1ostheo ogica age is a difficu t tas6 but for that the road to it is not through modern and 1ostmodern thought* 3e need to e:1 ore the traditiona road afresh a beit with fu awareness of centuries of s6e1ticism through which we are sti current ! 1assing* 5here is a wides1read s6e1ticism that there is no sa 4ation outside the 1henomena as transcendence is fe t to be something too remote and abstract* Dn ! a renewed faith in the sacred can answer the 1erennia ;uest for a Bcom1rehensi4e 1hi oso1h! which is the aim of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* 8ut how can the 1ostmodern man o1en u1 to the sacredC I thin6 the best answer is through the scientia sacra the e4idences of which are da== ing ! shown in the writings of 1erennia ists*
5o conc ude it ma! be asserted that the notion of 5radition as understood b! 1erennia ists is one of the most significant ideas for constructing a com1rehensi4e 4iew of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* 5here ha4e been few detai ed critica studies of 1erennia ist notion of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h!* 5here is not much s1ace to consider charges against 1erennia ist a11roach but the reader is referred to the bri iant defence against detractors of 1erennia ist 4iew of com1arati4e 1hi oso1h! b! Henr! D dmeadow* ## 5he readers are referred to this artic e* 0erennia ist 4iew needs consideration and critica discussion* It has most ! been ignored so far* !eferences # Raju, 0* 5*, )ntroduction to *omparative Philosophy ,Moti a 8anarsidas 04t* L5d*, De hi, #$$'* Muoted b! Raju* ' Nasr, S*H, Kno+ledge and the Sacred, "ifford Lectures, Suhai Academ! Lahore,#$..* ( "uenon, Rene, An )ntroduction to the Study o, 'indu -octrines, Munshiram Manohar a 0ub ishers, New De hi, '%%% 7#$,/9 , Maisar, Shah=ad, ., )ntellect and /eason, Institute of Is amic Cu ture, Lahore, #$$%* / Nasr, S*H, 0he 1eed ,or A Sacred Science, S?NO, New Oor6, #$$( & Coomaraswam!, A* K(, 'induism and 2uddhism, Munshiram Manohar a 0ub ishers, De hi, #$$&* - Schuon, Grithjof, 0he "ssential #ritings o, 3rith$o, Schuon, ed* S* H* Nasr,> ement, #$$#* . ?=da4in!s, A gis, 7>d*9, 0he 4olden *hain! An Anthology o, Phythagorean and Plationic Philosophy, 0entagon 0ress,'%%/ $ Coomaraswam!* A* K*, @Dn the 0ertinence of 0hi oso1h!A in #hat is *ivili5ation, D:ford ?ni4ersit! 0ress, #$.$* #% Narain, Harsh, Da!a Krishna on Indian 0hi oso1h!,A in 0he Philosophy o, -aya Krishna,, >ds* 8hu4an Chande , K*L* Sharma, IC0R, New De hi, #$$&* ## D dmeadow, H*, @5he Com1arati4e Stud! of >astern and 3estern Meta1h!sics+ A 0erennia ist 0ers1ecti4e,A in Sophia, ,&+#, '%%-*