350 b o o k r e vi ew s

Sufi lineages. In terms of ritual, the Khatm-i shar;f-i khw:jag:n (not Katam
Shar;f Khajgh:n, p. 170), bears many structural similarities to its Naqshband;
namesake. Likewise, there are many parallels between Suhraward; political
involvement in India and later Chisht; and Naqshband; political strategies. It
is hoped that the author’s further research into the primary sources, including
manuscripts, will continue to illumine Suhraward; studies.
Arthur F. Buehler
Louisiana State University

The Wisdom of the Mystic East: Suhraward; and Platonic Orientalism

By JOHN WALBRIDGE (Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, 2001), 170 pp. Price PB $17.95. ISBN 0–79114–5052–X.

As its author says, this work is the second part of a book entitled The Leaven
of Ancients: Suhraward; and the Heritage of the Greeks. It is not entirely
clear why the two works were divided, as this volume would have been easier
to understand if it had accompanied the previous volume.
Although I regard both volumes as one, this review focuses on The Wisdom
of the Mystic East: Suhraward; and Platonic Orientalism. In a sense, this work
continues the deconstructionist project of Suhraward;’s school of illumination,
begun in his first volume by deciphering the historical and textual sources for
Suhraward;’s philosophy of history. The second volume continues by revealing
the fallacy of Suhraward;’s wholesale purchase of the myth of the wise Persian
sages, wrapped in the shroud of mystery and esotericism.
The book is a mature and scholarly discussion of Suhraward;’s ‘oriental’
sources and how he trod an intellectual path somewhere between myth and
a distorted reality. In doing so, Walbridge has made an attempt to understand
Suhraward;’s fascination with the sages of Persia, India and Mesopotamia, as
well as with Hermes and Zoroaster, to mention but a few. The author should
be commended for his clear presentation of the material, his familiarity with
a wide range of issues and figures, and the depth and scope of his research.
In undertaking these discussions, Walbridge has a tendency to provide
perhaps too much background information (he does this in the first volume as
well, by devoting a large part of the book to introducing Plato and Aristotle).
Here, he launches a discussion to introduce ‘Hermes from Antiquity to the
Renaissance’ (p. 18) and there, he offers ‘The Philosophical History of Light’.
While the value of providing us with background information is self-evident,
in a work such as this, with a specialized readership in mind, a certain degree
of familiarity is assumed if not required.
Walbridge succeeds, however, in arguing that Suhraward;, being in the
Orient himself, shared a romantic and esoteric view of the East together with
those Westerners who saw the Orient as the source of a Wisdom unavailable
in the West. The author’s presentation is rich in examples, from Suhraward;’s
perception of the Buddha to other sages of the ancient world, all of which bear
 b o ok r e v i e w s 351
testament to this ‘alluring myth’ of a ‘supposedly exotic and wiser orient—
a fascination that is, as we have seen, particularly marked in Neoplatonism’
(p. 85).
Despite a few hasty conclusions, such as his reference to Zoroastrianism
as being ‘conclusively dualistic’ (p. 86), Walbridge, through his diligence and
thorough scholarship, has to his credit presented a strong argument for his
position, and this volume—though at times a bit information-heavy—is a
welcome addition to the field of Suhraward;an studies.
However, if one were to take seriously the perennialist’s position, which is
Suhraward;’s own philosophical perspective, Walbridge’s close textual analysis
becomes somewhat irrelevant and, in a sense, misses the point. A perennialist
would claim that Suhraward;’s presentation of the sages of the Orient and the
ancient world is simply a manifestation of Truth in all its forms. Whether his
presentation is symbolic, accurate, or fallacious is beside the point, since the
message is that Divine Truth appears in different cultures and civilizations
and in the works of specific figures. As the Persian poet E:fiC said: ‘So many
sublime designs and contradictory states which appeared j Is but a ray of the
beloved’s face reflected in the chalice of wine’.
So what, one might say, if thorough scholarship shows that Suhraward;
had been misguided in his use of textual sources, had misunderstood certain
figures, and had attributed ideas to individuals who never claimed them. From
a reductionistic perspective Walbridge wins the battle of deconstructionism,
but from a perennial perspective, he has lost the war. So many rabbis, Christian
mystics, and Sufis have offered an esoteric exegesis based on distorted texts
and yet formed profound and sound conclusions on that basis. Just as it is
possible to make a false inference from true premisses, it is entirely possible
to draw a true conclusion from false premisses—except that in this case,
Suhraward;’s premisses are not false but misplaced. While from a modern
historical-textual perspective their respected discourse remains fallacious, the
process of their spiritual hermeneutics, and the force of their message, remains
valid.
A case in point would be how early Muslim philosophers attributed parts
of Plotinus’ Enneads to Aristotle, and many subsequent philosophers went
on to write commentaries on what they thought was Aristotle’s Theologia. Just
as the attribution of Enneads to Aristotle does not necessarily make the
principles stipulated therein false, Suhraward;’s attribution of perennial wisdom
(Aikmat al-kh:lida) to the sages of Greece, Persia, and India is not an argument
against Aikmat al-kh:lida, it simply indicates that Suhraward; was misin-
formed. Clearly, he read into various sources what was not there but that does
not necessarily mean their content was false.
I am not suggesting that the latter position is necessarily true, nor am
I defending it: but it is Suhraward;’s project, and whether we want to take
it seriously or not is a different issue altogether.
Mehdi Aminrazavi
Mary Washington College