cartas selecionadas f schuon

8/18/2019 Cartas Selecionadas F Schuon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cartas-selecionadas-f-schuon 1/484

^/\nandaCoomaraswamy



SELECTED LETTERS OF

Ananda K. Coomaraswamy

Edited by

A l v i n M o o r e , J r .

and

R a m a P o o n a m b u l a m C o o m a r a s w a m y

IN D I R A G A N D H I N A T I O N A L C E N T R E F O R T H E A R TS

O X FO R D U N IV ER SITY PRESSDELHI BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS

1988



ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Ananda K. Coom arasw am yat 52 years frontispiece

facing page

2. “ Progress” by Denis Tegetm cier, in

Eric Gill, Unholy Trinity, London, Dent,

1942 32

3. Ananda K. Coom arasw am y at 58 years 108

4. An example o f C oom arasw am y’s

manuscripts— letter to Eric Gill 208

5. C oom arasw am y’s study in his hom e at

Needham, Massachuse tts 258

6. A room in N orm an Chapel,

C oom arasw am y’s hom e at Broad

C am pto n, Gloucestershire, about. 1908 328

7. Albrecht Diirer’s ‘Virgin on the Crescent’

from his Life o f the Virgin (1511) 362

8 . Ananda K. C oom arasw am y at 70 years 440



FOREWORD

In the wake o f Ananda C oom arasw am y’s extensive writings,

volumes o f accolades have come forth in praise o f his enorm ous

erudition. But here in these letters for the first time we sec the

man writing intimately about himself; not in an autobio-

graphical sense, which he detested, considering such portrai-

ture “ a vulgar catering to illegitimate cur iosity” (p 25), “ a

rather ghoulish and despicable trade” (p 25). This attitude was

with him, moreover, “no t a m atter o f ‘m od esty’, bu t one o f

principle” (p 25). His w riting o f him self was rather in the senseo f establishing a personal contact w ith each correspon den t

throu gh the painstaking e ffort o f getting a questioner to see the

why and w herefore o f his tho ught processes. Reading these

letters is like looking over his shoulder and watching how his

perceptions and ideas flow.

Eric Gill said it all when he wrote to the Doctor: “You hit

bloody straight, bloody hard , and bloody ofte n.” For

Coom arasw am y was uncom prom isingly honest; thus in a letterto Albert Schweitzer on this missionary’s Christianity and the

Religions o f the World : “[I] would like to let you know that I

regard it as a fundam entally dishonest w ork .”

Uncompromisingly charitable, as in a sixpage letter to a

psychiatrist: “ Your letter. . .brought tears to my eyes. Yours is

a personal instance of the whole modern world o f impov er-

ished reality. . . You caught the very sickness you were

treating. . . You did no t shake off the effluvium from your

fingers after laying on your han ds .” Pages of appropriatecounsel follow.

And uncompromisingly generous, instanced for example inhis long answers to letters from the Gandhian Richard Gregg

who was seeking clarification on such matters as realism and

nominalism, being and knowing, knowledge and opinion, being and becoming, rc incarnationist theories, and the question°f “psychic residues”.

Rama Coomaraswamy had first considered calling thiscollection o f his father’s correspondence Letters from a Hindu to

His Christian Friends. But although the young Ananda received



the investiture o f the Sacred Thread in Ceylon in 1897, he was

cducatcd in England and later lived as a Westerner, and was

Platonist and a Medievalist as much as a Vedantist. And his

correspondents were with few exceptions not religious by

vocation bu t academicians, albeit o f Christian heritage. He

situated his own position as “ a follower o f the PhilosophiaPerennis, or if required to be m ore specific, a V cd andn .”

We sec from these letters that Coomaraswamy was totally

realistic in his assessment o f Eastern and W estern values. To

Professor F. S. C. Northrup, he says that he tells Western

inquirers: “ W hy seek wisdom in India? The value o f the

Eastern trad ition for you is no t that o f a difference, b ut that it

can remind you o f wha t you have forgo tten,” adding that “ the

no tion o f a com m on hum anity is not enough for peace; w hat isneeded is our common divinity.” Elsewhere he writes that

“East and West have a common problem.” And he complains

to the German art historian, Herman Goetz, that the great

majority o f Indian students in the West arc really “ disorganized

barbarians” and “ cultura l il li te rates.” “The modern young

Indian (with exceptions) is in no position to meet the reallycultured and spiritual European.” Again to Northrup, he says,

“ I am still fully convinced that the metaphysics o f East andWest are essentially the same until the time o f the W estern

deviation from the common norms,” when Western thought

shifted (ca 1300) from realism to nominalism.

N ow he writes to the N ew English Weekly , “ the ‘civ ilization’

that men are supposed to be fighting for is already a museum

piece.” Elsewhere: “The magnitude o f our means and themultiplicity o f ou r ideas arc in fact the measure o f ou r

decadence.” And near the close of his life, in his address

(included here) on “ the Renaissance o f Indian Cu lture” , givenat Harvard on August 15, 1947, he says: “our problem is not somuch one o f the reb irth o f an Indian eulture, as it is one o f

preserv ing what remains o f it. This culture is valid for us not somuch bccausc it is Indian as because it is culture.” In a letteraddressing the need for a realistic ground o f understanding , hew rites tha t he can “ sec no basis for such a com m on understand-ing other than that o f the com mon universe o f discourse o f the

Philosophia Perennis, which was the lingua franca o f all cu ltures before the ‘confusion o f tongues’.” And he reiterates time andagain in his letters the necessity for people to turn to the



traditional authorities o f ou r age in orde r to get theirmetaphysical bearings: men like Frithjo f Schuon, Rene Guenon

and Marco Pallis.

As foremost heir to Medieval wisdom the Catholic Church

in Coomaraswamy’s eyes bore a priceless legacy coupled withan enormous responsibility; and although continually inviting

Christians to share w ith him in the rediscovery o f this treasure,

the Doctor was with few exceptions thwarted by their

incapacity for adequate response. Conversion, they exclaimed,

not reciprocal comprehension, was the only way to salvation.

“Please do not pray that I may become a Christian,” replied

Coomaraswamy to a nun’s entreaties; “pray only that I may

know God better every day.” And he foresaw what was

coming to the Church when he wrote to another Catholic:“T he humanisation , ie, secularisation o f scripture accompaniesthe humanisation of Christ.”

His attitude on an esoteric aspect of Ch ristianity is disclosedin his words to Eric Gill about a “wonderful Mary legend” he

has read, saying that “there is a Vedic parallel too, whereWisdom is said to reveal her very body to some. Perhaps you

can print this legend someday, and I could write a few words of

introduction. On the other hand, perhaps the world does notdeserve such things nowadays!”

Regarding his own path, Coomaraswamy wrote, “I fully

hold that labore est orare and do regard my work as a vocation.”

But “ w hen I go to In dia ,” he said in a letter to Marco Pallis, “ itwill be to drop w riting . . . my object in ‘re tiring’ being to

verify what I already ‘know’.” Meanwhile, in his seventiethyear he wrote, “the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads are daily

reading for me.”These letters convey a constant tone o f the D oc tor’s ow n

selfeffacement. He puts forth his principles unflaggingly,

while never putting forth himself, saying he is only anexponent for the ideas o f others: “ [I] try to say noth ing that can properly be att ributed to me individually .” To the traditionalCatholic, Bernard Kelley, he wrote: “It can only be said thatthe m ystic is acting ‘selfishly’ when there really remains in hima ‘self.” The word idiot , he reminds another correspondent,

means “virtually ‘one who thinks for h im se lf.” And in anothe r place: “ Satan was the first to th ink o f himself as a genius.”

All this touches on the axis around which Coomaraswamy’s



later exposition revolved, nam ely, the postulate o f the two

selves or “minds”— duo sunt in homine —and its ineluctablecorollary, on the necessity for selfnaughting. With incrediblethoroughness he pursued parallels from Western and Eastern

sources, to Sankara’s presentation o f Advaita Vedanta, the

doctrine o f monism or nonduality. And Co om arasw am y’sintransigence regarding the sole true reality o f our Higher

Self—“the One and Only Transmigrant”, St Paul’s “not I, but[the] Christ [that] livcth in me”—was compounded by hisinsistence on the infallibility o f imm utable a rchetype and m yth

over mutable accident and history, to the point even of

perm itting him self an expression o f doubt concern ing the

historicity o f Christ and the Buddha. In order to situate the

paradox o f this tendency to excess at the expense o f fact, wehave to remind ourselves that Coomaraswamy found himselfcon fronting a blind generation w ith timeless truths, in an age of

“impoverished reality” wherein most people no longer “see”

what is beyond their senses. In a world where religion for the

m ultitude has becom e equated w ith m oral precepts on the level

o f “ Be good, dear child” , the metaphysician felt the need to

repost w ith the thund er o f ultimates on the level o f “Every-

thing will perish save God’s Countenance” (Q u ’ran xxviii, 88).To reply that the Doctor could better have struck a happymedium in these matters is to ask that Coomaraswamy not be

Coomaraswamy.

He admits the Plotinian concept of “distinction w ithout

difference” in the Noumenal Sphere where “all souls are one”,yet in actual exegesis he virtually reduces the human soul to a“ process” o f becoming, w ithout final reality. In part his

emphasis on this point was to refute the popular notion of

reincarnation, currently a dogma in India and one particularly vexing to him as it lends an exaggerated im port-ance to the accidental ego o f this man so andso, and also because his insistence on the fallacy o f the belief invitedcriticism from erudite Hindus who otherwise admired hiswritings.

It may be well to state here that reincarnationism derivesfrom misconceptions o f basic Eastern teachings having to do

w ith the R ound o f Existence or samsara, this being thetransm igration o f souls to o ther states o f existence insofar as theimp urities o f ignorance have no t been who lly eradicated in



them, that purification w hich alone leads to enlightenm ent andfinal deliverance from the meshes o f existence and becom ing.

But this teaching has to be situated in term s o f the limitless

modalities and imm ensities o f cosmic time and space (in which

“ God does no t repeat H im se lf’), whereas reincarnationism

credulously reduces transmigration through the multiple stateso f the being to a kind o f gardenvariety genealogy played out

on the scale of this world’s stage.

To a question about a prom inen t Indian put by S. Durai Raja

Singam, the man who was to become the indefatigable

com piler o f Co om arasw am y m emorabilia, the D octor replied

in 1946: [He] is a saint, n ot an intellectual giant; I am neither bu tI do say that those whose authority I rely on when I speak have

often been both.” People may think what they like aboutwhether he was cither, neither, or the two concurrently, but it

cannot be denied tha t he certainly vehicled an aura o f both .

He was fond o f quo ting St Paul to the effect that G od has

never left Him self w ithout a witness. In the traditional

patrim ony that Coom arasw am y has handed on we have an

eloquent testimony to this.

W h i t a l l N . P e r r y



PREFACE

It is both a great privilege and an extraordinary experience tohave selected, and along with Alvin Moore, to have edited the

letters o f Ananda C oom arasw am y. O ne w onders, in the face o f

his enormous literary output, how he was able to carry on such

a fruitful correspondence. The nu m ber o f letters probably runs

to several thousand and one would hope, that over the course

o f time m any m ore will turn up. T hese can, almost witho ut

exception, be divided into four categories: those dealing with

inquiries about w orks o f art— either requests for identification,

evaluation or possible purchase by the Boston Museum; those

responding to or dealing with philosophical or metaphysical

issues; those written to the New England Weekly; and lastly a

handful o f b rie f personal notes to his mothe r, wife, o r children.

Th ere are various reasons why the letters o f famous men are

published. In the case o f some, they reflect the times they lived

in. O thers give insights into the personal life o f the author, or

clues as to what induced him to enter the public forum. Still

others are exam ples o f literary art— so called “belle lettrcs” .Those o f D r C oom arasw am y are none o f these. Indeed, w hat is

extraordinary about them is that they contain nothing personal,

even when written to close friends and associates. He had said

once, in response to a request for an autobiography, that

“portraiture o f hum an beings is aswarga”, and that such an

attitude w as a matter, no t o f modesty, but o f principle. Hisletters reflect this attitude.

I have said that there are several thousand letters. Unfortu-nately, no t all o f these have been collected or collated. M any

have undoubtedly been lost. Thus for example, his own files

show perhaps a hundred letters from Marco Pallis. Unfortu-nately, none o f his to M r. Pallis survive as the latter

consistently destroyed all mail after reading. Again, there are atarge num be r o f letters to him from Rene Guenon. H ow ever,the Guenon archives have revealed or at least, produced nonefrom him . Several European and A merican libraries have lettersfrom him dispersed in collections o f other notables such asYeates or Sorokin. Still other letters are archived in private



collections such as T. S. Eliott. Hopefully one response to the

publication o f these carefully selected exam ples will be a more

complete collation, with hitherto unknown examples becom-

ing available.The selection process was fairly simple. All the available

letters—cither originals or carbon copies—were read andclassified as to m ajor topics o f discussion. These sub groupswere then weeded out so as to avoid excessive length and

repetition. The end result is some 400 letters which can truly be

said to be characteristic.The remarkable thing abou t these letters is that each o f them

is a sort of “miniessay” put forth in relatively easy language.

Despite this, they cover almost every m ajor line o f thought that

is developed in his published w orks. Those who w ould seek an

introduction to the writings o f Ananda Coom araswam y coulddo no better than to start with this book.

It is both fitting and wonderful, that the Indira Gandhi

National Centre for the Arts should select this w ork as the first

publication in its planned collected works o f Ananda Coomara-

swamy. If he was a universalist in principle, he was above all an

Indian in his origins and ways of thinking. It had been his plan to

return to India where he intended to continue his works, produce

a translation o f the Upanishads, and then take Sanyasa. Godwilled otherwise and only his ashes were returned to the land he

loved. Hcnce it is—one says it again—both fitting and wonderful

that India should undertake to make available to the world, notonly his letters, but the entire corpus o f his works.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Wc wish to acknow ledge the coopcration o f all w ho have

assisted in making this volume possible by providing copies of

Dr Coomaraswamy’s letters which have been included in this

collection. We thank the U niversity o f M innesota for permis-

sion to use the lines from Ray Livingston’s The Traditional

Theory o f Literature wh ich arc placed in exergue to this volum e;

the heirs o f Devin Adair publishers for permission to quo te in

the Introduction the paragraph from Eric Gill’s Autobiography.

Our thanks are due also to Sri Keshavram N. Icngar of

Bangalore, India; Mr and Mrs Eric H. Hansen, EmoryUniveristy, Atlanta, Georgia; Dr Rene Imelee, West Georgia

College, Carrollton, Georgia; and to the librarians and staff

mem bers o f the E m ory University library and the library o f

West Georgia College. And certainly not least, we thank our

respective spouses for their encouragement, patience and

practical help.

A l v i n M o o r e , J r .


In the late ha lf o f the nineteenth cen tury and the early tw entieth

century scholars from all parts o f the wo rld w ere draw n to the

Asian heritage. Some excavated, others brought to light

primary textual material, and a third group dwelled upon

fundamental concepts, identified perennial sources, and created bridges o f com munication by juxtaposing diverse tradit ions.

They w ere the pathfinders: they drew attention to the unity and

wholeness of life behind manifestation and process. C uttin gacross sectarian concerns, religious dogma and conventionalnotions of the spiritual East and materialist West, of monothe-ism and polytheism, they were responsible for laying thefoundations o f a new approach to Indian and Asian art. T heirw ork is o f co ntem po rary relevance and validity for the East andthe West. Restless and unsatisfied with fragmentation, there is asearch for roots and comprehension, perception and experience



o f the who le. Seminars on renewal, regeneration and begin-

nings have been held. The time is ripe to bring the work of

these early torch bearers to the attention o f future generations.

Th e name o f Ananda Kentish C oom araswam y is foremo st

am ong these pathfinders— for the expanse o f his grasp, the

depth o f his insights, and fo r their validity today.To fulfil the need for renew ed search for the whole, as also to

stimulate further work with this free and catholic approach

w hich is not im prisoned in the walls o f ideology, the Kala Kosa

Division o f the IG N CA has initiated a program m e o f publica-

tion o f w orks o f critical scholarship, reprints and translations.

The criterion o f identification is the value o f the w ork for its

crosscultural perception, multidisciplinary approach and in-

accessibility for reasons o f language or on account o f being o utof print.

Th e Collected Works o f A. K. Coom arasw am y, thematical-

ly rearranged with the author’s own revisions, is central to the

IG N C A ’s third p rogra m m e in its division o f Textual Research

and Publication, Kala Kosa. T he p resent volum e o f the Selected

Letters o f Ananda K . Coomaraswamy commences this series.

The IGNCA is grateful to Dr Rama P. Coomaraswamy for

agreeing to allow the IGNCA to republish the collected works,

and for his generosity in relinquishing claims on royalties.

Alvin M oore , an old associate o f Coom arasw am y, has pains-

takingly edited the present volume along with Dr Rama P.Co om arasw am y. We are grateful to both o f them. M r Keshav

Ram Iengar has to be thanked for his lifetime devotion, his

interest, and his assistance in proofreading and preparing theindex.

We also thank M r Jyotish D utta G upta for rendering

invaluable help in the production, M r K. L. Khosa fordesigning the jack et and M r K. V. Srinivasan for ably assistingin this project.

K a p i l a V a t s y a y a n

In d i r a G a n d h i N a t i o n a l C e n t r e Fo r T h e A r t s



INTRODUCTION

It seems fitting to introduce these letters selected from the

extensive corresponden ce o f Ananda K entish Coo maraswam y

with a paragraph from his close friend Eric Gill, Catholic,

artisan, artist and au tho r o f distinguished repu tation. Gill

wrote, in his Auto bio graphy:

. . . T here was on e p erson, to w ho m I think William

Rothcnstein introduced me, whom I might not have met

otherwise and for whose influence I am deeply grateful. Imean the philosopher and theologian Ananda Coomara-

swamy. Others have written the truth about life and religion

and man’s work. Others have written good clear English.

O thers h ave had the gift o f w itty expression. O thers have

un de rstood the m etaphysics o f Ch ristianity, and others have

und erstood the m etaphysics o f Hinduism and Buddhism.

O thers have un de rstood the true significance of erotic

drawings and sculptures. Others have seen the relationships

o f the good , the true and the beautiful. O thers have had

apparently unlimited learning. Others have loved; others

have been kind and generous. But I know o f no one else in

whom all these gifts and all these powers have been

com bined. I dare not confess mys elf his disciple; that would

only embarass him . I can only say that no othe r living writer

has w ritten the tru th in m atters o f art and life and religion

and piety with such wisdom and understanding.

This citation gives a very discerning insight into the character

o f the m ature Coom arasw am y. But one may, quite properly,want to kn ow som ething m ore o f the life and circumstances of

this son o f East and W est who corresponded so widely and wholeft so m any letters that are deemed w orth y o f publication evenafter so many years. Moreover, what could a nonChristianhave to say that cou ld be o f any possible interest to the seriousChristian?

The w riter o f these letters was born in 1877 in Colombo,Cey lon (now Sri Lanka), o f a Tam il father and an Englishmother. The father, Sir Mutu Coomaraswamy, was a particu-



larly able m em ber o f an outstanding T amil, H indu family that

had been long settled in Ceylon but which had retained its ties,especially religious ties, with India. Sir Mutu was the first

Asian and the first Hindu to be called to the bar in Britain, in

1863, and a man whose personal presence and achievement

gained for him an entrance into upper social circles in England.He counted Disraeli among his friends, eg, and Disraeli even

took him as model for one o f his fictional characters. The

m other was Elizabeth Clay Beeby, o f a Ken t family prom inent

in the India and Ceylon trade. The couple had been married in

1875 by no less an ecclesiastic than the Archbishop of

Canterbury. This was certainly no casual miscegenation, such

as had been all too common and even encouraged in colonial

India; on the contrary, it was the purposeful union o f twostrong minds and independent spirits. But an interracial

marriage is not likely to be easy; and, over a hundred years ago,

the couple must have faced distinct difficulties both among the

Victorian English and in the East among orthodox Hindus.

The yo ung Ananda, how ever, was to combine in himself the

better qualities o f both races. He was him self to become ritually

one o f the twiceborn among the Hindus, and he was to g row

into an apostle o f the traditional East (now no longeridentifiable geographically) to men hungering and thirsting for

spiritual and intellectual sustenance in the meaningless wastes

o f the m odern w orld. Rem arkably, and on ly to a slightly lesserdegree, he was an apostle of the traditional West as well; for he

was intimately familiar w ith the corpus o f Medieval Christian

philosophy, theology, lite ra ture and art, as well as withPlatonism and Neoplatonism.

In 1877, after two years in Ceylon and the birth o f her son,

Lady C oom arasw am y, not yet thirty, returned to England for avisit. Sir Mutu was to follow but, tragically, died on the veryday he was to have sailed from Colombo. It was thus that theyoung mother and her child remained in Britain. The youngAnanda w as educated in England, first at home, then at a public

school (Wycliffe, in Gloucestershire), and finally at the Uni-versity o f London which he entered at eighteen. He g raduatedfrom the latter in 1900 with' honors in botony (gardening was a

lifelong interest) and geology. Later, his university was toaward him its doctorate in science (1906) for his work in themineralogy o f Ceylon; for between 1902 and 1906 the young



scientist had w ork ed in the land o f his birth, mak ing the first

m ineralogical su rve y o f the island. His co mpetence as a scientist

is indicated by the fact that he identified a previously un know n

mineral, serendibite. And characteristically, he chose not to

name it after himself, which he would have been fully entitled

to do. M uch o f this original w ork done by Coom araswam y isstill in use.

Survey activities required extensive field work, and Coomara-

swamy found these duties particularly congenial. His con-

tinuing presence in the field gave him numerous occasions to

move among the Tamil and Sinhalese* villages, especially the

latter, and to ob serv e rural life and the practice of the local

crafts; and n otably , to ob serve the blighting effect o f the

European presence on indigenous culture and values. Oneo f his early concerns was a camp aign to encourage the use

o f traditional d ress in preference to E uropean c lothing, in

which many Asians—particularly women—often looked so

awkward.

Moving between England and Ceylon as he frequently did,

Coomaraswamy had numerous opportunities for travel in

India. He did so in 1901, again in 1906, and more extensively in

19101911. Already in Ceylon he had been active in social

reform and educational m ov em ents, and he figured prom inent-

ly in the campaign to found a national university in that

country. It was a natural step to pursue related interests in

India, which he was coming to view as cultural macrocosm to

Ceylon’s microcosm. In India his interests shifted towards

Indian nationalism and its written expressions, and then

tow ards a personal survey o f the arts and artifacts o f the

subcontinent. He began collccting extensively but discrimina-

tingly in folk music, and especially in miniature paintings. Infact, early on, he gained an international reputation on the basis

o f w ork begu n in this incep tion o f his professional life. Later,

he offered his su pe rior co llection o f Indian m iniatures to the

cou ntry if a national m useu m could be built to house them; but

when funds were not forthcoming for this purpose, he brought

* The Sinhalese, gen erally H inayana Bud dhists, are the majority in the

popula tion o f Ceylon (Sri Lanka ). T he encrg ctic and ente rp ris in g Tam ils,

generally Hindu, arc Dravidians from adjacent South India and are thelargest minority group in the island nation, where they have been settled for

many centuries.



the collcction to the United States where it is housed primarily

at the Boston M useum o f Fine Arts. Medieval Sinhalese Art, his first m ajor publication, was a book

for which he did not only the field work (assisted by his wife

Ethel), but which he personally saw through the press—this

latter being William M orr is’ old Kclm scott Press which hadcome into Coomaraswamy’s possession. This book is testi-

mony not only to Coomaraswamy’s competence as art

historian, bu t also to a high degree o f personal and m ethodo lo-

gical discipline. A second major publication was his Rajput

Painting (1916), which bore the lengthy subtitle: Being an

Account o f Hindu Paintings o f Rajasthan and the Punjab* Himalayas

from the Six teenth to the Nineteenth Century Described in Relation

to Contemporary Thought with Texts and Translations. All this iscited to make a specific point: the phrase “described in relation

to contemporary thought” offers an important key to

C oo m arasw am y’s approach in many o f his more profound

studies written in later years. He would, eg, present a painting,

a sculpture, a weapon or a ritual object and on the basis o f the

relevant Scriptural or other texts offer erudite and profound,

lucid and highly concentrated expositions o f the ideas o f which

the artifact was, so to speak, a palpable representation. Thisapproach implies the nullity o f the precious distinctions tha t arc

commonly assumed to distinguish the “fine” from the applied

arts, for traditionally the governing rules and manners of

production arc the same. All appearances proceed from the

interior ou twards, from the art and science o f the artist to the

artifact; and, Ultimately, from an uncreated and principal

Interior to the manifested or created order, from God to the

world . Th e m anner of this divine operation , in final analysis, is

the parad igm o f the artist as practitioner. There can be notraditional justification for an art that imitates nature on ly in her

external aspects, natura naturata, mere fact: nor for an art thataims only at aesthetic pleasure; and even less for an artconceived as noth ing m ore than the expression o f the individualartist, ic, vulgar exhibitionism—not to mention “surreal art”,

* At the tim e Co om arasw am y w as travelling and collccting in Rajasthan and

in the Punjab, the latter was a much larger entity than it is today, for it has

un derg on e several divisions. It then consisted o f the areas that are nowincluded in the Punjab prov ince of Pakistan, Indian or East Punjab, and theIndian states o f Hary ana and Himachal Pradesh.



which is an eru ptio n o f the subconscious into the waking state,

like a nightmare experienced at midday.

There were them es that C oo m arasw am y reiterated in season,

ou t o f season. T he y represent intuitions that were with him

from the beginning, but their eloquent articulation which was

to characterize his later w riting was not arrived at suddenly; hew orke d his w ay to this und ou bted extended mastery. O ne very

important step in this maturation was the invitation extended

to him in 1917 by the Bo ston M useum o f Fine Arts to become

Keeper of their Indian collections. So it was that at the age of

forty, uncomfortable in the Britain that frowned upon his

Indian sympathies, and already with an international reputa-

tion, Coomaraswamy accepted the American offer and began

the association with the Boston Museum and the United Statesthat endured thirty years—until his death in 1947. His tenure

was by no means a sinecure, but the Boston Museum did

provid e both th e necessary freedom and the favorable ambiance

for the flow ering o f one o f the m ost wideranging and

pro foundcst in te lligences th at have ever w orked in the U nited

States. In B oston, C oo m arasw am y settled in for years of w ork

in collections development, in technical studies, in writing; and

generally in m ak ing kn ow n the results of his findings and

thinking on an intensely learned level, but also as occasion

offered, on more popular levels, eg, in radio talks and in public

lectures. B ut he conceived o f his vocation as primarily

addressing the learned, as being a teacher to teachers, believing

that thereby the imp act o f his w ork m ight be the greater. H e

wrote to Eric Hill that “ . . . it is a matter o f definite policy on

my part to w ork w ithin the academic . . . sphere: this is

analagous to the idea o f the reform o f a school o f thou gh t

within, instead o f an attack withou t. . . . His wife,Dona Luisa, recalled his rhetorical question: “What would I

have ever done without my doctorate?” His credentials and hisachievements won for him a hearing; but especially in his later

years when his writing was more profound and his expression

more uncompromising, it was a hearing for views that were

* By co ntrast, his con tem po rary an d friend Rerie Guenon wo rked in

p io neerin g iso la tion and le t pass no o p po rtu n it y to disparage acad em e,

especially the ‘official’ Orientalists. As a conscqucnce, only within the lastdccadc or so has the scholarly w orld begun to take note o f this body o f work

which, quite simply, can no longer be ignored.



anything but popular and that were particularly at variance

with conventional opinion typifying the secularist mentality so

prevalent am ong the educated.Th e a uthor o f these letters considered himself a Hindu;

m oreo ver, he is recognized within this tradition as an orthod ox

exponen t of Hindu doctrinc. T he w ord “ ortho do x” is used

here in its pro per sense of one w ho is sound o r correct in

doctrinc and opinion; one w hose expositions reflect, no t willful

personal views, but a hom ogeneity o f thought proper to the

spiritual perspective o f the Trad ition from which he speaks. It

may be n oted that o f all the extant traditional forms, H induism

is the oldest and is thus considered nearest the Primordial

Tradition. Hinduism is also the most universal, including

within its fold almost all the perspectives which have, mutatis mutandis, been more specifically developed in one o f the other

orthodox Traditions. As an outstanding scholar, Coomaras-

wamy was familiar with the traditional writings and perspec-

tives o f Bud dhism , Islam, Judaism, the doctrines o f the

American Indians, the Platonists and Neoplatonists; and

especially those o f H induism and Christianity. Indeed, he had

dream t o f w riting, as he said, con amore about the latter.

C oom arasw am y was on the side o f the angels, a preeminentwitness to the ineluctable priority o f Intelligence. He was one

o f three remarkable m en* w hose H eaven sent vocations have

been, in varyin g degrees and foci, to recall to a secularized and

dispirited contemporary humanity what and who man is, what

it means to be man, and what is man’s proper destiny.

C oo m arasw am y was a universalist in that he understood and

believed to ta lly in the transcendent unity o f re ligions**. It

follows that he did not believe that the Christian Revelation

* Th e oth er tw o arc Frithjof Schuon and Rene Guenon, whose names

(especially the latter) appear from time to time in these letters, and whose

published w ork s are m entioned in the bib liographical sect ion at the end o f

this volume.

** The Transcendent Unity o f Religions is the title of the first ma jor w ork o f

Fr ithjo f Sch uon w hich ap peared in 1948 (the original French edition). T . S.

Eliot, then w ith Faber and Faber, L ondon, which published the first English

translation, gave a very favorable endorsem ent o f the book. It is a landm arkwith which Coomaraswamy would have been in full agreement. Note that

the operative word, however, is transcendent ; Schuon never minimizes thegenuine differences which providentially and necessarily separate the severaltraditional forms.



speculative* w riting for centuries. A t this point, one cannot but

recall the first Pentecost and the “ gift o f tongues” (Acts ii,211) when the Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoke so

as to be heard and understood by pilgrims from “all nationsunder Heaven”**—a kind of reversal of the malediction of

Babel. The w ork o f Co om araswam y has something o f this pentecostal quality— in the original, not in the sectarian

sense—imp lying some measure of inspiration by the Spirit o f

T ru th, som e degree of contact with the suprapersonal Intellect.

Spiritus ubi vult spirat, “the Spirit blowcth where it listeth” (Jn

iii, 8). It is thus that the most profound conceptions can be

articulated with all requisite authority when the proper

occasion dem ands it; and it is thus that these conceptions cannot

be the exclusive property o f any particular segment o fhumanity. In his own case, Coomaraswamy prescinded from

this obvious unity in diversity to say: “What I regard as the

proper end o f ‘Com parative Religion’ is the dem onstration o f

fundam ental tru ths by a cloud o f witnesses” .*** A nd it was in

this vein that he demonstrated the most striking parallels, eg, in

the writings o f St Thom as A quinas and the Hindu shruti and

smriti, *** and not only as between these by any means.

Speaking as a H indu (and, one m igh t add, as a Platonist), and in* T he w ord ‘specu lative’ can serve as a conven ient exam ple o f precisely this

attenuation. The primary modern sense, when not referring to financial

ma nipulations, has to do with fantasy or imaginative thinking severed from

existential and especially palpable realities. Originally and etymologically,

the w or d refers to intellectual realities— ‘the same yesterday, today, and

fore ver’— and the capacity o f the hum an intelligence to understan d these

realities.

** C oom arasw am y would have noted that the heaven in question was th at as

conceived by the ancient Mediterranean world. But he would have beenquite certain that the Christian Scriptures are in no w ay diminished w hen w e

recognize that there were no Chinese, Red Indians or Incas among the

Apostles’ auditors.

*** A powerful apologetic tool is neglected more often than n ot when

Ch ristians fail to m ake use o f the ‘pro bab le’ evidences available in

non Ch ristian traditions. It is some w hat as if St Tho m as had rejected

Aristotle.

** ** Shruti, in Hindu ism , is the highest degree o f Reve lation, being directcontact with Divine realities. Smriti derives its authority from the shruti via

reflection, c om parable in this respect to certain aspects o f the Epistles o f StPaul. Among the parallels Coomaraswamy found as between the HinduScriptures and C hristian d octrine, we m ay me ntion that of the one Essence



the face o f C hristian exclusivism, he could say— with great

caritas — “ I am on your side, even if you arc not on min e” .

Obviously, all the several Traditions have their respective

poin ts of view vis-a-vis the theses stated or implied above, and

we cannot pursue these here. We must limit our remarks to

contem po rary C hristianity as it is seen and kn ow n about us. Atfirst slowly bu t steadily, and no w at a rapidly accelerating pace,

we have seen the Faith enter into a decline: intellectually and

conceptually, artistically, socially and morally. And now today

one sees an astonishing convergence o f what is taken to be the

Christian message (and which is often only caricature at best)

with a frank worldlincss. On a merely extrinsic reckoning,

C hristian ity has long since ceased to be a formative influence in

modern life (individual exceptions granted), having becomeitself a follower— o f secular hum anism , progress, evolution-

ism, scientism and oth er fashionable and m ore or less ephem er-

al trends. M ultitudes o f those who should norm ally be

Christian have deserted the Faith. N o t a few o f these have taken

to strange cults, which, in our decaying culture as in ancient

Rome, proliferate like flies. Others have turned to one or

another o f the O riental religions, a move w hich often affords

occasions of ridicule by those less in earnest or—

m om entarily— in less apparent need. It m ust be adm itted,

how ever, that in all too m any cases the forms o f Oriental

religion accessible in the W est* are o f doub tful soundn ess—

though there arc clear and definite exceptions. In these last

times, when we find “Christian” spokesmen expounding all

manner o f strange notions from w ithin the Church and the

Churches, w hen the C hristian vocabulary and idiom arc widely

used to disguise nonChristian and even counterChristian

purposes, it is m ost appropriate th at D r C oom arasw am y’sletters to his learned friends should be made public. For as Ray

Livingston said in the lines cited in exergue above: “Let it be

noted . . . that Coomaraswamy cannot be lumped with those

and tw o natures, the role o f the W ord and the primordiality o f sound, and

the procession a nd return o f creatures.

* As for H ind uism itself, i t is no t a proselytizing faith and the no nH indu

does no t have the op tion o f converting to H induism, en try into w hich is by

bir th in to one o f the four tradit io nal castcs . T his says all tha t need be saidhere abou t the socalled H indu sects w hich have been so conspicuous in the

West.



swam is* o f East or West, o r like types, w ho pedd le a bogus

‘spirituality’ that is vague, delusory and deceitful . . . . Coom ar-

aswamy had no designs on us . . . except to return us to the

sources o f our ow n w isdom .”Coomaraswamy had found in art a window onto the

Universal; and from a maturing interest in art as illustrative ofideas, particularly metaphysical ideas, in the last fifteen years or

so o f his life his p rim ary interest was in the ideas themselves: in

the m etaphysical doctrine that is the heritage o f hum anity as

such, ideas which embody those principles by which civiliza-

tions rise and fall and which are variously expressed in the

several traditional forms— una veritas in variis signis, variae

resplendet, ad majorem gloriam Dei, “one truth in various forms,

variously resplendent, to the greater glory o f G od ” , anaphorism which Coomaraswamy liked to quote. It is in this

area, as metaphysician and comparative religionist, that

Coom arasw am y can and should be of the greatest interest

to those willing to make the effort involved in following his

dialectic, nam ely those whose pow ers o f attention and concen-

tration have not been utterly vitiated by the host distractions

which—purposely, it would seem—permeate modern life. He

can be instrum ental in helping restore some sense o f the

transcendent dim ension to one’s understanding o f a Ch ristian-

ity which, officially, has all too often become worldly, banal

and insipid—in the Gospel expression, unsavory.

There are doubtless some who would criticize Dr Coomara-sw am y as an elitist, though in the nature o f things such

judgem ents can have litt le in tr insic force or significance. For

there are men (and, o f course, w om en, too, for man and men

cover all humanity)—there are men, we say, who have superior

intellectual and spiritual gifts, far above the average, so muchso that a common humanity serves only to cloak for theundiscerning the fact that interiorly men can differ almost as

much as angels from animals. “God giveth without stint towhom He will”, says the Q u ’ran. And to some Heaven has

given the vocation, appo inted the task o f recalling men to theirinalienable spiritual and intellectual patrimony. AnandaC oom araswa m y was one o f these few; men w ith w hom

* The w ord swam y is itself a perfectly respectable honorific, and it wasevidently incorporated into the Coomara family name at some point, as is

not uncommon in India.



“ Heaven docs . . . as we with torches do, not light them for

them selves.” The first fifty years o r so o f his life were a lmost as

a period o f training for the last decade and a half. D uring that

latter period he was consum ed in the effort to recall the modern

world, through those scholars whom he specifically addressed,

to the intellectual/spiritual birthright that has been abandoned,to a saner m ann er o f life, a life that m igh t take due account o f

the w hole man and especially o f the claims o f the Inner M an,

the Man in cveryman (a phrase he often used). Our task is to

kno w w ho and w hat w e are; because we, being manifold, have

the du ty to appraise ourselves and to become aware o f the

num ber and nature o f ou r constituents, some o f which we

ignore as wc commonly ignore our very principle and manner

o f being—to adapt w ords o f Plotinus (Enneads VI.7.14).Coomaraswamy took his calling quite seriously; nevertheless,

he was far from being puritanical or shrunken; indeed, the

hum ane am plitude o f the man was inescapable and remarkable.

He believed that living according to Heavengiven designs

assured not only the fullest possible happiness in this life, but

also plenitude of jo y and perfect fu lfillm ent outre tombe. O ne o f

the great weaknesses he perceived in religion in the modern

West was the wide tendency (since his death, greatly accentu-

ated) to reduce the claims o f religion to merely social and

ethical considerations, ie, the most external and derivative

aspects o f a Tra dition . He saw that religion needs to return to

doctrine, and this in a more profound sense than anything

Christianity has known since the Middle Ages.

What we need is the revival o f Christian dogm a. Th is is

precisely w here the East is o f use and help. I have been to ld

by Catholics that my ow n w ork has given them renewed

confidence, which is ju st the effect it should have . . . ethicshave no po w er o f their ow n . . . they becom e a m ere

sentiment and do little or nothing to better the world.

Further, following St Thomas and other traditional doctrines,he distinguished faith, which is an intellectual virtue in itsintrinsic nature, from mere . . ‘fidcism’ which only am oun tsto credulity, as exercised in connection with postulates, slogansand all kinds o f wishful thinking” .

Should one doubt Coomaraswamy’s sincerity in all the positions he advocated, there are several tests one m ight apply .



Whitall Perry mentioned several in his Foreword—the man’s

honesty, his generosity, his selfeffacement. In this latter,

Co om arasw am y is reminiscent of Plotinus, w ho refused to

allow his portrait to be painted on the grounds that no one

could benefit from the image o f an image. Add itionally, one

might consider Coomaraswamy’s indefatigable labours spreadover many years, and his large indifference to copyright

interests as regards his own work. The man was essentially

disinterested.We have commented on Coomaraswamy the metaphysician,

on his com prehensive view o f man and the world, on his vast

erudition. These qualities are as valuable today, probably more

so, as when he wrote; before, be it noted, the II Vatican

Council and its devastating aggiomamento with the accompany-ing public eruption of modernism into the heart of Christianity.

Were there no sh ortcom ings in the man? Is this b rief sketch

mere extravagan t hag iography, simply a litany o f praise? It is

yes to the first and no to the second question. Whitall Perry has

no ted several aspects of C oo m aras w am y’s ruling perspectives

that do require qualification; and there are a few additional

poin ts that need to be made in this connection. When

Coomaraswamy wrote, he found that available translations of

Oriental texts and expositions o f traditional doctrine w ere

usually inadequate at best and commonly little better than

caricatures. Skeptics, nonbelievers, nominalists and rational-

ists, on the basis o f no m ore than a presumed linguistic

competence, set themselves to translate and expound the most

abstruse tex ts and doctrines o f the traditional East; and, not

surprisingly, the results betrayed the originals. But in the half

century since Dr Coomaraswamy’s death, this situation has

changed substantially, thanks in no small part to the efforts ofAKC himself. It is not that there are no longer inadequate trans-

lations nor expositions that delude: it is rather that due to the

efforts o f a nu m ber o f traditionalists: m en like Rene Guenon,

Titus Burckhardt, Marco Pallis, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and

especially Frithjof Schuon, as well as those of AKC and a fewothers o f like m ind and inspiration, there now exists a veryrespectable bod y o f expo sitory and interpretative w ork in

which we have a touchstone for jud ge m en t.* Let it be noted,too, that the traditional East has continued to play a necessary

* See bibliograph ical section at the end o f this collection for furth ersuggestions. Note, too, that translations, however good, seldom rise to the



and positive role in reintroducing to the modern West essential

conceptions o f the metaphysical and traditional order, concep-

tions which had been forgotten or allowed to lapse within the

Christian West. So when Coomaraswamy expressed the view

that one had to have com mand o f the relevant classical

languages in ord er to unde rstand the Oriental doc trines, he wasspeaking in isolation, before m ost o f the published w ork o f the

above named men. The works o f these latter, along with those

o f C oom arasw am y (including these letters), can be o f inestim -

able value for anyone w ho sincerely wishes to effect . a

metanoia, a tho rou gh change o f mind. Insensibly, those things

which our world rejects [can] become the standard by which

we judge it”.

We should note also that Coomaraswamy was on shakyground when he occasionally asserted, in effect, that any object

can be beautiful in its kind; eg, a mechanical device, even a bom b. To accept this w ould be tantam ount to the denial o f

beauty as a div ine quality and to confuse it w ith mere artifice

and prettiness. But on the basis of the D oc tor’s ow n inclusive

statem ents on a rt and on the nature o f beauty, we believe that

the above views do not represent his final and considered

positions but rather were adopted ad hoc for the purpose ofmaking a particular point.

A few more extensive comments arc in order as regards

missionary activity*, which often irritated Coomaraswamy

and which he often castigated. Bu t Christianity, like Buddhismand Islam in this, is inhe rently a missionary religion. T his stems

from the postR esurrec tion injunction of Christ to “go. . . un-

to all nations. . .”, and the resulting attitude typified in St

Pau l’s “ wo e is me if I do not preach the G ospel”— positions

which, until quite recently, have been considered as definingthe essential Christian attitude in these matters. The rest is a

question o f qualification, op po rtunity and sincerity. A pprox -

imately from the time o f World War II, how ever, the charactero f Christian missionary activity has un dergone fundamental

changes. Power relationships are no longer the same. Peoples

level of the originals; so no thing said here should be taken to im ply tha t

competence in the original languages is not a great boon in the effort at

understanding.

* These remarks may serve also as indirect com m ent on the presumedsup eriority o f all things W estern, Ch ristianity included, and ho w any basis— even il lu sory— for these presum ptions has ev apora ted.



among whom missionaries most often work now live in their

own nationstates and, needless to say, exercise their own

controls according to their ow n lights. The example o f adecadent West—Europe and America—has served to undercutthe assum ptions o f superiority and mission ciuilisatrice which in

the past have undeniably been elements in missiology, andwhich have been attitudes often shared by the “natives”. Morefundam entally the rationale o f missions has changed from

w ithin. In Ca tholic circles, the views o f Teilhard de Chardin

and his allencompassing evolutionism have become a major

influence. Similar outlooks are to be found in Protestant

missiology, along with the widespread view that those to

whom missionaries are sent have themselves something to

teach the m issionaries and those w ho suppo rt the missionary enterprise.* Th ere is a frank recognition o f the part previously played by “ cultura l im peria lism” , and a deemphasis on

conversion. The modern missionary takes man as he is found,

including his cultural ambiance; no m ore o f “ the missionary is

first o f all a social reform er” . The whole man, as currently

conceived to be sure, must be taken into consideration, souland body; and the latter is taken to include economics and

politics. W hat, then, o f the basic motives for missionary

activity? For it is recognized that the old motives have been

seriously weakened since World War II and especially since

Vatican II. One current motive is charity, but a charity

humanistically conceived, more along the lines of caring andobviously something far removed from an informed caritas.

A noth er m otive is that o f witnessing. And yet another is the

search for truth which, o f course, entails much dialogue—thatinterminable sink o f hum anistic endeavors. O bviously, no t all

these points are illtaken; but it is equally obvious that none ofthem , singly or com bined, can be o f such a nature as to set

peoples afire fo r Christianity. And this apparent digression will

have served its purpose if it has suggested som ething o f the fatalmoderateness and tepidity o f a Christianity that has lost touch

with its most fundamental roots; a Christianity, indeed, that is

busying itself in autodestructio n, to adopt an expression o fPaul VI. We w ould do well, as we reflect on Coo m arasw am y’s

* It is interesting that these views have been put forward principally by aD utch Catholic m em ber o f a missionary order, the W hite Father, H enri

N ouw en.



attitudes to call to mind Christ’s own views on proselytizing(M t xxiii, 15). In any case, one can conceive o f few peoplesmore in need o f genuine religion than those o f mo dern W esternnations.

In principle, there is nothing lacking to Christianity. Even

though outwardly it has been primarily bhaktic or devotional incharacter, Christianity contains legitimate and essential ele-

ments which Coomaraswamy, for one, has compared to “an

Upanishad o f Euro pe” . Christianity is a full Revelation,

addressed to a particular sector of hum anity; ou r task, as

“workers of the eleventh hour” is to fathom its profundities once

again insofar as this may be possible and, hopefully, sense

som ething o f Th at which led St Paul to exclaim: “ O the depth

o f the riches, the wisdom and the know ledge o f God!” (Romxi, 33).

O u r purpose, then, in offering these letters is to helpreintroduce Western readers and especially Christians to their

own proper Tradition, to point out to them again the

wellsprings o f ou r faith, and to offer some small glimm er o f

the splendour o f Tru th. For those whose interest is comparativereligion, it is hoped that they may find reflected in these letters

both the need fo r str ic t personal honesty and a recognition o fthe fact that because a common Truth is to be found in the

several traditional forms, this Truth must therefore be lived all

the more deeply in one’s own. Lastly, it is hoped that those

who look eastwards (not always an illegitimate option) will

seek proper auth ority and ignore the proselytizers o f aneoHinduism, a chicZen, or a deracinated Sufism. And we

invite all wh o w ill to reflect on the ways o f Heaven, which are

often mysterious or at least dimly understood: a man who was

in many respects superior to the exclusivisms which separateand define the several religions, even a Hindu, had the

remarkable function o f serving as an able defender o f theintegral Christian faith. The Holy Spirit, who moves as and

where He will, breathes across boundaries which in normaltimes and with good reason separate the different Traditions. Inour indigence, let us not be too proud to accept grace and helpfrom whatever quarter they may be proffered.

A l v i n M o o r e , J r




THE LETTERS

To STANLEY NOTT

Dear Mr Nott:

. . . The problem o f the “spiritual East” versus the “material

West” is very easily mistaken. I have repeatedly emphasized that

it is only accidentally a geographic or racial problem. The real

clash is o f traditional w ith an titraditional concepts and cultures;

and that is unquestionably a clash o f spiritual and ideologicalwith m aterial or sensate points o f view. Shall we or shall we no t

delimit sacred and profane d epartments o f life? I, at any rate,

will not. I think if you consider Pallis’ Peaks and Lamas you will

see what I mean. I think it undeniable that the modern world

(which happens to be still a western world, however fast the

East is being westernized) is one o f “ impoverished reality” , one

entleert o f meaning, or values. O ur contem porary trust in

Progress is a veritable fideism as naive as is to be found in any past historical context.

Very sincerely,

Mr Stanley Nott, Harpenden, Herts, England, was in correspondence with

Dr C oom araswam y about a new edit ion of The Dance o f Shiva which Faber

and Faber, London, was considering.

Peaks and Lamas, see Bibliography.

To RICHARD ETINGHAUSEN

August 16, 1942

Dear Richard:

Very m any thanks for you r kind words. I am glad o f the lastsentence in the first paragraph. As you realize, I have nevertried to have a “style” but only to state things effectively—sothat I was very pleased, too, once when Eric Gill wrote to me:



“You hit bloody straight, bloody hard, and bloody often.”

I think ou r valuation o f “ literature” (and o f art generally) is

now fetishistic, the symbol being more im portant to us than its

reference: this is ju st wha t the Sufi calls idolatry .

With best regards,

D r Richard Ettinghausen was D irector of the Freer Gallery o f Art,

Washington, D. C.

Eric Gill, well known Catholic writer and artist; sec Introduction above.

For an understanding o f the word Sufi the reader is referred to the w ritings o f

Frith jof Schuon (see A ppendix A) and the Kashf al-Mahjub by Ali bin

Uthman alHujwiri (sec Bibliography).

T o MRS MARGARET F. MARCUS

undated

Dear Margaret:

What impresses me about contemporary education is thevacuity o f the result, and above all, the isolation produced: it is

the almost invariable result that Plato, Dante, the Gospels,Rumi, the Upanishads, Lao Tzu, etc, no longer mean anything

to the college product who is brought up to be an “aesthete”

(euphemistically, an “aesthctician”) so that all these things are

jus t “ lite rature” for him , and he never puts his teeth in to them,

but remains a provincial.O ur present chaotic condition is primarily a chaotic state o f

mind, and only secondarily a chaotic state o f morals. Please

note, I am not talking o f you in particular; and that there are

some exceptions, some who “survive” a college education iscertain. W hat 1 despise is the socalled “ intellectual honesty”

that makes college men “unbelievers”; Sheldon calls this

“honesty” by its right name, “cowardice”.In every procedure, faith must precede experience; as in

Buddhism, a man has only the right to be called “faithless”

when he has verified the outcome by acting accordingly; thenhe has no need of “faith” and is explicitly “no longer a man of

faith .” Faith is an aristocratic virtue; as an old gloss o f Platoremarks, “unbelief is for the m ob ” , skepticism is very “ easy” .

This is not merely a religious position. The g reater part o f all



our everyday actions rest on faith. We have faith that the sun

will rise tom orro w (any serious scientist will tell you tha t wedo not know it will), we act accordingly, and when tomorrowcomes, we verify the expectation. . . . Some (like Traherne,

Buddhist Arhats, etc) claim to have achieved this “felicity” or

“eudaimonia” (as Aristotle, etc, call it), which all religions arcagreed in regarding as man’s final aim. Traherne also callcd it

51/p^human virtue for which all should strive. If you don ’t want

it, that is all right, but you cannot call it unattainable unless you

have practised w ha t those w ho claim to have attained it taught;

just as you can’t know th at 2H + O = H2O until you have

made the experiment (until then you believe your teacher). If

you don ’t w ant it, so be it; bu t this very no t wanting excludes

you from any sympathetic understanding o f the greater part o fthe world’s literature which has to do with the quest.

It is not intellectual honesty, but pride, that makes the college

man not want. You “believe” in yourself; but for the real value

of this “s e lf ’ vide Jung and Hadley and others o f your own trust-

ed psychologists who affirm, as the religious philosophies do,

that the first sine qua non for happiness is to have got rid o f this be-

lief in one’s own individuality or personality (our “great pos-

sessions”). I may still be “selfish”; but that only representsa failure to live up to what I know, viz, that my personality is

nothing bu t a causally determ ined process, and o f absolutely

mortal essence, subject to all the ills that “ flesh” is heir to. For

Jung, just as for the religious philosophies, there is something

else beyond this brainy “ individuality”—a S elf around wh ich

the inflated Ego revolves, much as the earth revolves around the

Sun (his ow n words). Nowadays, nothing is taught o f Self

knowledge, bu t only o f Egokno wledge; and for Jung, the inflat-

ed Ego was the root cause o f the late war. I cite him so muchonly because the collcgc man has so much “faith” in him.*

The “ isolation” I spoke o f makes of modern man w hat Plato

calls a “playboy”, “interested in fine colors and sounds”, but

“igno rant o f bea uty” . O ne m ight say that acsthcticism (literal-ly, sentiment ality, being at the m ercy o f one’s feelings asrecom mended by B entham ) is a subjection which Plato definedas “ ignorance”— and this is the disease o f which the curren t

crisis is a sym ptom ; the disease equally o f con tem pora ryChristianity and o f contem porary skepticism (between wh ichthere is not much difference). All this works out in Utopian



ism, the notion o f a future m illenium (just around the corner, i f

only . . .) to be achieved by the improvem ent o f institutions.

Religion has no such illusions; religion is not in this sense

“ futu ristic” , but asserts that felicity is attainable, never en masse,

but at any tim e by the indiv idual here and now . “B ut o f course,

that looks like work”, and the appearance is not deceptive; it is

very much easier to sit back and rely on “progress”.

You might look at Erwin Schrodinger’s book What Is Life?

N o doubt you have seen Z im m er’s M yth s and Symbols in Indian

A rt and C ivili zation — now out.

Affectionately,

* Elsewhere, AK C expressed grave reservations about the views o f Carl G.

Jung, eg, on page 10.

Mrs Margaret F. Marcus, Cleveland, Ohio.

Thomas Traherne, Centuries of Meditations, see Bibliography.

Sheldon, W ilmot H erbert, D epartment o f Philosophy, Yale Un iversity,

N ew Haven, Connectic ut.

To MRS MARGARET F. MARCUS

April 29, 1946

Dear Margaret:

I send the P upp et paper, also the booklet o f lectures which

you may find helpful when you talk about India. But you

know, I always have the feeling that you look at these things

only w ith interest as “curiosities” , and that metaphysics doesn’t

have any real significance for you. It is pretty hard for anyonewho has been to college to have any other attitude, I know.And yet, man is by nature a metaphysical animal, or i f no t, ju st

an animal w hose concept o f the future is limited by time.

We arc having a num ber o f different cactus blossom s. Ihavn’t done much in the garden yet—bad weather, and time is

not my own!Someday you must try to tell me what interests you in the

material I assemble: you realize I say nothing, or try to saynothing that can properly be attributed to me individually.



Mrs Margaret F. Marcus, Cleveland, Ohio.

“ ‘Spiritual Paternity’ and the ‘Puppet Complex’ ” (AKC), Psychiatry, VIII,

28 72 97 , 1945; republished in A K C ’s collection o f essays, A m I M y Brother’s Keeper ?

T o SIDNEY HOOK

January 17, 1946

Dear Professor Hook:

Many thanks for your kind reply. You will realize, I hope,

that w ha t I sent y ou was the copy o f a private letter, and that I

would have written in a somewhat different “tone” for

publication.My main point was that the “mystics” (or, I would prefer to

say, “metaphysicians”) insist upon the necessity of moral

means i f the am oral end is to be reached; hence theirs is a

practical w ay, though a conte m plative end. I agree w ith them

(and you) that the end is logically indescribable, other than by

negations, o f w hich “ am oral” is but one.

To put it in another way, the end is not a value amongst

others, but th at on w hich all values depend. If we have no t theconcep t o f an en d b eyon d values (+ or —) we are in great

danger of making our own relative values into absolutes.

As for Hinduism and Buddhism, Plato and St Thomas

Aquinas, you see differences where I see essentially sameness,

w ith differences m ainly o f local color. H ow ever, for this

sameness I w ou ld go to Ec kha rt and such works as The C loud of

Unknowing, Boehme or Peter Sterry or Ficino rather than to

St Th om as (w hose Summa belon gs rather to the exoteric aspecto f C hristian ity). I have done a go od deal to illustrate w hat I call

essential “ sam eness” b y co rrelation o f cited contexts, in print,

and I have vastly more material collected, eg, my “Recollec-

tion, Indian and P latonic” , or “ ‘Spiritual Patern ity’ and the

‘Pup pet C om plex ’ ” .

Very sincerely,

Sidney H ook , Professor o f Phi losophy, N ew York University .

The Cloud of Unknowing, see bibliography.

Jacob Boehme, see bibliography.



Peter Sterry, Platonist and Puritan, by Vivian de Sola Pinto; see bibliography.

The Philosophy o f Marsilio Ficino, by Paul O Kristcller; see bibliograp hy.

“ ‘Spiritual Pate rnity ’ and the ‘Pup pcrt C om ple x’ ” , AK C, in Psychiatry,

VIII, 1945.

To MRS C. MORGAN

January 11, 1946

Dear Mrs Morgan:

R ight no w I cannot find time to go into the Huxley review at

length. Let us grant to Sidney Hook that Huxley fails to clarify

certain matters. But Hook, who makes this criticism, confuses

the matter by mistaking the situation itself. I am referring particularly to the “ m oral” question which H ook not only

approaches as a moralist, but apparently in utter ignorance of

the traditional distinction o f the moral means and the amoral

(not immoral!) end, that o f the active from the contemplative

life. The n orm al position is that morality is essential to the active

life and is prerequisite but only dispositive to the contemplative.

This is the way St Thomas Aquinas states it: cf The Book of

Privy Counselling, “when thou comest by thyself, think notwhat thou shalt do after, but forsake as well good thoughts as

evil.” Buddhism is notoriously a system in which great stress is

laid on ethics; and yet there, too, we find it repeatedly affirmed

that the end o f the road is beyond good and evil. Bondage (in the

Platonic sense o f “ subjection to o nes elf ’) depends on ig nor-ance, and hence it is only truth that can set you free; there can

be no salvation by w orks o f meri t, but only by gnosis; but for

gnosis, mastery o f self is a prerequisite.

The point is that one cannot reach the end o f the road w ithout“going straight”, and “while wc are on the way, we are notthe re .” The end o f the road, o r as it is often spoken of, hom e,

means that there is no more tramping to be done: therefore the

words “walking straight” or “deviating” cease to have anymeaning for or application to one who has arrived and is athome. Wc are told to “perfect, even as . . .”, and as you willrccognize, in whatever is pcrfcctcd there is no more perfecting

to be done. W hether o r not perfection is attainable on earth weneed not ask; it represents, in any case, the “ideal”, and evenSt Augustine refused to deny the possibility.



Moralism, such as Sidney Hook’s is really an unconscious form o f Partipassianism—the doctrine that an infinite God is nevertheless him self subject to affections and disaffections, and only “good” in the human sense, which is one that implies at the same time the possibility o f “not being good”.

I had only time to take up this one point: but generally, I should say Sidney Hook does not know his stuff well enough to criticize Huxley, even though and where the latter may need

it.

Very sincerely,

Mrs C. Morgan, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Sidney H ook, Professor o f Philosophy, N ew Y ork U niversity.The review referred to is in the Saturday Review, N ove m ber 3, 1945.

Book o f Privy Counselling and The Cloud of Unknowing, sec Bibliography.

ANONYMOUS

Date uncertain

Dear M:

Your questions arc mostly about the how, and my answers mostly about the what o f metaphysics.

What you mean by Metaphysics is not what I mean. College “metaphysics” is hardly anything more than cpistemology. Traditional metaphysics is a doctrine about possibility: possibi-

lities o f being and notbcing, o f finite and infinite; those o f finite being arc embodied mosdy in what one calls ontology and cosmology.

The traditional Metaphysics (Philosophia Perennis or Sanatana Dharma) is not an omnium gatherum o f “what men have

believed”, nor is it a systematic “philosophy”; it is a consistent and always selfconsistent doctrine which can be recognized always and everywhere and is quite independent o f any concept of “progress” in material comfort or the accumulation of empirical knowledge; neither opposed to nor to be confused

with either o f these. It is the meaningo f a world which would otherwise consist only o f experiences, “one damn thing after another.” Without a principle to which all else is related, an end



to which all else can be ordered, our life is chaotic, and we do

no t kn ow ho w or for w ha t to educate. A merely ethical trend is

only for our comfort and convenience but does not suffice forillumination.

I can only, for the present, assert that the traditional

Metaphysics is as much a single and invariable science asmathematics. The pr oof o f this can hardly be found w ithou t the

discipline o f pursu ing fundam ental doctrines all over the w orld

and throughout the traditional literatures and arts. It is not a

m atter o f opinions o f “ thinkers” . On e should rapidly acquire

the pow ers o f eliminating the negligible teachers, and that

includes nearly all m odern “ thinkers” , the Dew eys and Jungs,

etc, through whom it is not worth while to search for the few

bright ideas to be found here and there . O ne must be fastidious.Why pay attention, as Plato says, to the “inferior philo-

sophers”?

The O ne T ru th I am speaking o f is reflected in the various

religions, various jus t because “n othing can be kno w n except in

the m ode o f the know er” (St Th om as A quinas). It is in the

same sense that the “Ways” appear to differ; this appearance

will diminish the fu rther you pursue any one o f them, in the

same w ay that the radii o f a circle approxim ate the nearer youget to the center.

Metaphysics requires the most discriminating legal mental-

ity.* When Eckhart says that man is necessary to God’s

existence, this is not a boast but a simple logical statement. He

is no t speaking o f the Godhead, bu t o f God as Lord (Jesus), and

merely po inting o ut that wc cannot speak o f a “ lordsh ip” in a

case where there are no “servants”; one implies the other. Just

as there is “no paternity without filiation”; a man is not a

“ father” unless he has a child. You w on’t catch M eister Eckhartout as easily as all that!

The traditional Metaphysics does not deny the possible value

o f rand om “ mystical experience” , but is (like the Rom an

Catho lic C hurch) suspicious and critical o f it because o f its passiv ity.*

Very sincerely,

* Whatever D r Co om arasw am y had in m ind in the use of this term (andsom ething o f it will be inferred in the course of these letters), it was not



book by K. Svoboda entitled L ’Esthetique de S t Augustin, and

also his D e Musica is very profound.

Affectionately,

Mrs Gretchen Warren, Boston, Massachusetts.

To ALBERT SCHWEITZER

February 7, 1946

Dear Dr Schwcitzcr:

Although I have due respect for your fine work in Africa, Ihave lately com e across you r book, Christianity and the Religions

o f the World, and would like to let you know that I regard it as a

fundamentally dishonest work. Buddhism is, no doubt, a

doctrine primarily for contemplatives; but you cannot mix up

Brahmanism in this respect with Buddhism, because Brahman-

ism is a doctrine for both actives and contemplatives. What I

mean especially by “dishonest” is that, to suit your purposes,

you cite the Bhagavad Gita w here Arjuna is told to fulfil his dutyas a soldier, without citing the passage in which others are

likewise told to fulfil their vocations as means better than anyother of fulfilling the com m andment “ Be ye perfect. . . . ”

This makes quite ridiculous your second paragraph on page

41. I am afraid that m ost Christians, for some reason obscure to

me, find it indispensable to exalt their own beliefs by giving a perverted account o f those o f others , o f which, moreover, they

have only a secondhand knowledge derived from the writings

o f scholars w ho have been for the m ost part rationalists,unacquainted w ith religious experience and unfamiliar w ith the

language o f theology. I recomm end yo u spend as much timesearching the Scriptures o f Brahmanism and B uddh ism, in the

original languages, as you may have spent on the Scriptures ofChristianity in their original languages, before you say any-thing more about other religions.

Very truly yours,

Albert Schwcitzcr, German theologian, musicologist and medical mission



ary, widely influential in Protestant cirdcs in his t ime.Ch ristianity an d the Religions o f the World, see Bibliography.A lber t Schw ei tzer Jubi lee V olum e, a festschrift to which Dr Coomaraswamycontributed a profound study entitled ‘What is Civilization?’, for which seeBib l iography.

T o GEORGE SARTON

October 7, 1943

Dear Sarton:

T h an k s fo r Sch w eitzer, I’ll retu rn it very soon. 1 have readm ost o f it and it seems to m e a strange m ixture o f much doinggood and much muddled thinking. I don’t think he grasps theweltanschaung o f the ancient (European) world at all; and as forthe East, on page 178, line 1 “concern him self solely” and line18 “ after living p art o f his life in the norm al w ay and founding afamily” arc inconsistent.

I received the invitation to write for the festschrift, but amasked for something “non-tcchnical” and after reading the

book, I to o feel tha t the lit tle sym bological paper I had in min d

w o u ld n ’t in tere st Schw eitzer h im self at all. I’m seeing if I can’t p u t to g e th er a little no te on the in trinsic significance o f theword “c iv i l iza t ion” .

Schweitzer’s analysis of colonisation and its effects is good(and tragic), b u t he feels helpless* in the face o f “ world trade”and has no figh t in him . H e rem inds me a little o f Kierkegaard,with his groaning and grunting; and with all his defense of“affirmation” is not nearly as positive a person as, say, Eric

Gill, for w ho se last collection o f cassys I am w riting anintroduct ion .

With kindest regards,

* A nd yet he de spises ‘resig nation ’! O n the whole, one o f the most exotcricm en im aginable. T he re arc m any sides o f Africa that he seems never to haveseen at all; there is no sign that he ever got into more than physical contactw ith the peop le. C on trast St G eorge Barbe Baker in Africa Drums.

G eorg e Sa rton, Pro fessor o f the H istory o f Scicncc, H arvard University , ande d i t o r o f Isis.

A lbert Schw eitzcr, Christianity and the Religions o f the World; see bibliography.



‘What Is Civilization?’, by AKC in The Albert Schweitzer Jubilee Volume; see

Bibliography.

St George Barbe Baker, Africa Drums; see Bibliography.

Eric Gill, It A ll Goes Together, sec Bibliography.

T o MR MASCALL

N obem ber 2, 1942

Dear M r Mascall:

Many thanks for your kind letter. I cannot agree that it is the

essence o f Christianity to be final and exclusive in any sense

except in the sense that any tru th must be exclusive o f error.

With that reservation, it can as much as Hinduism or Islamclaim to be final and conclusive.

Exclusive , as I said, presum es the existence of error; bu t itremains to be shown that the other religions are in error,

w hether a bou t m an ’s last end or the nature o f deity. I venture

that y ou r kno w ledge o f these other religions is not profund:

kno w ledge o f them cannot be that if it is not based on texts inthe original, and on thinking and being in their terms. I do

actually think in both Eastern and Christian terms, Greek,

Latin, Sanskrit, Pali, and to some extent Persian and evenChinese. I hardly ever deal with any specific doctrine (eg, that

o f the one essence and the tw o natures, or that o f the light o f

lights, or “I will draw all men unto me”) with reference to one

tradition only, bu t cite from many sources. I dou bt if there is

any point o f essential doctrine that could no t be defended aswell from Indian as from Christian sources.

I presum e that w e are liberty, and even bou nd to use reason in

defense of any true doctrine. It will be evident, how ever, that ifwe are to discuss the possibility o f error in either one or both o f

tw o given religions, it will be contrary to reason to assume tha tone o f them can be m ade the standard o f judg em ent for both.

That would be to make an a priori judgem ent, and no t aninvestigation at all. A standard must be, by hypothesis,superior to both the parties whose qualifications are underconsideration. O ne comes nearest to possession o f such astandard in the b ody o f those doctrines that have been m ostuniversally taug ht by the divine men o f all times and peoples.Anything for example, that is true for Plato (whom Eckhart



callcd “that great priest”, and in the same century that J tli —Moslem saint— had a vision o f him “ filling all space w ith

light”), the Gospels, Islam, Hinduism and Taoism, I am

prepared to regard as true, and rather for me to unders tand thanquestion. When we have in this way built up a standard o f the

most im portant speculative verities, w e can proceed to jud ge o fother propositions, in case they arc less widely witnessed to, by

their consistency or inconsistency with what has been accepted.

In any case, let me say, speaking for Hindus as to Christians,

that even if you are not w ith us, we arc w ith you.

Very sincerely,

Mr Mascall is not further identified, but may have been E. A. Mascall, the promin ent Anglican th eolo gian and philosopher.

To SIGNOR GALVAO

N ovem ber 15, 1940

Dear Signor Galvao:

It is a pleasure to receive your letter and to hear from an

unknown friend.M. Rene Guenon had recovered his health last spring and

was again contributing to E T . The last number I received was

that o f May 1940. T he last letter I received from him was

w ritten in Jun e and did no t reach me until October!I have no new s o f M. Schuon. M. Preau had my ms (on the

“Symbolism o f Archery”), intended for the 1940 Special No onthe “ Symbolism o f Gam es” , but I have heard nothing from

him since the occupation, and do n ot kn ow if the publication o f E T can be con tinued . Yes, the participation o f civilians inwarfare is quite antitraditional: it must be shocking to a truesoldier, for whom war is a vocation.

I send y ou one o f m y publications here. With cordial

agreement,

Very sincerely,

Signor Galvao is a Brazilian corresp ond ent o f Gu enon and AK C.



Rene Guenon, see Bibliography.

Frith jof Schuon , sec Bibliography.

E T = Etudes Traditionnelles\ see Bibliography.

“ Sym bolism o f Arch cry” , see Bibliography.

To SIGNOR GALVAO

October 10, 1941

My dear Signor Galvao:

I am happy to hear from you. Quand vous ecrivez: “Un

chretien, e’est-a-dire, un catholique”, je suis en parfait accord de vousl

In v iew o f the Pauline interdiction o f the eating o f meat offeredto idols, it might be considered irregular for a Catholic to eat

meat that has been sacrificed to what is (in his opinion) a false

god. H ow eve r, w here it is a question o f accepting “hospital-

ity”, one should ask no questions (Buddhist monks acceptw hatever is given, even if meat: the responsibility for the

killing rests upon the donor). I cannot give an answer to the

question about the foundation stone.

I have heard from mutual friends that M. G uenon is well, bu tI have heard no thing from him directly. Th e first o f thetranslations (East and West, published by Luzac, London) has

ju st appeared. A noth er book I can recom mend to you is Eric

Gill’s Autobiography, published by DevinAdair, New York.

As for your pretre (sacerdota): it is quite permissible for any

Ca tholic to recognizc the truth o f any particular doctrine taught by a “ pagan” philo sopher. Indeed, St Thom as him self makes

use o f the “ pagan ph ilosoph ers” as sources o f “ intrinsic and pro bable tru th ” . I have know n tw o devout Catholics, a layman

and a learned nun who saw more than this. The former wrote

to me that he saw that H induism and Christianity am ounted tothe same th ing; while the nun said to me tha t “ I see that it is no tnecessary for you to be a Catholic.” But this is unusual, andw ith m ost o f my C atholic friends I go no further than todiscuss particular doctrines, in connection with which, as theyarc willing to recognizc, exegetical light may be thrown from

other than specifically Christian sources.It is perhaps M. Cuttat, whom I recently had the pleasure to

meet, w ho proposes to publish in Spanish a jou rna l som ew hat



like Etudes Traditionnelles. I hope that your generosity and other efforts will lead to success. Wc miss the appearance o f ET. For myself, I am endeavoring to publish elsewhere. As you have

probably rccognizcd, I do not, like M. Guenon, repudiate the “orientalists” altogether (however, I am fully aware o f their

crimcs in the name o f “scholarship”) but endeavour to publish what I have to say in the language o f “scholarship”: on the

whole I find a more open minded and rather receptive attitude

amongst my colleagues than might have been expected.

I hope to send you several papers, and also my forthcoming book, Spiritual Authority arid Temporal Power in the Indian

Theory of Government during this winter.

I do not think it would be possible to obtain any numbers of

ET in the USA where it is very little known.Yours very sincerely,

Signor Galvao is not identified.ET = Eludes Traditionnelles; sec Bibliography.Monsieur Cuttat was a Swiss diplomat with interests similar to those ofAKC and Rcn6 Guenon.

To SENATOR ERIC O. D. TAYLOR

November 7, 1939

Dear Senator:

I certainly do not regard your letter as an impedance. O f coursc, I do not deny that there arc foundations as well as

pinnacles, and that there are cornerstones in the plural, at the corners. Only in the latter sense it makes no sense to speak of the head o f the church as the cornerstone (—one asks, “which o f the four:”). I should say that Christ is thought o f both as foundation and as pinnacle: and that both (not to mention the intervening stauros) are corner stones in the sense that Eckstein is also diamond. That the axis o f the Universe is “adamantine” throughout is universal. As for the other point, I am too

familiar with the identity o f Christian, Indian and other doctrines not to think that Indian metaphysics is a key to Christian mysticism. You would surely, with St Thomas



Aquinas, acccpt the w ork o f “ pagan” philosophers as provid-

ing “ extrinsic and probable proofs” , even if you w ould n otadmit with Augustine that the one true religion always existed

and only came to be called Christianity after the birth o f Ch rist.

(I am not sure that this Augustinian dictum has been branded as

heretical!)

Very truly yours,

Eric O. D. Taylor, Senator from Rhode Isand, USA.

C f A K C ’s article ‘Eckstein’ in Speculum, XIV , 1939, pp 66 7 2, on the

me aning o f ‘corn ersto ne’ in Christian s ym bolism; see Bibliograph y.


date uncertain

Dear Sir:

Since writing yesterday I have seen a letter from Erwin

Panofsky, o f Princeton, in which he says that the interpretationo f lapis in caput anguli as keystone and not cornerstone, is

“indubitably correct” and that late medieval artists almost

unanimously represented it accordingly. He sent a photo from

a manuscript showing a diamond shaped stone being laid by builders at the top o f a tower.

Very sinccrcly,


undatedDear Sir;

I think the old law would be the foundation and the new law the

keystone o f the structure itself. O f course, founda tion, con-necting stauros, and capital would all be adamantine, in Easternas in Christian symbolism.

AKC

Th is latter note was in the form o f a postcard, and both it and that

immediately before relate to the communication that precedes them.



the same time every artist is also a man, and as such has socialresponsibilities like any consumer’s. Again, the truly freeman is

free, amongst other ways, to be engaged in any kind of

activity, and may not necessarily adopt a homeless life, though

it is far more difficult to be free in company than in solitude;

freedom has nothing really to do with what one docs, but withthe attitude one has towards things; if one can “ act w ithou t

acting”, without attachment to any consequences, one can be as

free that way as in a monastic cell. For that, one must be able to

live always in the eternal now, letting the dead bury the dead

and taking no thought for the morrow. In such a case, one may

seem to be “ serving ” , as if one had duties, but is, in fact, simply

being, entirely unaffected by the acts which are really no longer

on e’s ow n (so in St Paul’s conception o f liberty, as disting-uished from being “under the law”).

N ow as to Fate. Fate corresponds to causality and is not thesame as Providence. In the orthodox teachings, fate “lies in the

dreaded causes themselves” and has much in common with

“heredity”. Providence is the timeless vision (no more fore-

sight than hindsight, bu t now sight) o f the operation o f

secondary causes in the world where nothing happens by

chance. To have no Fate would be to have no character; and it is

in this sense that one uses the word unfortunate, one who has

not the share or lot in life that is his due.I can hard ly speak too h ighly o f Pallis’ book Peaks and Lamas

which is the best introduction to Mahayana Buddhism and its

working out in life that I know. There is a fair amount of

literature on T ibetan doctrinc. O ne o f the best introductions is

the novel by the Lama Yongden called Mipam (publ. John Lane,1938). Som e o f the systematic books include EvansWcntz,

Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrine and Th e Tibetan Book o f the Dead (both publ. by Oxford); Bacot and Woolf, Three Tibetan

M ystery Plays (Broadway Translations, Dutton, N. Y.); Bacot, Le Poete tibetain Milarepa (Paris, 1925). There are also many

works on Mahayana, not specifically Tibetan.Write again if you think I can be of further help.

Very sincerely,

* “ . . . C hr ist livcth in m e.” Galatians ii, 20.

Bernard Kelly was a Catholic layman who lived in Windsor, England, with



w hom AK C co rresponded extensively. Well trained in Catholic theology, he

was able to read bo th Latin and Greek w ith facility. H e unde rtook the study

of Sanskrit in order to better understand Eastern religion. He wrote

occasionally for the English Dom inican jou rna l Blackfriars. He and his wife

had six children and he supp orted his family on the m odest incom e o f a bank

clerk.

TO WALTER SHEWRING

March 4, 1936

Dear Walter Shewring:

Very many thanks for your kind letter. I am more than appreciative o f your corrections. I can only say that I am conscious o f fault in these matters. It is no cxcuse to say that checking rcfcrcnccs and citations is to me a wearisome task. I am sometimes oppressed by the amount of work to be done and try to do too much too fast . . . in certain cases I have not been able to see proofs. . . .

It is only in the period of the 5th13th century a d that East and West arc really o f one heart and mind. A Catholic friend of

mine here, who has been writing articles on extremism—

urging a no compromise relationship between the Church and the world—tells me that I (who am not formally a Christian) am the only man who seems to see his point! What I am appalled by is that even Catholics who have the truth if they would only operate with it wholeheartedly, are nearly all tainted with modernism.* I mean have reduced religion to faith and morals, leaving speculation and factibilia to the profane and Mammon. Christianity is nowadays presented in such a sentimental

fashion that one cannot wonder that the best o f the younger generation revolt. The remedy is to present religion in the intellectually difficult forms: present the challenge o f a theology and metaphysics that will require great effort to understand at all ____

One word about the errors. I would like to avoid them altogether o f course. But one cannot take part in the struggle for truth without getting hurt. There is a kind o f “perfection-

ism” which leads some scholars to publish nothing, because

they know that nothing can be perfect. I don’t respect this. Nor do I care for any aspersions that may reflect upon me



personally. It is only “ for the good o f the w ork to be done” that

one m ust be as careful as possible to protect oneself. . . . I am

so occupied with the task that 1 rarely have leisure to enjoy a

m om ent o f personal realisation. It is a sort o f feeling that the

harvest is ripe and the time is short. However, I am well aware

that all haste is none the less an error. I expect to improve.Affectionately,

*Note that Dr Coomaraswamy recognized this deadly infection thirty years

befo re it was rcmanifested durin g and fo llowin g the Second Vatican

Council.

Walter Shcwring, Assistant Master at Amplcforth College, England, and

sometime Charles Oldham Scholar at Corpus Christi College, Oxford

University.

To WALTER SHEWRING

February 27, 1938

My dear Walter Shewring:

A very large num ber o f Hindus, very many millioncertainly, daily repeat from memory a part, or in some cases,

even the w hole o f the Bhagavad Gita. This recitation is a

chanting, and no one who has not heard Sanskrit poetry thusrecited, as well as unde rstand ing it, can really judge o f it as

poetry. To me the language is both noble and profound. The

style is quite simple and w ithout o rnam ent, like that o f the best

o f the Epic, and o f the Upanishads; it is no t yet the ornam ented

classic style o f the dramas. O n the whole I think the judgem ents o f the profess ional scholars are to be discounted,

for many reasons. Personally, I should think a good compari-son, poetically, w ould be with the best o f the medieval Latinhymns.

The trouble with almost all Sanskritists is that all they knowis the language. For the rest, they are inhibited in all sorts ofways. Their attitude to Dionysius or Eckhart would be thesame as to the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads: they w ould say

“very interesting, and sometimes quite exalted in tone, but onthe whole irrational.” I do not sec how anyone who cannot



read John, or Dionysius, or much o f Philo or Hermes or Plotinus with enthusiasm can read the Upanishads with enthusiasm; and in fact, such introductions as men like Hume write to their very imperfect translations are really quite naive. It is no use to pretend that you can really know these things by reading them as “literature”. That they are “literature” is the

accident, no doubt, but not their essence. . . . The socalled “objectivity” o f science is very often nothing but a kind of aloofness that defeats its own ends. Who can be said to have understood Scripture or Plainsong whose eyes have never been moistened by cither?

Affectionately,

Walter Shewring, Assistant Master, Ampleforth College, England.The Bhagavad Gita, most popular o f the Hindu Scriptures, is recognizcd as arecapitulation of them; it forms part of the cpic poem, the Mahabharata. Robert Emest Hume, translator of and commentator upon the Upanishads;see his The Thirteen Principal Upanishads in the Bibliography.

ANONYMOUS

April 5, 1947

Dear Mr . . .

I had sent these cxccrpts on “grief” to Mrs M . . . instead of to you direct, sincc you had not raised the question with me directly. The actual words, “Every meeting is a meeting for the

first time, and every parting is forever” are mine, but not mine as regards their meaning which depends on the quite universal-

ly rccognized principle o f uninterrupted change or flux; nothing stops to be, but has “bccomc” something else before you have had time to take hold o f it. This applies notably to the psychophysical personality or individuality which modem psychologists and ancient philosophers alike are agreed is not an entity but a postulate formed to facilitate easy reference to an observed sequence o f events; those who attribute entity to individuals arc “animists” , and also “polytheists” (sincc ‘I’ and ‘is’ arc expressions proper only to God). Duo sunt in homine; which o f these two were you most attached to, the mortal or the immortal?



Every heartattracting face that thou beholdest,The sky will soon remove it from before thy eyes;

Go, and give thy heart to One who, in the circle ofexistence,

Has always remained with thee and will so continue

to be.That Self is dearer than a son. . . . He who regards the

Self as dear, what he holds dear is, verily, not perishable.

You speak o f your m etaphysics as Western. You might Just

as well call your mathematics or chemistry Western. Such

distinctions cannot be made. The basic metaphysical

propositions— eg, nihil agit in seipsum — have nothing to do with

geography. Neither has the traditional doctrinc condemningexcessive g rie f for the dead, bo th for one’s ow n sake and

because such grief is an abuse of the dead:

O who sits weeping on my grave,

And will not let me sleep?

The brief remainder of this letter is separately folded and

enclosed in order that you may, if you w ish, destroy it unread; I

only say this because, i f you do read it, you will no t like it.Biography is a rather ghoulish and dispicablc trade in any

case. If yo ur son w ould have wished to have his private life

exhibited , he m ust have had a full measure o f self conceit. If, as

I suppose, he would very much rather not be treated as Exhibit

A, then you are simply indulging y our ow n masochistic delight

in your ow n misery, at his expense, and that o f any other

helpless human beings whose lives may have been intimately

involved w ith his. If such an unreserved biog raph y as you

propose has never been done before, that may well be becausehitherto no one has been shameless enough to do such a thing.It seems to me that neither your son nor his still living friends

will be able easily to forgive you, and I dare say, in turn, you

will not forgive me!



To S. DURAI RAJA SINGAM

May 1946

Dear Mr Durai Raja Singam:

In reply to your various letters, I enclose some information. I must explain that I am not at all interested in biographical matter relating to myself and that I consider the modempractice o f publishing details about the lives and personalities o f well known men is nothing but a vulgar catering to illegitimate curiousity. So I could not think o f spending my time, which is very much occupied with more important tasks, in hunting up such matter, most o f which I have long forgotten; and I shall be grateful if you will publish nothing but the barest facts about

myself. What you should deal with is the nature and tendency of my work, and your book should be 95 per cent on this. I wish to remain in the background, and shall not be grateful or flattered by any details about myself or my life; all that is anicca, and as the “wisdom o f India” should have taught you, “portraiture of human beings is asvarya.” All this is not a matter of modesty, but of principle. For statements about the

nature and value of my work you might ask the secretary of the

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Society, Poona (India), and Dr Murray Fowler, c/o G. and G. Mcrriam Co, Springfield, Massachusetts (USA) to make some statement, as both are familiar with it. I would not mind sending you press reviews of my books, but it would take more time than I have to hunt them up; I have no secretary who would do this sort of thing for me!

Yours sincerely,

S. Durai Raja Singam was a retired tcacher in Malaysia who had written to

AKC for inform ation in order to'w rite a biography, and w ho later published

in M alaysia a nu m ber o f w orks which provide a wealth o f biographical

information on him.



To MARCO PALLIS

August 20, 1944

Dear Marco:

1 am rathe r appalled by yo ur suggestion o f my w riting a book

o f the natu re o f a critique o f Occidentalism for Indian readers.

It isn’t my primary function (dharma) to write “ readable” books

or articles; this is ju st w here m y function differs from

G ueno n’s. All my willing w riting is addressed to the professors

and specialists, those w ho have underm ined ou r sense of values

in recent times, but whose vaunted “scholarship” is really so

superficial. I feel that the rectification must be at the reputed

“top” and only so will find its way into the schools and text

books and encyclopaedias. In the long run the long piece on the“ Early Iconograph y o f Saggitarius”, on which I have beenengaged for over a year, with many interruptions, seems to me

more important than any direct additions to the “literature of

indictment”.

When I go to India, it will be to drop writing, except perhaps

translation (o f Upanishads, etc); m y object in “re tiring” being

to verify what I already “know”.

AKC

Marco Pallis, London, England, author of Peaks and Lamas and other works

(see Bibliography) which have earned him a reputation as one o f the prem ier

interpreters o f Tibetan Bud dhism and Tibetan culture of this century.

Rene Guenon, Cairo, E gypt, autho r of ma ny books and articles on

traditional doctrine and symbolism; and an early and powerful voice in

defense o f tradition and in criticism o f the m odern world.

U nfo rtuna tely, ‘Early Icon ograph y o f Saggitarius’ was still incom plete at thetime o f D r C oom aras w am y’s death in 1947.

To HERMAN GOETZ

June 15, 1939

Dear Dr Goetz:

There is one other point in your article that I might remarkupon. You connect my change o f interest from art history to



metaphysics with age and no doubt that is in a measure true,though I would perhaps rather say “maturity” than “age”

However, I would also like to explain that this was also a

natural and necessary development arising from my former

work in which the iconographic interest prevails. I was no

longer satisfied with a merely descriptive iconography and hadto be able to explain the reasons o f the forms; and for this it was

necessary to go back to the Vcdas and to metaphysics ingeneral, for there lie the seminal reasons o f iconographic

development. I could no t, o f course, be satisfied with merely

“sociological” explanations since the forms o f the traditional

societies themselves can only be explained metaphysically.


Dr Herman Goetz, well known German art historian and translator of

AKC's History o f Indian and Indonesian Art (see Bibliography) into German.

To MISS ADE DE BETHUNE

June 15, 1939My dear Miss De Bcthune:

The style o f m y articles to w hich you refer is determ ined by

various considerations, and primarily by the nature of the

rather complex, though relatively small audience they reach.

M r Rene Guenon writes, in spite o f all his learning, as simply as

possible and can do th is m ore often than I can because he rejects

the academic “Orientalists” altogether. I am on the other hand a

professional “ Orientalist” . I decided long ago not to reject but,so to speak, to work within the fold. But as I have to put

forward the real mean ing o f doctrines (eg, rega rding “ Rein-

carnation”) which academic Orientalists have generally mis-

understood, I must do so in an orthodox manner, and justified by many references since these Orientalists arc not in te restedin the T ru th, bu t in w hat m en have said.” Then again, I alwayswant to make it clear that I am not putting forward any new or

private doctr ines or interpreta tions; and the use o f quotations isvaluable here. I am also impressed by the concordance, oftenam ounting to verbal identity, o f W estern and Eastern scriptural



pronouncements and therefo re enjoy weaving a logical tissue in

which each echoes the other in a sort o f harm ony .An article in the 1939 Spring No. of The American Scholar on

“Vedanta and Western Tradition” is entirely without refer-

ences, th o ’ no t w ithou t quotations.

The use of Sanskrit is partly necessitated by the fact that m osto f my articles appear in the technical oriental journals; bu t also

by the fact that a part o f my audience is Indian, and for them the

use of a well know n Sanskrit term often gives precise value to

what might be an unfamiliar English expression. I quote from

St Th om as Aquinas a good deal because most o f what I need

can be found there, and to quote from him is an economy of

argument because he stands for Roman Catholics as an a priori,

altho ’ not absolute authority . In any case, I regard m yself not asan author, not as a literary man, but as an exegete and my only

object is to state what is to be said as unmistakably as possible.

In the lecture now in press (Stevens) you will be interested ina citation from Asvaghosa very closely paralleling Dante’s

affirmation of his practical purpose.

I am glad you mentioned the question o f sin. Art itself is noto f course governed by moral considerations, but the artist’s and

the patron’s will is or should be so governed and it cannot too

much be emphasized that there is a point at which “ love o f ar t”

becomes the sin o f luxury.O n the question o f “ last” and “ ultimate” , I agree. Etern ity is

not an everlasting duration, but an eternal now. Hence the

connection o f “ suddenness” with the Sanctus and the sym bol-

ism o f “ ligh tning” . C f the scholastic tendency to treat in

principio not as “in the beginning” (temporally), but as “in the

princip le” , ie, In Him “ through w hom all th ings were m ade.”

With kind regards,

Miss Ade de Bcthunc, Newport, Rhode Island, USA, American Catholic

artist and author of Work, published by John Stevens, N ew port, Rhode

Island.

“ The V edanta and the Western T radition ” , The American Scholar, VIII, 1939.



TO PORTER SARGENT

March 19, 1945

Pear Mr Sargent:

As I mentioned before, I am afraid our points o f view arc far apart. I am in agreement with nearly everything said, as 1think

so well, by Mr Beck, and with a very great part of the whole Scholastic tradition. I am not a Jesuit, and can only call myself a

follower of the philosophia perennis, or if required to be more specific, a Vedantin. I am a doctor o f scicncc and see no conflict between religion and scicncc, when both arc rightly defined; on this subject I have written in Isis and have another article forthcoming there.

The philosophy I follow is equally valid for this world and the other; it is one that gives a meaning to life and to all activities here and now. I cannot agree with you that it concerns

only the post mortemstates o f being, though it would seem that these would last longer than our present one. In my writing I

never fail to relate philosophy to life. I might call your attention to the fact that the tradition I am speaking of, and modern

positivism arc agreed on one matter at least, viz, that our

human “personality” is not a being, but only a process. The tradition differs from positivism in maintaining that, neverthe-

less, the conviction o f being that all of us have is valid in itself, however invalid if connected with our mutable personality. It is only to this being that immortality is predicated. Nothing of course can be regarded as “immortal” that is not immortal now.

Yours very sincerely,

Mr Porter Sargent, “Yankee individualist, publisher, authority on non-

public schools, w rite r and som etim e poet” (fro m a re view o f his book), was

the autho r o f a bo ok called War and Education, 1944.

“Eastern Wisdom and Western Knowledge”, AKC, Isis, Part 4, 1943; and

“Gradation and Evolution”, Isis, 1944.



To PROFESSOR THE HONORABLE EMILE SCHAUBKOCH

April 28, 1941

My dear Professor SchaubKoch:

I am greatly ho nored by your letter o f M arch 17. I have sentyou separately my Elements o f Buddhist Iconography, and also a

scries o f reprin ts from various magazines. I look forw ard to

you r large book on Bud dhist Iconography w ith much interest.W hen I received y our letter I was ju st then engaged in w riting a

short article on “ Some Sources o f Buddhist Icon ography ”

(especially the flame on a Buddh a’s head, and the represen tation

of the Buddha as a pillar or tree of fire).

I am high ly appreciative o f your proposal o f m yse lf for thehon orary mem bership o f the Co imbra Academy, and shallregard this as a high honour. For your convenience I may

m ention that I am a correspondent o f the Archeological Survey

of.India, VicePresident o f the India Society (London), and an

Honorary Member of the Vrienden der Asiatischen Kunst and

o f the B han dark ar O rienta l Research Institute, etc. I have also been a ViceP resident o f the American O rienta l Society; and

am a Do ctor o f Science o f London University. I only m ention

these matters in case you may wish to supply this information

to your friend Count de CostoLobo who is to make the

nomination.

I shall hope to hear of the safe arrival of the papers I have

sent, and to hear from you again.W ith m y best wishes for the successful continuation o f your

valuable researches, I remain,


Professor the Honorable SchaubKoch, Geneva, Switzerland

Elements o f Buddhist Iconography, see Bibliography.

‘M easures o f Fire’, O Instituto, Coimbra, Portugal, 1942.



reading it, and agree in the main, though perhaps not with

every word. I think credit is due to Dr Kramrisch also for her

w ork on Deccan painting, in wh ich she emphasizes the Gujarati

elements. Secondly, for your letter of 16th October ,which

only ju s t arrived! As to this letter: I think you still som ew hat

misunders tand my position. I fully agree that the Kali Yuga is anecessary phase o f the whole cycle, and I should no m ore think

it could be avoided than I could ask the silly question, “Why

did God allow evil in the world?” (one might as well ask for a

world without ups and downs, past and future, as to ask for a

world without good and evil). On the other hand, I feel under

no obligation to acquiesce in or to praise wh at 1 judg e to be evil,

or an evil time. Whatever the conditions, the individual has to

w ork out his own salvation; and cannot abandon judg em ent,and be overcome by popular catchwords. I feel, therefore, at

liberty to describe the world as is, to mark its tendencies. I see

the w orst, bu t I need not be a part o f it, how ever much I must be in it; I will only be a part o f the better fu ture you th in k of,

and o f which there are some signs, as there must be even now ifit is ever to become.

O ne o f ou r very best men here recently rem arked that this

“American world is not a civilization, but an ‘organized

barbarism ’ I can agree; but what is more distressing is th at o fall the hundreds o f Indian students w ho are now com ing here,

the great majority are nothing but disorganized barbarians,

what you might call cultural illiterates. This produces a verystrange impression on the really cultured Americans. . . . The

modern young Indian (with exceptions) is in no position to

meet the really cultured and spiritual European. I feel aninterest, therefore, in the “ state o f edu cation” in India. I can’t

help feeling sorry for Nehru, who “discovered India” so late;and at Jinnah, w ho is no t a Moslem in any bu t a political

sense. I regret the spread in India o f the class distinctions thatarc so characteristic of the Western “ dem ocracies” . I w ould like

to see the caste system intensified, especially so as regards theBrahm ins, w ho should be demoted if they don ’t fill the bill;should be made Vaisyas if they go in for mo neym aking , andSudras when they become engineers. This docs not mean that I

don’t think anyone should make money or engines, but thatthose who do should rank accordingly; in which respect my position is as much Platonic as Indian.



P r o g r e s s : b y D e n i s T e g e t m e i e r , i n E r i c G i l l U n h o l y

T r i n i t y , L o n d o n ,

D e n t , 1 9 4

2 .

“ D o w n

a s t e e p p

l a c e i n t o t h e s e a ”

M A T T H E W V l l i : 3 1

" A s t h e t y r a n t d e l

i g h t s w h e n h e c a n t o r m e n t m e n , a n d

s p e n d t h e i r s w e a t i n

s h o w a n d l u x u r y , i n f o o l i s h s t r a n g e a t t i r e a n d b e h a v i o u

r , a n d a p e t h e f o o l ;

s o d o a l s o t h e d e v i l s i n h e l l . . . H e w h o s e e s a p r o u d m a n s e e s . . . t h e d e v i l ’ s

s e r v a n t i n t h i s w o r l d ; t h e d e v i l d o e s h i s w o r k t h r o u g h

h i m . . . H e t h i n k s

h i m s e l f t h e r e b y f i n

e a n d i m p o r t a n t , — a n d i s t h e r e b y

i n t h e s i g h t o f G o d

o n l y a s a f o o l , w h o p u t s o n s t r a n g e c l o t h i n g a n d t a k e

s t o h i m s e l f a n i m a l

f o r m s "

j a c o s i e h m e n ,

S i x

T h t o s o p h i c P o i n t s ,

V H 3 6 - 8

" T h e i d e a o f P r o g r e s s a r o s e i n t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y

f r o m t h e b e l i e f t h a t

m a n h a d w a i t e d l o

n g e n o u g h a n d t h a t i t w a s i m p o s s i b

l e t o e x p e c t G o d t o

d o a n y t h i n g t o a l l e v i a t e h i s s u f f e r i n g s o r b r i n g a b o u t t h e

t r i u m p h o f g o o d . . .

“ I n m a t e r i a l t h i n g s t h e r e h a s b e e n ‘ p r o g r e s s ’ ; t h e r e

h a s b e e n p r o g r e s s i n

i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i n t h

e a m o u n t o f k n o w l e d g e a v a i l a b l e , i n

t h e s p e e d a t w h i c h

w e c a n m o v e , i n t h e r a t e o f p r o d u c t i o n o f g o o d s , i n c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , i n t h e

f a c t o r i f i c a t i o n o f e

d u c a t i o n , i n t h e p o w e r a n d s p e e d o

f d e s t r u c t i o n , i n t h e

p o w e r o f M a m m o n , i n t h e l o s s o f i n d i v i d u a l f r e e d o m

, i n t h e n u m b e r o f

d e a t h s o n t h e r o a d , i n t h e d e c l i n e o f w i s d o m b e f o r e t h e i n

c r e a s e o f k n o w l e d g e ,

i n t h e d e c l i n e o f t r u e l e a r n i n g b e f o r e t h e m e r e a c c u m u l a

t i o n o f f a c t s a n d t h e

m u l t i p l i c a t i o n o f p h i l o s o p h i e s , i n t h e c h a o e o f o u r i n d u s t r i a l , e c o n o m i c ,

s o c i a l a n d p o l i t i c a l o r d e r . . .

“ I f t h e r e h a s e v

e r e m e r g e d a n a n t i - C h r i s t i n h i s t o r y , i t i s ‘ t h e i d e a o f

P r o g r e s s ' ”

F . W . B U C K L E R

“ T h e o l o g y s u r r e n d e r e d t o e t h i c s , e t h i c s t o e c o n o m i c s

, a n d m a n f o l l o w e d

s u i t f r o m a s p i r i t u a l b e i n g t o a n e c o n o m i c a n i m a l "

H . J . M A S S I N C U A M

“ W h e n e v e r t h e t i m b e r t r a d e i s g o o d , p e r m a n e n t f a

m i n e r e i g n s i n t h e

O g o w e r e g i o n "

A L B E R T S C H W E I T Z E R



Above all, I am not a reformer or a propagandist; I don’t

“ think for m y s e lf’; I spend my time trying to understand somethings that 1 regard as immutable truths; in the first place, for

m y ow n sake, and secondly for that o f those wh o can make use

o f my results. For me, there are certain axioms, principles, or

values beyond question; my interest is not in thinking up newones, bu t in the application o f these that are.

You say you cannot see an ugly, only a tragic picture. I

disagree with that, because I cannot see “tragedy” except in

heroic conflict; where one simply drifts with the current and

merely shouts “ Prog ress” , I see no possibility o f a tragic rasa,

but only ugliness.

Very sincerely,

D r Herm an G oetz, pop ular Germ an art historian resident in India; cf letter,

p 31.D r Stella K ramrisch, C ura tor o f Indian A rt, Philadelphia M useum o f A rt and

som etim e professor o f Indian art at Calcutta U niversity; author o f A Survey

o f Painting in the Deccan and The Indian Temple, major studies in the art and

architecture of India.

The AKC festschrift was published under the title Art and Thought ; see

Bibliography.

Kali Yuga o r ‘age o f strife’, w hich ma rks the terminal phase of the p resent

hum an cycle in the H indu theory o f cyclic time; for a discussion o f this

concept, see Rene Guenon, The Crisis o f the Modem World, London, 1942.

Vaisya and sudra, the lowe r tw o o f the four traditional H indu castes; for a

further discussion, see AKC, The Religious Basis o f the Forms of Indian Society,

Orientalia, New York, 1946.

Rasa, Sanskrit for flavour or taste; an imp ortan t concept in Hindu aesthetics.

T o FATHER PAUL HENLEY FURFEY, SJ.

N ovem ber 11, 1937

Dear Father Furfey:

I w on der if you could refer me to any authoritativestatements against a translation o f the Bible into the vernacular?

Also to any recent encyclical in w hich the reten tion o f servicesin Latin is enjoined? I am myse lf in full agreement w ith the principle o f re ta in ing the hieratic language untransla ted



(however much explained by commentaries) but would like to

know the Christian authorities.

Very sincerely,

Father Paul H. Furfey, SJ, professor o f sociology, Catholic U niversity o f

Am erica, W ashington, D. C.

To MISS ADE DE BETHUNE

June 25, 1940

Dear Miss de Bethune:

I am in full agreemen t w ith you on the question o f Liturgy

(etc) in the vernacular. There are many important reasons for

the retention o f a “ sacred” language. There have been

vernacu lars (like the Braj dialect o f Hind i) which are themselves

virtually sacred languages and admirably adapted to the

expression o f the truth. In the present situation, how ever, the

notable considerations are (1) that modern English is essentially

a secular language, no t at all well adap ted to the fa(on de penser o fscripture, and (2) the words which once had definite meanings

have become materialized and sentimentalized: contrast the

medieval meaning of nature and the mo dem , and note the gulf

betw een the philosophical and popula r value o f ideal. For these

reasons there can’t be a translation tha t is not also a betrayal. It is

a perfectly com prehensible situation o f course: the hum anisa-

tion, ie, secularization o f scripture accompanies the hum anisa-

tion o f C hrist (as Eckhart rem arks, C hr ist’s hum anity is a

hindrance to those who cling to it w ith m ortal pleasure— one

might add that “human nature” does not mean the same thingfor the Schoolmen as it does for the modern to whom the

expressions fo rma humanitatis means nothing).

Very sincerely,

Miss Adc de Bethune, Newport, Rhode Island, USA; sec letter, p. 28.



T o MR J. T. TALGERI

August 29, 1946

Dea r M r Talgeri:

In reply to your letter, just received:All men live by faith, until they have reached an immediate

know ledge o f reality in w hich they at first believed. “ W hat islove?” as Rumi says: “Thou shalt know when thou becomest

Me.”

A priori, faith in a given dogma will depend upon the

credibility o f the witness. Whenever, and tha t is norm ally

always, the same truths have been enunciated by the great

teachers o f the w orld at many times and in many places, there is

gro un d for supposing that on e’s task is rather to understand and

verify w hat has been said than to question it; and that is ju st as

w hen a professor o f chemistry informs us that 2H + O =

H2O, we take this on faith until we have understood and

verified the pro position. To the extent that truths are verified in

personal experience, faith is replaced by certain ty; in th is sense,

for example, the Buddhist Arahant is no longer a m an o f faith.

So I believe in the w ords o f the Vcdas, Buddha, Socrates,

Ramakrishna, M uham m ed, C hrist and many others, and in thetimeless reality to which or to whom—according to the

phraseology appro priate in each case—these bear witness. I do

no t believe that I am this m an soandso, b ut that I am that M an

in this man, and that He is One and the same in all the

temporary vehicles that He inhabits and quickens here in His

transcendence o f. them all.

Very sincerely,

Mr Talgeri is not further identified.

T o HELEN CHAPIN

October 29, 1945

Dear Miss Chapin:

I have yours o f the 25th and 28th. In the first place, I did not

mean to say that you had sports for an ideal, ctc— that was part



o f the general criticism o f these “latter days” . As for caste, I

have to prepare a lecture on the “ Religious Basis o f H indu

Social Order” and will try to go into it there. For the rest, I amonly too well aware that “knowing all literature” can meannothing: and at best is only dispositive to liberation—though it is

that. However, it has been mainly “searching (these) scrip-tures” that has got me as far along as I am; effecting, that is to

say, a measure o f liberation from some things. I do n’t think

you need w orry about the im m orality of doing futile w ork for

a living— it ’s ju st a cond ition imposed by the env ironm ent. I

am a “ parasite” on industrialism, in ju st the same way, but

nevertheless this very situation gives me a position and means

to do som ething w orthw hile, I think. Y our idea of a Bud dhist

cooperative seems good to me; and w hat you say o f disposingo f yo ur goods (“sell all that thou hast, and follow m e” ) seems

the right beginning. But I think you need a little time to

consolidate yourself. For another thing, also, to be o f the

greatest value in such a community you need the resources

which would enable you to universalize, so to speak, the

orientals ^ith you— no t that they have no t in their ow n

background “ enough fo r salvatio n” , but th at they too are in

some d anger o f the provincialism that is the outstanding quality

of American culture—isolationist even intellectually!

Finally, i f you thou ght it w orthw hile to make the trip, w ould

you care to spend a week w ith us? We have no servant, bu t I am

sure you w ou ldn ’t m ind doing your share o f the rather light

ho use w ork that existence demands. M y wife joins me in thisinvitation.

Sincerely,

Miss Helen Chapin, Bryn Mawr College, Bren Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.

To PROFESSOR J. H. MUIRHEAD

August 29, 1935

Dear Professor Muirhead:

I am a goo d deal relieved by you r very kind letter of August



14, for although I spent much time and thought on this articlc, Istill felt dissatisfied with it. What I wanted to bring out was the

metaphysical character o f Indian doctrinc, that it is no t a

philosophy in the same sense in which this w ord can be used in

the plural; and that the metaphysics o f the universal and

unanimous tradition, or ph ilosophia perennis, is the infalliblestandard by which not only religions, but still more “philo-

sophies” and “sciences” must be “corrected” (correction du

savoir-penser) and interpreted.

N ow as to the abbrevia tion: it w ould be m y wish in any case

to om it p 8, line 13 up to p 10, line 3 inclusive, and the

correspo nding footnotes (ie, o m it all discussion o f the H oly

Family, which I w ould prefer to take up again elsewhere, no t as

I have don e here neglecting the doc trinc o f the E ternal Birthand “divine nature by which the Father begats”, which

“nature” is in fact the M agna M ater, the m other o f eternity).

For the rest I am entirely at your disposal, and rely on you to

make such further excisions as you th ink best, w ithout sending

me the M s, but only the p ro o f in due course.I may add that all my recent w ork has tended to show the Rig

Vcdic (therefore also o f course, Upanishad and Brahmana) and

neoPlatonic traditions arc o f an identical import; w orkin g thisout mainly in connection with ontology and aesthetics, and de

divitiis nominibus. I am contributing an articlc on “Vcdic

Excmplarism” to the James Haughton Woods Mem orial Volume to

be published at Harvard U niversity shortly. I have indeed oneCatholic friend who admits that he can no longer see any

difference between Ch ristianity and H induism . I m yse lf find

nothing unacceptable in any Catholic doctrinc, save that o f anexclusive tru th , which last is no t, I believe, a m atter o f faith (ie,

Catholicism assumes its own truth but does not deny truths

elsewhere merely because they occur elsewhere, although in

practice the indiv idual Cath olic docs tend to do this). I am notat all interested in tracing possible “ influences” o f one teaching

on another, for example w hether o r not Jesus or Plotinus m ayor may no t have visited India; the roots o f the great traditionare very m uch older than either Christianity or the Vedas as wehave them, although from the standpo int o f content both m ay

be called eternal. I hope this may help to make my positionclearer, and may be o f help to you in editing my M s. I ow e you



many apologies for the troublesome work that must be

involved in this.With renewed thanks,

Very sincerely,

Professor J. H. M uirhead, editor of Contemporary Indian Philosophy, Allen

and Unwin, London, 1936, in which AKC’s article “The Pertinence of

Philosophy” appeared.

‘Vedic Exemplarism’, AKC’s contribution to the James Haughton Woods

Memorial Volume, Harvard University Press, 1936.

ToPROFESSOR H. G. RAWLINSON

no date given

My dear Rawlinson:

It is a m atter o flittle interest to m e w hether Gautam a o r Jesus

“ lived” historically.* Gautama him self says “T hose w ho see

me in the body or hear me in words, do not see or hearMe. . . . He who sees the dhamma sees M e.” I do th ink it

necessary to have as a bac kgrou nd a knowledge o f metaphysics.For a European this means an acquaintance with and verifica-

tion o f the Gospels (at least John), Gnostic and H erm etic

literature, Plotinus, Diony sius, Eckh art, Dan te. It is o f no use

to read these simply as literature; if one is not going to get

som ething ou t o f all this, w hy read at all? If I were n ot gettingsolid food out o f scholarship, I w ould drop it tom orro w andspend my days fishing and gardening.

Yours sincerely,

* Th e app arently ino rdina te character o f this rem ark can be seen in better

perspective i f it is weig hed again st o th er AK C statem ents . For example ,co m m en ting in passing on the Gospel form ula ‘. . . th at it m igh t be fulfilled

which was spoken by the prophets’, he says that this phrase simply asserts

the necessity o f an historical eventuation o f that w hich has been ordained by

He aven, w hich is to say that possibilities o f ma nifestation m ust be

existentiated in their proper ‘cosmic moment’. For Dr Coomaraswamy, the

metaphysical was so overwhelmingly real that, by comparison, historicalfacts seem ed o f little imp ortance. Th is perspective, o bviou sly, is the veryantithesis o f the po pular attitude tha t sees history as confirming everything.



even the metaphysical. The facts of history, however, and especially ofsacred history, arc symbolic in the highest degree without this in any waycompromising their prescriptive reality on their own level; were it not so,history would be a meaningless chaos. Dr Coomaraswamy was no Docetist,as the fundamental thrust o f his writings dearly indicates, whatever mayhave been the emphasis in a particular context.

H. G. Rawlinson, CIE, formerly with the Ceylon and Indian EducationService, and an art historian. Dhamma, a Pali word (Sanskrit equivalent, dharma) meaning “eternal law”;an important concept in both Hinduism and Buddhism. Sec introductorychapter, “The Buddhist Doctrine” in AKC and 1. B. Horner, The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha, London, 1948.

To MR WESLEY E. NEEDHAM

March 14, 1945

Dear Mr Needham:

M any thanks. I’m afraid I feel that Theosophy is for the m ost

part a pseudo o r distorted philosophia perennis. The same

applies to m any “ bro therho od ” m ovem ents. C f Rene

Guenon’s Le Theosophisme: historie d’une pseudo-religion (Didier

et Richard, Paris, 1921).* On Guenon, see my articlc in Isis, XX X IV, 1943. I think Plutarch is one o f the masters o f

Comparative Religion, and I have the highest regard for Philo.

Very sincerely,

* This and the other major works of Rene Guenon are listed in the bibliographical section devoted to him.

Mr. Wesley E. Needham, West Haven, Connecticut, USA.

To PROFESSOR MUHAMMED HAFIZ SAYYED

August 20, 1947

My dear Professor Muhammcd Hafiz Sayyed:

It was a pleasure to receive your k ind letter o f the 6th inst.Your recommendation to visit Sri Ramana Maharshi and SriAurobindo Ghosh reminded me of Jahang ir and Dara Shikosh:



“Their Vedanta is the same as our Tassawuf.” I have the

highest regard for the former and I think he ranks with Sri

Ramakrishna. I should th ink it a great privilege to take the dust

o ff his feet. . . . O n the other hand 1 have not found Sri

Aurobindo Ghosh’s writings very illuminating.

Very sincerely,

Professor M uham m ed Hafiz Sayyed, no t otherwise identified.

Sri Ram ana M aharshi, 18791950 , great H indu saint o f South India; see

Collected Works o f Ramana Maharshi, edited by Arthur Osborne, New York,

1972.

Sri Aurobindo Ghosh, 18721950, Hindu philosopher with strong mod-

ernist leanings; his teachings are not considered orthodox.

Jahangir, Mughul emperor (d 1627) noted for his wide cultural interests and

his T u z u k (Memoirs), from which the citation in the letter was taken.

Dara Shikosh (or Shukoh), notorious among his contemporaries for what

they considered his unorthodox religious views; he sponsored a translation

into Persian of the fifty chief Upanishads.*

* Dara Shikosh’s poor reputation with the exoteric authorities may have

stem m ed from his public expression o f Sufi interests and attitudes. G randso n

o fJaha ngir and son o f Sh ahja han , he was an unsuccessful contender for the

Peacock Throne—losing successively the throne, his eyes and his life to his

implacable brother, Aurangzeb. This translation o f the Upanishads intoPersian (then the language o f the court and the chief cultural m edium) which

Shikosh sp onsored was in turn translated a bou t a century and a ha lf later into

Latin, by the Frenchman, Abraham Hyacinthe AnquetilDuperron, and

published in 180102 in Europe (S trasb ourg ). Thus were th e Upanishads

introduced into Europe, and it was this version that was used with much

devotion by Arthur Schopenhauer. AnquetilDuperron rendered Mundaka

Upanishad III.3.2.9 thus: Quisquis ilium Brahm intelligit, Brahm f it , adding the

gloss, id est, Quisquis Deum intelligit, Deusfit; and he placed this last statem ent

in exergue to his tw o volum e translation as a sum m ation o f upanishadic

doctrine. It is very instructive to compare this passage from the Mundaka Upanishad with Jo hn xvii, 3: Haec est autem vita ceterna: ut congnoscant te, solum

Deum verum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum.

To GEORGE SARTON

August 13, 1939

My dear Sarton:

H erew ith the review o f Radhakrishnan ’s book. You w ill seethat it is, on the whole, a criticism, and perhaps you will not



“like” it. However, it seems to me important to point out that

it is not really Hinduism, but a modern western interpretation

o f H ind uis m , tha t he is w ork ing w ith; in some respects, indeed,

it seems to me that he understands Christianity better than

H indu ism (we m us t rem em ber that the exegetes o f Christianity

have b een Ch ristians: the Europ ean exegetes o f Hinduism, forthe most part, neither Christians nor Hindus). It is curious that

Radhakrishnan has nothing to say about Islam which in so

many respects can be regarded as a mediation between Eastern

and Western approaches.

I hav e ju s t received and am already [51V) with great

admiration for the author’s position and practical wisdom,

Peaks and Lamas by Marco Pallis (Cassell, London and

T o ro nto ); w ho is n ot m erely an explorer, but w hose purpose it

was “ to e m ba rk on a genuine study at first hand o f the Tibetan

do ctrines, for their o w n sake and n ot ou t o f mere scientific

curiosity” (p 120). You will read the book with great pleasure

and will, I am sure, wish to commend it, especially as a model

o f method to be followed in scicntific investigations that require

intimate relations with alien peoples. I remark especially the

concep t o f Translation as interpreted on pp 8081.

C an I hav e som e reprints o f the review?With kind regards,

Very sinccrcly,

George Sarton, professor of the history of science, Harvard University,Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Indian scholar and statesman, author of Indian

Philosophy and numerous other works.

T o GEORGE SARTON

August 11, 1947

Dear Sarton:

N ikilananda, The Gospel o f Sri Ramakrishrta — an excellent and

com plete translation o f “ M ’s” record, a remarkable docu-m en t . . . I’ll lend y ou m y Ram akrishn a if necessary, but look:

this is on e o f the m os t im po rtant book s in the field o f religion



published in the USA in this centu ry, and why not insist on the

library getting it?

AKC

George Sarton, as above.

The Gospel o f Sri Ramakrishna, translated by Swami Nikilananda, The

Ramakrishna Vivckananda Center, New York, USA.

T o JOHN LAYARD

August 11, 1947

Dear Dr Layard:

There is nothing better than the Vedanta— but I kno w o f no

Sri Ramana Maharshi living in Europe. I do not trust your

young Vedantists, no r any o f the missionary Swamis; thou gh

there may be exceptions, m ost o f them are far from solid. I

would not hastily let anyone o f them have the chance. . . . Not

even Vivckananda, were he still alive. Were Ramakrishna

him self available, that would be another matter.

Sincerely,

D r Joh n Layard, Jungian analyst and cultural anthropologist, author o f

several works, including The Stone Men o f Malakula, London, 1942.

To GRAHAM CAREY

April 5, 1943

Dear Carey:

I read you r paper once over and think it good. It is necessary but courageous to tackle the whole problem o f superstitions but difficu lt because each superstition presents a problem to ourunderstanding. I find that superstare has the primary meaning to

stand by, upon, or over, but also the meaning to survive. In the

latter sense superstition often coincides with tradition andought not necessarily to have a bad meaning at all. Even in the



first sense it should not necessarily have a bad meaning—one

can stand by or take one’s stand upon a perfectly good theory.

So m any o f these w ord s (eg, “ dogm atic”) have acquired a bad

meaning (a) because antitraditionalists despise the theory in

question and (b) because those who adhere to the theories

som etimes d o so blindly and stupidly, ie, w ithout understand-ing. (I m et, by the way, som e followers o f Karl Barth, and was

shocked by their violence and conceit; they hold all Christian

mysticism in contempt).

Very sincerely,

Graham Carey, Catholic author, Fairhaven, Vermont, USA.

ANONYMOUS

Date not given

Hear. . .

Practically the w ho le o f our c ultural inheritance assumes and

originally too k shape for the sake o f a bod y o f beliefs nowclassified as supe rstition . Superstition , taken in its etymological

significance, as the des ignation o f whatever ‘stands ove r’

(superstet ) from a former age is an admirable word, partly

synonymous with tradition; wc have added to this essential

mean ing, h ow ever, ano ther and accidental connotation, that of

“mistaken belief”. Whatever we, with our knowledge of

empirical facts, still do in the same way tha t prim itive man did,

wc do not call a superstition, but a rational procedure, and wc

credit our primitive ancestors accordingly with the beginning

o f scicncc; a second class o f things that w c still do, rather by

habit than deliberately, the laying o f foundation stones, for

exam ple, wc d o n ot call superstitions, only because it docs no toccur to us to do so. Whatever on the other hand we do no t do

and th ink o f as irrational, particularly in the field o f rites, bu t

still see done by peasants or savages, or indeed by Roman

Catholics, Hindus or Shamanists, wc call superstitions, mean-

ing so far by “ w e” those o f us whose education has beenscientific, and for whom whatever cannot be experimentallyverified an d m ade use o f to p redict events is not knowledge.



On the other hand, we have inherited from the past an

enorm ous b ody o f w orks o f art, for example, to which we still

attach a very h igh value: we consider that a knowledge o f these

things belongs to the “ higher things o f life” , and do n ot call a

man “ cu ltured ” unless he is more or less aware o f them . At the

same time our anthropological and historically analytical

kno w ledge makes us very well aware that none o f these

things—cathedrals, epics, liturgies for example—would not

have been what they arc, but for the “superstitious” beliefs to

which their shapes conform; and to say that these things w ould

not have been what they are is the same as to say that they

would not have been at all and to recognize that we could not,

for example, have written the Volsung Saga, or the Mahabharata,

or the Odyssey, but only a psychological novel. We could nothave written Genesis or the in principio hymns o f the Rg Veda,

but only textbooks o f geology, astronom y and physics. To

deal with this situation w e have devised an ingenious m ethod o f

saving face, preserving intact our faith in “progress” and

satisfaction in the values o f ou r ow n civilization as disting-

uished from the barbarism o f others. In the field o f m yth and

epic, for exam ple, we assume a nucleus o f historical fact to

which the imagination o f the literary artist has added m arvels inorder to enhance his effects. For ourselves, we have outgrown

the childish faith in the deus ex machina, who indeed often

“spoils” for us the humanistic values that the story has for us.

We feel in much the same way about whatever seems to us

immoral or amoral in the text. In reading, we exercise an

unconscious censorship, discounting whatever seems to us

incredible, and also whatever seems to us inconvenient. Guided

by the psychoanalyst, we arc prepared to take the fairytale out

o f the hands o f children altogether; even the churchm an, whose

jo b and business it is to expound the Gospel fairytales,

connives in this.

Having by means o f these reservations made the epic safe fordemocracy, we arc fully prepared to admit and admire its“literary” values. In the same way, ignoring the reasons forEgyptian, Greek or Medieval architecture, we are fully prepared to recognize the “ significance” o f these aesthetic

facts . . . .This was an incomplete handwritten letter found amongst AKC’s otherletters. It was unsigned.



T o ALFRED O. MENDEL

August 29, 1946

Dear Dr Mendel:

“Tradition” has nothing to do with any “ages”, whether

“dark”, “primaeval”, or otherwise. Tradition represents doc-

trines about first principles, which do not change; and

traditional institutions represent the application o f these princi-

ples in particular environm ents and in this [way they] acquire a

certain contingency which docs not pertain to the principles

themselves. So, for example, as Guenon remarks on my W hy

Exhibit Works o f Art?, pp 8688:

une note repondant a un critique avait rcproche a l’autcur de prcconiscr le ‘retour a un eta t dcs choscs passes’, cclui du

moycn age, alors qu’il s’agissait cn realite d’un rctour

premiers principcs, com m e si ces principes pouvait dependre

d’unc question d’epoquc, et comme si leur vcrite n’etait pas

csscntiellement intcmporclle!

For an example o f how the w ord “ tradition” can be misused,

see my correspondence with Ames printed in the current issue

o f the Journal o f Aesthetics and A rt Criticism. If it is so misusedvery often (pejoratively) it is because under present conditionso f education, the “ educa ted” are acquainted with “ trad ition”

only in its past aspects, if at all, and no t w ith “ the living

tradition”.You may be right about “slants” in writing. I attach

importance to continuity (tendency to write successive wordswithout lifting the pen), and think this corresponds to the

faculty o f reading sentences as a whole, rather than w ord byword. This is often very conspicuous in Sanskrit, where the

crasis often results in the presentation o f whole sentences in the

form o f one solid block.

Very sincerely,

Alfred O Mendal was a professor of psychology at Sarah LawrcnceCollege, Bronxville, N ew York, USA , and an authority on graphology. He

was the author of Personality in Handwriting, New York, 1947.



To THE JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM

December 27, 1945

A Rejoinder to Professor Ames:

In writing to Professor Van Ames (without thought of publication) I had not meant to discuss the relative merits o f his

and m y points o f view, but only to say that he did not seem to

be using the w ord “ traditio n” in the “ traditional” sense; and

this he admits. I think I have show n in my Why Exhibit Works of

Art? (1943, now op) and Figures o f Speech or Figures o f Thought?

(to appear immediately) that there is a theo ry o f art that has

been ente rta ined universally, and w ith which there has been

disagreem ent only at exceptional times or by individuals—with

respect to whom I would ask, with Plato, “Why consider the

inferior Philosophers?”. In any case, those “who appeal to

tradition” arc not putting forward views of “ their ow n” .

Professor Van Ames or anyone else is entirely free to d isagree

with the “ traditiona l” theory. I do maintain, how ever, that this

theory must be understood if we arc to avoid the pathetic fallacy

o f reading into the minds o f “ prim itive” , classic, m edieval andoriental artists our own aesthetic preoccupations. That this is a

very real danger is made apparent in the way we use such termsas “inspiration” (sec my article, sv, in Th e Dictionary o f the

Arts ), “ orna m en t” , “ na ture” , and even “a rt” itself in senses

that are very different from those o f the artists and the theorists

o f the periods o f which we are writing the history. And this

makes it very difficult for the student to grasp the real spirit of

the age that he is supposed to be studying objectively.

AKC

Professor Van M eter Ames o f the D epartment o f philosophy at the

U niversity o f Cincinnati. In his letter to A KC , he w rote: ‘You are quite right

that I do not use the word “tradition" as those use it who “appeal to

tradition.” Th ey form an impressive company. And they m ust o f course

dismiss me as not belonging to the “spiritually educated”. . . . Here I can

only say that I belong to a different tradition: pragmatic, humanist,

plu ralist . . . . ’ In a covering le tter to the edito r o f th e journal here in

question, AK C wro te: ‘If you think there is any chance Professor Ames

w ould think I am casting an aspersion on h im, I am quite ready to strike outthe line “with respect to . . . philosophers.” ’



A note to the A r t Bulletin on a review in vo lum e XX (p 126) by

Richard F lorsheim o f A K C ’s “ Is Art a Superstition or a Way o f

Life?” ; see Bib liog raphy for the several appearances o f thisarticlc.

In review ing m y “ Is A rt a Supe rstition o r a Way o f Life?” ,

M r Florsheim assum es m y “ advocacy o f a return to a m ore o rless feudal ord er . . . an earlier, b ut dead order o f things.” In

m uch the same w ay a reviewer o f “ Patron and Artist” ( Apollo ,

February 1938, p 100) admits that what I say “is all very true”,

bu t assumes tha t th e rem edy w c “ M cdiaevalists” (m eaning

such as Gill, Glcizes, Carey and me) suggest is to “somehow

get back to an earlier social organization.”

These false, facile assumptions enable the critic to evade the

challenge o f o u r criticism, which has two main points: (1) thatthe cu rrent “ appreciation” o f ancient or exotic arts in terms o f

our o w n ve ry special and historically provincial view o f art

amounts to a sor t of hocus pocus, and (2) that under the

con ditions o f m anu facture taken for granted in current artistic

doctrinc man is given stones for bread. These propositions arc

either true o r no t, and cann ot honestly be twisted to mean that

wc w ant to p ut back the hands o f the clock. N either is it true that w c “ do not pretend to offer m uch in the

way o f a practical rem ed y;” on the contrary, wc offer

everything, that is to “somehow get back to first principles.”

Translated from metaphysical into religious terms this means

“ Seek yc first the k ingd om o f G od and His righteousness, and

all these th ings shall be added u nto you .” W hat this can have to

do with a sociological archaism or eclecticism, I fail to see.

A return to first principles would not recreate the outward

aspects o f the M iddle Ages, thou gh it migh t enable us to better

und erstand these aspects. I have now here said that I w ished to“return to the Middle Ages”. In the pamphlet reviewed, I said

that a cathedral w as no m ore beautiful in kind than a telephone

booth in kin d*, and expressly excluded questions o f preference,

ie, o f “ wishful think ing ” . W hat I understand by “ wishful

think ing ” (cf p 2 o f m y essay) is that kind o f faith in “ progress”w hich leads M r Florsheim to identify “earlier” with “dead” , atype o f thinking that ignores all distinction o f essence from

accident and seems to suggest a Marxist or at any rate adefinitely antitraditional bias.

Th ings that w ere tru e in the M iddle Ages arc still true, apart



To THE EDITOR OF APOLLO

February 23, 1938

Dear Sirs:

Referring to you r review o f “Patron and A rtist” in theFebruary issue, p 100, may 1say that wc “Mcdiacvalists” (I can

speak at least for myself, Mr Carey and Eric Gill) do not holdor argue that “ wc should som eho w get back to an earlier social

organization” , how ever superior to our own wc m ay hold that

such an organization m ay have been. Wc arc no m ore interested

in “pscudoGothic”, whether architectural or social, than wc

arc admirers o f the present social order. O ur remedies arc not

stylistic, but metaphysical and moral; wc propose to return to

first principles and to acccpt their consequences. These con

scqucnccs migh t involve a social order in som e respects o f a

mediaeval type; they w ould ccrtainly include a rehabilitation o f

the idea o f making as a vocation, manufacture for use, and an

altered view o f the use to w hich machinery m ight be put. Bu t

wc arc not using the Middle Ages or the Orient as a blue print

for a new socicty; wc use them to point our moral, which is

that you cannot gather figs o f thistles. Wc suppose that what is

needed for a better social order and m ore happiness is no t a blue print but a change o f heart. Wc arc not so naive as to suppose

that any social style, whether democratic, socialist, fascist, or

“ mediaeval, how eve r enforced, could o f itself effect a changeof heart.

Very truly,

Graham Carey, Benson, Vermont, USA.Eric Gill, cf Introduction.

T o KURT F. LEIDECKER

N ovem ber 16, 1941

Dear D r Lcidcckcr:

The least im po rtant thin g abou t Guenon is his personality or bio graphy. I endose an articlc by M aclvcr, which please return



(also “T he ‘E ’ at Delph i” , which please keep). G ueno n’s ow naffiliations are essentially Arabic. He lies in retirement in Cairo:he knows Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit. (His two books on

spiritualism and theosophy were clearances o f the groun d,

prepara tory to his oth er work . Thus no one can suppose that in

his metaphysical w ork he is talking o f any kind o f occultism).The fact is that he has the invisibility that is proper to thecomplete philosopher: our teleology can only be fulfilled when

we really become no one. 1 shall do some o f the words such as

caitya for you very shortly. A great deal o f G uen on’s im portan twork appears in Etudes Traditionelles, during the last 10 years.

I question the importance o f item 4 for you r Dictionary. 1think item 12 should be Terminology (class concepts and

“ periods” ). Item 9, add Exhibition. Item 17, I should say sun-wheel (avoid constant repetition o f the word symbol, and for

more precise indication).1may be doing “Symbol” (in general) for Shipley, you want

only symbols (in particular).

Very sincerely,

Dr Kurt Lcidcckcr was working on a Dictionary o f Archelogy which wasinterrupted by World War II, when he was assigned to the Air Documents

Center where he compiled the American Aeronautical Dictionary.

Joseph T. Shipley, Dictionary of Word Origins, Philosophical Library, New York,

1945.

Rene Guenon, pioneering traditional writer and outstanding metaphysician;

a con tem po rary o f AK C. See bibliographical section at the end o f these

letters.

Etudes Traditionnelles, 11 quai StMichcl, Paris.

L ’Erreur spirite, see Bibliography.

Le Theosophisme, histoirc d’une pseudo-religion', sec Bibiliography.

T o MR J. C. ABREU

October 7, 1946

Dear Mr Abrcu:

In reply to your inquiry, I am in fundamental agreement

with M Rene Guenon; this might not exclude some divergenceon m inor matters. His books arc in the process o f translation;four have already been published by Luzac (London). I



published an artic lc on his w ork entitled “ Eastern W isdom andWestern Knowledge” in Isis Vol X X X IV , 1943 and this articlc,

brought up to date (nearly) will be included in a volum e o f

essays to be published by the Asia Press, NY, this fall, entitled A m I M y Brother 's Keeper? M y ow n bibliography is a long one;

there is a list o f the m ore im portan t items printed in Psychiatry, VI, 8, 1945.

M r Guenon lives in Cairo, and is a m em ber o f a Darweshorder, the Shaikh ‘Abdu’l Wahid. Before that he lived and

wrote in Paris. 1think any truly descriptive writing “about the

end o f an age” m ust be “ bitter” ; but I hardly think G uen on’s

own feeling is that, but his position would be that “it must be

that offenses should comc, but woe unto them through whom

they co m c” . He is an exponent o f the traditional “ W ay” byfollowing wh ich the individual can save him self by spiritualimplication from disintegration, whatever the external condi-

tions may be.

Very sincerely,

Mr J. C. Abreu, Vcdado, Havana, Cuba.

Rene Guenon, Cairo, Egypt, was accordcd the honorific Shaikh and took theMuslim name Abdu’l Wahid Yahia, ie, John, Servant of the Unique.

To PROFESSOR JOSEPH L. MCNAMARA

December 5, 1945

Dear McNamara:

I don’t think Guenon could be charged with dualism. In thelast analysis the “devil” is the egoprinciplc, that which asserts

cogito ergo sum*: and so Philo and Rumi equate the dragon

w hom none b ut G od can overcome w ith the sensitive soul, the“personality” in which the psychoanalysts arc so muchinterested. Their “good intentions” are beside the point. The“soul” will remain a congcrics or legion whatever wc do, andthe integration can only be in its principle, the spirit, “in which

all these become one.”



Professor J. L. M cN am ara, Roslindalc, M assachusetts, USA.

C f ‘W ho Is ‘Satan ’ and W here Is ‘H ell’?’, by A KC, in Review o f Religion,

N ovem ber 1947.

* This is true as far as it goes, but the notion o f Devil or Satan cannot be

confined to a psychological context. W hat is in question is a cosmic force that

is prio r to hu m an ity itself, a force o f com pression and separation, o f spiritualdarkness and negation , wh ich is perceived by hum an intelligence as personal

or ‘personality’.

To m . r e n £ g u £ n o n

April 12, 1946

My dear M. Guenon:

I agree with you as to the limit implied in Tagore’s writings.But 1 do n ot see w hy you object to the equation ananda =

felicitas or delectatio. The root is nand, to take pleasure, with the

added selfreferent prefix a. And apart from the ordinary

usages, one cannot ignore BU IV. 1.6, re Brahma: “What is Its

bliss (Ananda)?, verily, to the mind; it is by the mind that one

betakes oneself to the w om an, a son o f his born o f her . This ishis bliss: the highest Brahma is the mind.” Here manas (mind),

o f course, is equal to the Greek nous, intellectus vel spiritus, andthe “woman” is Vac; the son is the concept, and ananda is the

divine delight in the conception and b irth o f the spoken Logos.

Ananda is the divine delight in what Eckhart calls “the act of

fecundation latent in eternity.”

In connection with the question, Is the Buddhist reception

into the ord er o f Bhikkus an initiation? I am confirmed in

thinking so, since I now find further that the preliminaryshaving and lustration— de regie —is re ferred to as an abhiseka

and, further, that the accepted disciple becomes a “son o f theBuddha” and is endowed with “royalty” (adhipatya). The

lustration corresponds to a baptism, which was certainly inorigin an initiation.

I also find an interesting correlation o f Buddhist ksana andSufi andar waqt —both “ m om ents” w ithout duration, and the

only locus (loka) o f real being as distinguished from “becom-ing” (ousia from genesis, essentia from esse). This moment is themuk ta’s “world in the yonder world”. It is this moment that



every “ thing” ama sunistatai kai apoleipei (Plutarch, Moralia392C). T he succession o f these “no w s” makes w hat wc k now as

duration but in reality, all these instants arc one.

Very sinccrcly,

Rcnc Guenon, Cairo, Egypt.

To r e n £ g u £ n o n

April 17, 1947

My dear M. Guenon:

I have been reading your Grande Triade with great pleasure

and benefit. The following arc a few points that have occurred

to me: the character seems to have its exact equivalent inthe sign show n as fig 1 in my “svayamatrnna” o f wh ich I hop e a

copy has already reached you.

The Buddhist term sappurisa ( = sat-purusa) seems to express

the idea of I'homme veritable, while utiama-pumsa would

correspond to I’homme transcendent. Thus Dhammapada54: sabbadisa sappurisampavati, omnes regiones vir probus perflat (Fausboll’s

translation). Also Uttama purisa is commonly an epithet of

Buddha.

C f also: p 53, pouvoir du vajra, Hcraclcitus fr 38

p 119, on the “Triple pow er” , c f in m y “ Spiritual A uthority

and Temporal Power . . . . ” (especially as regards the Gnostic

formulation cited on p 44).

In several places you speak o f Providence and D estiny. In

English, I shou ld prefer to speak o f Providence and Fate:

making Providcncc = Destiny. O u r Destiny is ou r destination;fate arc the accidcnts that befall us en route, and that may help orhinder, but cannot changc our ultimate destiny.

La Grande Triade seems to me an especially valuable treatise,and I hope an English translation will appear soon.

M. Pallis and Rama are no w in Kalimpong w here the LamaWangyai met them on arrival. They spent 12 days in S India

and visited Sri Ramana Maharsi.



Rene Guenon, Cairo, Egypt.

La Grande Triade, Rcvuc dc la Tabic Ronde, Nancy, France; for other

editions, sec Bibliography.

“Svayamatrnna: Jatiua Coeli” , Zaim oxis, Paris, II, 1939, no 1.

‘Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of

Government’, Journal o f the American Oriental Society, New Haven, Connecti-

cut, 1942.Marco Pallis, London, England, see letter p 30.

Rama, AKC’s son, Rama Poonambulam Coomaraswamy.

Lama Wangyal, cf Peaks and Lamas by Marco Pallis; for various editions, sec

Bibliography.

Sri Ram ana M aharsi, Sou th Indian Saint; c f letter, p. 39.

To GEORGE SARTON

April 29, 1947

My dear Sarton:

Many thanks for your letter. Guenon’s controversial

volum es are no d ou bt less interesting in some respects, but , it is

to be considered that he alone puts forward what is essentially

the Indian criticism o f the present situation. For this reason and

because o f their direct relation to your w ork, I send you these

two only. His others, expository works, eg, L ’Homme et son

devenir seloti le Vedanta, Les Etats multiple de I’etre, Le Symbolisme

de la croix, etc, are not only the best and clearest exposition of

Indian theory I know, but almost the only expositions of pure

metaphysics that have so far as I know appeared in thesedays . . . .

I had the very great pleasure o f meeting Professor Buckler o f

Obcrlin and hearing his address on “The Shah Nama and the

Geneologia Regni D ei” (will appear in JA O S this year and shouldinterest you. His thesis being in part that the Shah Nama is an

epic o f the kingdo m o f God on earth analagous to the Christus

saga underlying the Four Gospels— a point o f view which I canfully agree . . . .

Very sincerely,

PS: If you have no t seen it, do see Grey O w l, Pilgrims o f the Wild (Lovat, D ickson , London, 1934)— one o f the very best booksthat has appeared for a long time.



Geo rge Sarton, Professor o f the history o f scicncc, H arvard U niversity,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.Rene Guenon, Cairo, Egypt; for his several book titles, sec Bibliography.

F. W. Buckler, depa rtme nt of church history. Graduate School o f The ology,

O berlin C ollege, O bcrlin, O hio; au thor o f several papers that interested

AK C, such as that mentioned abov e and "Regnum et ecclesia”, Church History,

III, March 1934.

T o MR S. C. LEE

March 20, 1947

Dear Mr Lee:

I reply to yours o f March 8, and send you below the messagewhich w ou ld be the gist o f what I should have to say were I to

be present at your International Festival, fo r the success o f

which you have my best wishes.

If men arc to live at peace with one another, they m ust learn

to understand and to think with one another. The primary

obstacle to such an understanding is, to quote P ro f Burtt,

‘the com placent assumption that all tenable solutions o f all

real prob lem s can or will be found in the Western traditio n .’Th is sm ug and pharaisaic complacency is one o f the causes o f

war . . . the cause that philosophers arc primarily responsible to remove.

The most dang erous form o f this complacency is to be foundin the conviction that Christianity is not only true, but theonly true religion; for this leads to repeated attempts to

impose upon other peoples a ‘Christian civilization’, so

called. It was o f this ‘civilization’ that Th om as T raherneremarked that ‘verily, there is no savage nation under the sun

that is mo re absurdly barbarous than the Christian w orld ’.

The opinion persists, however—it was recently enunciated by no less an authority than the Professor o f D iv in ity in the

U niversity o f Ed inburgh — that ‘we W esterners owe (it to)the peoples o f these m issionary lands’ to destroy theircultures and replace them with our own. And why? Becausethese arc essentially religious, but not Christian cultures! For

so long as this point o f view governs the attitudes o f theW estern people who call themselves ‘progress ive’ tow ardsothers whom they call ‘backward’—everyone will rccognizc at



Jo hn Wild was a well know n Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University.

He may have been the author of Science and the ‘Scientific’ Scepticism o f our

Time, app aren tly a pam ph let published by a body calling itself the Society for

a Catholic Commonwealth. His comments were included in Wilbur Griffith

Katz’s Natural Law and Human Nature, 1953.

To THE NEW ENGLISH WEEKLY, LONDON

March 14, 1941

Sir,

— In your issue o f last December 19, the Bishop o f Ely (via

Mr Murry) is quoted as saying that there is no reason why the

clergy should have any be tter understanding o f the causcs o f thewar than have “the altogether admirable men conducting the

affairs of the nation.” This can only be sustained on the assump-

tion that the clergy referred to arc no longer in any real sense ofthe w ord clcrgy, but only “admirable men” o f the same kind as

the politicians who, whatever their other virtues may be, can

hardly be described as disinterested critics o f the industrial

system. But it is precisely the clergy who should be and arc

assumed to be, philosophers in Plato’s and Aristotle’s sense ofthe word; and the philosopher who is “disinterested” by

hypothesis, may and ough t to understand m uch better than the

politician w hose immedia te task is to conduct a w ar, w hat is the

first cause o f war. Plato finds the cause o f w ar in the bo dy

“because we m ust earn m oney for the sake o f the bod y”

(Phaedo 66C). This does not mean at all that the boy should be

ignored; everything that Plato advocates is with a view to the

simu ltaneous satisfaction o f the needs o f the bod y and the soul

and for the good o f the who le man. It does mean that the m ore

wc are “philosophers” or guided by philosophy, the more ourmost serious interests are rather spiritual than physical; and theless we are “ men o f pro pe rty” or evaluate civilisation m erely in

terms o f com fort and safety, the fewer will be the occasions o fwar, whether international or imperialistic.

AKC

The New English Weekly, London; full title: The New English Weekly and the N ew Age, a Rev iew o f Public Affairs, Literature and the Arts, edited by Philip



M airet w ith an editorial com m ittcc consisting o f Mrs Jessie R O ragc (sole

proprieto r) , M aurice B Reck itt, Pamela Tra vers , T . S. Elio t, Rowland

Kenney and W. T. Symo ns. AK C w rote frequently to this journal

thro ug ho ut the last eight years o f his life.

T o THE NEW ENGLISH WEEKLY

February 21, 1946

Sir,

Apropos o f your ow n remarks on “ vocation” in your issue

o f Jan uary 17th, I call your readers’ atten tion to the fact that

metier is etymologically ministerium, a “ministry”. Another

form o f the word is “ m inister” , ie, trade, and “ trade” is a tread,

or a way of life.I agree with Mr Fordham that it is to be hoped that a “partial

paralysis will creep over the trade o f the w orld .” “ When

nations g row old, and the arts grow cold, and com merce settles

on every tree” (William Blake): “When the timber trade is

good, permanent famine reigns in the Ogowe district” (AlbertSchweitzer): “No one looking for peace and quiet has any

business lookin g for in ternational trade (G. H. G ra tton and

G. R. Leighton in The Future o f Foreign Trade, 1947). All thisapplies chiefly, o f course, to trade in “necessities” and raw

materials, and much less to a reasonable exchange o f finished

goods o f the highest quality. It is as regards necessities, at least,

that a community should be selfsufficing, or, if it is not, it will

feel compelled to get what it wants elsewhere, even by fraud orforce.

AKC

To THE NEW ENGLISH WEEKLY

October 4, 1945

Sir,

— I should like to call attention to some principles o f theRural W ork M ovem ent on India. In a recent address to trainees,

the leader, Shri Bharatan Kumarappa asked what it is we wantto work for, “mere material prosperity, or human develop-ment?” He pointed out that even amongst Socialists, “the



question o f w hethe r an abundance o f goods is necessary for

human wellbeing is never so much as raised.” The rest I quotefrom the Aryan Path of August:

Shri Kumarappa makes out a strong case against largescale

production for India, excepting such key industries as provid e machin ery, raw materials for small industries, public

utilities, etc. He shows how producing enormous quantities

drives others into unemployment: how competition for

distant markets leads to strife; how factory routine deprives

the w ork er o f opp ortunities such as cottage produc tion offers

for the deve lopment o f intelligence, initiative, and the artisticsense.

I say that the main cause o f world wars is the pursuit o fw orldtrad e, and that to dream o f peace on other conditions

than those o f local selfsufficiency is ridiculous. M oreov er, in a

brave new w orld, the cultural dom ination o f America is even

m ore to be dreaded than that o f England: for these U nited

States are not even a bourgeoisie, but a proletarian society fed

on “ softbun bread” (these words arc those of a wellknow nlarge scale baking com panys advertisement o f its produc t), and

thinking softbun thoughts. The citations above arc encourag-ing at least to this extent that if, as some think and hope,

“ modern western ways o f life arc about to swallow up all other

forms o f ‘cu lture’ ” (which God forbid!); some o f these othershave no t the slightest intention o f going und er w ithou t a fight,

and that the end is not yet.

AKC

Bharatan Kumarappa, Capitalism, Socialism or Villagism? Shakti Karyalayam,Madras, 1946.

Aryan Path (Bombay), August 1945.


March 28, 1940

Sir,

M r Durre ll, in your issue for January 24, 1940, p 209, thinksin Lao Tzu (and by implication in Chuang Tzu) there is



“nothing applicable to the Distressed Areas”. This is scarcelythe case, unless by “applicable” Mr Durrcll means to refer only

to symptoms and to ignore causes. The Taoist view is that evil

arises primarily from the interest we take in other peop les’affairs, and that the only real contribution that a man can make

to the b etterm en t o f the w orld is to im prove himself; ju st as inChristianity , it is a ma n’s first du ty to love him self and to seek

out his own salvation. So Chuang Tzu writes:

Prince: I wish to love my people, and by cultivation o f duty

tow ards o ne ’s neighbo ur to put an end to war. C an this be

done?

Hsu Wu Kwci: It cannot. Love for the people is the root o f

all evil to the people. C ultiva tion o f du ty tow ards one’sneighbour is the origin o f all fighting . . . . If your

Highness will only abstain, that will be enough. Cultivatethe sincerity that is witnin your breast, so as to be

responsive to the conditions o f you r cnvironcm ent, and be

not agrcssivc. The people will thus escape death; and what

need then to p ut an end to war? (Giles’ translation , chap

24).“Cultiva tion o f on e’s duty to one ’s ne ighbo ur” is the “ white

m an ’s bu rde n” as he conceives it, o f which the consequ-ence is the “neighbour’s” death. The responsibility for the

“Distressed Areas” rests on everyone who accepted the

curren t philo sophy o f life. (“ Civilization consists in the

multiplication and refinement of hum an w ants” , quoted in

a recent issue of Science and Culture.) As you have very justly remarked, the use o f mil itary force is hard ly

distinguishable, mo rally, from the use of econom ic force.

If we could only refrain, not only from doing evil toothers, but also from trying to do good to others (ic, goodas we conceive, it and not as they have conceived it), andtry instead to be good for them, there might be no need to

put an end to war. This , by the way, may not mean thatwar would entirely cease, but that it would take on againan entirely different and higher “value”.

Yes, man’s “only responsibility appears to be to himself.”

We are, unfortunately, too selfish, therefore too etfusive, toendure such a lim itation o f ou r responsibility; “ we have desired peace, but not the thin gs that make fo r peace.” It is, however,



prcciscly such a minding one’s ow n business as the “ limitation

o f respon sibility” implies that Taoism envisages a remedy forwar.

I recommend to Mr Durrcll (and others) Rene Guenon’s La

Crise du monde moderne and Marco Pallis’ Peaks and Lamas.

An entirely different question: Mr Eliot wants a word toexpress the antithesis o f Christian. As we have “ A ntiC hris t” ,

why not “antiChristian”? Nothing that merely expresses

“Non Christian” will do, because the real issue is not as

betw een Chris tians and nonChristians, but betw een “ believ-

ers” and “nonbelievers”; or better, between “comprchensor”

and “profane”. In other words, the issue is between those

whose moral judgements arc based on principles, and those

whose conduct, whether “good” or “bad”, is always unprinci pled.

AKC

Chuang Tzu, translated by Herbert Giles, London, 1889.

Rene Guenon, La Crise du monde moderne; English version, The Crisis of the

Modern World, London, 1942. See Bibliography.

Marco Pallis, Peaks and Lamas, various editions; sec Bibliography.

To STEPHEN HOBHOUSE

July 15, 1945

Dear Mr Hobhouse:

Many thanks for you r letter o f June 4. I certainly hope you

will be able to publish an A merican edition o f William Law; Ithink it would be widely read, especially by those who know

som ething o f John W oolman and his like, and that it would

have a good sale.

Regarding the second paragraph on p 309, I think that in thenote you might point out that the doctrinc which some(amongst others, E. Lampert, more recently, in The Divine

Realm, 1944) reject is certainly Roman Catholic, see St Thomas

Aquinas, Sum Theol 1.45: Creatio, quae est emanatio totius esse, est ex non ente, quod est nihil.

P 97: essentially a discussion o f “ Platonic love” (an expression



first used by M arsilio Ficino, and made the basis o f thefraternity o f his Academy), o r as formulated in the Upanishads,

that all things whatever arc dear, not for their own sakes, but

for the sake o f the Self, the imm anent deity, Selfsame in our

neigh bou r and ourselves. C f my “ Akim canna: sclfnaughting”,

in N ew Indian Antiquary, III, 1940. Other refs: Hermes XIII.4,“Wouldst that thou, too, hadst been loosed from thyself’;Rumi, M athnawi, 1.2449, ‘Were it not for the shakle, who

would say ‘I am I’?”; Maitri Upanishad VI.20, “he who sees thelightning flash o f the spiritualSc lf is o f him self bere ft” , and

V I.28, “ If to son and wife and family he is attached, for him,

never at all” (like Ch ris t’s “ If any man w ould be my disciple,

let him hate his father and mother. . .yea, and his own self

also”). . . . [and cfthe] Skr ahamkara, the “Imaking concept”And as I also wrote,

Contra Cartesium

That / can think is proof Thou art,

The only individuality from whose dividuality

My postulated individuality depends.

w ith reference, in part, to the expression o f the Bhagavad G ita:

“undivided in things divided”.The fundam ental problem o f w ar is in ourselves; actual war

is the external reflection of the inner conflict of self with Self.

W hoever has made his peace with him self will be at peace with

all men.The imp ortance o f occasional reference to the O riental

parallels is especially great at present, because “ peace” , w ith allits implications is something in which the whole world must

cooperate, it cannot be imposed on the w orld by any part o f it;and the basic doc trinal formulae represent the language o f the

com m on universe o f discourse on that level o f reference w here

alone agreement can be reached on the first principles inrelation to w hich activities must be jud ged. Partly for thisreason (but also for clarification), in my own writing, I alwayscite “authority” from many different sources, as demonstrationo f an actual agreem ent that we often overlook.

I w ou ld be happy to receive any o f the reprints o f you r pam phlets that you speak of.



Stephen Hobhouse, Broxbourne, England, editor, Selected Mystical Writings

of William Law, London, 1940.

William Law, eighteenth century Anglican divine, nonjuror, and spiritual

w riter influenced by Jacob Boehme.

Following are several editorial notes relevant to the above letter, the first

from the N ew English Weekly, March 9, 1944, p 180:

Coomaraswamy contra Descartes forms an antholo gy o f angry and yet

deeply reflective com m ents, o f wh ich the m ost striking is this brie f poem

(vide supra). He him self thou gh t the poem so concentrated that few could

grasp its meaning, and accordingly added a note when it was first

published: ‘T he arg um ent is not Cogito ergo sum, but Cogito ergo E S T —we

become, because He is’.

Elsewh ere in his writings, he returned to Descartes’ famous ax iom,

sometimes with irony, sometimes with comments developed from Indian

me taphysics: ‘“ S elf is no t an inference draw n from beha viour, bu t directly

known in the experience ‘I’; this is a proposition quite different fromDecartes’ Cogito ergo sum, wh ere the argum ent is based on behav iour and

leaves us still in an egocentric predicament.” (Time and Eternity, Ascona,

Switzerland, 1947, p 23). O r again: Bu ddh ist doc trine proceeds by

elimination. O ur ow n con stitution and that of the world is repeatedly

analyzed, and as each on e o f the five physical and mental factors o f the

transient person ality with w hich the ‘un taug ht m any folk’ identify

‘themselves’ is listed, the pronouncement follows, 'That is not my

self. . . . You will observe that am ong these childish mentalities w ho

identify themselves with their accidents, the Buddha would have included

Descartes, with his Cogito ergo sum (Hinduism and Buddhism, New York,

1943). A gain: ‘The ego dem on strated by De scartes’ Cogito ergo sum (a

phrase th at represents the nadir o f E uro pean metaphysics) is noth in g but a

fatally determined process, and by no means our real Self ("Prana-citi”,

Journal o f the Royal Asiatic Society, 1943, p 108).

And in a manu script note in the possession of Rama P. Co om araswa m y,

AKC wrote: ‘The traditional position is that God alone can properly say

‘I’. Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum is a circular argument, an ego subsisting in

both the subject and the predic ate .’ See also the le tter on pp 91 1.


May 3, 1944

Sir,

M r John Bate’s point about the East, made in your issueo f M arch 30, is well taken. It is perfectly true that the East that

can be easily known—the minority East that Westerners caneasily meet—is already dazzled by modern Western civilization(the situation is very clearly exposed by W. Massey in his



Introduction to Rene Guenon’s East and West). When I said “ We

(Asiatics) do no t adm ire or desire the forms o f modern western

civilization” , I was including in this “ w e” , no t the aforesaidm ino rity, but (1) a very few, such as the Pasha o f M arrakech,

and Mahatma Gandhi (with his “unmodern attitude to the

technolog ical achievements o f Western civilization, [and] hisdistaste for Western democracy”, to quote Captain Ludovici),

and a good many others who know the modern West only too

well, and w ho often appear to be “ W esternized” , but are in fact

profoundly orthodox, old fash ioned and reactionary , and (2) an

enorm ous m ajority w ho, because of their “illiteracy” or

inaccessibility and for other reasons, arc still “in order” and

m ore o r less im m une to infection. Even in Japan there survives

at least a profound belief in the divinity o f kings, and that is the best g round on which one w ho hopes for better things there

could try to build. Mr Quaritch Wales has pointed out in his

Years o f Blindness that western governm ents have never wo n the

hearts o f Eastern peoples, and that very much o f the Oriental

imitation o f Western manners amounts to little mo re than

lipservice paid to the dominating power in order to weather

the storm.

General ChiangKaiShek and Pandit Nehru arc not “Asia”.From our po int of view such men, h ow ever “ great” , are

already lost souls, and all that “we” expect from them arc the

expediencies that m ay be necessary to the preservation o f our

very physical and political existence; “we” do not look to them

for enlightenment. I am w ell aware that “ our” still vast majorityis on the losing side (at least in appearance) and diminishing in

num bers , and I suspect that all hum anity is destined to reach the

subh um an levels o f the m odern West before an effective

reaction can be hoped for. I do not mind belonging to what

may seem to be the losing side and a forlorn hope; for if one

docs not take the rig ht side, regardless o f what seems likely tohappen (and all things arc possible with God!), one bccomcs a

fatalist in the bad sense of the w ord . I callcd attention to the pasha o f M arrakcch bccausc it is allim portant for those,

however few, who in the West arc all against the present(dis)ordcr, to kno w and join hands with, and to cooperate

with those elsewhere who arc seeking to preserve what theW estern “w orld o f impoverished reality” has already lost,those for whom life still has a meaning and a purpose, and who



would rather save their souls alive than have “all these

things”—modern plumbing included—added to them. I think

it w ou ld be true to say that the m ajority o f colored peoples still

despise the white man and his works and would rather than

any thing else in the w orld, be rid o f him.

AKC


March 16, 1944

Sir,

I shou ld like to call your readers’ atten tion to the w ords

o f the Pasha of M arrakech (Morocco) reported in an interview

which was published recently in the Boston Herald, and may not

have comc to their notice. The Pasha says: “The Moslem world

docs not want the wondrous American world or the incredible

American w ay o f life. Wc w ant the w orld o f the Koran. . . . A t

the bo ttom o f A merica’s attitude is the assumption tha t all the

world desires to be American. And this assumption is false.”What is thus stated for the Moslem world, and is true for the

greater part o f it, is csscntialy true for the greater part o f the

w hole A siatic w orld. We (Europeans) are only conscious o f this

profound and welladvised cultural resistance to our “civilizing

mission” because (1) to admit it would be offensive to our pride

and (2) our contacts with English speaking Asiatics (and in

India, often only with the servant class) arc only with a

minority in whom wc have been able to implant the seeds of

discontent with their own traditions, or who fawn upon us, for

the sake o f w hat they can get ou t o f us. At the same time, it

m ust not be overlooked that amongst those Orientals w ho havelived, and studied longest in the West arc to be found some of

those w ho are least o f all inclined to accept what the W esternworld now means by'“progress’, and who feel (to quote PowysEvans from you r issue o f Decem ber 23rd) that “ if the w rongroad is taken, the greater the progress down it, the worse the

result, and the sooner there is a reaction, the better.” Speakingfor these and for the inarticulate majority that has not beeninfected by the delusion o f “ progress” , I w ould say that we



(Asiatics) do no t adm ire or desire the forms o f modern Westerncivilization, but only to reform (reconstitute) our own.

.AKC

To SIDNEY L. GULICK

May 6, 1943

Dear Mr Gulick:

It is very likely true that further correspondence will not help

us much. However, I will say a few words on this matter of

“ pro gress” . It is a question o f values; where you are think ing o f

quantitative things, I am thinking in qualitative terms. Nodou bt every m odern sch oolboy knows many facts o f which

Plato was unaware, and there is no harm in that, but rather

good, i f good use is made o f the knowledge. But theknow ledge itself docs no t make the schoolboy any wiser than

Plato was. We have acquired material means far beyond our

capacity to use them wisely. These means look “good” to you,

partly becausc they imply power in the hands of those who

possess them; to the backward races, so called, they are know nalmost only as powers o f deathdealing.

You will probably cite advances in medical knowledge. It

w ould be strange indeed if a long period o f concentration on

scarch for im pro vem en t in means o f physical well being had

produced no useful results. Still there is much to be said, and

that is said by d octo rs themselves, as to the balancc of goo d inall this. For exam ple, as to the distinction o f curativc from

preventive medicine. Take modern dentistry: wonderfu l, nodoubt; yet search has shown that primitive people, not living

on ou r kinds o f soft foods and w hite bread have almost alwaysno need for dentists, And once again, in the m atter o f health

and disease, the socalled backward peoples are chiefly aware o fw hite m en as bearers o f diseases— measles, influenza, veneraldiseases, tuberculosis, etc. In the matter of tuberculosis, in particular, missionaries have a very special responsib ility, inthat their failure to distinguish nudity from depravity has been

the chief cause of the spread of this disease.Th e late D r Joh n Lodge, one o f the mo st highly educated and



cultivated Americans I have ever known, used to say to me:

“From the Stone Age until now, quelle degringoladeY' Let me

also quote from Werfel’s Forty Days (1934):

But we don’t want your reforms, your ‘progress’, your

business activity. We w ant to live in God, and to develop in

ourselves those powers which belong to Allah. Don’t youkn ow that all that which you call activity, advancem ent, is o f

the devil? Shall I prove it to you? You have made a few

superficial investigations into the essence of the chemical

elements. And what happens then?—when you act from

your imperfect knowledge, you manufacture the poison

gases, with which you wage your currish, cowardly wars.

And is it any different with your flying machines? You will

only use them to bomb whole cities to the ground.Meanwhile they only serve to nourish usurers and profit

makers, and enable them to plunder the poor as fast as

possible. Y our whole devilish restlessness shows us plainly

that there is no ‘progressive activity’ not founded on

destruction and ruin. We would willingly have dispensed

w ith all your reforms and progress, all the blessings o f you r

scientific culture, to have been allowed to go on living in ou r

old poverty and reverence. . . . You tell us our governmentis gu ilty o f all this bloody injustice, but in truth , it is not our

government, but yours. It went to school with you.

The R ev Edw in W. Smith (African missionary), as President

o f the Royal A nthropolog ical Society, said in 1934:

T oo often missionaries have regarded themselves as agents o fEuropean civilization and have thoug ht it part o f their duty

to spread the use o f Eng lish language, English clothing,

English music—the w hole gam ut o f ou r culture.

He quotes Charles Johnson of Zululand:

The central idea was to prize individuals of f the mass o f the

national life. . . . African Society has a religious basis. . . can you expect the edifice to stand i f the foundation iscut away? Is no t the adm inistration justified in decreeing thatthe Africans are not to be Christianized because thereby they

are denationalized?You are doubtless right in saying that I have “missed



som ethin g” in my understand ing o f Christianity. I am sure I

have missed much in my understanding o f other confessions,

also. Is it not inevitable that we should all have “missedsom eth ing ’ until we reach the end o f the road?

Very sincerely,

PS: Since writing the above I happen to have received ErichMeissncr’s Germany in Peril, still another example of the nowabunda nt “literature o f indictmen t” o f w hat passes in modern

Europe and the modern world in general for “civilization”.

The author remarks:

If we say that European civilization, the ancient traditions o f

C hristendom , arc imperiled . . . the shortest way o f statingthe case is this: during the last few centuries a vast majority o fChristian men have lost their hom es in every sense o f the

w ord. The n um ber o f those cast out into the wilderness o f a

dehumanized society is steadily increasing. . . . The time

m ight com e and be nearer than w e think, when the antheap

o f society, w orke d ou t to full perfection, deserves only one

verdict: unfit fo r men. . . . Beauty is a spiritual force.

Capitalism has exiled men to a world o f extreme ugli-ness. . . . The industrial w ork er . . . as Eric Gill puts it, has

been reduced to a ‘state o f subhuman irresponsibility’. . . .There are tw o main weaknesses o f ‘organized’ natural

education. One is the intellectual inferiority which is the

result o f com pulsory education on a large scale . . . the resultis: the young people . . . do not know what knowledge

is . . . this explains the dangerous gullibility which prop-aganda exploits. . . . Education becomes a province o f its

own, detached from life. Great philosophers have believed

. . . that a disintegrating society can be cured by makingeducation a wellbuilt ark that floats on the waters of

destruction. . . . [But] education . . . reflects necessarily therealities o f the society o f which it is nothing bu t a part. . . . It

is therefore w rong to attribute a function to education w hichit cannot perform . . . compulsory education, whatever its practical use may be, cannot be ranked am ong the civilizing

forces of the world. . . .

Roughly speaking, there are only tw o sets o f combatants.



Those who say “let us push ahead; everything will come rightin the end”, and the others who say: “Let us try to stop. We

seem to be on the wrong road. We may have to go back to find

the righ t road again. . . . ” The first set o f fighters includes both

the capitalists and the communists. . . . The Catholic Church

has taken up her position in the opposite camp, hostile to thosefatalists*. . . . One cannot say that the . . . Church has been

very successful in this struggle. . . . But who would wish to

belittle this if the alternative is an increased in tensity o f

disintegration, veiled as progress? What is there, in fact, in your

“progress”, which you can possibly have the courage to offer tothe rest o f the w orld, and even to wish to force upon it?

Very sincerely,

* Obviously, much has transpired since these remarks were written. The

Ch urch has embraced so m any aspects o f the modern w orld that she is no

longe r herself. And the institution— save for a rem nan t here and there— to

wh ich even no nC atho lics looked as a bastion o f sanity, is now perceived as

converging with a world in hastening decay—the world from which she

should offer the hope of salvation.

Mr Sidney L. Gulick lived in and wrote from Honolulu, Hawaii. He had

written a letter to Asia and the Americas in March, 1943, in which heattem pted to distinguish the w ork o f missionaries from the devastating

effects of western economic expansion.

To MR SIDNEY L. GULICK

July 21, 1943

Dear Mr Gulick:

Many thanks for you r letter o f June 27. You ask why I stay inthe U nited States if I hold these views. 1 remain here because

my w ork lies here. O ne can make oneself at hom e anywhere;

one can live one’s own life; it is not compulsory to own a radioor to read the magazines.

I have emphasized before that I am not contrasting West andEast as such, but modern antitraditional, essentially irreligiouscultures w ith others. Th is point o f view is one that is shared by

many A mericans, w ho have spent all their lives here. 1 havelived more than 25 years in Europe and as long in America andso it is rather ironical to hope that I may yet see more and more



o f yo ur better side; I think I am well aware o f this side, thoughit may be one that survives in spite o f rather than because o f

contemporary tendencies to stress the quantitative rather thanthe qualitative aspects of life.

Incidentally, in reading your letter to Asia . . . as printed, I

note you speak of Sir Rabindranath. This is not good form, ashe repudiated the title many years ago, after the Amritsar

massacre.

It is o f course, a truism to observe that every people and

culture has bo th good and bad aspects. O ne does no t therefore

have to assume a latitudinarian and uncritical attitude to this or

the othe r set o f conditions, however.

I wonder i f you ever consider such books as Aldous H uxley’s

Ends and Means or Gerald Heard’s Man the Master ?Very sincerely,

Mr Sidney L. Gulick, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Rabindranath Tagore, the well known Bengali writer.

Th e A m ritsar m assacre occurred in 1919, in the city o f that nam e in the

Punjab. In a walled enclosure, Jalianwalabagh, a British general had his men

fire repeatedly into an unarm ed crow d w hile arm ed soldiers blocked the only

exit. According to the official count, 379 people were killed and 1200wounded and left on the scene unattended.

T o MR SIDNEY L. GULICK

N o day or m onth given, but the year was 1943

Dear Mr. Gulick:

Many thanks for your letter o f A ugust 25. It is quite truethat, like Christianity, Buddhism stresses that it is man’s firstduty to work out his own salvation, and that the socialapplications o f his religion are m ore obvious in H induism.

Nevertheless, consider such a dic tum as the Buddha’s mostfamous royal advocate, Asoka, [who] him self publicallyrepen ted o f his conquests and recorded this [repudiation] in hislithic Edicts. You say Buddhism repudiates the “self’. This is a

vague statement, if we do no t specify which o f ou r tw o selves(duo sunt in homine, Aquinas, etc), the outer or the inner man, isrepudiated. The Buddha certainly never repudiated “selfs



im m ortal Self and Leader” ; the “ se lf ’ that he repudiates is the

one that C hrist requires us to “ hate, i f we w ould follow H im ” ,

or again “ utterly den y” (Math xvi, 24). This latter expression is

very forceful and certainly o f m ore than ethical significance.These dicta underlie, o f course, Eckhart’s “ the soul must pu t

itself to death ” , and so forth.Finally, it is not safe to take your opinions regarding other

religions from current translations, even those of scholars; you

must have read the original texts.*

Very Sincerely,

* The reader is referred to the comments o f the Introduction apropos this

situation.Mr Sidney L. Gulick, Honolulu, Hawaii.

To FATHER HENRICUS VAN STRAELEN, SVD

N ovem ber 18, 1946

Dear Father van Straelen:

I admired your book, The Far East Must Be Understood, verymuch, and now I have to thank you for the other.

I fully agree w ith you that “ the unifying o f m ankind in a

spiritual sense can only be brought about by religion”; also, I

recognize how great a change is taking place in these times inmissionary methods — although much o f the harm has been done.

But to identify religion with Christianity, I can only regard as

insane (and this strong w ord I mean); ju st as much so as it

would be for a Hindu to take up an antiChristian position. Iwould not bar the eastern ports to anyone having personal

religious experience; but, the missionary can no longer be

allowed to do good abroad, he can only be allowed to be good.

Incidentally, I tho ug ht some o f the Chinese Vicar Apstolic’sremarks (p 57), eg, “ China has given p ro o f o f a wholesomenessthat we seek in vain among older peoples”, as arrogant asanything that has been said by the most ignorant Europeans—who have themselves everything to learn from Turks and

Hindus about a “wholesome attitude to sex”.



Father Hcn ricus van Straelen, SVD , D utch m issionary to Japan.

The Far East Must Be Understood, by Henricus van Straelen, London, 1945.

To F. W. BUCKLER

Date uncertain

Dear Professor Buckler:

I’ve been reading y ou r letter to Gulick and feel that I ough t to

say that while 1 was talking primarily about the “proselytising

fury” o f the West, I w ould say the same regarding Christians as

such. I think in fact that a proselytising fu ry implies a state of

mind that would be disgraceful in anyone. Christians as suchshould produce a Christian civilization and make that their

“witness”.You would wish to change a religion without destroying a

culture. Because our culture has been secularized it is natural for

us here to think that such a thing is possible. But in a social

order such as you have in India you can no more separate

religion from culture than soul from body. There, the divorce

o f a profane from the sacrcd hardly exists. H induism penetrateseverything: one might say that the languages themselves are

calculated to embody religious ideas, and so you could not

substitute a new religion without substituting a new language

(which could only be a “basic” or “pidgin” English). The same

applies to all the m usic and literature and every way o f life. The

missionary is quite right, from his point o f view, in opposing

and ign oring all these elements o f the Indian culture— he must

do so, i f he is no t to be defeated by the whole situation. Add to

this, o f course, that it is impossible for him not to be o f his ow nkind, and therefore impossible for him not to carry with him

the infection o f m odern life. Th e on ly large scale effect o fmissionary activity in Asia, in other words, is not to convert,

but to secularize. You must resign you rself to the alternative: toconvert, you must destroy the culture, or if you do n ot destroythe culture, then you cannot convert.

Sincerely,

Professor F. W. Buckler, departm ent of church history, GraduateSchool of



Theology, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio.Mr Sidney L. Gulick, as above.

T o REV PROFESSOR H. H. ROWLEY

July 4, 1946

Dear Professor Rowley:

Very many thanks for your kind letter rc “Religious

Basis. . . . ” R egarding missionaries, 1 am sure you no more

than I would wish to engage in any long controversy, but I

should like to say a few words. To begin with, one must

distinguish preaching from proselytising—the latter, indeed,leads only too easily to such indecent gloatings over real or

imagined results, as can be observed in a recent article in the

Journal o f Religion. Second ly, granting the right to prcach, I take

the strong est stand against the bringing o f foreign m oney to

found educa tional institutions to be used as an indirect method

o f proselytising; this is no thing b ut a sort o f bribery (or

inverted simo ny); an d un de r current conditions (Indian poverty

and the eco nom ic value o f an “ English education”) this kind o f

brib ery has no doub t been m ore effective than the “ rice” th at

gives rise to the expression “riccChristian”. However impor-

tant the end may seem to be, one cannot respect those who

employ underhand methods to gain it; the economic tempta-

tion is one tha t, indeed, few Indian parents can afford to resist;

and while one admires those who can resist, one can only

marvel at the m issionary w ho is willing to “ get at” the children

by bribing the parent.

Foreign educators should be called in only by Indiansthem selves, and on ly to give instruction in special subjects. It is

quite true that whatever Indian Christianity there will be

should be an Indian Christianity. But the idea that Indiancultural values can be preserved amongst proselytes is almost

entirely a fantasy. In the first place, in a traditional order like

the Indian it is impossible to draw any dividing line betweenreligion and culture; in oth er w ords , there hardly exists such a

thing as a “ pro fane ” c ulture there. Secondly, only the smallestfraction o f foreign teachers ever does, o r even can acquire a realgrasp o f o r assimilate Indian (or Chinese) values or oth er alien



values in such a vital way as to be able to com munica te them ; to

do that w ould demand the giving up o f as much o f on e’s ow n

life to those values as has been given to those in which one was

bred (values, indeed, arc only really understood to the extentthat one lives by them ). Even if a missionary w ished to

“preserve Indian values”, has he the patience to spend, say, 15years in India as a student, during which time he might absorb

them, and during which time he would have to live as Indians

live if he wants to understand their life, before he opens his

mouth to preach? The question answers itself; and besides,

patience apart, he senses a real danger, that w ith real under-

standing, he might no longer wish to change anything; he

might come to desire only to be good, and to question the

possib ility o f doing good in any other way.I am quite sure and aware that there are some exceptional

missionaries, and even that the general intention of missions isnot quite as blind as it was once; still the general effect is

•inevitably destructive and only to a very limited extent

palliative o f the other aspects o f the essentially materialistic

impact o f modern W estern culture. G ranted, the missionary is

no t h im self awarely a materialist; bu t bro ug ht up as he is in an

atm osph ere o f nom inalism, skepticism, and in a w orld entirely

dominated by economics, he is the bearer of materialisticvalues, ju st as a man may be a carrier o f typho id thou gh he does

not kn ow it. He takes for granted the normality o f the

separation of things sacred and profane.In the same w ay “ conversion ” is not the acceptance o f a new

dogm a, but the taking o f a new point o f view, and literally a“ turning a rou nd ” o f the vision from the phenom enal shadows

to the light that is their first cause; this sunwise turn is a

“turning and standing up to face the sun” (Hesiod’s phrase inanother context, Works, 727) and a heliotropy that is bestdescribed in P lato’s account o f the emergence from the Cave(Republic 514 f). This “turning round from the world of

becoming until the soul is able to endure the contem plation o fessence . . . the turnin g round o f the soul’s vision to the regionw here abides the most blessed part o f reality” , a turning that hecom pares to the revolution o f a stage setting (Republic 518 C;

526 E, c f also 532 A and B; 540!; Phaedo 83 B; Symposium 219; Philebus 61 E, etc); Ruysbroeck’s instaerne, (“instaring”), is precisely that “ inverted vis io n” (avrtta-caksus) with which the



contemplative, seeking the immortal, secs the immanent solar

Spirit within him ( Katha Upanishad IV, 1). But, as Eckhart says

(Evans’ trans, Vol II, p 137): “anyone who turns within before

his sight is clcarcd will be repelled, for this light blinds weak

eyes” , and this is why prisoners o f the Cave strive to kill

w hoever w ould lead them out o f it ( Republic 517 A); Professor

Shorey’s “Hardheadcd distaste for the unction or seeming

m ysticism o f Plato’s languag e” (Locb Library Republic 1, 135,

note d; cf 146, note d) is “a rancour that is contemptuous of

immortality, and will not let us recognize what is divine in us”(Hermes Trismegistus, Asclepius, 1.12, b); is an exhibition of

this murderous temper, for to pretend that Plato was a

“ hu m an ist” is indeed to slay him. For wha t does Plato mean by

“truth” and by “philosophy”? “Not such knowledge as has a beginning . . . ” (Phaedrus 247 E, cf Philebus 58 A and Laws

644, etc). “ H um an w isdom is o f l itt le or no w orth ” ( Apology 23

A), and on ly G od is w orth y o f ou r m ost serious attention ( Laws

803 C ), the p hilosop her is a practitioner o f the Ars moriendi

(Phaedo 61, 64, 67), “the Bacchoi arc the true philosophers”

(Phaedo 69 C and D); there is much that cannot be demons-

trated, “ for it docs n ot at all adm it o f verbal expression like

other studies, b u t as the result o f much participation in thething itse lf and living w ith it, it is suddenly bro ug ht to birth in

the soul, like as a light that is kindled by a leaping spark”

(Epistle VII, 341 C); and he continues, even so far as the nature

o f reality can be stated pub licly, this w ou ld be unnecessary for

the few who need but little teaching, and misleading to the

many w ho w ou ld only despise w hat they could not understand

(cf Theatetus 155 E— “ take care that none o f the uninitiated

overhear”). There is nothing here to correspond to what a

modern rationalist and nominalist understands by philoso-

phy . . . .

Sinccrcly,

Rev Professor H. H. Rowley, D. D, Fallowfield, Manchester, England; alsoof the department of Semitic languages, University College of North Wales,Bangor.



ANONYMOUS

Date uncertain

Dear M:

I would agree with you that even the highest “cultural”values— considered as the rich man’s “ great possessions”— may

be sacrificed w hen it becomes a matte r o f Worth that transcends

all values. What I revolt at is the destruction o f values that

results w hen one aspect o f this Worth is set up as its only true

aspect. 1don’t think anyone can altogether ignore the position

o f very many deeply religious persons who w ould hold with,

for example, Jung w ho says “ to flatter oneself that C hristianity

is the only truth, the white Christ the only redeemer, isinsan ity.” I w ould take this last w ord quite literally, or possibly

substitute for it the word paranoia.

You m ention Africa. I my self do no t know (do you know, oronly suppose?) w he ther “ the African spiritual basis o f life is

equally good w ith that o f H indu ism ” or not; I have not lived

the Bantu life for 15 years. In an analagous case, the well

known American anthropologist Ashely Montagu has said that

“we arc spiritually, and as human beings, no t the equal o f theaverage Australian aboriginal, or the average Eskimo—we are

very definitely their inferiors” (and has expressed this view tome even more strongly in correspondence)—and in this

connection, the criterion “ by their fruits . . . ” m ight well

apply. Professor Northrop (in The M eeting o f East and West, p

22), remarks that

It takes ideals and religion to enter into the imaginations and

em otions o f all and lay waste their very souls. N ot untilman’s cherished beliefs are captured can his culture bedestroyed . This evil aspect o f our ow n highest moral ideasand religious values has been overlooked; in our blindness to

ideals and values other than our own we see only the neweffects which our own provincial goods create and not theequally high value o f the old culture w hich their com ing hasdestroyed. O nly a merging o f civilizations which proceedsfrom the k now ledge and appreciation o f the diverse ideals

and values o f all parties to the undertaking , can escape evilsso terrible and extreme as those wrought by the Christianreligion in Mexico.



As for Africa, again [Jung writes]:

Th e stam ping ou t o f polygamy by the missions has

developed prostitution in Africa to such an extent that in

Uganda alone, twenty thousand pounds yearly are expended

on antivenereal measures, and furthermore the campaignhas had the worst possible moral cousequences. The good

European pays missionaries for these results.

(Italics m ine). Ev ery anth rop ologist know s that this and similar

statements are true.

Indeed, the missionary must be paid — and all his appara tus

m us t be paid for, if he is no t merely to preach, bu t also to

prosely tise, and to m ake propaganda fo r specifically modern

W estern, but really provincial patterns o f “ m orality” . I say provin cia l, because there are no patterns o f conduct that can be

callcd universal; only principles arc universal. It is becausc the

missionary must be paid that he must misinterpret the peoples

whose guest he has been or w ill be, if he is to persuade the pious

Am erican to shell out. T o give such an account o f India as can

be found, for exam ple , in the w rit in gs o f Sir Georg e B irdw ood

or Sister N ived ita w ou ld hardly op en up purse strings; for there

m ust be stories o f infanticide, Jugg ernau t and people likeKatherine Mayo.

To sum up, whatever good missions have done, I am very

sure the evil outweighs it. One last point: a preacher can be a

gentleman. Can a proselytiser? This is a world in which we

have to learn to respect one another. We m ust not assume that

God has only been really good to one chosen people.


Recipient not identified.M. F. Ashley Montagu, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland,USA; well known anthropologist.Professor F. S. C. Northrop, department of philosophy, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.Sir George Birdwood, KCIE, CSI, MD. For his bibliography, see his bookSua, London, 1915.Sister Nivedita (Margaret E. Noble), a convert to Hinduism* who wrote

The Web of Indian Life, London, 1904.Katherine Mayo, an American who wrote Mother India, a book which gavegreat offense to Indians.



*It should be noted that in the view o f the orthodox , entry into H induism is

only via birth into one o f the traditional castes. A KC elsewhere posits the

one theoretical exception— that o f the mteccha (barbarian or nonH indu) who

becomes a santiyasin, an utter renunciant.

To WALTER SHEWRING

Date uncertain

Dear Walter Shewring:

The following is by way o f answer to o ther m atters raised in

your letter. 1have not used Senart very much, but should call

his translation good, though as in translating Plato, I hold thatno one whose mentality is “nominalist” can really know the

conten t o f “ realistic” texts. I like Teape’s Secret Lore of India

very well, though the versions are not literal, they are very

understanding. O f the Gita, Edwin Arnold is good, but I

generally work most with the Bhagavan Das and Besant

version (with word for word analysis) published by the

Theosophical Society. I don’t need to tell you that the greatest

scholars often betray their texts; for example, in the Laws o f M ann 2.201, Buhler renders that the man who blames his

teacher will become a donkey in his next life; actually, the text

has becomes {present tense), and nothing whatever about the

“ next life” ! I have often tho ught o f translating the Gita, and

many other texts, but that is a very great task, for which

perhaps I’m hardly ready, and anyhow , I haven’t so far been

able to avoid the w ork o f the exegesis o f special problem s. I

was very pleased that you could approve o f the “ K no ts” ; I have

tho ug ht o f that article as representative o f what I am trying todo; yet it is only a little part o f w hat shou ld be a w hole book on

Atman, or even on the Sutratman alone.A bout “ tolerance” : I did not expect, o f course, yo ur full

agreement. I w ould like to write a volume o f “ Extrinsic and

probable proofs” o f the tru th o f Chris tianity. I regard thenotion o f a conversion from one form o f belief to another asanalagous to change from one monastic order to another;

generally speaking, undesirable, but not forbidden, andappropriate in individual cases (eg, Marco Pallis*). Hinduism,like Judaism , is a nonprose lytising religion. Th e Jew will say,



“ I cannot m ake you to have been bom o f Abraham, butw hatever yo u find true and go od in m y forms you can apply to

you r o w n .” B uddh ism, on the othe r hand, is proselytising inthe same sense as Philo; a making more easily available what is

universal apart from the special laws by which the particular

traditions are practiced. In Islam, it is fundamental that theteachings o f all the P rophets are o f equal authority, bu t there is

the rather impressive argument that one ought to follow most

closely the teachings of the Prophet of the Age, in this case,

Muhammed. However, I would not distinguish time and place

from this po int o f view, and w ou ld interpret this also to mean

that the no rm al cou rse is to follow the Prophet of one’s own

people, w hose teachings are enuncia ted in the com m on terms

o f their ow n experience. O ne can regard the Eternal Avatara as

unique, bu t this does not mean that one m ust think o f his

descent as having been a unique event.

O f course, a pa rt from all this, I have no doub t we are fully

agreed as to all the reservations that should be imposed as a

m atter o f duty to w hoeve r seeks to proselytise; I am referring

to the ob ligation to kno w and u tilise the culture o f the people to

whom one speaks. This is recognized at least by som e Jesuit

missionaries who in China, I understand, arc required to have

earned their living in a Chinese environment and to havefollowed a Chinese trade, before they are allowed to preach.

The average Protestant missionary is an ignoramus, and docs

not even know enough to bring to such peoples as the Hindus

what would most attract and interest them in Christianity.

Further: to the point that to be a professing Christian is not

indispensable for salvation may be added the fact that it is

recognized that the nonChristians may have received the

“baptism of the Spirit”, although not that of the water—and if Iund erstand the first chapter o f Joh n rightly, the baptism o f the

Spirit is superior.Myths common to India and Greece—notably the dragon

slaying (Hercules— M inurta— Indra) as now generally reeog

nized (there is a big literature on the subject). Then, the whole

conception o f the Janua Coeli, o f which the doors are theSymplegades, ie, enantiai, dvandvau, contraries: this is Indian,Greek, European folklore; and above all, aboriginal American,

too! N ext, I w ould think o f the whole concept o f the W ater o f



Life (of which the sourcc lies beyond the aforesaid con traries, in

the divine darkness), Indian, Persian, Sumarian, Greek, Norse

and the w hole concep t o f the Eucharist and transubstantian

connected therew ith. Then also, o f course, many things which

are not so much myths as doctrines, eg, duo sunt itt homine

(Vedic, Platonic, Christian). Also the concept o f the idealw orld, that o f the “w orld P icture” or speculum aeternum. Iunderstand Huxley is doing an anthology, but I very much

doubt that he is in a position to get at the fundamentals,

although with all their great limitations I think both he and

Heard arc not w ithou t some virtue. Huxley, how ever, is rather

sentimental, and canno t accept that “ darker” side o f God w hich

Behmen, perhaps, understood better than most.

I have lately been reading w ith great interest Scholem ’s Major Trends in Jew ish Mysticism where certain HebrewIndian para-

llels are very striking, eg, Abulafia’s “Yoga”, the concept of M i

(“What?”) equivalent to the Sanskrit Kha (“What?”) as an

essential nam e o f God; the concept o f transm igration (qilul =

Ar, tanasuh) — “ all transm ig rations are in the last resort only the

m igrations o f the one soul w hose exile atones for its fall” ; that

every art o f man should be directed to the restoration o f all the

“scattered ligh ts” (cf Bodhisattva concept); “ in the beg inning” ,

our in principio, arche, regarded as a “ po in t” and identified with

the Fons vitae.

Regarding Eric’s letters, if you have in mind som e archive in

which all would be gathered together, keep mine, otherwise

return them. I passed on your message to Graham Carey and

hope he will not delay to respond.


*Who bccamc Buddhist following upon his contacts with and deep

penetration o f th e M ahayana in its T ib eta n fo rm .

Walter Shewring, identified on p 23.

Th e reference in the first paragraph is to translations of the Upa nishads;

W. M. Teape, The Secret Lore of India, Cambridge, England, 1932.

'Svayamatrnna: Janua Coeli', in Za lm oxis, II, Paris, 1939.

‘Symplegades’, in Studies and Essays in the History o f Science in Homage to

George Sarton on the Occasion o f his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by M. F. AshleyMontagu, New York, 1947.

Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Jerusalem, 1941. Letters o f Eric Gill, edited by Walter Shewring, New York, 1948.



4Klta and Other Words Denoting ‘Zero’ in Connection with the Metaphysicsof Space’, AKC, in Bulletin of the School o f Oriental and African Studies, VII,1934.

T o ERIC GILL

June 14, 1934

My dear Gill:

I am very grateful to you for your kind letter, and delighted

by your apprecia tion. A fter all, there is nothing o f m y ow n in

the book except the w ork o f putting things together, so there is

no reason w hy I should n ot m yself think it imp ortan t as regards

its matter. I have definitely come to a point at which I realise

that one’s own opinions or views so far as they are peculiar or

rebellious arc merely accidents o f one’s indiv iduality and are

not properly to be regarded as a basis for comprehension or as a

guide to conduct. I am from my point o f view entirely at one

with you in the m atte r o f religion, ie, as regards essentials, the

only important divergence being that for me the one great

tradition (or revelation) has had many developments, none of

which can claim absolute perfection of (dogmatic) expression

or absolute authority. That is, for me, the solar hero—the

Supernal Sun—is always the same Person, whether by name

Agni, Buddha, Jesus, Jason , S igurd, Hercules, Horu s, etc. O n

the whole I can go fu rth er in by means o f the Indian T radition

than any other, but it can hardly be doubted that my natural

grow th, had 1 been entirely a produc t o f Eu rope and kn ow n noother tradition, would ere now have made me a Roman

[Catholic].I am only too pleased you quote “The artist is not a special

kind o f man etc” It will interest you tha t only yesterday I had afew w ords w ith one o f the H arvard professors in the Fine Arts

Department there and he said he was constantly citing thesevery words in his lectures. Such things, and the review in the

Times, sho w at least that there does not prevail an entirely contra

point o f view and that we have friends “ in the w orld” . I look

forward to yo ur new book very m uch and I am very sure that itwill, as all your writings do, very wisely express from the practical point o f view, the m atter. Y ou will unders tand o f



course that it is a m atter o f definite policy on my part to w orkwithin the academic and even the pedantic sphere; that is

analagous to the idea o f the reform o f a school o f tho ug ht from

within, instead o f an attack from w ithout . . . .

I remain ever cordially,

PS: I send this to England in case you are back fromJerusalem. I cannot help feeling that my w ritten response to the

caritas o f yo ur appreciation is inadequate, but I am very m uch

sensible to your generous expressions!

Eric Gill, Ditchling, Sussex, England. See Introduction. He had written to

AKC thanking him for The Transformation o f Nature in Ar t (sec Bibliogra-

phy), sa ying “ I am really overw helm ed by it . . . . It seem s to me splendid ,

magnificent, marvellous and altogether excellent . . . . ”

The quotation referred to in the letter reads in full: “The artist is not a special

kind o f ma n, bu t every m an should b e a special kind of artist” (AK C). Art

and a Changing Civilization, London, 1934.

To FATHER COLUMBA CAREYELWES

March 3, 1947

Dear Father CareyElwes, O.S.B.

M any thanks for yo ur very kind letter of Feb 13. I aminterested to see that you arc at Ampleforth College, and so a

colleague o f W alter Shew ring w ith w hom I often exchange

correspondence. My little “Note” was intended only to

support your article in The Life o f the Spirit.

About Christianity and “other religions” or, as I should pre fer to say, “ other fo rms o f re lig ion” (avoid ing the plural)

my position can be summed up in the proposition Una veritas in

uariis signis varie resplendent and that this stands ad majorem

gloriam Dei. I think, therefore, o f their admirable variety assom ething very pleasing to Him , w ho must be very well awarethat nothing can be know n b ut according to the mode o f the

knower.Therefore, 1 cannot think o f any one form o f religion as a

preparatio n for another. Such a view w ould seem to me



To CONRAD PEPLER, OP

January 27, 1947

Dear Dr Pcplcr:

I don ’t know if you w ould like to publish this little note in

The Life o f the Spirit. You will see, o f course, that 1 am not

arguing that the Christian writers derived their wording from

Gnostic or Hermetic sources, but that (as I carefully word it),

the existence o f these contem porary ways o f thinking w ould

have facilitated the acceptation o f Fr CareyE lwes’ equation in

people ’s minds.

Very sinccrcly,

N ote on “The Son o f M an”

1 think Fr CareyElw es is perfectly right in equating “ The

Son of M an ” (or perhaps better, “o f the Man”) with the “Son

o f G od ” . I am w riting now only to point out that while this

can be deduced as Fr CareyElwes docs from Old and New

Testam ent texts, the possibility o f this m eaning having been

so understood by Christian writers is increased by the fact

that this was explicitly a contemporary Gnostic position.Thus Irenacus I, 6, 3, describing Valcntinian Gnosticism

says: “There arc yet others amongst them who declare that

the Forefathers o f the Wholes, the ForeSource, and the

Primalunknowable One is called ‘man’. And that this is the

great and abstract Mystery, namely, that the Power which is

above all others and contains the Wholes in his embrace, istermed ‘Man’. Epiphanous ( Panar. 31, 5) similarly speaks of

the Father o f T ru th as having been called “by the mystical

name o f ‘m an’” . C f also Hermetica I. 12 where “the Father ofall gave birth to the Man, like unto H im se lf . . . bearing theimage o f his Father, and as was like to be, G od delighted in

the Man, whose form was His (God’s own”; bearing in mindthe traditional view according to which in all generations the

father him se lf is reborn in the son. It will be seen that thesestatements imply that there must have been also in the Fathera Manlike nature.

Father Conrad Pcplcr, OP, was editor of The Life of the Spirit.



T o FATHER COLUMBA CAREYELWES, OSB

Dear Father CarcyElwes:

I am no t quite sure if I ou gh t to address you as “Father” . Inany ease I thank you for yo ur very kind letter o f M arch 9,

which I am so rry I had to neglect so long. I look at the different

religions as “ m odes” o f know ing God (in terms o f the

“affirmative theology”) but think each makes slightly different

group s o f affirmations for m ost o f which equivalents can be

traced in the different traditions (it is a favorite task on m y part

to do this): bu t I am no t quite sure that they can be com bined in

any syncretic statement. O n the other hand, w hen w e consider

the “negative theology”, in which, eg, as Cusa says, “God isonly infinite, and as such neither Father, nor Son, nor Holy

Ghost”, then we find an absolutely common ground, trans-

cending all the dogmas and formulae, however valuable these

arc (cf M aitri Upanishad IV. 5, 6 which I am sure Shcwring will

have, or you can get from a library, in Hume’s The Thirteen

Principal Upanishads —not a very good book— especially as

regards the Introduction—but adequate for the present point,

viz, contrast of the + and — theologies). Hence acceptance o fthe truth o f all religions is com paratively rare from the

standpoint o f dogm atic theology, but the rule in mysticalliterature (notably Islamic Sufism). Practically all that aChristain holds about Christ is acceptable from a Hindu point

o f view; . . . from the point o f view o f Clem ent o f Alexan-

dria . . . the Eternal Avatara . . . has appeared again and again

in the w orld in the persons o f the successions o f proph ets

whose essence is really one and the same. Besides which therearc what w e should call “ partial avataras” . O f course, by

whatever nam e one is accustom ed to love God, one is hum anly

inclined to regard as the Eternal Avatar—the “only Son ofGod”—precisely thus, for example, the Vaishnava thinks ofKrishna. But the really important thing is His presence in us:

the bringing to birth o f Ch rist—A gni— Krishna— w ithin youuntil one can say with St Paul, “ I live, yet no t I, bu t Christ livesin me”—making Him what we should call a jivan-m ukta ,

“ released in this life” , and m aking him in fact (if we take theword quite literally, as 1 am fully prepared to do) an alter



Christus. In other words, one who being self-naughted has

fulfilled the ph iloso pher’s task o f practising d ying all his life

(Plato), one who has fulfilled the injunction “Die before ye

die”, attributed to MuhammCd, and stated by Angelus Silesius

in the words Stib ehe du stirbat. I believe that is the great work to

which we are all alike called. That Christ’s religion is not onlydoctrinal but factual has many parallels: for example, it is said

o f Bud dha emphatically that “ as he says, even so he does”—

and this is one of the explanations of the epithet Tathagata.

(Probably tatha and agata, “ who reached the truth ”— “T ru th ” is

in fact his “n am e” , as it had been that o f his Vedic antecedent

Agni, and was later o f Brahm a and finally o f the Sikh God.)

The values o f Christianity cannot be overestimated, bu t that

does not assert its universality as a necessary corollary. It is atleast for me, the essence and not the mode o f religion tha t is

truly universal and immutable. So there is no opposition to

Ch ristianity from a Hindu point o f view, but only to certainactivities o f Christians, notab ly as evangelists. T his last

opposition is absolutely inevitable because in the traditional

civilizations religion and culture arc inseparably combined, andthe missionary is therefore always bound to seek to destroy

existing cultures (this may sound exaggerated, but the necessity

is apparent and I could cite authoritative sources for the fact.) N ow the fact that a given activity in which one seeks to make

ano ther person “one o f us” necessarily arouses opposition in

the very best and most devout hearts already casts suspicion on

the activity itself. In one sense or another it means war. And it

is such a pity because it would be so much easier to cooperate. I

hate to have to waste my time re the activities o f missionaries.

I’d much rather be engaged on exegesis, whether Christian or

Hindu; only, I cannot expect you to agree with all this but haveto say that I regard as the two greatest weaknesses—anddangers—o f Ch ristianity, its claim to absolute superiority, and

its dependence u pon a supposed historical fact. Nevertheless, as Ihave said before, even i f you are not w ith us, we are w ith you.

Yes, I believe in the efficacy o f prayer, but am no t m uch practised in it, except in so far as I fully hold that labore est orare

and do regard my work as a vocation. You have the advantage

ove r m e in that you are living a kind o f life that has a fo rmal religious basis and backgroun d. We look forward to benefiting by som ething o f that kind when we return to India. So I can



utter a prayer for you, but only in the simplest and mostinformal manner, while your prayer for me may be morecorrect, so to speak.

Very sinccrcly,

To FATHER COLUMBA CAREYELWES, OSB

June 14, 1947

Dear CareyElwes:

Many thanks for your letter. I have asked Shcwring to lend

you . . . M y Brother’s Keeper. Asfor jum pin g out o f one’s skin

(or as Americans say, “ out o f one’s pajam as”) 1 am afraid the

East, though still far less extroverted—less turned inside

out— than the West, is doing its best to jum p, too. T his means

that East and West have a common problem. I do not doubt

that you arc right in saying that in the West order survives in the

life of such orders as yours, nevertheless I find even Jesuits

infccted by disorder and urging India to “progress” by secular

means only — ic, yie lding to U to pianism , (Laus Deo!).

I recommend very high Bharatan Kumarappa’s Capitalism, Socialism or Villagism? (Madras, 1944); you will see what I mean

when you have read it; it is in the deepest sense instructive, and

constructive. On the other hand, how many so callcd “re-

forms” are “deforms”!A noth er very fine book, o f a different kind, is H. Z im m er’s

Der Weg sum Selbst (Rascher Verlag, Zurich) abou t Sri Ram ana

Maharshi—probably the greatest living Indian teacher, and

[proponent of] the great question . . . “Who am I?”


Sri Ramana Maharshi, previously identified; his collcctcd works haveappeared in both English and French versions.




July 25, 1947

Dear Brother Columba:

Ifl may assume so to write,—I will try to answer more fullylater, but in the meantime I do want to say right away that I do

most assuredly believe in revelation past, present, and future,

and beginning, o f course, w ith the “ Invisible things o f Him,

known by the things which are made.” And secondly that,

most emphatically I do not agree that m yths arc “n atura listic” ; Ileave all tha t kind o f nonsense to people like Sir J. G. Frazer and

LcvyBruhl; see the sentence underlined in the N ote 7 of the

enclosed. Also that you underestimate the place of Love in

Hinduism and Bu ddhism (of which very few Christian apolog-ists have any firsthand knowledge). How often does anyone

cite the Buddha’s words spoken to a disciple when both were

visiting a sick man: “Whoever would nurse me, let him nurse

the sick” ? O ne o f the most strongly emphasized Buddhist

“exercises” is that o f the deliberate and conscious projection o flove and sym pathy tow ards all living beings in every quarter o f

the universe (on this “ brahma-vihara ’ sec briefly in my Figures o f

Speech . . . , pp. 14, 78). Regarding Christ: he is not for memerely “ this m an” Jesus, presumab ly historical, but one o f the

manifestations o f the “ Eternal A vatara” w ho— to quote C le-

ment o f Alexandria—“ has changed his forms and names from

the beginn ing o f the w orld, and so reappeared again and again

in the w or ld” ; and one o f whose names is Krishna who, to cite

the Bhagavad Gita, says o f himself: “ For the deliverance o f meno f right intent, the confusion o f evildoers, and for the

con firmation o f the Eternal Law, I take birth in age after ag e.”But I do not believe in a revelation uniquely Christian, but

rather with St Thomas (II Sent dist 28 q 1, a 4 and 5) that Godhas also “ inspired” the peoples o f “barbarous nations” w ith theknowledge that is necessary to salvation. As for “parallels”, my

fundamental interest is not ju st literary or historical, bu t indoctrinal equivalences; that these are so often expressed inalmost identical idioms pertains to the nature o f the com m onuniverse o f discourse tha t transcends the Babel o f separatedlanguages.




PS: When I speak o f doctrina l parallels I mean such things as: Hoc nomen, qui est, est maxim e propritun nomen Dei (St Thomas

Aquinas, Sum Theol, I, 13, 11 [This name, He Who Is, is most

properly applied to G od .])— “He is, how else might that be

apprehended? He should be apprehended as ‘He is’” (Katha

Upanishad 6.12, 13)— “ In Him that is” (Satapatha Brahmana 2.3.2.1). Parallels of this exactitude arc innumerable and I do

not see how you can m aintain that they arc “ not true parallels” .

Sir Jam es G. Frazer, well kno w n co llator o f my thological ma terials.

Lucicn LcvyBruhl, author of Primitives and the Supernatural, London, 1936,

etc. T he article with “ N ote 7” is not identified.


August 18, 1947

Dear Father CareyElwes:

I do thank you for you r birthday letter o f the 13th inst. O n

the question, when and to whom God has revealed Himselfmost fully, or to all according to their respective capacity, we

shall have to differ, but for the rest I am in fullest sym pathy. As

to how I regard my life, I would not use the word “illusion”,

but w ould describe my personal temporal, and mutable

existence (ex eo sistens, qui est [standing forth, appearing fromHim Who Is—Editor]) as “phenomenal”, using this word

deliberately having in view that a “ phen om enon” must, by the

logic o f the w ord itself, be a manifestation o f som ething other

than the mere appearance itself: and in this case, as I believe, o f my real being, in eo sistens, qui est [standing fast in Him WhoIs—Editor]. In general, in Oriental philosophies, human birth

is regarded as a great opportunity—the opportunity to become

what we are. So that one never wishes one had never been born, but only to be born again, once and for all, never m ore to besubject to the cond itions o f m utabilitym ortality that areinseparable from being bo m into any form o f temporal

existence.For the rest, I can only say that I am very sure that your G od



and my God arc one and the same God “whom”, as Philo said,

“all peoples acknowledge.”With all best wishes,

Very sinccrcly,

PS: Did I ever tell you that I know tw o brothers, Europeans,

both men o f prayer, one a Trappis t monk, the oth er a leading

Moslem, and neither has any wish to “convert” the other?

To BERNARD KELLY

N ovem ber 26, 1945

Dear Bernard Kelly:

Regarding “Extra Ecclesiam . . .” , 1 have before me a letterfrom the Secretary o f the Archb ishop o f Boston (R C), in

which he says that his form ula “ is of course, one o f the most

knotty problems in all theology.”Also in an article on the subjcct byj. C. Fenton in the American

Ecclesiastical Review, CX, April 1944 (also from the R C point

o f view). The article is much too long to quote but it is stated at

one point that to be saved one must belong to the Church

form ally “ or to the soul o f the Church , which is the invisibleand spiritual society com posed exclusively o f those who have

the virtue o f charity. N o such society, how ever, exists on

earth.” This last statement seems to me to beg the whole

question with which we arc concerned. Also, “every man who

has charity, every man in the state of grace, every man w ho is

saved, is necessarily one who is, or who intends to become am em ber o f the Rom an Catholic Ch urch .” This seems to me

contrary to the commandment “Judge not”. I believe theChristian has no right to ask whether anyone is or is not in a

state o f grace. (St Jo an ’s answ er to the question was, “ If not, I pray God that I may be, and if I am , I pray God keep me so” ).

Th ere is also the expression “ baptism o f the Sp irit” which, Iunderstand docs not necessarily apply only to members o f the

Church who, as such, have rcccived also the baptism withWater. Arc there specific limitations attached to the notion of baptism by the Spirit? O n the face o f it, one w ould presume



that such a bap tism was o f almost infinite value and involved a potentia lity for salvation.

If it be said that to comc to Jesus C hrist is a prerequisite forsalvation, then the question before us takes this form: arc wecertain that “Jesus” is the only name o f the Son o f God? (here I

do not say “Jesus Christ” bccausc “Christ” is an epithet,“anointed” and = Vcdic ghrta as applied to Agni, and such an

epithet is a recognition o f royalty rather than o f essence.) Agni,

the High Priest, is also Prajapati’s Son, and would not Prajapati

be a good name for H im exguo omins paternitas. . .nominatur (at

a ccrtain stage o f the ritual, the Sacrificers say: “ We have become the children o f Pra japati”).

It is quite likely you will no t think it ncccssary or desirable to

raise the ultimate question of extra ecclesiam. . . in the presentand introd ucto ry Sym posium , in which matters of full agree-

ment are to be first considered. In any case, these arc ways in

which I have tried to consider the matter. Everything dependsfinally on the interpretation of “ Ecclesia” and of the “ Son o f

God”

Very sinccrcly,

Bernard Kelly, identified on pp 201, Windsor, England.Fenton, J. C., author of 'Nulla salus extra Ecclesiam’, American Ecclesiastical Review, CX, April 1944.

To FATHER JOHN WRIGHT

January 15, 1944

Dear Father Wright:

Miss Maginnis has kindly shown me your letter, and I readDr Fenton’s article with much interest. I may say first that

while I do not lccturc on Scholastic theology, I do read Latinand Greek as well as Sanskrit, and I think I do have sufficienttheological background to sec the problem in its general

context. The sense in wh ich I am interested in the problem , youwill gather from the enclosed paper. I would like to have DrFenton’s address (I expect Catholic University o f America), as I



w ould like to ask him for a copy o f the reprint. I probably believe in the greate r part o f Chris tian doctrine more really than

many unthinking Christians do. What I am “after.” is to

discover ju st w hether and how far the proposition Extra

ecclesiam nulla salus stands in the way o f such a synthetic view o f

religions as 1 have discussed. For me, this becom es a m atter o fthe essential meaning of ecclesia and of “ Ca tholic” , and indeed,

o f “orth od ox y ” ; I cannot restrict any o f these concepts to that

o f the Roman Catholic Ch urch. It seems to m e that when C hristspeaks o f having com e to call, n ot the jus t, bu t sinners (M att 9,

13) that this implies the existence then (and if so, w hy no t

now?) o f a spiritual society o f persons having the virtue o f

charity and whose salvation would not depend upon their

particular acceptance o f his own teaching. You arc quite right,o f course, in saying tha t the prob lem has a context, bu t in case

you should be kind enough to reply, I would say, let us take it

for granted that we arc in agreement about such matters as

Grace, Providence and Free Will, and that there is an

ascertainable Truth.

Very sincerely,

Father Joh n W right, secretary to the Archbishop o f Boston, Cardinal

Cu shing, and later to become h imself a Cardinal and m em ber o f the Curia.

Alice H M aginnis, D avision o f M useum Extension, M useum o f Fine Arts,

Boston, where Dr Coomaraswamy worked for the most productive period

o f his life, 19171947.

To DONA LUISA COOMARASWAMY

1935

Darling:

. . . I have been having some correspondence w ith Gill inwhich I argued against his distinction o f Christianity from

Hinduism, one which as a Catholic he has always been carefulto make. Now I am really touched when he writes “I know

you’re right and I’ve been ashamed for years at the superficialityand cheapness o f my a ttem pt to state the differences betweenChristians and Hindus.” Whatever you feel about Gill’s work



or writing, I do think it takes a real quality in a man to“confess” in that manner. . . .

AKC

Dona Luisa Coom araswa m y, wife of AKC, in India at that tim e on a study

mission. Eric Gill, Ditchling, Sussex, England.

To WALTER SHEWRING

March 30, 1936

Dear Professor Shcwring:

Many thanks for your very kind letters, and the Golden

Epistle which I read w ith pleasure and profit. It will probab ly be

at least 3 years before I get to putting together a book on

Medieval Aesthetic (by the way, in the meantime I find that

Integritas is more nearly “precision” or “correctness” than

“Unity”). I shall send you the other articles as they appear in

the A rt Bulletin so that you will have plenty o f time to annotate

them. If you have time to do this for the first article in thecourse o f a year from no w that will be ample. I shall o f course

acknowledge your help when the time comes.

As to nature and grace, I think the distinction is present in

Indian thou gh t. C f for example the discussion in Pope’s

Tiruvakakam (Oxford). In the older literature, too, we meet

with such expressions as “those whom He chooses”. Becauseo f the strongly metaphysical bent o f Indian thou ght, how ever,

the emphasis is often more on necessitas infallibilitatis than on

Grace—“ask and ye shall receive” , with the idea that God cannot

but respond to the prepared soul. I do not for the present expect

to find com plete acceptance o f othe r religions by Christians butdo cxpect, what there is even now no objection to, an

agreement with respect to individual doctrines, the enunciationo f which is com m on to Catholicism and H induism; forexample, that o f the |one| essence and tw o natures, and apartfrom the question o f total acceptance, it seems to m e that the

Christian fidei defensor would be well advised to make use ofsuch agreements as being what St Thomas calls “extrinsic and probable proofs” , and have little doubt you w ould quite agree



w ith m e thus far. Y our poem on the picture is beautifully done.

I am happy to have introduced you to Guenon.

Very sincerely,

Walter Shewring, Ampleforth College, York, England

Rene Guenon, Cairo, Egypt

The Golden Epistle, W illiam o f St Th ierry , translated by Walter Shew ring and

Justin McCann, London, 1930. Cistercian Publications, Spenser, Mas-

sachusetts, published a later translation by Theodore Berkeley, OCSO, in

1971.Tiruvafhakam, a collection o f hym ns o f the South Indian Saivite saint

M anikkavasa gar; these hym ns, along w ith others o f the Saiva Siddhanta are

noted for their intense devotional quality and exquisite expression.

To BERNARD KELLY

N ovem ber 14, 1946

Dear Bernard Kelly:

Jus t a line to say, when you review Figures o f Thought, by all

means correct my error about Transubstantiation. I don’t need

to tell you that I don’t mean to play with any idea. I have taken

quasi in Eckhart, etc, to refer always to symbols, which,

however adequate, give us only an inkling of the realities they

represent. Also, 1 think there is still this much tru th (and not anunimportant truth) in what I was trying to say: viz , that we

ought really to transubstantiate, or what comes to the same,

sacrifice (make holy) everything, by “ taking it out o f its sense”

in ou r apprehension— or, i f not, [we] arc living by “ bread

alone”.By the way, no one had ever remarked upon the repudiation

o f copyright in Figures. . . and in Why Exhib it . . . . I shouldn’t

mind if you do.

I’m grateful for your review of Religious Basis. . also,Grigson’s of Figures. . . in Spectator, October 25.

I suppose you go t either from me or otherwise, AlGhazali’s

M ishkat (published by Royal Asiatic Soc, 1924); well worth

having—the Introduction also good. On the whole, how much better Islam has fared than H induism in transla tion andcomment by scholars! For example, Gairdner is very wary of



finding “Pantheism” in Islam. By the way, as regards thecriterion as annunciated on top o f p 39, I usually think o f

pantheism as asserting God = All, but not also more than all,

not also transcendent; doesn’t that come to the same thing? At

the same time, another point: isn’t there a sense in which we

must be pantheists; vis, this, tha t the finite cannot be outside theinfintc, for were it so, the infinite would be bounded by w hat is

external to it? But what is “in” God is God; and in this sense it

w ould appear correct to say that all things, taken out o f their

sense, are God, for as ideas in the divine mind, they arc not

othe r than that m ind. I think the righ t solution is “ fused but not

confused” (Eckhart) and bhedabheda, “distinction without

difference”. Perhaps I said before, the best illustration is

afforded by her ray—identical with the centre when it goes“ in” and individual when it goes “o u t” . If there were confusion

absolute, the notion o f the liberated as “m ov ersatw ill”(kamacarin) would surely be meaningless. So, as usual, the

correct position is one o f a middle way b etween absolute

identity and complete distinction.

I kno w the “ danger o f know ledge” ; and tha t’s largely why

we mean to go to India ourselves; not that realisations are not

possible everywhere, but partly to make a more definitetransition; also; partly, o f course for oth er reasons.

I m igh t approp riate to m yse lf the last two sentences o f the

M ishkat. “ Shining surface” : is no t this like the mass o f rays thatconceals the sun so that we do not “ see the w ood for the trees” ?

N ot so m uch a wall created by our blindness as created fo r us

by his m anifestatio n itself; to be penetrated, o f course.

However, the word “shining” is, I believe, only Edwin

A rno ld’s own; it is rather the dep th and stillness of the open sea

that the texts themselves emphasize.I note in Th e L ife o f the Spirit (Nov 1946): “The incarna-

tion. . . w hose meaning is reenacted in the life o f everyaiter-Christus.” In this sense I suppose St Paul (“ I live, yet not I but C hris t in m e”) is an “ aiterChristus” ?

Affectionately,

PS: about “choosing” a tradition, I fully agree. It is rather the “tradition”that should choosc us, cither by the circumstances o f ou r birth o r by a

subseq uent personal illum ination (cf St P aul’s).



Bernard Kelly, Windsor, England. Sec pp 201; Kelly was reviewing AKC’s

Figures o f Speech or Figures o f Thought ? (London, 1946) and had some

disagreemen t about A K C ’s discussion o f Transubstantiation. Both this boo k

and AKC’s Why Exhibit Works of A rt ? (London, 1943) bore the following

notice: “ N o rights reserved. Q uotations o f reasonable length m ay be made

w ithou t w ritten permission. ” The Religious Basis o f the Forms o f Indian Society;

Indian Culture and English Influence; East and West (all by AKC), New York,

1946. Mishkat al-Anwar (The N iche for Lights), al Ghazzali; translated by W .H .T .

Gairdner, Royal Asiatic Society Monographs, Vol XIX, London, 1924;

Pakistani edition 1973.

The Life o f the Spirit, a review o f spirituality published by the Do minican s of

England, Oxford.

“Pantheism, Indian and NeoPlatonic”, AKC, Journal o f Indian History, Vol

XVI, 1937; French translation in Etudes Traditionnelles, XLIII, Paris, 1938.

To BERNARD KELLY

December 29, 1946

Dear Bernard Kelly:

A bou t the E ucharist as a type o f a transubstantiation that

ought to be realised in secular life: Eckhart (Evans I, 408,

Pfeiffer 593), “Were anyone as well prepared for outer food asfor the Sacrament, he would receive God (therein) as much as

in the Sacrament (itself).” This is ju st w ha t I wanted to say, I

think this is true.

About alter Christus, ibid p 592: “ By living the life of Christ

rather than my own, so I have Christ as ‘me’ rather than

myself, and I am called ‘Christ! rathe r than Jo hn or Jacob orUlrich; and if this befalls out o f time, then I am transformed

into God.”About extra ecclesiam nulla salus: the Papal Bull Unigenitus

against Jansenism am ongst other things declared that the proposition “ Grace is not given outs ide the C hurch” is untrue.

Karl Adam, Th e Spirit o f Catholicism, 1929, says the Churchis the norm al institute o f grace, b ut the Grace o f Christ is nothindered from visiting particular men without the mediation ofthe Church; and those who arc thus visited by his Grace in thisimmediate way belong to the invisible Church (this is what I

mean when I sometimes talk of the “ reunion o f the Chu rches”in the widest sense).

This material in the last two paragraphs above is taken from



Bevan, Christianity, Home University Library, pp 194, 5.

Bevan, however, on p 215 says Christianity is either the one

religion for mankind, “or it is altogether nonsense”—whichseems to me to be a total non sequitur. “T he Lord know eth who

are his” (II Tim 2, 19); it is a presumption to think that we

know.

Kindest regards,

The following, part o f anothe r letter, was enclosed:

St Thomas, Lib I I Sententiarum, dist 28. q.l. art 4: “A manmay prepare him self by w hat is contained in natural reason for

receiving faith. W herefore it is said that i f anyo ne bo rn in

barbarous natio ns doeth w hat lieth in him , G od will reveal to

him that which is necessary to salvation, either by inspiration

or by send ing him a teacher” (here “by inspiration” show s that

St Thom as is not merely thinking o f Christian missionaries,

but o f direct illumination). In Summa Theol IIII.2.7 and 3, St

Thom as w ith reference to the salvation o f the Sibyls allows that

some persons may have been saved without any revelation,

because o f th eir faith in a M ediato r, in a Providence etc, no t

explicit but implicit “since they believed that God would

deliver mankind in w hatever way was pleasing to H im .” C f II

Tim 2, 9 & 19: “ the wo rd o f God is not b ou nd .” “T he Lord

knoweth who are His.”

I think it is not for us to pretend to know that. Job 19, 25: “I

kno w my Redeem er liveth” ; 1 have always felt that his is the

main thing, and that one cannot know that he “lived”, and I

cannot think that to believe that he “lived” (was born in

Bethlehem) is as important as to know that he “lives”.However, as regards “teachers”: everyman is virtually an

alter Christus, ie, poten tially capable o f being able to say “ I live,

yet not I, but Christ in me”; and I do not think it is anyman’s prero gative to say to what extent this perfection has beenapproached by any one. Marco Pallis’ Lama said of Christ, “ Isec he was a very Buddha”.

Kindest regards,

Bernard Kelly, Windsor, England.Marco Pallis, London, England.



T o BERNARD KELLY

January 8, 1947

Dear Bernard Kelly:

Yours o f 2.1.47. As before, I accept the authority o f yo ur

definition as regards Transub stantiation strictu sensu, and expectyou to make the necessary criticism o f w hat I say in

Figures. . . . As regards most of the remainder, we arc, in the

first place agreed that there is una veritas; the question being

only whether in variis signis varie resplendeat. The problem

therefore resolves itself, as always, into “What think ye of

C hrist?” I do n ot think o f H im as having revealed Him self

visibly o nly as Jesus, nor o f the C hurch as being the literally

visible Roman Catholic universitas only; as you say, thequestion is o f “ religion” , no t really o f “ religions” . W hich boilsdown to asking whether, eg, Islam is religion. To this question I

say yes. Does a Roman Catholic have to say No? That is our

problem , isn’t it?

I agree to the formula “Jacob in Christ”; but also simply

Christ, if Jacob earns the right to say “ I live, yet no t I, bu tChrist in me.”

Kindest regards,

Bernard Kelly, Windsor, England.

To JOHN JOSEPH STOUDT

May 14, 1947M y dear D r Stoudt:

I am greatly indebted to you for sending. . ., through the publishers , your. . . vers ion o f Jacob Boehm e’s The Way to

Christ. It is a very fine piece o f translation, and I shall find anopportunity to review it, perhaps for the Review o f Religion ifthe publishers have not sent them a review copy, or if not, ifyou ask them to do so.

I would like to have seen fuller notes, for instance inconnection w ith the “ Spark” , p 246 (cf note 31 in the JA O Sarticle I am sending you, though there is much more material



than is mentioned there). Notwithstanding that Bochme was

“untaught”, it seems to me he must in some way have had

know ledge o f many traditional formulations. O n the same

page, “ sm ould ering w ic k” must be an echo o f M att xii, 23, and

this also is a reference to the “ Spark” , which Philo speaks o f as

asbestos, since it can never be totally extinguished. Very probably Bochme got his material on the Spark from Eckhart,

who uses the concept so often and equates it with Syntcrcsis.

As regards the “ Separator” (p xxix, c f 188) this is the Logos

Tomeus, on which E. R. Goodcnough has a valuable treatise in

Yale Classical Studies (III, 1932).

H ow ever, the chief thing I want to say is with reference to

yo ur occasional depreciation o f othe r religions, in the In troduc-

tion xxxi—xxxiii. These seem to me to mar the perfection andthe serenity o f your position. N o one, I think, has a righ t to

compare his own with other religions unless he knows the

latter in their sources (original languages and contexts) as well

as he knows his own; it is absolutely unsafe to rely on

translations by scholarly rationalists, themselves entirely un-

familiar w ith the language o f Western mysticism. Take for

example, “Boehme was not a Buddhist”. I daresay you know

there exists a considerable literature in which it is argued that

many things in the N ew Testam ent are directly o f Buddhist

origin; I do not believe this myself, but it shows how near

together these two come. There are many respects in which

Boehme is assuredly “Buddhist”; take for example the Super-

sensual Life on page 54, and the Buddha’s words: “Whoever

would nurse me, let him nurse the sick” (Vin 1. 302). O r again

compare Bochm e’s “ U ng run d” w ith the conception in Budd h-ism o f the Incom posite (= Nirvana, for which sec p 68, in the

review o f A rche r’s book which I am sending). Again Boehm e’sadvocation o f selfnaughting (harking back o f course to

Christ’s own denegat seipsum, which implies, according to theGreek verb here, an ontological even more than an ethical

denial) is quite as strong as Eckhart’s and Blake’s, and it isidentical with the Buddhist (and Hindu) conception no less thanwith Christ’s odet suam animam. Again, Supersensual Life, p 27,where the U ng rou nd is equivalent to “ noth ing and all” and this

is exactly equivalent to the B uddhist definitions o f N irvana as“ void” o f all things coupled with the affirmation that “he whofinds it findeth all” ( sabbam lagghatti, Khp viii).



With Supersenaul Life, 24, I would like you to comparc the

Bhagavad Gita 6.5,6, on the relations o f the two selves (and ofcourse many parallels in Plato, and throughout the Christian

treatment of the accepted axiom duo sunt in homine)\ and for the

natu re o f their reconciliation, my article on the Hare (also sent

you, p 2, 3, passage as marked).May I suggest that in your forthcoming major work on

Boehmc (to which I look forward eagerly) you make no

references to other religions? Such references in no way

enhance the glory o f Christianity, but only tend to make the

non Ch ristian reader think that the w ork is nothing but another

piece o f Chris tian propaganda. It is easy enough to in te rest aH indu in the classics o f W estern m ysticism, bu t if these classics

are introduced w ith an accompaniment o f m isinterpretations o fhis religion he is little likely to be attracted, only repelled. The

same standards o f scholarship arc applicable to the whole field o f

comparative religion, not only to Christianity, and the conccpt

of truth demands an absolute sense of responsibility. It is just

because your ow n mind and your positive exposition are so

good that I would urge you to omit from the major work any

pejo rative references to oth er religions; Chris tianity has no-

thing to gain, but everything to lose by them.

One other point, p xxxl: in a general way there is a logical

distinction between the way o f devotion (bhakti in Hinduism)

and the gnostic way (jnana). But the end is the same. Consider

Rumi’s words: “What is love? Thou shalt know when thou

becomest M e.”


John Jospeh Stoudt, The Way to Christ, by Jacob Boch mc, N ew Y ork, 1947.

J A O S = Journal o f the American Oriental Society. Th e J AO S article referred to

was his review o f Joh n Clarke Archer’s The Sikhs in Relation to Hindus,

Moslems, Christians and Ahm adiyyas, in vol LXVII (1947, pp 67 30 ) o f this

journal.

Jo hn Layard’s The Lady o f the Hare: a Study in the Healing Power o f Dreams was

reviewed by A KC in Psychiatry, vol VIII (1945, part 4, pp 507513). See also

AKC’s “On Hares and Dreams”, in Quarterly Journal o f the Mythic Society,

vol XXXVII, no 1, 1947.Jalal ud D in Rum i, Sufi saint, founder o f a Sufi order, and one o f the greatestif no t the greatest o f Sufi m ystical poets.



T o FATHER GEORGE B. KENNARD, SJ

Octobcr 12, 1943

Dear Father Kcnnard:

Many thanks for your kind and long letter. I shall try to seeFather Jo ha nn ’s article. I w ould say that many o f these thingsarc m atters o f fact. 1 agree that the West has som ething

“ invaluable” to offer in Christianity, bu t the converse is no less

true.

As to the matters o f fact: you say or cite that India has to be

taught the w ay o f selfconquest, and also the doctrine o f creatioax nihilo. I do not know why this should be so, seeing that both

arc already integral parts o f Vedic philosopy. As to the first,

you w ill find some o f the material in the “Akim canna” paper I

am sending, and which I am sorry I must ask you to return, as I

have only a lending copy. As in Plato, with his mortal and

imm ortal soul, the Vedantic mortal self and its “ im m ortal Self

and Leader” (= Pla to’s Soul o f the soul) and St Paul’s Spirit as

distinguished from soul (Hcb iv, 12), the question is, which shall

rule, the better or the worse, superior or inferior. The most

direct statement abo ut sc\{-conquest is, I think, that of Bhagavad

Gita VI. 5,6:

Let him uplift self by Self, no t let self sink dow n; for verilySelf is th e friend o f the self, and also se lf s foe. Se lf is the

friend o f the self in his case whose self has been conquered (jitah, the ordinary m ilitary term , as in jaya, victory), b ut acts

as the foe in hostile conflict with se lf undaunted.

Regarding creatio ex nihilo, I would have to write a longer

exposition, dealing with kha (chaos), akasa (light as quintess-ence), and the Gnostic topes; with reference also to Sum Theol (Aquinas) 1.45.1: emanatio omnis entis ex non ente quod est nihil* (I

quote from memory); to the equation o f God with nihil in Eckhartand other m ystics, it is obvious tha t the first cause o f “ thing s”must be no thing; and the w hole m atter o f intelligible formsand sensible phenom ena in West and East sources; and also takeup the uses of teino and its Sanskrit equivalent tan (extend),together w ith the thrcadspirit doctrine (cf in m y “ Literary

Sym bolism” in the Dictionary of World Literature, 1943, where itis briefly cited); and the use of elko. In our theology God is the



Supreme Identity o f beingandnonbeing ( sadasat ), and these

are his essence and his nature, which latter he separates from

him self as a m other o f w hom to be born (of coursc, I could give

you all the references, but won’t do that now). Hence the

precise sta tement o f Rgveda X.7214: “being is born of

no nb eing” . It is interesting, too, that just as ou r “no thing” isalso “evil” , viz , naughty, so a-sat, nonbeing has also precisely

this value o f “naugh ty” in Sanskrit contexts. So too, the

process o f perfecting is a procedure from a “ tobedone” to a

“havingdonewhatwastobcdone”, ie, potentiality to act.

We are thus dealing w ith a whole system o f equivalent notions.

In my view, then, it is no t so much a question o f introducing

any new doctrinal truths to one another, as it is o f bringing

together the equivalent formulations and so establishing thetru th on the basis o f bo th authorities. Th is I conceive to be the

proper w ork o f “ compara tive religion” , considered as a true

discipline and not mere satisfaction o f curiosity. T he different

scriptures rather illuminate than correct one another.

With reference to the Cross: consider the implications of

teino, with reference to the crucifixion as an extension. From

our po int o f view, the Eternal Avatara (and o f course, we

should regard Christ as one of His epithets) is extended in

principio on the three dimensional cross o f the universe that he“fills”, that would be involved in the “eternal birth”, while the

historical crucifixion in the two dimensions would be the

necessary projection of the same “event” in a world of contraries(enantiai, right and left, etc).

I am afraid I cannot, although your kind invitation is

attractive, now prom ise to w rite on any o f the problems yousuggest, for the reason that I am “snowed under” by existing

commitments and unfinished articles. Incidentally, in the firstissue of the Bookman, I am disagreeing with Beardsley and

Wimsatt’s statements on “Intention” in the Dictionary o f World

Literature, and maintaining that criticism must be based on the

ratio o f intention and result, the classical standard o f jud ge -ment, and I believe this will interest you.

I shall, in accord w ith wha t you say, expect return o f onecopy of Why Exhibit. . .? presently. M ost o f the Englishreviewers either, as Catholics, agree with the general thesis, or

as aestheticians cannot bear to agree that art has any other purpose than to produce sensations, or bring themselves to



comprehended Tru th” ( M ajm u’l Bahrein, Introduction). I think

that this is the position one would reach by really thorough

com parison o f any tw o forms o f religion.

But to return to the immediate problem. You speak ofreading sources. Unless I am assuming wrongly that you do

not mean original Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, Pali or Chinese

sources, I must point out that such translations as are available

in European languages are o f a very varying quality. Perhaps

the best in a way are those that come nearest to being “cribs”.

The trouble is that the earlier ones were made chiefly by

missionaries for their own ends, and the later arc mostly by

rationalistnom inalist scholars to w hom the language o f the

Schoolmcn w ould have been as incomprehensible as that o f the

Eastern scriptures themselves. They simply did not know the

English equivalents for the metaphysical terms that they foundthemselves coping with for the first time in their lives; not to

mention that even they, too, had inherited from the “Christian

civilisation” o f Europe, in which they no longer believed, a

superiority complex. One must be, therefore, exceedinglychoosy in one’s use o f translations; and even i f one learns one o f

the languages for oneself, still the literal reading will not reveal

the conten t until one has reached the point o f endow ing the

original keywords with all their pregnant significance, nolonger attem pting to think o f them simply in terms o f some

one English equivalent.

All that you, and many others have to say positively about

the content o f Christian religion is well w orth reading. But in

making a negative statement with rcspcct to any other form of

religion can there be any value? You know how hard it is to

“prove a negative”. I think I have never made a negative

statement about any religion. To make such negative state-ments necessarily arouses opposition, and that is the last thing

one wishes. As I sec it, the two greatest dangers to which

Christianity is exposed at the present time arc 1) its claim to

exclusive truth and 2) its overemphasis on the supposedlyhistorical event; perhaps these are the two main points onwhich Christianity could p rofit by the study o f Hinduism .

As I said previously, I am not at all an uncritical admirer ofHuxley, but I do think he has greatly grown in the last few

years, and may go further yet.



Father Gerald Vann, OP, Blackfriars School, Laxton, England.

T o THE NEW ENGLISH WEEKLY, LONDON

N ovem ber 28, 1945

Sir,

M r Francis G lend enning is indeed in a predicam ent. If he

assumes that “ C hristianity is the judgem en t upon all non

Christian re ligions” , it becom es impossible for any Christian to

teach Comparative Religion, as other subjects are taught,

objectively. And yet, the und erstand ing o f other religions is anindispensable necessity fo r the solution by agreement o f the

econom ic and political problem s by which the peoples of the

world are at present more divided than united.

If C om pa rative Religion is to be taugh t as other sciences are

taught, the teacher must surely have realised that his own

religion, how eve r true, is only one o f those that arc to be

“ com pared ” . In other w ord s, it will be “ necessary to recognize

that those institutions which arc based on the same premises, let

us say, the supernatural, m ust be considered together, o ur ow n

amongst the rest”, whereas “today, whether it is a question of

imperialism, or o f race prejudice, or o f a comparison between

Christianity and paganism, we arc still preoccupied with the

uniqueness . . . o f ou r own insti tut ions and achievements, our

own civilization” (Ruth Benedict).

O ne cannot b ut ask w hether the Christian w hose conviction

is ineradicable that his own is the only true faith can

conscientiously perm it him self to expoun d another religion,knowing that he cannot do so honestly; he will be almost

certain, for instance, to use the expression “pantheism” or

“ po lythe ism ” as terms o f abuse withou t having considered the

actual relevance or irrelevance to a given case. The only

alternative, at present, is to leave the children to their ignorance,or to have Comparative Religion taught by nonChristians

who, in Philo’s words, can speak o f the O ne God w hom “ with

one accord all the Greeks and barbarians acknowledgetogether. ”




December 1946

Sir,

In further response to M r Glendinning, I agree, o f course,that no subject can be taught objectively, absolutely. It is,

how ever, every teacher’s du ty to com municate the real conten t

o f the subject as objectively as possible. M y po int was that

Christians commonly refer to other religions and use a few of

their technical terms (such as karma, nirvana) without any

personal know ledge o f the connotations o f the terms or the

contexts in which they are employed; they rely on translations

made either by propagandists or by scholars who are usually

rationalists unacquainted w ith the terms o f theology and

indifferent o r hostile to religion o f all kinds; and tha t I regard as

irresponsible and disingenuous.

As for the uniqueness o f Christianity: in the first place, thiscan only be a matter o f faith, not o f historical certainty; one

cannot have it both ways because, as Aristotle says, factual

know ledge can be only o f what is norm al, no t o f exceptions. In

the second place, I can only say that I am happy to disclaim

uniqueness for my own beliefs, and that I can, and often do,defend the truths o f Christianity accordingly. I am very surethat it redou nds to the greater glory of God that Una veritas in

variis signis varie resplendeat.

AKC


January 8, 1946

Sir,

— I am afraid th at Gens thoroughly misunders tands m y position. In fact, I agree w ith him in alm ost every thing. I nevermaintained and I do not hold that Comparative Religion, oreven on e’s ow n, can be taught “ as other sciences are taught” . I

said that Comparative Religion must be taught with at least asmuch regard for the tru th as teachers o f science usually have,and objectively in this sense, that the scriptures of the “o ther” re



ligions must not be misconstrued. I fully agree that no one can

teach religion, whether his own or another’s or even talk “sense”

about religion until religion has been a real experience in his

ow n life. B ut fo r the teaching o f tru th about other religions it is

not enough, however indispensable, to have had experience of

one’s own; it is also necessary to be as familiar with the texts ofthe o the r religions as one is (or shou ld be) with those o f on e’s

ow n. W hat I com plain o f is that Christian w riters (who often

rely upon translations that have been made by scholars who,

learned as they may be so far as language goes, arc rationalists

and quite ign ora nt b oth o f religious experience and o f the

traditional terms in which it has been described) continually

make use of the technical terms of other religions while

kno w ing n oth ing personally o f their etymo logy, history or usein the original contexts. We find, for example, “Maya”

rendered by “ illusion” ; bu t M aya is that “a rt” , or in Jacob

Boehme’s sense “magic” by which the Father manifests

himself; the analogues o f M aya being G reek Sophia or Hebrew

Hochma, that “wisdom” or “cunning” by w hich G od operates.

We find “ N irvana ” rendered by “ annihilation” (no one stops to

ask o f what?), thou gh the w ord means “despiration” , as

Meistcr Eckhart uses the term. I accuse the majority ofCh ristian w riters o f a certain irresponsibility, or even levity, in

their references to other religions. I should never dream of

m aking u se o f a Gospel text w ithou t referring to the Greek, and

considering also the earlier history o f the Greek w ordsem ployed, and I dem and as m uch o f Christian writers.

As for Folk lore and M yth olo gy , these, indeed, are sources o f

sacred know ledge, bu t to u nderstand them requires som ethingm ore than a collector’s o r cataloguer’s capacities. 1 have no

respect wha tever fo r the app roaches such as those o f Frazer or

LevyBruhl and often have said so. I am far, indeed, from

denying that heresies are current, and may arise anywhere, or

that they do arise when people “think for themselves”. In

reality, this is not a m atter o f thinking at all, b ut o f

understanding. I agree with Blake that “there is no naturalreligion” . W hat I regard as the prop er end o f C om parativeReligion is the dem on stration o f fundamental truths by a cloud

o f witnesses. O u r task is one o f collation rather than com pari-son. I agree w ith G ens that “C om para tive Religion” is a ratherun fortu na te phrase, since it is no t really “ religions” but religion



that w c arc talking about. What wc are really com paring is the

idioms o r sym bols in which d ifferent peoples at different timeshave clothed the revelations of Himself that God has given

them. The idioms differ (although far less than is commonly

supposed) bccause “nothing can be known but in accordance

w ith the m ode o f the kno w er” , but wha t variety there is in noway infringes the truth propounded by St Ambrose, that “all

that is true, by whomsoever (and however) it has been said, is

from the Holy Ghost”, or, as St Augustine says, “from Him

whose throne is in heaven, and [who] teaches in the heart.”

AKC

To PROFESSOR ARTHUR BERRIEDALE KEITH

1937

Dear Professor Keith:

I am alw ays appreciative o f your tolerant attitude tow ards

my “ idealistic” approach. I am o f course ready to agree that in

an article like “M an ’s last en d” (which, by the way, will be

prin te d in Asia ), 1 am considering both systems in their highest

and deepest— paramarthika — significance. H ow ever, it is at least

as necessary and proper that this should be done by some and forsome, as it is to study religions also in their lower aspects. So

my reply to your criticism would take this form (using your

own words with very slight change). “After all these systems

are what they mean to the deeper minds concerned with them,

no less truly than they are what they mean to the average

believer.”Ju st as in mediaeval exegesis the possibility o f interpre tation

on at least four levels o f reference (literal, moral, allegorical andanagogic) is always recogn ized, so I think one can approach the

Indian texts from different poin ts o f view, each o f w hich is

legitimate— so long as one is perfectly conscious o f w hat one isdoing at the time.

With kind regards, very sincerely

Professor Arth ur Berriedale Keith, U niversity o f Edinburgh, Scotland.



‘Th e Indian Doctrine o f M an’s Last End ’, Asia, XXXVIII (1937), pp

186213.

This letter was in response to one from Prof. Keith in which he com m ented as

follows on said article: ‘It is very brilliant and attests as usual your

remarkable familiarity both with Christian and Indian thought. My only

objection is to yo ur conclusion in the form in which you have fram ed it. Youhave certainly established the fundamental identity of the views of certain

profound aspects o f Chris tianity and Hin duism , but these aspects make up

but a very litt le part o f w hat we unders ta nd as H in duism and Christianity,

and yo ur conclusions wou ld seem to be very far from reality to many Hindu s

and Christians alike. After all, these systems arc not what they mean to the

deeper minds concerned with them, but to the average believer. . . .’

TO ADE DE BETHUNE

May 6, 1937

Dear Adc de Bcthune:

In the first place I enclose an extract from a letter from an

English C atholic o f considerable standing, though no t a

professional theologian.

Secondly, I should like to say that I have not the slightest.

interest in trying to “placate” anyone, but only in the Truth,which I regard as One. It would take too long to show here

ho w hard it w ould be to say wha t doctrines (Matters o f faith, as

distinguished from matters o f detail) arc not common to

Christianity and Hinduism (as well as other traditions, the

Islamic for example). As to reincarnation, the doctrine has been

profoundly misin te rpreted, alike by scholars, Thcosophists,

and neoBuddhists. On the other hand, the doctrine aboutwhat is under and what beyond the Sun is expounded in almost

identical terms in both traditions.

I often find m yse lf in the position o f a defender o f Catholic

truth, and willingly enough; all the doctrines usually regarded

as difficult seem to me to both intelligible and to be representedin Hinduism. On the other hand, though individual Protestants

may be truly religious, I cannot seriously equate Protestantismwith Christianity, and regard the Reformation as a Reforma-tion.

It is very easy to discover apparent contradictions betweenChristianity and Hinduism, but it requires a very thoroughknowledge o f both and perhaps a faith in both , to discover



whether these apparent contradictions are real. The principal

difference in actual formulation is perhaps that Hinduism

strictly speaking deals almost exclusively with the Eternal

Birth, which in exoteric Christianity is, so to speak, only the

m ore im portan t o f the tw o births, tem poral and eternal.

In the last sentence I say “strictly speaking” because inBuddhism , which is an aspect of Hinduism , related to the

orthodox tradition somewhat as Protestantism is to Catholic-ism, the manifestation o f the Eternal Messiah (or as we express

it, Avatara) is given a tem poral form. I may add that m y faith inthe tru th o f Ch ristianity (“ faith” as defined by St Thom as)

w ould no t in the least be affected by a positive d ispro of o f the

historicity o f the Christ, and I w onder if yo ur friend could say

as much.I send you separately a few othe r papers of mine, o f which I

will ask you to return those on Exemplarism and on Rebirthand Omniscience, as I have bu t few copies. I send also 3 copies of

“Man’s Last End” for which you can send me 34 cents instamps. I need hardly say that this paper, which was originally

a broadcast and will be printed in Asia for May, was necessarily

a very b rie f and undo cum ented statement; a sum mary, in fact,

o f some material collected for a com parison o f Indian andChristian concepts of deificatio. The other papers will suffice to

show that I have a back groun d for what I say. I w ond er indeed

if yo ur friend has anything like a similar background from

which to speak o f “ w hat only a Christian believes” , ie, formaking statements as to what is not believed elsewhere. I often

wonder why so many Christians resent the very thought that perhaps the truth has been known elsewhere, although express-

ed in other idioms. Since for me there is in the last analysis onlyone revealed tradition (of which the different form s are so

m any dialects), it is for me a source o f interest and p leasure to

recognize the same truths differently expressed at different

times and by d ifferent peoples. C f p 331 o f the Speculum article.My article in the A rt Bulletin, Vol. XVII (a translation and

discussion of Ulrich Englcbcrti, De Pulchro), would probablyinterest you.

Yours sincerely,

A de de B ethu ne, identified p 28. She had w ritten to A KC abou t his article



‘The Indian Doctrine of Man’s Last End’, raising objections both on her part and on the part of her (Protestant) friend about the correlation ofHindu and Christian positions. The enclosed ‘cxtract’, mentioned in the first

paragraph, was from a letter by Eric Gill concerning the same article, and isrepeated here: . 1 am very glad to have it. It seems to me faultless,though I suppose the pious practising Christian would feel that it left himrather high and dry, as it leaves out (necessarily, from the point of view ofmetaphysics) all the personal loving contact which he has with Christ asman, brother, lover, bridegroom, friend. . . . I don 't think there is anythingat all wrong with what you have written: I think it is all just true, but it iswritten at a level removed from that of the ordinary consciousncss and. . .‘Two Passages is Dante’s Paradiso', Speculum XI (1936), 327328.‘Mediaeval Acsthctic. I. Dionysius the PsucdoAreopagite and UlrichEngelberti of Strassburg’, Art Bulletin, XVII (1935), Pt 1, 3147.In later years, Dr Coomaraswamy changcd his views on the orthodoxy of

Buddhism, and would no longer have referred to it as ‘Protestant’.

T o PROFESSOR MYER SCHAPIRO

Octobcr 18, 1946

Dear Schapiro:

1 do n ’t find much conflict between religions, except, o f

course when individuals arc expressing individual opinions andm isunderstand ings. If understoo d according to Philo, the Jews

would not have disagreed with the idea of “eternal creation”;

no doubt, any “fundamentalist” would, but the fundamental-

ists on their side arc as bad as some scientists (eg, Haldane who

writes on “Time and Eternity” in the current Rationalist

without ever even mentioning the traditional and almost

universal definitions o f eternity as not everlasting bu t now — this

means, o f course, that he is only talking abou t what hesupposes eternity to mean, and is not dealing with the subject

historically at all) are on theirs. I think also, it might be difficult

to find a do ctrine o f the eternal fixity o f species as such; mosttraditional philosophers as such (like many modern psychol-

ogists) regard the existence o f “ thing s” (men included) as

postula te, usefu l as such for pragm atic purposes, but not suchthat one can say “ is” o f them ; this is repeatedly pointed out in

Greek and is equally Buddhist; Augustine also emphasizes themutability o f bo dy and soul, almo st in B uddhist terms.



M ycr Schapiro, professor o f art history, Co lumbia U niversity, N ew York.

To PROFESSOR SIDNEY HOOK

undated

Dear Prof Hook:

I have given a large part o f my life to the study o f

comparative religion, using the original sources (Latin, Greek,Sanskrit, Pali and to some extent Persian). I deny absolutely

your assertion in the Nation Jan 20th, that the elements of

religion “ must be thinned dow n to the vaguest phrases” if they

arc to be universally acccptablc. On the contrary, the differentscripturcs arc full of precise and detailed equivalents, and in fact, 1

m yse lf hardly ever expound any doctrine from only a single

sourcc.

Very sincerely,

Sidney Ho ok, professor o f philosophy, N ew York University, N ew York,

USA.

T o PROFESSOR J. WACH

August 23, 1947

Dear Professor Wach:

1 read y our paper in the July Journal o f Religion with much

interest. For me, o f course, theology is a “ science” com m on toall religions, and no t the private property o f any. In view o f

Aquinas as cited in the enclosed, p 60, it would seem to me

virtually impossible for any Roman Catholic to maintain that

no nonChristian scripture can have been inspired. Indeed,from the poin t o f view o f those w ho are opposed to all religion,nothing could well be more laughable than for anyone to claimthat his religion alone has been “revealed”. I hold with Blake

that “there is no natural religion” (which parallels yourcitations from Newman and Soderblom). I am sending a copyo f your paper to a R. C. friend o f mine in England who is



devoting him self to a consideration o f this question: “What is to be the attitude o f Rom an Catholics to the Oriental religions as now better known than heretofore?”; for which purpose he

has learnt Sanskrit himself. We are both agreed that neither of us is in search o f a solution in terms o f “latitudinarianism”.

Here I might also mention that I know two European brothers, one a Trappist monk, the other a leading Moslem; both are

men o f prayer; neither has any wish to convert the other; and

know, too, o f a learned and aged nun who said to us: “I see

there is no ncccssity for you to be a Christian”. The Hindu

attitude m ight be expressed as follows: Hinduism “has outlived the Christian propaganda o f modern times . . . . It is now able

to meet any o f these world religions on equal terms as their

friend and ally in common cause” (Renaissance of Hinduism, D. S. Sharma, 1944, p 70). I have myself often said to

Christians, “even if you arc not on our side, we are on yours.”

As regards the collation o f doctrines, Christian and non

Christian, I think this task has so far only been begun. For

example, who has ever stressed the Buddhist “Whoever would

nurse me, let him nurse the sick” in relation to “In as much as

yc have done it unto one o f the least o f these . . . yc have done

it unto Me”? Even as regards preChristian Greek, compara-tively little has been done; mainly, I suppose, bccausc such tasks arc distasteful to most Christians. O f course one finds a similar attitude elsewhere also; there arc some Indians who resent my own position, according to which there is nothing

unique in Indian religion, apart from its “local color”, ie, historical expression in the language o f those whose religion it has been (“nothing can be known except in the mode o f the

knowcr”). There are, indeed, two kinds o f persons; those who take pleasure in recognizing identities o f doctrines, and those who they offend (and who, as Schopenhauer long ago pointed out, strive to show that when the same things arc said in as nearly as possible the same way, the meaning is different);

In the case o f the HinduM oslcm problem in India (which is now mainly a political rather than a religious matter), the solution can only be found . . . starting from the position unequivocally affirmed by Jahangir and Dara Shikosh that

“their Vedanta is the same as our Tasawwuf”. It is from men like these (and like Plutarch) that we have to learn how to tackle the problems o f “comparative religion”. By the way, I do not



think this is such an unfortunate term, because it is significant

that the word religion is used in the singular; comparative

religion and the his tory o f religion* are no t qu ite the samething. The form er, I think, can only be studied by men w ho arc

themselves religious.

Very sincerely,

Joachim Wach, professor at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island,

USA.

Jahangir and Dara Shikosh, see p 48.

To JOHN CLARK ARCHER

Date unertain, 1945 or ’46

Dear Professor Archer:

I greatly appreciate your review o f m y “ Recollection. .

and . . T ran sm igra nt” in Review o f Religion. I would only

like to say, I think you must be aware that I am anything but

indifferent to “religion”. But I look to God to satisfy my headas well as my heart, and it seems to me perfectly legitimate in

any particular study to confine onese lf to the intellectual aspects

o f on e’s belief, since one is no t, for the mom ent, concerning

onese lf w ith the active life. At the same time the intellectualaspects lead, in fact, to the same practical conclusions in ethics

as those which you defend. “Love thy neighbour as thyself’: it

was long ago pointed out by Deussen [that] this holds good a

fortiori if thy neighbo ur is, essentially, thyself, i f what we loveeither in ou rse lf or in others is no t really the individual, bu t the

immanent deity in both. This was also Ficino’s conception of

“Platonic love”. Then, I would call your attention to the factthat the term “ V edanta” occurs in the Svetasvetara and Mundaka

Upanishads, and docs not apply only to Sankara’s philosophy. I

gave enough questions, I think, to show that his “onlytransmigrant” dictum had ample older authority. Lastly, if, asAristotle says, “eternal beings arc not in time”, I cannot see

ho w they can be thou gh t o f as “ continually learning” , astem pora l o r acvitcrnal beings migh t be; .the latter, indeed, inBuddh ist doctrine, arc notably thought o f as capable o f further



learning and o f rising higher. By the way, also, “many summits” would imply to me a polytheism; but perhaps I miss your meaning here. You may be interested to know I shall be reviewing your Sikhs . . ., mostly with cordial appreciation, but with criticism of a few minor points (esp Rumi’s supposed

belief in reincarnation, and the reference to Buddhism as a nastikasystem). Incidentally, I wonder if you have ever noticed that the Buddha is several times referred to in canonical texts as saccanama, and that all his “undergraduate” disciples are sekha.

Very sincerely,

John Clark Archcr, Hoober Professor of Comparative Religion, Yale

University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.‘Recollection, Indian and Platonic’ and ‘On the One and Only Transmig-rant’, both by WKC, were published as Supplements to the Journal of the

American Oriental Society, LXIV (1944).The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino, P. O. Kris teller, New York, 1943.The Sikhs in Relation to Hindus, Moslems, Christians and Ahmadiyas, by JohnClark Archcr, reviewed by AKC, JAOS, LXVII, 1947. Nastika, reductionist, nothing more than. . . . Dr Coomaraswamy contributed significantly towards dispelling notions of Buddhism as merely aheresy of Hinduism,

To JOHN CLARK ARCHER

May 21, 1947

My dear Professor Archcr:

Many thanks for your kind and patient letter. I will take up the points in the same order. I did not mean to suggest that you had stated any direct connection o f Sikhism with Buddhism, but in this connection thought it worth while myself to call attention to a remarkable continuity o f the Indian tradition in thinking o f God as truth, a tendency extending from the Rgvedato Gandhi (for I might have cited also Rgveda V.25.2: sa hi satyah).

Regarding caste, the difference between “exclusively” and “utterly different” as in the referents. That part o f Hocart’s

book which deals with caste elsewhere than in India does not deal with “class distinctions” but with the real equivalents of caste elsewhere, and I therefore cited him in illustration o f the



view tha t caste is no t “exclusively Indian” . O n the other hand,

/ said that caste is “utterly different” from the class distinctions

that arc so conspicuous in the socalled democracies. I did not,therefore, contradict myself.

As regards Buddha, you repeat that he “denied the reality of

God”; and . . . this was what I contradicted, and still do. Iexpressly omitted to point out that he delieved in Gods,

thinking that would have been irrelevant to the actual point. I

am thoroughly familiar with, I think, all the Pali sources

bearing on this poin t, and am satisfied that he not only believed

in Brahma (as distinct from Brahma), but was himself

“Brahmabecome” (having been a Brahma in previous births).

You said that N anaka w as “not a nastik w ith respect to G od ” ;

but that the Buddha was. I can’t agree. But to prove my poin twould amount to a short article with full citations.

Regarding the “only transmigrant” (Sankara’s phrase, not

mine): I see nothing strange in the view that all things are

infused by a power that operates in all. In fact, I should have

thought that most Christians would think that.

I must apologize for seeming to credit you (I use the word

advisedly) with the sentence ending “one perfect source”.

N o doubt your diagnosis o f our different tem peraments ismore or less correct. But I think you will allow that I never

express personal opinions, but speak always samula, always

citing authorities. What I would say is that I do not think a

“ realistic, dualistic, ind ividualistic” mental makeup looks at alllike one naturally adapted to in terpret Indian or related types o fthought without distortion.

Sincerely dnd cordially,

PS: I can ’t agree tha t we are saying the same things abou t Rumi;

you said explicitly that he believed in reincarnation, and I produced chapter and verse to show that he did not do so, inthe now commonly accepted animistic interpretation of the

word. Nor can I agree with you than any Sufi (or Vedantist)identified himself (Boehm e’s “that which thou callcst ‘I’ or‘myself ”) with God; it is the immanent God in “us”, not “this

man, soandso”, that can be identified with God, and must be,if there is to be any sense to the faith o f those (like Cusa, and theGreek Orthodox theologians) who consider man’s last end one



of thcosis by the elimination of omnis alteritatis et diversitatis.

Sinccrely,

John Clark Archer, Hoobcr Professor of Comparative Religion, YaleUniversity, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Dr Archer had written toAKC: ‘I myself find it difficult to associate so intimately the Rgveda, Plotinus and St Thomas . . . . But a mystical sense disregards time andspace . . . . Your article drips secretions of the mystical. I am myselfsomewhat more realistic in my reading of the Rgveda, and of the Upanishadsalso. ’ Under this latter, AKC wrote: pour rire, si non pleurer !— ‘to laugh, ifnot rather to cry!’ Nankar, or Guru Nanak, founder o f the Sikh religion. Nastik, a ‘nothing moreist’ or reductionist.

Brahma, the Supreme Principle. Brahma, first named in the Hindu Trimurti or triple manifestation of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. The word brahma also refers to a member of the highest ofthe four traditional Hindu castes.

To GERSHOM G. SCHOLEM

November 9, 1944

Dear Professor Scholcm:I have been reading your Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism

with the greatest interest, and am only sorry I have been unable to procure a copy here. If, by chance, it is still available in Jerusalem, I should be very much obliged if you would direct your bookseller to send me a copy, with the bill.

Tsimtsum seems to me to correspond exactly to William Blake’s expression “contracted and identified into variety”.

Throughout I have been interested in the Indian parallels, which I have long since learnt to expcct everywhere, since metaphysics is onescience, whatever the local coloring it takes on. In this connection I am sending you a copy o f my article on “Recollection, Indian and Platonic” and Transmigration, in which I touched on the treatment o f “recollection” by Jewish writers. You will see that the (true) Indian doctrine o f transmigration is similar to that o f gilgul (= Ar tanassul). I am

dealing with the whole subject further in an article on “Gradation and Evolution” which will appear in Isis.



G crshom G. Scholcm, professor o f Jewish m ysticism, H ebrew University,

Jerusalem, and author of Major Trends in Jew ish Mysticism, Jerusalem, 1941.

‘Recollection, Indian Platonic’ and ‘on the One and Only Transmigrant’,

published as Supplements to the Journal o f the American Oriental Society,

LXIV, 1944.

‘Gradation and Evolution’, Isis, XXXV, 1944.

T o HELEN CHAPIN

Dcccmber 22, 1945

Dear Helen:

. . . I think you (like Aldous Huxley) arc much too much

afraid o f w hat you call “ sugar” ; and on the other hand, 1suspcct some tracc of “ sugar” in your “ love o f natu re” . O f

coursc, wc all “love nature”; but we don’t have to go so far asto exclaim tha t “ only God can make a tree” , as if he was not

ju st as in te rested in making fleas. Blake was “ afraid that

W ordsw orth w as fond o f na ture ” ; and as Eckhart says, “ to findnature (ie, natura naturans) as she is herself, all her forms m ust be

shattered.”

I sec no sugar in Ramakrishna! Bhakti in the Bhagavad Gita is

“ scrvice” (in the sense of giving to anyone w hat is their due,service as a servant) or “attendance”, rather than “love”

literally. “ Platonic love” is no t the love o f others “ for

them selves” , but o f w hat in them is divine, and as this isidentical w ith w ha t in us is divine, is ju st as much selflove (ie,

love o f Self) as love o f others; the notion o f “ I” and that o f

“others” is (as in Buddhism) equally delusive, and what we

need is not “altruism” but Selflove in the Aristotelian and in

the Scholastic sense.

Very sincerely,

Helen Chapin, Bryn M aw r College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA ; see

table of contents for othe r letters.

Ramakrishna refers to the major nineteenth century Indian saint, and to the

accou nt o f his life and teaching, Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, New York.

Bhakti, usually translated as love or devotion (to God). For a classical Indian

exposition of bhakti, see Narada Bhakti Sutras, translated by SwamiTyagisanada, Madras, India, 1972.



To LIGHT, LONDON

May 21, 1942

Sir,

Apropos o f the article on “ Reincarnation” by M rs RhysDavids and the leading article “O f Reb irth” in you r issue o f

January 8, 1942, and with special reference to the remark “InIndia it is a cardinal point o f H indu D og m a” , may I say that

while there is in India a doctrinc o f Transmigration (in the senseo f passage from states o f being to other states o f being),

Reincarnation (in the sense of the return o f individuals to

incarnation on earth) is not a Hindu doctrinc. The Hindu

doctrinc is, in the words of Sankaracarya that “There is noother transmigrant ( samsarin) but the Lord.” That this is the

teaching o f the U panishads and older texts could be amply

supported by many citations, and follows directly from the

position that our powers arc “merely the names of his acts”,

who is “the only seer, hearer, thinker, etc, in us”, and from the

view, common to Hinduism and Buddhism that it is the

greatest o f all delusions to consider “ I am the do er.” In

succcssive births and deaths it is Brahma, not “I”, that comes

and goes; “ goes” w hen wc “ give up the ghost” and as this spirit

“returns to God who gave it.” This is also the teaching of

Christ, w ho says that if we w ould follow h im w c m ust hate oursouls, and that “ no man has ascended into heaven save he who

came dow n from heaven, even the Son o f M an, which is

heaven.”

The transm igrating Lord occupies, indeed, bodies o f which

the character is casually and fatally determined, but he “never

becomes anyone” , and it fo llows that no one w ho is stillanyone can be “joined unto the Lord” so as to be “one spirit”.

For nothing that has had a beginning in time can come to be

immortal; if there is a way out it can only be in the realisationthat “I live, yet not I, but Christ (or Brahma, or by whateverother name wc speak o f God) in m e.”

Surely, before we discuss “Reincarnation” wc ought to besure that a doc trinc o f Reincarnation has been maintained by

anyone but the Thcosophists.AKC



M rs A. F. R hys Davids, Surrey, England, D irector o f the Pali Te st Society.

The article in question had appeared in Light (Londo n), LXI1, N o 3182,

January 8, 1942.

T o RUTH CAMPBELL

January 6, 1938

Dear Miss Campbell:

Many thanks for your kind letter and the careful attention you

have given my article. I shou ld like to say first that y ou r “ office

dogs” missed the point as regards “transmigration”. What Isaid was that reincarnation was not taught and represented an

impossibility. This does not exclude the validity of metemp-

sychosis on the one hand (for which by the way, “Hermes”

uses migration, no t (rammigration) and o f transm igration on

the other. I had th ou gh t I made it very clear that transm igration

has nothing to do with time or place, but takes place entirely

“ w ithin y ou ” , and is from the periphery to the centre o f being.

I believe this is made so clear in the article that only a rereading

is required.As to the “editorial” problem, how would it be to print the

first part in smaller type with a footnote to the effect that the

reader may prefer to read the second part first. I feel myself that

to scatter the first part through the second would too much

inte rrupt the sequence o f ideas; and that on the other hand it isvery necessary to in some way set aside our notions of

“philosophy” before we can begin to grasp the philosophia

perennis, the theme o f which is rather pneumatological than psychological, and gnostic rather than epis temological.

I might add that a “limitation by Christianity” would not

stand in the w ay o f understanding, if this “ Christianity” were areal know ledge (o f Ch ristianity as understood by Dionysius,

Bonaventura, Thomas and Witelo, as well as Eckhart). Myexperiences of “Christians” is that it is very rare to meetw ith one w ho has any real conception o f w hat “ C hristianity”means.

Perhaps you would let me know your view on these notes.



Ruth Campbell, assistant editor of The American Scholar (the Phi Beta Kappaquarterly), New York, USA.‘The Vedanta and the Western Tradition’, The American Scholar, VIII, 1939.

A n o n y m o u s

Date uncertain

Sir:

Apropos o f your remarks on Reincarnation in your issue of June 4, may I say that I am rather familiar with Plato, Plotinus, Philo, Hermes, etc, and that my writings abound with citations

from these authors. I share the view o f Rene Guenon that all apparent references to reincarnation o f the individual on this earth arc to be understood metaphorically. This was also the

view of Hierocles, stated in his Commentary on the Golden Versesof Pythagoras, V.53. Passages can be cited also from Christian and Islamic authors which appear to enunciate a doctrine o f reincarnation, yet cannot and do not really do so.

An adequate treatment o f the subjcct would take a large

book. It must first be realized that in the traditional philosophy our everyday life is not a being but a becoming, a perpetual dying and being reborn; that is one kind o f “reincarnation” . Then that from the same point o f view a man is “reborn” in his children, who will represent him when he himself has transmigrated elsewhere. And finally, that both the Vedanta, and in connection with the doctrinc o f “Recollection”, Plato maintained that it is not the individual soul, but the Universal Self that transmigrates, entering into every form o f existence whatever; in the words o f Sankara, “Verily, there is none but the Lord that transmigrates.” We cannot, in fact, even begin to discuss the problem until wc have arrived at some understand-

ing o f the question “Who and what am ‘I’?” Before we can ask whether or not “we” reincarnate or transmigrate, we must make it clear to which o f the “two selves”, mortal or immortal, that all traditions, whether Greek, Christian or Oriental assume to coexist in “us” , w e are referring. Most o f the Indian texts

that seem to speak o f a “reincarnation” are cither descriptive o f this present life, or any kind o f living, or rather o f the Life that is common to all things, and passes on from one to another



w ith absolute impartiality. T ha t is no t, o f course, to deny tha t a

laity, taking for granted an identity o f the individual soul

throughout life, have never assumed that this “soul” or

“personality” reincarnates; we simply mean to say thatsuch a

point o f view is unorthodox, w hether in West or East.

1canno t, o f course, agree with you that East is East and West

is West, as was said by K ipling, o f w ho m the late F. W. Bainremarked that “Hindu India was for him a book scaled with

seven seals.” There is, indeed, a gu lf dividing w hat is

“modern” from what is truly Oriental; but that is not a

geographical distinction, or one that could have been recog-

nized before the fourteen th century. All that Kipling m eant was

that he had never understood the East. M ay I com m end to you

Rene Guenon’s East and West, and in particular the chapterentitled “Agreement on Principles”? There are many different

ways o f saying the same thing, bu t [this] does not imply

contradictory truths. In your view, either the East or the West

m ust be all wro ng ; and that is only really true if we are

contrasting, not East and West, but the modern antitraditional

world with the traditional cultures based on universal princi-

ples.

A KC

T o PROFESSOR E. R. DODDS

June 19, 1942

Dear Professor Dodds:

M any thanks for you r letter o f May 8. I agree that P lato’s

“mortal soul” cannot be reincarnated. His “imortal soul” is

essentially the “ divine p art” o f us. If this perpetually reincar-nates it is in its universal aspect and ju st in the sense tha t for the

Vedanta, “God is the only transmigrator, forsooth” (Sankaraon Brahma Sutra 1.1.5, and supported by innumerable texts).

HenGe Katha Upanishad speaks of those who are liberated as“filled for embodiment in the worlds”—that would be in the

sense that for Plato “Soul” (not a soul) “governs all things”.But the divine extension which is temporally determined by agiven individuality (by association with a mortal psycho-



physical becoming) can be libera ted from its necessitas coactionis

and then operates only according to necessitas injallibilitatis, ie,its own nature as it is in itself.

If “ w e” can identify our consciousness o f being w ith it in this

free aspect, then “we” are liberated from “reincarnation” in

any pejorative sense. And finally, this is the absolute liberation: because the w orld process itself is part and parcel o f our way o f

thinkin g and from the eternal and divine poin t o f view is no t a

process but G od’s knowledge o f him self now evcr and apart

from the time that is a factor in any concept o f reincarnation.

I believe that this, and the related doctrine of anamnesis are

tw o points in which the agreement o f Plato and Vedanta is most

fundamental. Anamnesis, furthermore, makes pronoia intelligi-

ble; since it precisely an omnip re sence o f “ soul” (ie, “ spirit”) toall things that implies omniscience or “Providence” (Skr,

prajna, equivalent of pronoia etymologically and in meaning).

Sincerely,

E. R. D od ds, lecturer in classics, Un iversity College, Reading, and au tho r o f

Select Passage Illustrating Neoplatonism, London, 1923.

To H.G. RAWLINSON, CIE

December 6, 1946

Dear Rawlinson:

I think I am familiar with all the passages where dipa means

“ lam p” , or means “island”, or is amb iguous. The am biguity isno t im po rtan t at D .II. 101; the p oint is that atta-sarana viharatha

is an injunction to “ so walk as having Self for refuge” . C f S. III.

143, “Take refuge in the Self’; D.II. 120: “I (Buddha) have

made self my refuge; Vis, 393 and Vin 1. 23: “Seek for theS e lf’. Surely one does no t as a Bu ddhist resort to o r take refugein the com posite self “ that is not m y S el f’ (na me so atta,

passim).Besides all that, there are many contexts in which there is a

clear distinction o f the tw o selves: D h 380 (Self the L ord andGoal o f self); A. 1.149, 249, 4.9 (the Great or Fair, distingu ishedfrom the little or foul self); UdA 340 (Self identified w ith



Tathagata); J.6.2 53 (Self the C harioteer); also the many passages on being “ Self guarded” or “ Selfb lamed” , in all o fwhich cases one must remember that nil agit in seipsum.

I’m just now writing a longish piece on “reincarnation”,arguing that it was never anywhere a doctrine, but only a

popula r belief, bound up w ith belief in the Ego o f which theBu ddha denied the reality; in the case o f Buddhism , I agree

w ith scholars like T. W. Rhys Davids, B. C. Law, D. T.

Suzuki, etc, all o f w ho m deny that reincarnation was a

Bu ddh ist doctrine. Incidentally, the word itself does no t appear

in English before 1850, and it smacks o f “T heosop hy ” .

Very glad to hear you got over your illness.

Very sincerely,

H. G. Rawlinson, identified on p. 39.

“ Reincarnation” w as incomplete at the tim e o f A K C’s death and has not

been published.

To WILLIAM ERNEST HOCKING

February 1942

Dear Professor Hocking:

Further with respect to reincarnation: while it would beimpossible to treat the whole subject adequately in a letter, it

does occur to me to say that very m any texts o f the

Upanishads, etc, only appear to assert a reincarnation (in thenow accepted sense o f the word) only because we have that

no tion in ou r minds. You will be able, o f course, to refer to

Bhagavad Gita 11.22, which I suppose most readers would thinko f as a statem ent abou t reincarnation. But observe that Platoand Eckhart use almost the same words, with respect to thenature o f this present life itself. T hus , Phaedo 87D, E: “eachsoul wears o ut m any bodies, especially if the man lives manyyears. For i f the bo dy is constantly, chang ing and being

destroyed while the man still lives, and the soul is alwaysweaving anew that which wears out, then when the soul perishes, it m ust necessarily have on its last garm ent” (the case



for the sou l’s not perishing resting, o f course, upon the fact that

it survives each o f these changes o f garment, and if so, w hy notthe last o f them?). And Eckhart (Pfieffer, p 530) “ A ug ht is

suspended from the divine essence; its progression is matter,

w herein the soul puts on new forms and puts o ff her old ones.

The change from one into the other is her death, and the onesshe dons she lives in ” . In H um e’s . . . Upanishads, he oftenassumes that the subject is “this man” when it is really “Man”,

and hence he thinks that we reincarnate, w hen really, as Sankara

says, “There is, in truth, no other transmigrant than the Lord.”

Very sincerely,

William Ernest H ocking was professor o f philosophy at Harvard University.

To WILLIAM RALPH INGE

Date uncertain

Dear Mr Inge:

As regards karma, literally act, “work”, it is most importantto recognize that this concep t has no inevitable connection with

the doctrine o f “ reincarnation” . Buddh ism does not differ from

other traditional religions in holding that “nothing happens by

chance”. That is, every happening has antecedent causes, and

becomes in its turn a cause o f subsequent events. Karma then,as implying hetu-vada, literally “aetiology” per se, involves

nothin g bu t a doctrine o f the invincible operation 'of “ mediate

causes” , and m igh t be described as ju st as much a Christian as

an Indian doctrine—just as also krtva = potentiality, and

krtatrtyah (Pali katam karanityam )= “all in act” . Perhaps as

good an enunciation o f karma as one could w ish for is St

Augustine’s “as a mother is pregnant with the unbornoffspring, so the w orld itse lf is pregn ant w ith the causes o f

unborn beings” (De Trin III.9; cf also St Th om Aquinas, Sum

Theol I. 115.2 ad 4).

If one believes in “ reincarna tion” , then o f course one thinks

o f it in term s o f this same causality that governs the presentlyobserved sequence o f events. B ut karma does no t presuppose“reincarnation” (as ordinarily understood). What Buddhist or



H indu liberation is “ from ” is precisely “ becom ing” , present or

future, ie, from mutability; body and soul (as also pointed out

by St Augustine) being mutable; and in accordance w ith the

w hole traditional philosophy for which the use o f the w ord“is”, implying being, is improper for anything that changes. In

precisely the same way fo r Buddhism , the body and the soulare “not my Self’.

Hence the necessity o f sclfnaughting (denegat seipsum) if one is

to “be oneSelf”—selfnaughting = Self realization. T he psycho-

physical personality , EG O , self, being subject to the operation

o f mediate causes, ie, “ fate” (cf St T ho m Aquin [Sum Theol

I—1.116, contra , 2] “ Fate is in the created causes thcmselves

. . . . fate is the ordering o f second causes to effects foreseen

by G od”). O nce the Ego illusions have been overcome, thew hole problem o f “ becom ing” , whether now or hereafter,

loses its meaning; explicitly, therefore, the Buddhist Arhant cannever ask: What was J? What shall I become? What am /? In

fact, for Christian and Islamic mystics equally, the words I, Is,

can p rope rly be said only o f God , and none else has any righ t to

say I am, though one may do so conventionally for purely

pragm atic purposes o f every day existence, but always w ith the

mental reservation that (as modern psychologists have alsorecognized) I is nothing but a postulate made for convenience

and reference to a sequence o f behaviours.

Sincerely,

William Ralph Inge, C V O , D D , w as Dean o f St Paul’s Cathedral. London,

H onorary Fellow o f Jesus College, Cam bridge; and o f Hertford College,

O xfo rd. He was a Lady Ma rgaret Professor o f Divinity at Cam bridge,

author of the two volume The Philosophy of Plotinus (London, 1923) and oneo f the m ost popu lar ecclesiastical w riters o f his day.

T o DONA LUISA COOMARASWAMY

1932

. . . The Rgveda teaches resurrection (in a glorified body),

no t reincarnation in the curren t sense of the word. It is doubtfulif “ reinca rnation” is taug ht even in Buddhism , w here it isexpressly emphasized that nothing (no thing) is carried over



from a past to a future existence, though the latter isdetermined by the former; ie, as far as births on earth are

concerned, it is another nama-rupa (individuality) that will reap

the rewards of our conduct. The expression “rebirth as ananim al” w ill then, for example, mean that if all men behaved in

a purely animal fashion, the result would be that in time,animals only would be born on earth, life as determined by

mediate causes (karma) would find none but animal expression

here.

Roughly speaking it is not the personality that is reincar-

nated, no t an individual but a type: Le roi est mort, vive le roi, not

Henry IV is mort, vive Henry IV. What is transmitted is not an

entity b ut a type o f energy (virya)-, practically, “seed”, as in

“ seed o f A b raham” . . . .

Do na Luisa Co om arasw am y, wife of AK C, spent two years in India

studying Hind i and Sanskrit. T he above was part o f a personal letter, from

which personal material has been deleted.

To WESLEY E. NEEDHAM

May 20, 1945

Deat Mr Needham:

M any thanks for letting m e see the readings. I agree with the

translation, except I would say “rite”, not “ceremony”. By no

means are all ceremonies rites, and while rites must be formal,

they need no t be ceremonious. I made m yself a copy, as thetransliteration will help with other Nepal texts.

I am afraid I distrust Theosophy as a whole, though in fact, I

had a high reg ard for M rs Besant personally. The no tion o f a personal physical rebir th is not orthodox Brahmanism or

original Buddhism, since there is no psychic constant “I” thatcould be reborn. I treat o f this briefly in my “ O ne and O nly

Transmigrant” ( J A O S Suppl 3, 1944, p 28), though a fullertreatment is needed. All scholars are agreed that a doctrine ofindividual physical rebirth is not Vedic, and this fact alone

should give one pause. I agree that some have been led toEastern thought through meeting with Theosophy, but the

best o f these have realized that they must go to the sources



themselves sooner or later. I am sure you will not mind my

stating m y exact position in the m atter, even if you differ!

Very sincerely,

Mr Wesley Needham, West Haven, Connecticut, USA.

To WILLIAM RALPH INGE

February 15, 1947

Dear Dean Inge:

It so happens that I am writing a book on “Reincarnation”.In your admirable work on Plotinus, I find the extraordinary

statement that in India there was “no deliverance from rebirth

(and) hence the Budd hist revolt against the do ctrine.” T he first

part o f this phrase seems to me to be entirely meaningless; andas regards the second, while it is true that in early Buddhism, it

is taught that reincarnation is not an ultimate truth, but only a

fa(on de parler bound up w ith the animistic belief in the reality o f

the mutable “self’; this cannot be called a “revolt”. I had towrite the little footnote that is attached.

I do feel that one oug ht n ot to speak at all of oth er religions

than one’s ow n unless one has a knowledge o f their scriptures

com parable to that w hich one has o f one ’s ow n. Th is is

especially true as regards Indian religions, where one who does

not read Sanskrit or Pali has to rely on translations made by

scholars who are themselves usually nominalists and rational-ists, quite ignorant o f the technical terms o f theolog y and

metaphysics. The result o f relying on them is only to add to the

already too prevalent misunderstandings. In my own writings,in which I constantly correlate India, etc, doctrines with

Christian, what I say is based on reading the Christian sourcesin Latin and Greek, and never on what nonChristians mayhave said “about” Christianity. Do you not think thatChristian writers ought to feel a similar responsibility whenspeaking of the teachings of other religions?

Footnote: As regards your question, whether the concept ofRegeneration (transformation, resurrection or other equivalent



phrasing) is absent from any Eastern religion, I could only

answer “ N o ” for Islam, H induism and Buddhism, so far as my

positive knowledge goes. But it w ould certain ly surp rise me ifthis idea could be show n to be or have been wan ting anyw here,

even in “primitive religions”.

I kn ow my letter was strongly worded ; still, it could be that,even i f it gave you a “shock” , that m ight have its uses; a shock

is perhaps ju st w hat m ost Christians need at the present day.

Anyhow, many thanks for your kind and gentle reply. And

incidentally, I am sending you a little boo k o f mine, ju st out,

and in which som e o f these matters are touch ed on.

What I say above, by the way, docs not exclude the

possib ility o f m akin g sincere mistakes in one’s positive

interpretation o f the doctrines o f another form o f religion; forexample, Bernard Kelley tells me I somewhat misinterpretedthe Christian m eaning o f “ transubstantiation” ; in reply, I told

him by all means to correct m e in his review. And as I have also

said before, I natu rally agree that the necessity for a confutation

o f heresies m ay arise anywhere; as the cthym ology o f the w ord

is, o f thinking wha t one likes to think instead o f the sometimes

hard things that one ought to think.

Very sincerely,

William Ralph Inge, identified p. 126.

Bernard Kelley, identified p. 20.

Figures o f Speech or Figures o f Thought, London, 1946.

To BERNARD KELLY

February 10, 1947

Dear Bernard Kelly:

Yours o f 4.2.46 with two citations from Hinduism and

Buddhism. As regards “the universal is real, the particularunreal”, I don’t think we need have much trouble. I wasequating reality with being. So I mean what St Augustine

means w hen he says o f created things that Te comparata nec pulchra, nec bona, nec sunt. Such being as they have, such realitytherefore, is by participation, not o f themselves. “Exis-



tent” = ex alio sistens. Again Augustine (Conf VII. 11): essequidem, quoniam abs te sunt, non esse autem, quoniam id quod es nonsunt. Moreover, at least “in so far as men are sinners, they have

not being at all” (St Thom, Sum Theol 1.20.2 and 4). The

general principle I have in mind is that things that are always

changing (like body and soul), St Augustine, Sermo 241 2.2;3.3, cf Conf 7.11: “that trully is, which doth immutably

rem ain”— it cannot be said o f them that they are.Secondly, on the question w hether the imm ortality o f a

created soul is conceivable. I had supposed that is an in-

violable axiom, that “whatever has a beginning must have an

end”, also that mutability and mortality are inseparable—“all

change is a dying” (Plato, Eckhart, etc). So we attribute

immutability, immortality, and no beginning to God. My point in saying “ im possib le” w ould be that G od cannot do

anyth ing con trary to his ow n nature, and that to accuse H im (as

I shou ld express it) o f making anything at a given time that

should not also end in time would amount to a kind of

blasphemy, based on a false in te rpreta tion o f the principle that

“all things arc possible with God”, which possibility does not

actually include selfcontradiction, such as would be involved

if, for example, wc thoug ht o f H im as making things that have been not have been.

If the “ soul” (as St Augustine and the Buddha say) is

mutable, never selfsame from moment to moment, what can

one mean by “its” immortality? What is “it”? Surely, like my

own personal name, only a word which conveniently summa-

rizes a sequence o f chang ing behaviour and experiences. I have

always, o f course, in m ind the trinity o f bod y, soul and spirit;

the latter is the Spirit o f God that becom es the spirit o f man (St

T hom Aquinas, sum Theol 1.38.2) which we “give up when we

die” (as Ps 104, 29; Eccl 12, 7). W hen Jesus died he “ gave up the

ghost” (John 19, 30), and so do other men (Acts V.5 etc). If,then, we w ould be imm ortal, we m ust be born again o f theSpirit, “ and that w hich is born o f the Spirit is Spirit” (John III,3—8, c f I C o r VI, 17); in the m ean time ou r con tinued existencedepends on the continued presence o f the G iver (StBonaventura I Sent d 37, p 1, al, conc). As in Prasna Upanishad

V I.3: it is a question o f “ in w ho m shall I be departing” (inmyself, or in the Self of the self, or Soul of the soul). I do notneed to tell you that psyche and psychikos are generally speaking



pejo rative te rms in the N ew Testament, or that the W ord of Godextends to “ the severing o f soul from Spirit” . I could quo te

much more, but in sum I cannot see what authority there is for

the supposition that anything created can never cease‘to exist;

and if you could point to one, it wou ld irrevocably show that

the truths o f reason and the truth o f Christian revelation cannever be reconciled, which for me would be a horrible

conclusion, since I hold that both are from Him.

Kindest regards,

Bernard Kelly, Windsor, England; identified on p. 20.

To DR P. F. VAN DEN DAELE

September 30, 1946

Dear Sir:

I appreciate your inquiry, but I suppose I must say that 1

cannot agree with your philosophy. I certainly hold with theTraditional philosophy that “nothing in the world happens by

chance” . I can only think about free will on the basis o f thetraditional doctrine duo sunt in homine (Ego and Self, Outer and

Inner Man), which doctrine is presupposed in all such

expressions as “selfcontrol”, “selfgovernment”, “be your-

self’; these imply the duality because one and the same thing

cannot be both active and passive at one and the same time in

the same relations. For me, free will means willingness to obey

the dictates o f the inner man, whateve r the likes or dislikes of

the outer man might drive him to “choose” or “prefer”.As to whether phenomena are “illusions” depends a good

deal on w hat w e mean by “ illusions” . It must be adm itted that

things are not always what they seem to be, and in such cases

(the skeptic and Vedantic example being that o f the rope

mistaken for a snake) the phenom enon as it presents itself iscertainly illusory. It has always been recognized, too, that because o f the ceaseless change that all things in tim e and space

und ergo , it cannot be truly said that they are, but only that they become. The w ord phenom ena always implies an “o f” ;appearances, but “ o f w hat?” A ny reality the phenomena have



m ust derive from the reality o f that “o f w hich ” the phenomena

are the appearances. “Evolution”, too, involves the question,

“unfolding of what?”On this subject see my article in the currcnt issue of Main

Currents (“Gradation, Evolution and Reincarnation”). On the

whole, I think it best that I return your booklets.

Very sincercly,

Dr P. F. van Den Daele, D. C. Battle Creek, Michigan, USA, had written

to AKC to enlist his support for his ‘new philosophy’, the ‘Absolute and

Relative Philosophy’, which among other points held that ‘phenomena in all

their endless variations are not illusions but a grand reality. . .’, and that

‘chancc is not an unscientific concept, but that it plays an important part in

the vast dram a o f evolution thro ug ho ut this entire universe. . . .’‘Gradation, Evolution and Reincarnation’, Main Currents in Modern Thought,

IV, 1946; reprinted in Blackfriars, XXVII, 1948.

To BERNARD KELLY

April 9, 1947

Dear Bernard Kelly:

. . . As regards “ soul” , surely it will depend on which o f thesenses in w hich the w ord is used whethe r or not it be anathema

to deny its imm ortality. O ne cannot overlook that the W ord o f

God “extends to the sundering o f soul from Spirit” (Heb

IV, 12). Now, it is God “who only hath immortality” (I Tim

VI, 16). C an, therefore, anything b ut “ the Spirit o f God (that)

dw ellcth in yo u” (I C or III, 16) be imm ortal? This Spirit is the

Psych opom p; surely there is no hope o f imm ortality for thesoul as such, bu t only if she dies and is reborn in and o f the

Spirit? When St Paul says “I live, yet not I, but Christ [liveth] in

m e” he is expressly denying himself, and one can associate “ his”immortality with the saying “no one hath ascended intoheaven, save he which came down from heaven, even the Son

o f (the) M an w hich is in heaven ” . So, while there is a sense inwhich one can speak o f m an ’s “ imm ortal sou l” , I think tha t in

view o f the fact that m en arc mo st unconscious o f theam biguity o f the w ord psyche and still more unaware of the pejo ra tive im plications o f the w ord psychikos, and the fact that



in these days men are only too ready to be “lovers o f their ownselves” (II Tim 111, 2), it is much safer to think and speak of

ou r souls as mortal, and to think only o f the “g ho st” that we“give up” at death as immortal. This Spirit is that in us which

knows, and cannot pass away. It is diversified by its accidents

(naturing) in Tom, Dick and Harry, but “ye are all one inC hris t” . The Spirit is not even hypo thetically destructible.

I am so glad to know that after your 18 month’s “grind” you

are now really enjoying its fruits. It is, indeed, absolutely

indispensable to learn to th ink in Sanskrit to some extent, ie, to

be able to use certain te rms directly, w ithout putting them onto

English “ equivalents”, no one o f which can com municate their

full content; and as soon as one can do this (however many

“aids” one still needs in continuous reading) one begins at onceto see a great deal that had otherwise been overlooked.

I have been losing time lately by a cold that saps one’s

energy; and besides that is seems impossible to cope with halfthe things I ought to be doing.

Kindest regards,

Bernard Kelly, Windsor, England, identified p. 20.

To PROFESSOR JOSEPH L. MCNAMARA

May 7, 1943

Dear' D r M cNamara:

M any thanks for your letter and appreciation. As to the mainquestion, is it no t one o f the relation o f the On e to the Many?As to this, “He is one as he is in himself, but many as he is his

children.” Put down a dot on paper; assume it to be the centreo f a circle. Ev iden tly the radii o f such a circle cannot be w itho ut

the centre, but it can be without them, both before they aredrawn and after they are rubbed out; evidently, then, the radiiare less “essential” than the centre in which all participate.

Individuality, the psychophysical entity, is a process ratherthan an essence. It includes “consciousness”, ic, perception,etc. All this is a means, not an end in itself (is it not so, indeed,



in our own experience, whenever a man “devotes” himself

entirely to any end beyond this se lf s advantage?) In this sense,

“individuality” would appear to persist throughout the states

o f being “ und er the sun ” , ie, w ithin the cosmos; it always

implies som e degree o f limitation, o f course. What it means to

be free o f all such limitation is “ ineffable” ; but a becoming more

cannot be equated with an annihilation o f the original less. It is

the same awareness o f being that says “ J am ” , and that having

outgrown that stage can say “J am (“yet not ‘I’, but . . .”).

The individuality becomes an evil only when we make it an

end in itself, rather than a tool or means to the Inner Man who

“wears” it. When it serves him, like a well trained horse, or as

in the pup pet symbolism, then indeed one can think o f it as

“ sanctified” ; and each o f the tw o selves “ lends its e lf ’ to theother.

As to “ reb irth” . If we are thinking o f births on this earth

and in general, we can only say that reb irth is o f the imm anent

Self, the ultimate reality of every man’s Inner man. But you

have the individual in mind. This individual dies and is reborn

every moment, and by analogy should be reborn after the

special case that w e call death o r decease. I f so, still as an

individual, until the regular process of rising “ on stepping

stones o f ou r dead selves” leaves us w ith awareness o f being the

Self itself o f all beings— the last “ reb irth” (“ regeneration”).

This is no t, o f course, a complete answer. “ N ob od y” is a

“ bo dy ” o f which no thing can be affirmed; free from all lim iting

affirmations (de-ftni-tions). I think the surviving “identity” towhich you “ cling” is simply that o f the valid and indefeasible

awareness o f essence—“ Th at art tho u” , w here art impliesessence.

I felt a little prejudice against Th e Return o f the Hero, at first,as being a literary treatm en t o f traditional material, the work o f

a “literateur”. But I think it is beautifully done, and like it; it

seems to m e a legitimate “ developm ent” o f the material,without distortion; and there is much excellent doctrine voiced

by Oisin , whose account o f Tirnanog is as good a “ descrip-

tion” o f heaven as one could have g ot (where all descriptionmust be symbolic). Thanks for sending it.

In the May C A T . . . sent you, do read Margaret Mead. . . .



Jospch L. McNamara, Roslindale, Massachusetts, USA.The Return of the Hero, a novel by Darrell Figgis, New York, 1930.C A T = Catholic Art Journal.

ANONYMOUS

Date uncertain

Sir:

In the July issue o f JP, p 371, Karl Schmidt referring to the expression “master o f m yself’ implies that this is an inexplicit and indeterminate conception. It is, on the contrary, explicit in the traditional philosophy that there are two in us, and what

they arc. I need only cite Plato, Republic 604D; IiCor IV, 16, isqui forts est\ St Thomas Aquinas, Sum Theol IIII.26.4, in homitteduo sunt, scilicet natura spiritualis et natura corporalis; and call to mind the Indian (Brahmanical and Buddhist) doctrine o f the two selves, mortal and immortal, that dwell together in us. In all these literatures the natures and character o f the two selves arc treated at great length, and the importance o f the resolution

of their inner conflict emphasized; no man being at pcace with

himself until an agreement has been readied as to which shall rule. In this philosophy w e are unfrec to the extent that our willing is determined by the desires o f the outer man, and free to the extent that the outer man has learnt to act, not for himself, but as the agent o f the inner man, our real Self.

It is hardly true, then to propound that “The saying does not comit itself* to the statement that there arc two in us, or explain what these two are. Further, innumerable phrases still current in English preserve the doctrine of the two selves; for example, such as “self-control”, “self-composure”, “conscience” , “self-possession” . It is in connection with “selfgovernment” that Plato points out that there must be two in us; since the same thing cannot function both actively and passively at the same time and in the same connection.

Yours very truly,

The two passages that follow are taken from AKC’s manuscript notes or from other letters, and are included here for the bearing they have on “ the two in us.”



We are never told that the mutable soul is im m orta l in the sameway that God is immortal, but only “in a certain way”(secundum quemdam modum, St Augustine, Ep 166, 2131).

Quomodo? “in one way only, viz, by continuing to become;

since thus it can always leave behind it a new and other natureto replace the old” Plato, Symposium, 207D). It is incorrect to

speak o f the soul indiscriminately as “ im m orta l” , ju st as it is

incorrect to call anyone a genius; man has an immortal soul, as

he has a Genius, but the soul can only be immortalised by

returning to its source, that is to say by dying; and man

becomes a Genius only when he is no longer “h im self’.

With respect to the word “soul” (psyche, anima, Heb nefes)

translated sometimes by “life” ( Luke XIV, 26, “and hate nothis own life also”; John XII, 25: “Hatcth his own life in theworld”). Do not forget that this world usually denotes “the

animal sentient principle only” (Strong, Concordance, Gk

dictionary, p 79) and is sharply to be distinguished from the

“Spirit” (pneuma), spiritus, Heb ruah, as in Heb XIV, 12: “the

dividing asunder o f soul and spirit” . In place of the w ord

“spirit” can be used such expressions as “ Soul o f the soul” (so

Philo); the word “soul” is ambiguous, and before the usage

became precise we often find “ soul” employed (as in Plato)

where “spirit” must be understood. In any case, one mustalways consider the context; in general the Gospels are not at all

enthusiastic about the kind o f soul that the psycholo gis t is

concerned abou t, and Ju ng ’s “man in search o f a sou l” is

looking for something that the religions want to have done

with once and for all.

To THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY

1939

Sir:

. . . no valid distinction can be drawn between jiv an-m ukti

and videha mukti. . . . That “deliverance can be obtained in the

earthly life as in every other state” docs not mean that it is with“earthly mindways” that perfection can be obtained; it meansthat these can be discarded now. “That art thou” was never said



o f “this man” as he is in himself. And i f the bodily functions of the vimutto persist, this is a “reality” rather for others than for him, who is no longer “alive” in the common sense, but much rather Rumi’s “dead man walking.”

The latter excerpt was part of a letter of AKC in response to a commu-nication from Mrs C. A. F. Rhys David; see journal of the American Oriental Society, vol LXIX, pp. 11011, for the full exchange.

To FATHER MARTIN C. D’ARCY, SJ

April 20, 1947

Dear Father D ’Arcy:

Writing recently to a Roman Catholic friend in England, I

expressed m yse lf as very much disappointed in your Mind and Heart of Love not only becausc it treats the subject only from the

standpoint o f the European tradition, ignoring the enormous

Sufi and Indian literature on the subject (let me mention only

Dara Shikuh’s equation o f ‘ishqwith maya, and Rumi’s “What

is love? Thou shalt know when thou becomest me'*!) but more especially with reference to Chapter VII, “ Anima and Animus”, m which the traditional values o f these terms are completely ignored, which seemed to me very strange in a Jesuit author. You begin with a ridiculous parable from Claudel, who is nothing but a pseudomystic, and has no idea o f the correct use of theological terms. For anima and animus, William of Thierry’s Golden Epistle, pp 50 and 51, is a good source; he

says, eg, “For while it is yet

anima, it lightly becometh

effeminate, even to being fleshy, but animus ttel spiritus hath no thoughts o f anything save o f the manly and the spiritual”, and also that this mens vel spiritus is precisely the imago Dei in us. For the terms anima and animus earlier, see Cicero, De nat deorumIII. 14, 36; Acad II.7.22; Tusc 1.22.52, Cum igitur nosce te dicit, hocdicit , nosce animum tuum, and V. 13.38: Cum decerptus ex mentedivina. Also Accidius, Trag 296, Sapimus animo, fruima anima, sine animo, anima est debilis. Jung, o f course, uses the terms in a

special way o f his own, not incorrect in itself, but not in accordance with the traditional meanings.

Obviously, the animus vel spiritus is the “Soul o f the soul” (a



phrase th at fo r Philo and the Sufus often paraphrases “ spirit” )

[and] is the pro pe r object o f Selflove, as in St Tho m asAquinas, Sum Theol IIII.26.4: “ a man ou t o f charity, oug ht to

love h im se lf more than he loves any oth er person . . .’ more

than his neighbour.”

Th is tradition o f true Selflove (the antithesis o f Selflove = selfishness) runs back to Aristotle, Plato, and Euripides(Helen 999); in the East, cf Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.5, for

which there is an exact parallel in Plato, Lysis 219D 220B.

Th at you ignore the traditional meanings o f the terms animus and

anima seems to m e to take all the sense out o f your dep recation

o f “wissenschaftliche distinctions” on p 16, and seems to me to

show that such distinctions cannot be ignored w ithou t resultant

confusion, such as one sees in Claudel, in whose parable anima’ sSECRET LOVE CAN ONLY BE THE WORL D1.

I cannot but wonder, too, where you get your information

abo ut the sw astika (p 50) “ as an emb lem o f resignation ” ; such

rash statements ought never to be made without full discussion

and c itation o f authorities, if any. The swastika is a solarsymbol. Also on p 189, you confuse suttee (a formal sacrifice)

w ith m ere suicide, which last is condem ned by all traditions; cf

Evola, Rivolta contra il mondo moderno, chapter on “Uomo e

donna”.


Father M artin D ’Arcy, S J, som etime m aster o f Ca m pion Hall, O xfo rd and

later head o f the Jesuits in En gland. In his day, he was on e o f the m ore

popula r ecclesiastical auth ors , and w rote The Mind and Heart o f Love,

London, 1947. Paul L. Claudel, French poet and diplomat.

Rivolta contro il mondo moderno, Jacques Evola, 1934. This chapter wastranslated by Zlata Llamas (Dona Luisa) Coomarawamy, AKC’s wife,

and pub lished as ‘M an and W om an ’ in The Visva-Bharati Quarterly, vol V, pt

iv, FebA pril 1940, w ith a brie f introd uctio n by A KC.

William o f St Thierry, The Golden Epistle o f Abbot William o f St Thierry,

translated by Walter Shewring, and published in 1930.



T o FATHER MARTIN C. D’ARCY, SJ

May 2, 1947


Many thanks for your kind letter in reply to mine. I read it very carefully. As regards the main point, I cannot but retain my strong objection to the use of established terms in new senses; at the least, unless the writer makes it perfectly dear that he knows what he is doing, and states in so many words that he is using the terms in a new sense. Thus when Jung calls animathe “soulimage” as envisioned by men and animus the “soulimage” as envisaged by women, he has a right to express his concept, but not the right to use these terms in a way that distorts their wellknown meanings, according to which—man consisting of body, soul and spirit— animais “soul” and animus “spirit”.

When you say you were aware of this, but “could not acccpt” the traditional usage, would it not have been better to make this clear, instead o f leaving the reader to wonder whether or not you were aware—as Claudel, whom you seem

to quote with approval, certainly cannot have been. It seems to

me that if you are writing as a priest, you have no right to say you “cannot accept” the terms o f traditional theology; that you might do if writing as an independent psychologist, expressing individual opinion. I am not a priest, still I will not take such liberties; where there is a consensus o f doctrine on the part of philosophers and theologians throughout many ccnturics, and in the diverse traditions, I regard it as primary business to understand, and in turn to write as an exegctc, concerned with

the transmission o f true doctrine. In any case, it is only when one adheres to the precise meanings o f theological terms both in East and West that one can make any valid or fruitful comparisons.

I quoted Cicero, not as a primary source, but as illustrating usage. In your reply, you do not take notice o f my further citation o f William o f Thierry, whose usage is the same and whose expressions are animus vel spiritus, and mens vel spiritus. When St Thomas Aquinas says that it is a man’s primary duty, in charity, to love himself, ie, his Inner Man (or as Philo and Plato would have said, the “Man in this man”), this is the same



Christian literature in which the Godhead is spoken o f as a “desert”, or nihill). Nirvana, then, is spoken o f as “annihila-

tion”, regardless o f the fact that it was a state realized by the Buddha when a comparatively young man, and that he lived a long, full and active life for very many years thereafter. If he

refused to define the nature o f the being or nonbeing after death o f one who like himself had realized Nirvana in this life (the word means literally “despiration” and implies what Angelus Silesius meant by his “Stirb ehe du stirbst ”, and Muhammed by his “Die before you die”) it is because, as a Christian might have expressed it, such are “dead and buried in the Godhead”, or “their life is hid in God”; of Whom, in accordance with the via negativa, nothing true can be said except negatively.

Nirva (the verb) corresponds to . . . the tw o

English senses o f the expression “to be finished”, all perfection involving a kind o f death, inasmuch as the attainment of beingimplies the cessation o f process o f becoming, and in the same way that for one who is “all in fact” there is nothing more that “need be done”. Further, Nirvana has applications even in “secular” contexts: thus a woman’s marriage to an ideal husband is referred to as a “nirvana”; in this case, the “death” is

that o f the maiden who is no more, ie, has “died” as such, when

she enters into the new state o f being, that o f woman and wife. So too in the successive stages of the training of a royal stallion (a common analogy of the training of a disciple), each is referred to as a nirvana, until finally the colt is no more and the stallion remains. I have given this example at length because it very well illustrates the absolute necessity of knowing the original sources if one is to cite the technical terms of another religion than one’s own. I follow this rule myself, and hardly

ever quote translations (even of the New Testament) from Greek without considering the original text and the usage of the terms in question in other contexts.

As regards the svastika , I think it a pity that you quoted King on the subject at all; it is a good thing that you did not use the svastika as a symbol o f “passive love” . Incidentally, his queer spellings of Indian words (Saeti for Sakti, Vichnaivas for Vaishnavas) are an indication o f the vagueness o f his scho-larship.

I shall send on your letter, or a copy, to my R. C. friend whom I spoke of. He has learnt Sanskrit recently for the



purpose o f makin g m ore accurate corre la tion w ith Chris tian

doctrines, and tells me how much more he now finds in the Bhagavad Gita than he has been able to get from any translation.

On the whole, I am inclined to think that in the interests of

truth (and that concerns us all, since “Truth” has been a name

o f God alike in Christianity, Islam, H induism and Buddhism )one should refrain from making any, especially any pejorative

statements about “other religions” unless one knows their

literature a lmost as well as one kn ow s those o f one ’s own.

Very sincerely,

Father M artin Cy ril D ’Arcy, S. J., as above.

To FATHER MARTIN C. D’ARCY, SJ

May 27, 1947


It is no d ou bt true tha t w e take different views o f the full

meaning o f the wo rd “ tradition” , but this wou ld not affect the

criticism I had to make o f you r use of the term s Anim a and A nim us; my point there had to do only with the Western, ie,classical and Christain tradition, and in fact, with what might

be called the lexicographical tradition. M y objection was also to

you r use o f Claudel, and citations from King, both o f w ho m I

can only regard as “misty” mentalities.

I must confess that I see no difficulty whatever in under-standing the two contrasting senses in which the expression

“selflove” is used, in classical, Christain and Eastern contextsequally.

W hat I do no t understand is how you can form a judg em en to f the validity o f my “equivalents” , unless you are, as I am,

familiar with both original sources and contexts. I am quite awareo f the necessity for distinguishing betw een real and apparent“equivalents”; nevertheless, the latter are far too many to beignored. Moreover, no one denied that there are some truths

enunciated in other than the Christian religion—and as StAmbrose says, “Whatever is true, by whomsoever it has been said, is from the H oly G hos t” , and St Th om as A quinas (I I Sent disp



28, q i, a 4 and 4) grants the possibility o f a divine inspiration even o f “barbarians”.

I know there is nothing to be gained by treating these problems as a matter o f argument between ourselves. What seems to me clear, however, is that an Oriental scholar seeking

further information about the Christian doctrine o f love could not safely rely on what you have said.

I duly sent a copy o f your first letter to my R. C. friend in England and will only quote from his reply:

Consulting experts on Eastern thought will not do. One should be ashamed to speak about a tradition with scriptures as ancient as one’s own without a thorough familiarity with originals. Otherwise one’s only valid line—and theologically

it can be very useful—is to show why such and such a conception (whether or not anyone really uses it in the way one thinks) is wrong.

This was, approximately, the point o f the latter part o f my

preceeding letter.

Martin Cyril D’Arcy, SJ, as above.

Bernard Kelly, identified p. 20.

To FATHER GERALD VANN, OP

July 12, 1947

Dear Brother Vann:

Many thanks for your kind letter and the book. There is little or nothing in the latter I cannot agree with, or could not support from other sources, beginning with the praise of what St Thomas Aquinas calls the best form of the activc life, teaching, and all that Plato means by the illuminated philo-sopher’s duty to return to the cave—in action—but otherwise minded than before. Apropos o f the “Eternal N ow ” (p 193), I think my Time and Eternity (an exposition o f the doctrine from

Greek, Indian, Islamic and Christian sources) will interest you. I hcartedly agree with your “Remember the Mass . . . blessed” (on p 140). The Mass is like the Vedic sacrifice, a symbolic



personal immolation; and th ough it was undertaken only by the

three upper castes, it was not for their own good alone, for:

As hungry children sit around

About their mother here in life,

E'en so all beings sit aroundThe Agnohotra sacrifice.

Chandogya upanishad V.24.4

For, indeed, the creatures who may not take part in Sacrifice

arc forlorn; and therefore he makes those creatures here on

earth that are not forlorn, take part in it: behind the men are

the beasts, and behind the Gods arc the birds, the plants and

the trees; and thus all that here exists is made to participate in

the sacrifice.Satapatha Brahmana 1.5, 2.4

I am glad you have nothing to say in this book about other

religions” , o f w hich so few Christian apologists have any

firsthand knowledge. In exegesis, I think one should cite other

traditions only when one knows them firsthand, and only

when they throw light on the point to be made. My Roman

Catholic friend in England who has learnt Sanskrit lately

expressly in o rder to see for him self w hat is really said in theSanskrit scriptures writes to me (and here I agree with him

heartily):

Consulting experts on Eastern thought will not do. One

should be ashamed to speak about a tradition with scripturesas ancient as one’s own without a thorough familiarity with

originals. Otherwise one’s only valid line—and theologically

it can be very useful—is to show why such and such a

conception (whether or not anyone really uses it in the wayone thinks) is wrong.

It m ust always be bo rne in m ind that the greater part o f the

“experts” have been rationalists who, however learned, do notknow the language in which to express the metaphysical

conceptions to which, indeed, they are antagonistic by tem- peram ent and train ing.

There are some other Christian apologists who, like Father

D ’Arcy, SJ (Mind and Heart o f Love, ch vii) even make a hash oftheir ow n term inology . I am referring ta Father D ’A rcy’s abuseo f the terms anima and animus, and his citation as au tho rity such



pscudomystics as Claudel. Jung, too, misuses these terms, though in a better way, since he has something to say with his new meanings. Wilhelm in The Secret of the Golden Flower uses them correctly. I feel that all exegesis and apology demands the most scrupulous scholarship of which one is capable; since the

ultimate subject is One to whom the Christian and so many other religions have given the name of “Truth” .

Very sincerely,

Father Gerald Vann, OP, Blackfriars’ School, Laxton. England.

The Divine Pity, London, 1947.

The Secret o f the Golden Flower, Richard Wilhelm and Ca rl G. Jung , London,

1932.

To BERNARD KELLY

April 9, 1947

Dear Bernard Kelly:

I just obtained a copy o f D’Arcy’s Mind and Heart of Love, and

must say that 1 find it disappointing, not to say even a little “nasty”, as well as ignorant (not only o f eastern matters) in a way surprising indeed for a Jesuit. I say this more especially with reference to Chapter vii, Animus and Anima; he begins with a ridiculous parable from Claudel, who is nothing but a pscudomystic and quite ignorant o f the traditional values o f the terms animus and anima, for which William o f St Thierry’s Golden Epistle, 50, 51, is the best source. William says “For

while it is yet anima, it lightly bccomcth effeminate, even to being fleshy; but animus vel spiritus hath no thoughts of anything save o f the manly and the spiritual”; and this mens vel spiritus is precisely the imago Dei in us. Obviously then, the animus is the “ Soul o f the soul”, the proper object o f true Self love as in St Thomas Aquinas, Sum Theol IIII.26.4: “a man, out o f charity, ought to love himself more than he loves any other person . . . more than his neighbour”, and the tradition of Self love running back to Aristotle, Plato and Euripides in

the West; and as in BU IV.5, for which there is a very close parallel in Lysis 219D—220B. I do not know whether the actual use of the terms anima and animus can be traccd further back



than Ciccro, De nat deorum III. 14.36 (cf Acad II.7.22, animus as

the seat o f “ perceptions” , ie, scientific concepts). Jung , o f

course uses the terms in a special way, not incorrect in itself,

but at the same time not in accordance with the traditionalmeanings. D ’Arcy seems quite unaw are o f all this, and this

makes nonsense o f his deprecation o f "wissenschaftliche distinc-

tions” , p 16). In other words, he is not transm itting dogm a, but

merely thinking sloppily.Turning to our own affairs, as regards the Trinity: Eckhart

calls this an “ arrang em ent” o f God, and indeed I can only think

o f it as one o f many possible formu lations o f “ relations” in

God. Moreover, the doctrinc is strictly speaking smriti rather

than sruti. Also, I cannot quite see how the U nity o f the Th ree

docs no t, in a sense, m ake a fourth ” , ie, a O ne as logicallytranscending the Trinity with reference to which St Thomashim self says “ Wc cannot say ‘the only G od ’, because deity is

com m on to several” . I think the closest com parisons m ust be

based on M U IV .4,5 (Agni, Vayu, Aditya as forms o f Brahm a

or Purusha).

Kindest regards,

Bernard Kelly, identified p. 20.

BU = Brhadaranyaka Upanishad MU = Maitri Upanishad Sruti = the highest degree o f revelation in Hinduism, knowledge by

identification. The Vedas, including the Upanishads, are considered sruti. Smriti = a low er degree o f revelation, from reflection on the sruti; among

such texts arc the Epics and usually the Bhagavad Gita. Analogous rank ings in

Christianity would be the Gospels (sruti) and the Pauline Epistles (smriti).

T o BERNARD KELLY

August 6, 1947

Dear Bernard Kelly:

Yours o fju ly 16 :1have had in m ind to w rite on the “ Use andAbuse o f the terms anima and animus”, but 1) I must not

undertake any new tasks, but conserve energy to finish one’s begun (doctor’s orders!), and 2) I th ink you could do it better. Ithink it would be useful to do this, rather than w rite a critique



of D ’Arcy in a more general way. But you would have to read and refer to D ’Arcy’s Ch vii at least. I now add such references as I have come across, under the two headings o f use and absue:

USE: W o f Thierry, Golden Epistle 50, 51, animus vel spiritus and

mens vel animus-, Augustine, De ordine 1.1.3, qui tamen ut senoscat, magna opus habet consuetudine recendi a sensibus (corporali bus), to be added from the Retractio, et animum in seipsumcolligendi atque in seipso retinendi\ probably derived from Cicero, Tusc 1.22.52, neque nos corpora sumus. Cum igiture nosce te dicit , hoc dicit, nosce animum tuum: cf 5.13.38, humanus animus decerptus ex mente divina\ Varro, Men 32, in reliquo corpore ab hoc fente

diffusa est anima, hinc animus ad intelligentiam tributus (cf pene

passages cited in Rgveda 10.90.1.. . .); Enneads 3.8.10; Ruys brock, Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage, c 35; Epictetus, 3.8.18; Shamsi-Tabriz, Ode XII in Nicholson, 1938; Philo, Prov 1.336 . . .; Det 83 . . .; Fug 1.95f and 182; Enneads 6.8.9. Accidius, Trag 296, sapimus animo, fruimur anima, sine animo, anima est debilis; Epicurus, De rer nat , C 3: “N ow I say that Mind (animus) and Soul (anima) are held in union one with the

other, and form of themselves a single nature, but that the head, as it were, and Lord in the whole body is the counsel

(consilium) that we call Mind (animus) or Understanding (mens). . . . The rest o f the Soul (anima), spread abroad throughout the body, obeys and is moved at the will and inclination o f the Understanding (mens)”; and notably Wilhelm, Secret of the Golden Flower , p 73, “In the personal bodily existence o f the individualities, a p’osoul (or anima) and a hunsoul (or animus). All during the life o f the individual these two are in conflict, each striving for mastery (psychomachy!). At

death they separate and go different ways (like nefes and ruah in the Old Testament = psyche and pneumain the New Testament, eg, Heb IV, 12). The anima sinks to earth as kuei (“dust to dust”), a ghostbeing (psychic residue). The animus rises and becomes shen, a revealing spirit o f God (daimon, yaksa). Shen

may in time return to Tao. . . .” Also Augustine, De ordine2.34: animus will be offended by the eyes, if the latter are attracted by falsity attractively presented. (A few o f the above

references arc merely taken from the Latin dictionary, but most I have seen).

ABUSE: D ’Arcy, loccit; Jung, Psychological Types, 1923, p 595:



“ If, therefore, we speak of the anima o f a man, we m ust

logically speak of the animus o f a wom an, if we arc to give the

soul o f a w om an its right nam e” , and 5967: “W ith m en the

soul, ic, the atiima, is usually figured by the unconscious in the

person o f a woman; w ith women it is a m an” ; and “ For a man,a w om an is best fitted to be the bearer o f his soulimage, by

virtue o f the w om anly quality o f his soul; similarly a man, in

the case o f a wo m an ” (for him, also, persona = “outer attitude”

and “soul” = “inner attitude”!). Jung has a real idea to express,

eg, as o f Beatrice as Dante’s “ soulim age”— but his is a reckless

abuse o f terms; he does no t realise that anima and animus are

“two in us”, is quiforis est and is qui intus est, whether “we” are

“ men” or “w om en” ! Anim us in Latin represents the daimon [?]

or pneuma [?], ic, conscientia that Socratcs and Aristotle called

infallible; the nous [?] within you. Hom o viv itur ingenio, coetera

mortis sunt! So 1 charge you to write on anima and animus. (I

forgot to add, you will find the terms misused also by E. I.

W atkin— w ho ou ght to know better—in The Wind and the Rain,

3, 1947, pp 179 84, following D ’Arcy and Jung. If all these

errors are not pointed out soon, we shall never be able to catch

up w ith them ). I should add also that while Jung almost always

“rejects metaphysics” and reduces it to “psychology”, in Two Essays on Analy tical Psychology, 1928, ch 4, p 268, Jung does

rightly use the terms Ego and Self, and the latter being

“ unkn ow able” (in the sense that “ the eye cannot sec itself”) and

in tha t passage is a metaphysician in spite o f himself.

About purusa and prakrti = mayin and maya, these are for me

St Th om as A quinas’ principium conjunctum from which the Son

proceeds— N ature being “ that N ature by which the Father

begats” (D amascene, D efide orth 1.18, as in Sum Theol II.45.5):*’I made m yself a moth er o f w hom to be born. . . . Th at

nature, to wit, which created all others” (Augustine, Contra V

H a erV = D e Trin XIV, 9) = Natura naturans, Creatrix Iniversa-

lis, Deus (sic, in Index to Turin 1932 cd of Sum Theol). C f Pancavimsa Br VII.6.1 to 9 (in 6, “eldest son” = Agni, see J U B

2.25. Brhati = Vac = mother of Brhat\ you will find this PBr

passage very in te resting from the standpoint o f “ filial proces-sion”.

E x necessitate naturae = necessitas infallibilitatis, I presume; jus tas it is na ture (necessity) o f light to illuminate; it seems to beerroneous to think o f such a “ necessity” as any limitation o f



“freedom” (what is “freedom” but to be free to act inaccordance with one’s own nature?).

Regarding proportion of natura naturans to natura naturata: as

Guenon would word it, God in act implies the realisation of

infinite possibility (this would not include the creation ofnonentities like the “ horns o f a harc“ or “ son o f a barren

w om an” , o f course, w hich wou ld involve a violation o f natura

naturans); but infinite possibility has two aspects, including

both the possibilities o f manifesta tion, and th ings that arc not

possibilities o f manifesta tion (the latter = arcana, known to

Cherubim , bu t to us only by analogy at best). It w ould seem tome that the pro portion between the possibilities o f manifesta-

tion and the actuality o f all things in time and space w ould be

exact; i f that w ere all, it w ould involve a kind o f pantheism, butthat is not all.

I d on’t seem to k no w Gabriel Th iery’s Eckhart. Bu t I have 12

fasicules o f the magnificent S tuttgart edition, still in progress,o f all the Latin and German w orks o f Eckhart; this is really a

splendid piece of work!I do think the Thomist duo sunt in homine is to be taken

seriously, as referring to is qui foris est and is qui intus est ; indeed,

without some such concept o f a duality the notion o f a psychomachy, internal conflict, would be meaningless. The “tw o” would seem to be the trace of the Divine Biunity o f Essence and Nature—one in Him but distinct in us. T h o \ as Hermes says, “Not that the One is two, but that the two are One”: which it is for us to restore and realise by resolution of the conflict in conscnt o f wills.

This is all I can manage for today.

Affectionately,

Bernard Kelly, identified p. 20.The romanized Greek words followed by bracketed question marks, p. 148.above, were added provisionally by the editors as the originals were eitherillegible or missing in the copy available to the editors. This letter,incidentally, can serve as a not untypical example of the complexity that oneoccasionally finds in AKC’s writing, particularly in some of his later papers.



To BERNARD KELLY

August 19, 1947

Dear Bernard Kelly:

I am so happy to hear that you will take up the anima-animus job .

Caland’s Pancavimsa Brahmana is Bibliotheca Indica no 255,

Asiatic Society o f Bengal, 1931; Wilhelm, Secret o f the Golden

Flower is Kegan Paul, London, 1932. Incidentally, the Royal

Asiatic Society (74 Grosvenor St, London WC1) might be more

convenient than the British Museum for looking up many

things, becausc o f its smaller size.

Re Golden Flower, it is Wilhelm’s part to which I referred;Jung’s is properly dealt with in a Preau, La Fleur d’or et le

Taoisme sans Tao, Paris, circa 1932 (based on the German

edition o f W ilhelm and Jung , 1929), esp p 49:

. . . que cct au teur (Jung) parle a plusiers reprises du Soi (das

Sclbst) qu’il oppose au moi (das ich), ne peut faire impression

sur personne. Aussi longtcmps qu’il n’a pas dit que ce “Soi”

est un tcrminaison de l’Esprit primordial, qu’il est d’ordre

universcl et identiquc au “ Grand U n” , il n ’a rein dit; et ilreste expose a l’objection que ce qu’il y a de vcritablement

intercssant dans la pcnsec orientalc du Taoisme, de celle sans

laquelle l’idec du Rctour devient inintelligible.

In The Secret . . . itself, Ju ng on p 117 repeats his misuse o f the

term animus, remarking (without giving any source) mulier non

habet animan sed animum. I w onder if he even know s that the

word animus has a history! Incidentally, in The Secret . .

throughout for mandala read mandala.I am sending you “ Recollection. . . . ”

I have o f the Stu ttgart Eckhart, the Lateinische Werke I, 1160(chiefly Expositio Libri Genesis; III, 1240 (Expositio S Ev sec

Joannem)-, IV 1240 (Sermones); and V, 1128 (Miscellaneous

tracts). A few o f these I have obtained since the war.

In my “Loathly Bride”, p 402, note 3 has bearing on animus as “lawful husband” of anima.

I believe this is all I can add at present.




To BERNARD KELLY

August 29, 1947

Dear Bernard Kelly:

I suppose the “ tw o in us” are respectively the substantial and

the actual fo rma of the soul, fo rma corresponding to eidos in

Phaedo 79, A & B, Timaeus 90 A. I feel quite prou d to have you

ask me for a Thomistic reference! viz, Sum Theol IIII.26.4:

Repondeo dicendum guod in hominis duo sunt, scilicet natura

spiritualis et natura corporalis; the meaning is quite dear from therest o f the con text, which deals w ith m an ’s first duty to love,

after God, seipsum secundum spiritualem naturam — Homo seipsum

magis ex charitate diligere tenetur, quam proximum being the same

as our modern “Charity begins at home” (though we arc apt to

interp ret this aphorism cynically!). Some o f the older referencesfor selflove = love o f Self as d istinguished from self, are:

Hermes Lib 4.6.B (cf Scott, Hermetica 2.145), Aristotle, Nich

Ethics 9.8 (cf Mag M or II.xi,xiii,xiv). On true Selflove, B U 4.5(cf also 2.4) like Plato, Lysis 219D220B!; “Platonic love” as

for Ficino (see Kristeller, pp 279287), B U 1.4.8; cf Augustinecited in Dent edition of Paradisco, p 384). Plato, Republic 621C,

Phaedo 115B (care for our Self = care for others), Laws 731E

and (a very impressive context) Euripides, Helen 999. C fContext of Homer and Hesiod 320B. That there “two in

us” = Plato Rep 604B . . . (f Phaedo 79 A,B; Timaeus 89D).

Why “must be?”, because, to quote at greater length, “wherethere are tw o oppo site impulses in a man at the same time abo utthe same thing, we say there must be two in us”; and similarly

436B, and many passages on internal conflict, eg, Rep 431 A,B,

439, 440, and notably Aristotle M et V .3.8 9 (1005B) “ the most

certain o f all principles, tha t it is impossible for the same property at once belong and not to belong to the same thin g inthe same relation”—all resumed in St Aquinas Sum Theol

1.93.5: nil agit in seipsum.

“Charity begins at home"; note that what is said in the NewTestament about the indwelling Spirit (eg, I Cor 3, 16: to

pneuma tou theou oikei en hurnin is said of the imm anen t D aimon



in Platonic and other Greek sources (eg, Timaeus 90C. . . .

Many, many other references for to pneuma = Socratic

daimon = conscience.

In other words the whole problem is involved in the

psychom achy, and is only resolved when a man has made his

peace w ith him Self (c f resu lt in Homer-H esiod 320B and

AA 2.3.7). I have m any pages o f references for “ tw o in us” , andfor “psychomachy”!

Ph ilo’s “ Soul o f the soul” in Heres 55 is the hegemonikon part,

the divine pneuma as distinguished from the “bloodsoul”; and

O p i f 66 = nous. Heres 55: “The word ‘soul’ is used in two

senses, with reference either to the soul as a whole or to its

dominant part, which latter is, properly speaking, the ‘Soul of

the soul’ ” (= M U 6.7, atmano’tma netamrtakhya — netr being precisely hegemonikos. In general, for the “ tw o in us” : John

3,36, II Cor 4, 16, SumTheo l 1.75.4; C U 8.12; M U 3.2; J B 1.17(idvyatma), Hermes 1.15, and Ascl 1; Mark 8, 34; Prasna Up 6.3,

etc, etc.

Again, “Soul o f the soul” as hegemonikon = Dhammapada

380, atta hi attano natho atta h ig a ti . . ., c f ib 160 (in PTS M in or

Anthologies . . . I, p 124 and 56). Pali atta = Sanskrit atman.

Guillaume de Thierry, D e contemplando D ei 7.15: Tu te ipsum amas in nobis, et nos in te, cum te per se amamus, et in terntum

tibi unimur, in quantum te amare meremus.

This is about all I can manage for now.


PS: A nother ref for animus: Em pero r Julian ’s last words

animum . . . immaculatum conservavi. I think you have enoughreferences for the history o f the w ord animus to be able to deal

adequately with its modern misuse.

Bernard Kelly, Windsor, England, identified p. 20.



To BERNARD KELLY

September 8, 1947

Dear Bernard Kelly:

N otably in Heb 4, 12, St Paul distinguishes the “ tw o in us” .So often St Augustine distinguishes w hat is mortal and m utable

in us from w hat is im m utab le and imm ortal, the latter Intellect;

for St Thomas Aquinas it is similarly the “intellectual virtues”

that survive. But also (w ith Plato, etc) one can speak o f the

“ w hole so ul” or o f its parts; o ur business is one o f integration,

to restore the unity auto kath' eauton. I agree it is the sam e to say

animus is anima considered according to her spiritual nature, as

to say that animus is the spiritual “par t” o f the soul. It is in so faras we are divided against ourselves (psychomachy, schizophre-

nia) that we must speak o f parts. In origin, anima is more than

the animating principle; rather, as such, she is an extension of

the Spirit, his ancilla, from w ho m he receives reports o f the

sensible world—and when she is purified, his fitting bride. In

the Sum Theol 1.45.6, guod dom inandogubernet at vurlicetguae sunt

creata. . . .— it is really the Spirit that quicken every life.

I do n’t think you should think o f G uenon’s initiatorysuccession as even possibly diabolical; don’t forget how serious

he is, and how he him self distinguishes true from “ cou nter”—

initiation. Baptism, qua “new birth” was certainly originally an

initiation, though now rather more like a consecration only.*

Obviously no great urgency about A rt and Thought, Vol II,

since even Vol I is still in press. Bharatan Iyer’s address is:

Office o f the Accoun tant General, Rangoon, Burm a. It w ould

certainly please me to have your anima-animus as your

contribution, but I hardly suppose a second volume couldappear before the end of 1948, which seems far off.

I will write to Iyer soon, and com m end y ou r article to him; I

am ju st com pleting a piece on A thena and Hcphaistos ascooperators in the Greek concep t o f creative art, bu t divorcedin industrial production.

Affectionately,

PS: I note: Jacques Maritain, A N ew Approach to God, says “inthe inner stimulation o f culture, it is thro ugh Christian



philosophy, in addition to the irre fragable onto logical tru th prom ulgated by every great religion, that the new civilization

will be spurred.” That is how I see “the great religions”

working together, but I hardly expected it from him! (In Our

Emergent Civilizatio n, ed by R. N. Anshen, New York, 1947,

p 288).

* Ba ptism , assum ing the integ rity o f the rite, is an initiation no w if ever it

was; however, it doubtless remains virtual more frequently now than in

form er time s, du e to the ‘prog ressive ’ deterioration o f the cycle.


Art and Thought, festschrift issued in honor o f D r C oom araswam y on the

occasion o f his seven tieth birthday ; edited by K. Bhara tha Iyer, L ondo n,

1947. A second volume was planned but was never realized.

Jacques Maritain, French Thomist philosopher, convert to Roman Catholic-

ism as a young man; became leading neoThomist and taught at Paris,

Princeton and Toronto.


March 6, 1943

Sir,

1should like to say a few w ords on G ens’ review o f a book by“ N icod em us” in your issue o f December 23rd, 1943. As to

“being and becoming” (essence and existence) this is indeed a

vital distinction with which everyone has been concerned—in

the Western world from Plato onwards, as well as in the East.

What is unorthodox is to treat the two as alternatives. The

Supreme Identity is o f both; the single essence w ith tw o naturesis o f a being tha t becomes, and o f a becom ing that is o f being.

To argue for a becom ing only is like speaking o f a “ significant”

art of which we cannot explain the significance: to believe in a

being only is a monistic fo rm o f monophytism. The argument isnot Cogito ergo sum, but Cogito ergo E S T —we become because H e is.

G ens’ objection to the opposition o f spirit to soul is quiteirregular. As St Paul says, the W ord o f God extends to the

sundering o f soul and spirit; the sp irit is willing (ie. wills), butthe flesh is weak. The Old Testament word for “soul”(nefesh = anima) always refers to m an ’s lower, animal and fleshy



nature; it is this soul that Christ asks us to “hate”, and requires

us to “ lose” i f we w ould save the soul “o f the soul” , ie, spirit)

alive; and o f wh ich M eister Eckhart says that “ the soul must

put itself to death”— as St Paul m ust have done, if he said tru ly

that “I live, yet not ‘I’, but Christ in me”, being thus what we

should call in India a jivan-m ukta , “freed here and now”. This“soul”, “self’ or Ego to be overcome is the sensitive “soul”

(nafs, Arabic form o f H ebrew nefesh) that Rum i through out the

M athnawi equates with the “Dragon” that none can overcome

w ithou t divine aid. Th e distinction o f spirit from soul is o f our

immortal form from our mortal nature, and wise indeed is he

whose philosophy like Plato’s is an ars moriendi\ or, in Rumi’s

words, has “died before he dies”, or in Buddhist terms, has

become a “nobody” .

To DAVID WHITE

September 17, 1944

Dear Mr White:

Practically the w hole answer to the problem o f the “death o fthe soul” is contained in the sym bolism o f sowing: “ Except a

seed fall to the groun d and die . . . ” It is the life o f the seed that

lives. Hence St Thomas also enunciates the law, “no creature

can attain a higher g rade o f nature w ithou t ceasing to ex ist” ,

and Eckhart: “he would be what he should must cease from being w hat he is” . T o cease from any state of being is to decease.

This death o f the soul should take place, if possible, before ou r

physical death . M uham m ed’s “ die before you die” coincides

with Angelus Silesius Stirb, ehe du stirbst. Evidently St Paul hadso died (“ I live, yet not ‘I’ ”); as we should say, he was a

jivanm ukta, a freedman here and now. Jacon Boehme: “ Thus weunderstand h ow a life perishes. . . . If it will not give itself up

to death, then it cannot attain any other world (ie, any otherstate of being).

The intellectual preparation for selfnaughting will be theeasier if w ith Plato, P lutarch, Buddha, etc, we already realize

that ou r empirical “ s e lf ’ cannot be thoug ht o f as “ real” becauseo f its m utability; and so detach ou r sense o f being from thingsthat are only our instruments or vehicles (physical sensibility,



mental consciousness based on observation, etc). When we

injure our body and say “I cut myself’, but should say “my

body was cu t” only ; to say “ m y feelings were hurt (by an

unkind w ord) is m ore correct than to say ‘7 was hu rt” .If the N ew Testam ent sometimes seems to speak o f saving

the “soul” itself, you must always bear in mind the ambiguityo f the word, except where “ soul o f the soul”, “immortal soul”

or “spirit” are expressly contrasted with “soul”. In any

context, you must be clear which “soul” is used or meant.

All translations should be read with caution. I do not

recommend Yeats or Carus—“would you know the truths of

Jacob Behmen, you must stand where he stood” (William

Law)—applies, mutatis mutandis, to the understanding o f any

unfam iliar truths. By the way, there is a good edition o f mucho f Law by H ob ho use (London . . . 1940). The best readily

available o f Dionysius is the volum e by Rolt (Soc for the

Promotion o f Christian Knowledge) which costs only 4sh. 6.Law says: “ You are under the pow er o f no othe r enemy, are

held in no other captivity and want no other deliverance but

from the pow er o f you r earthly self.” That “ se lf ’ is the “ soul”

that Christ asks us to “hate”, and that Rumi consistently calls

the “dragon”, and Philo the “serpent”. This snake must shed

its skin, from which “it” (ie, what was real in “it”) emerges a

“new m an” , in a body o f light—which is the true

“ resurrection”— bu t never if it insists upon remaining “i ts e lf’.

All the wordings are more or less paradoxical; but it seems tome not hard to grasp their meaning.

I liked your review well, and hope they will publish it.

Yours sincerely,

David White was a PhD candidate at Friends University, Wichita, Kansas.

T he translations referred to are W. B. Yeats and Sri Pu roh it Swam i, The Ten

Principal Upanishads; and Paul Carus’ translations from the Buddhistscriptures.

William Law, eighteenth century Anglican divine, nonjuror, and spiritual

writer; influenced by Jacob Boehm e. See letter to Stephen Hobhou se, p 61.

Dionysius the Areopagite: The Div ine Names and the Mystical Theology,

translated by C. E. Rolt and published in 1920, 1940 and later dates by

SPCK, London.



To MRS ROGER S. FOSTER

May 13, 1946

Dear Mrs Foster:

Many thanks for your response. Jung

expressly repudiates

metaphysics in W ilhelm and Jun g, The Secret of the Golden

Flower, pp 128135, and this book was accord ingly discussed

by Preau under the title o f Le Taoisme sans Tao. On the other

hand, there can be no q uestion but that Ju ng ’s ow n treatm ent o f

the Eg o and the S elf in Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, 1928, p 268 (Ego knowable, Self unknow able) is metaphysical(literally, since he uses the words “the step beyond science”)

and also m ore like the language o f traditional p sychology than

that o f “ psychoanalysis” . I did at one time correspond w ith D rJung, who used to welcome my papers on the sense of

traditional sym bols, bu t I really gave him up after an article he

wrote about India after a three weeks visit, and which might

have been written by a Baptist missionary. However, I do of

course admire m uch o f his w riting, eg, in The Integration of thePersonality, 1939, p 272—(on the inflated consciousness); and in

The Secret. . ., som e rem arks on scholarship on p 77.

I take it Eliot (whom I know only slightly) used thetraditional symbolism consciously; the very title “The WasteL'and” is a traditional symbol. A few Roman Catholic artists

use the traditional sym bols quite consciously. I forget i f I

m entioned to you m y articles in Speculum(“Sir Gawain . . .’’ in

XIX, and “Loathly Bride” in XX; these and the two Psychiatry articles and “ D iirer’s K no ts” are the kind o f thing I mean by the

study o f the forms o f the com m on universe o f discourse o f

which the psychologist is nowadays discovering the buriedtraces in the backg round o f consciousness. I send you M arcoPallis’ Way and the Mountain as another example (please return

it); also a recent lecture o f m y ow n, rather a different them e(which please keep i f you care to). I have m yse lf done a great

deal o f w ork on the Sphinx (Greek, n ot Egyptian); and thoug hI have no t go t round to com pleting it for publication, I did find,after I had done m ost o f it, that I had reached the sameconclusion that had long ago been reached, on the same

groun ds, by C lem ent o f Alexandria. Th is subject, o f course,cannot be discussed w itho ut going into the significance o f the



Cherubim and their representation by Sphinxes in Assyrian art

o f the time o f Solomon. I have had a very interesting corres-

pondence with John Layard; to a great extent he combinesthe psycholigist’s methods with my own.

Very sincerely,

Mrs Roger S. Foster, instructor in psychology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn

Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.

“Sir Gawaim and the Green Kinght: Indra and Namuci”, Speculum, XIX,

1944.

“On the Loathly Bride”, Speculum, XX, 1945.

“Spiritual Paternity and the Puppet Complex”, Psychiatry, VIII, 1945.

“ Th e Iconog raphy o f D iirer’s ‘K noten ’ and L eonardo’s Conc atenation” , Art

Quarterly, VII, 1944.

T o REV PAUL HANLEY FURFEY, SJ

January 7 (year uncertain)

My dear Furfey:

Many thanks for your letter and pains. I feel ashamed to have put you to so m uch trouble.

I liked your article very much. I am all on the “ex trem e” side

and feel that as a whole, the Church has yielded too much to

mo dernism. O f course, there are individuals to w hom this

would not apply. What is necessary above all is no intellectualcom prom ise whatever. Th at I admire in Guenon, that he makes

absolutely no concessions. I w ould rather see the truth reduced

to the possession o f one single individual on ea rth than have the

w hole w orld in a ha lf light, even thoug h that might be betterthan none at all. I saw Carey the other day, and we spoke ofyou.

Very sincerely,

Paul Hanley Furfey, SJ depa rtmen t of sociology, Catholic U niversity ofAm erica, W ashington, D. C ., USA.

Rene Guenon, Cairo, Egypt.Graham Carey, Catholic author, Fairhaven, Vermont, USA.



To MOTHER AGNES C. DUCEY

June 25, 1945

Dear Mother Ducey:

I recognize your very kind intention, though we are notlikely to agree on the total issue. However, I must say that

w hateve r lim itations w e ascribe to some other religion than ou r

ow n arc generally due to ou r ignorance o f it. For example, in

Hinduism, God is not “infinite good and infinite evil”, but

transcends these (and all other) distinctions. These distinctions

are valid for us, but His “Goodness” (or to avoid confusion

with our own, I would rather say Worth) is not, like our’s, as if

he might not have been “ good ” . He is the autho r o f good andevil only in the sense, that in any created world there must be

such contraries, or it would not be a “world”. In that He both

makes alive and slays, gives and takes away, he does things tha tare from our hum an point o f view both good and evil; bu t His

Worth is neither increased by the one nor decreased by the

other effect. “The Lord hath given and the Lord hath taken

away, blessed be the Nam e o f the Lo rd .” It will be, in fact, very

difficult, if no t impossible, to m ake any valid criticism o f

ano ther religion i f one has not studied its sacred texts and practised its Way as thoroughly as it may be assumed that one

has studied those o f one’s ow n, and followed its Way. A position like your ow n rests only upon an a priori conviction

that what you know must be the superior and only complete

body o f truth; w hether or not it is so, you have notinvestigated, because the conviction suffices for you. All your

positive acts arc good; you are right to believe “furiously” in

your truth; but it is otherwise when you come to negative convictions; your a priori conviction o f oth er’s errors proves

nothing, and you arc not qualified to work from any butsccond hand sources— which in the case o f the oriental religions

arc very unsafe, since these religions were investigated at first by those w ho had in mind to refute them, and later alm ost

wholly by rationalists, to whom they seemed a folly for thesame reasons that Christianity seems a folly to the world. Thelast thing I would wish to deny (just as I would for Hinduism),is that yours is a com plete body o f truth; but I do deny (just as Iw ould for Hinduism) that it is so in any exclusive sense. If you



arc not with us, at least we are with you.

Please do not pray that I may become a Christian; pray onlythat I may know God better every day. That will be greater

charity on your part, and at the same time will leave you freeto think that that means becom ing a Christian, bu t leaving it to

God whether or not that be the case.

Very sincerely,

M other Agnes C . Ducey was an Ursaline nun o f the C onv ent o f the Sacred

He art, St Josep h, M issouri, U SA , wh o was pray ing earnestly that

Dr Co om araswam y m ight bccome a Roman Catholic.


July 9, 1945

Dear Mother Ducey:

If you have not sufficient hum ility, no r sufficient trust in

God, to pray to Him on my behalf, merely that I may know

Him better, leaving it to Him to decide whether or not thatnecessarily means a Christian confession, correspondence is

useless, and had better be terminated.

Very sincerely,

Mother Agnes C. Ducey, as above.


June 27, 1947

Dear Mother Ducey:

M any thanks for yours o f Jun e 24. Incidentally, it containsthe first news I have ever received o f anyone “ condoning castem urd ers” in India. As for the “ destruction o f hum an personal-

ity”, this would seem to be the annihilationist heresy” againstwhich the Buddha so often fulminated. Moreover, as you



know, the Christian as well as the Platonic and Indian doctrineis that duo sunt in homine\ o f which tw o, one is the outer man or

“Ego” or “personality” the other the Inner Man, or very Self.

The problem , from the Indian point o f view, as elsewhere, is

one o f rein tegra tion; for as St Paul and others are so well

aware, there is a conflict between these two until thereconciliation o f wills is effected, that is, until “ I w an t” and “ I

ough t” have come to mean the same. In India, the nature o f this

reconciliation is expressed as follows:

The self lends itself to that Self, they coalesce (or combine, or

are wedded); with the one form the man is united with

yonder world, and with the other to this world.

Aitareya Aranyaka II.3.7There is no question o f “ des truction ” ; indeed, as you doubtless

know , the destruction o f any thing real, anything that IS, is a

metaphysical impossibility. True, it is a question o f self-sacrifice,

and in Islam and Hinduism, as much as in Christian writings,

one speaks o f selfnaughting, bu t that implies a transform ation,

no t a des truction. O f course, it is almost impossible to discuss

o f any o ther form o f religion than one’s ow n unless one is

equally familiar with both in their sources. For the Upanishads,I w ould recom m end to you the Rev W. R. Teape’s Secret Lore of

India.

O f course, I fully agree abou t “again as little children” and

refer you to the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.4.2: “Thereforelet a Brahman becom e disgusted w ith learning and desire to live

like a child.” With regard to “What shall it profit a man?”, cf

ibid 1.4.8. On true “Selflove”—as in St Thomas Aquinas Sum

Theol IIII.26.4; and the same Upanishad 1.5.15 (distinction ofthe Self or very Man from his temporal pow ers and attributes,

possessions, or “ w ealth ” ; all may be lost, if only the Very Manis saved).

There would be no difficulty in “interesting” me in SaintJohn o f the Cross; so far, I do not actually kn ow him well,though I have som e books o f Allison Peers.

Lets us say that in all problems o f “comparative religion” ,scholarship is a necessary qualification; but no amount of

scholarship will avail without charity. The learning is needed toenable us to find out what has really been taught; charity to



protect us from a natura l hum an tendency to m is in terpret theunfamiliar propositions unjustly.

Very sincerely,

Mother Agnes C. Ducey, as above.


May 6, 1947

Dear Mother Ducey:

Many thanks for your kind letter. To answer fully wouldrequire a very long letter; and I do not really want to engage inany further controversy.

M y point w ould be that if Ch rist be the only Son o f God, the

question still remains “ What think ye o f Christ?” A H indu

w ould be quite ready to recognize in Him a manifestation o f the“Eternal Avatara”. This position would be similar to that of

Clement of Alexandria, viz , that the Spirit o f Christ has

appeared again and again in the world (in the succession of pro phets ). This is also essentially the Islamic position. The

Hindu would point out also that even your own St Thomas

Aquinas allows that the “heathen” may be inspired (for thereference, see marked passage in one o f the printed papers I

send separately). N othing can be know n except in accordance with the mode

o f the know er. Ch ristianity as a system o f theology is a

“ m od e” and in this respect no t to be thoug ht o f as “universal” .It is the Truth that appears in all religions that alone can be

thou gh t of as “universal” , ie, as essence distinguished from

human accidents. Moreover, one must not forget that allspecific dogm as (even that o f the Trinity) arc transcended in the

Negative Theology.The “other religions” do not feel themselves under any

necessity to assert the universality o f their forms, bu t only o ftheir essence. This is a very happy position, and enables them

to recognize the essential truth o f what are for them “o therreligions” . Followers o f othe r religions are not opposed toChristianity as such at all, but only to certain activities of



Christians, notably “missions”. These are admittedly and

deliberately destructive o f their cultures, such as the H indu; for

the other cultures are not profane cultures, but inseparably

bound up w ith the corre spondin g faiths. It is only on this level

o f reference, then, that opposition rises.

Very sincerely,

M othe r Agnes C. D ucey, as above.


June 20, 1947

Dear Mother Ducey:

M any thanks for yours o f June 16. A bou t the Upanishads,

and [their] value for a Ca tholic, you could hardly jud ge w ithout

kno w ing them as thoro ugh ly, in their original language, as you

know the Christian scriptures. However, consider the well

known prayer from the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.28: “ From

the unreal lead us to the Real (or from untruth to Truth): fromdarkness, lead us unto Light: from death, lead us unto

Immortali ty.”

I have D ’A rcy ’s M ind and Heart o f Love, and can say—in this

case from the po int o f view o f strictly Christian scholarship—

that it seems to me to be a sloppy and careless piece o f w ork . I

say this with special reference to Chapter VII, which begins

with a ridiculous allegory quoted from Paul Claudel, who is

nothing but a “pseudomystic” himself. I am referring to

D ’Arcy’s misunderstanding and arbitrary misuse o f the termsanima and animus. You will find these terms correctly used inWilliam of Thierry, The Golden Epistle, 50, 51: anima vel

spiritus, and mens vel animus. Anima and animus are, from

classical times onwards, respectively the feminine soul and the

masculine Spirit in any one o f us, man or wom an. So animus isanima's true love; and i f Claudel’s anima is un true to her animus,

it can only be for the sake o f the w orld that she deceives him!

Such a book as this is o f no use to any nonC hristian w ho wantsto kno w w hat Ch ristianity is. A devout Rom an C atholic friendo f mine in Eng land holds similar views o f D ’Arcy, and so I dare



say do many o thers. I say all this w itho ut any reference to otherthan C hristian points o f view; although, o f course, the Thom ist

duo sunt in homine and the doctrine o f true “ Selflove” are

common to Christianity, Plato, Aristotle, and also to Hindu-

ism and Buddhism.

I think the attitude o f the U niversity o f Bom bay is, broadly

speaking, correct, but it is going rather too far to forbid lectures

on Dante! Things have changed in India as elsewhere. You can

only teach Christianity as what Hindus would call a darsana, a

“ poin t o f view ” , as one valid Way among st others, leading to

one goal.As for “conversion”: there are rare souls who can give

themselves to God m ore easily in one (new to them) Trad ition ,

than in another (in which they were reared). I know, forinstance, o f a Tibetan who is a real Christian, and o f Christians

who have become true Moslems; indeed, the Moslems say of

such that sometimes “they go farther (on the Way) than even

we d o” . But such changes o f mode are very exceptional needs.

I kn ow o f a Trappist m onk in Belgium whose brothe r is an

outstanding European Moslem; neither wishes to “convert”

the other, and bo th are highly respectful o f the N orth Am erican

Indian religion, no r do either o f them wish to change it. B othare “ men o f pray er” , and bo th o f the highest intelligence and

devotion.

W ith best wishes for you r journ ey ,

M other Agnes C. Ducey, as above.

T o MR R. HOPE

April 8, 1946

Dear Mr Hope:

O ur disagreement is largely about terms. I would not regard“ thinkin g” , if this means “con templation” , a “ moral act” ;

morality for Aquinas et al, pertains to the active life, not thecontemplative life. If “ thinkin g” is “ reasoning” , then it w ould

be an activity w ith “ m oral” im plications.T hat the re is infinity in everything , I^agree; but this does notmean that the thin g itse lf can be described as infinite. The sands



o f the sea are not infinite in number, only indefinite; their number can be estimated and such numbers arc dealt with by statistics. Thus the opposites, o f which the walls o f Paradise are built, are indefinitely numerous; but this wall is still a part o f finity through the limit o f space, and infinity lies beyond it. The same infinity is, o f course, immanent in all things as well as beyond them; but this immanence no more allows us to speak o f any thing as infinite than it allows us to equate “this man Soandso” with God; there is God in him, but he is not God, and if deified by ablatio omnis alteritatis, then he is no longer “this man Soandso”.

When 1seem definitely to disagree with you is in that I do not believe in a moral or spiritual progress o f mankind, but only for

individuals. It is still possible for individual consciousncss to “unfold” even in this intellectually decadent age. What you call Preparatory School Stage (historically) represents for me something nearer to the Golden Age, intellectually and spiritually. I have to use its language when I want to be precise.

It is only too true that we in the East are in danger o f following in your footsteps.

Sinccrely,

Mr R. Hope, Leeds, England.

To PROFESSOR (WILLIAM FOXWELL?) ALBRIGHT

July 1, 1942

Dear Professor Albright:

Many thanks for your book. Naturally, the introductory parts with their general considerations arc of most interest to me. It is in this connection that I would like to say that I think you take LevyBruhl too much for granted, and wonder if you have considered the other point o f view stated in Oliver Leroy’s

La Raison primitif, Paris . . . 1927; W. Schmidt’s High Gods of North America, Oxford, 1933, and my “Primitive Mentality” in

Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society. (The last I am sending you but must ask you to return it in due course as I have left only a few “lending copies”).



I think that to LevyBruhl perhaps, and to Frazer quite

surely, Schmidt’s words apply: “such pleasure as proceeds

from the ironical railleries not seldom dealt out to primitive

man, which betray so much bitterness deeply concealed at the

bottom o f the heart.” I, too, know this “ bit te rness” but do not

hide it, and I see its basis as a mea culpa o f “m odern m an” .

In so far as I am — and that is pretty far— a “ primitiv e

mentality” my self, I do not have this bitterness.

One other point: the modern “savage” is often not a true

representative o f “ primitive m an” , but very often degenerate,

in that his notions are literally supcrstitions which he no longer

really or fully understands— for exam ple, w hen he calls stone

arrowheads “thunderbolts”.

Very sincerely,

Professor Albright is not identified beyond his family name, but it is

assumed that he was William Foxwell Albright, the prominent Orientalist

who specialized in Semitic languages and who wrote From the Stone Age to

Christianity, first published in 1940.

Lucien LevyBruhl, philosopher who gained a reputation as a social

anthropologist from w orking w ith the reports o f other anthropologists, butwho nevertheless felt qualified to write How Natives Think.

Sir Jam es G. Frazer, social anthropolog ist and renow ned as author o f The

Golden Bough.

‘Primitive Mentality’, Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, XX, 1940.

To DR FRITZ MARTI

October 6, 1946

Dear Dr Marti:

I do wish I had a better opportunity to talk with you at

Kenyon College. I hope we meet again.In an old letter o f yours (1942) you ask if I wou ld say tha t the

“various religions are mere con tingent disguises o f a pure philosophical tru th .” N o t exactly that: I w ould say “ are

con tingen t adaptations o f a pure metaphysical truth ” (primarilyexperiential, ie, revealed). I think this follows almost inevitablyfrom the axiom “ the mode o f know ledge follows the mode o f



the nature o f the knowcr.” (I certainly would not use the word “mere”). For me una veritas in variis signis varie resplendet—ad majorem gloriam Dei.

I was pleased by the reception o f my discussion at Kenyon. However, I think most o f the audience was “liberal”. And my

interest is not in putting all religions on the same level by way of latitudinarianism, but in a demonstration o f real equiva-

lences; hence most o f my work deals with strictly orthodox forms o f Christianity, and hence the manner in which 1

discussed the present problem by the words alter Christus.

Very sincerely,

Dr Fritz Marti, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA.AKC had given a talk at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio as part of aconference entitled ‘The Heritage of the English Speaking Peoples and theirResponsibility’ (Octobcr 4—6. 1946). This was later published in theconference proceedings (which bore the title of the conference) as ‘For WhatHeritage and to Whom Are the Englishspeaking Peoples Responsible?’

To DR VASUDEVA SAHARAN AGRAWALA

March 23, 1939

My dear Mr Agrawala:

I am very happy to receive your reprints announcing such

wonderful finds. It will be impossible for me to write you an

article in time for the Shah Volume, but I shall be very happy if

you render some one of the articles you mentioned, already

printed, in Hindi.I should say that it is futile to search for meanings in the

Samhitas which are no t the meanings o f the Upanishads. I

cannot believe that anything taught in the Upanishads was not

kn ow n to the mantras, and this makes it inconceivable that theycame into being w ithout an understand ing o f their meaning. Ido how ever believe that Indian scholars, in order to fortify their posit ion as against the profanity and pueril ity o f Europeanscholarship, m ust now adays make use o f the philosophia perennis

as a w hole and no t only o f its Indian forms. An interp retationo f the Vedas is not really an interpretation o f Indian metaphy-



sics, but of metaphysics. It is also possible to add very much tothe understand ing o f western scriptures if they arc read in the

light of the Indian atmavidya.

I expect you have seen my article in the Q .J . M ythic Society,

on the “Inverted Tree”. My interest is in doctrines that are true,

rather than because they arc Indian. The philosophia perennis —our sanatana dharma is no t a private pro perty o f any time, or

place, or people, but the b irthright o f hum anity.

Very sincerely,

Dr Vasudcva Saharan Agrawala was superintendent o f Indian M useums,

N ew Delhi.

Samhitas, are oldest of the Indian scriptures; w hile the Upan ishads are thelatest o f the sruti to take written form. “ Each branch of the Vedas consists of

three por tions : 1) the samhita or mantra po rtio n . . ., 2) the Brahmana

portio n whic h conta in s the elabora te exposit io ns o f the various karmas or

rituals for which mantras have been composed in the corresponding samhita

portion . . . 3) th e dranyaka o r speculative portion o f the Vedas. . . . Instead

of the word mantra. . . he ought to have said samhita which contains mantras

and othe r tex ts.’ (courtesy o f Sri Keshavram N. Iengar, Bangalore, India).

‘The Inverted Tree’, Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, XXIX, 1938.

Atm ai'idya = Selfknowledge.

To RICHARD GREGG

January 29, 1940

My dear Richard:

I have been reading some m ore o f your book , which I do not

find easy. I am especially impressed by the citations from Peter

Stcrry—pure Vedanta! I shall get the book.I am in full agreement on many points, necessarily so because

I live in a world in which not only words, but all things are felt

to be alive with meaning. A word without inherent meaningwould be “mere noise”: a merely “decorative” and in-significant art, a dead superfluity. That people have begun tothink o f poe try as a matter o f sound only is sufficientlysym pto m atic (o f the cave dw eller’s purely animal satisfaction

with the shadows on his wall). In our view, the Divine Liturgyis explained as “like the fusion o f sound with m ean ing” (in aw ord , the Indian thinks o f w ords as sounds, w ritten signs



being, if used at all, sym bols o f the sounds rath er than o f the

m eanings). O u r present m entality is m ore and mo re contented

with what is a dead, inanimate, incloqucnt environment. (1

mean those “to whom such knowledge as is not empirical is

considered as meaningless.”) How it can be possible to go on

living in such an environment is strange; one must presumethat this is not living, bu t rather a mere ex istence orvegetation.*

I agree tha t the antithesis o f realism and nom inalism is

ultim ately resolved in the solipsism o f the “only seer” (in

whose vision we individually participate only); what this seer

sees is itself, “ the w orld picture painted by itself on the canvas

o f the S elf (Sankara, like Peter S tcrry). T he reality o f the picture

is that o f it’s ma ker, neithe r an independent reality (extremenominalism) nor an unreality (extreme realism).**

I do feel you should look into Indian Rhetoric, with its

discussion o f “ m eaning” (Skr artliaunites the senses “m eaning”

and “value” and could often be rendered by iitleittio) on various

levels o f reference, eg, obv ious , underlying, and ultima te

(anagogic); and its terms rasa (“ flavour”) and vyanjana (“sug-

gestion”, “overtone”, originally also “flavour”).

I think you arc in dan ger o f confusing the personal “h ow ” o f

style w ith the necessary “ h o w ” . In a perfectly educated and

unanimous society (tradition always envisages unanimity, as

docs also science on a low er level of rcfcrencc) everyone w ould

say the same thing in the same way, the only way possible for

perfect expressio n in the currcnt language, w hether Latin,

Sanskrit, Chinese or visually symbolic. The same thing cannot

be said perfectly in two different phrases, th ough both may refer

to the same thing and can be understood by whoever is capable

o f un derstan ding . O n e ’s ow n effort for clarity amo unts to thesearch for the o ne and o nly , once for all expression o f an idea.

In the same way when one feels that anything has been said

once for all, one prefers to quote, and not to paraphrase in

“one’s own words”—one must not confuse originality with

novelty, whatever idea one has made one’s own can come outfrom us as from an origo, regardless o f how many times it may

have come forth from others or to what extent the supposedly

corresponding words or formula have become a cliche.Very sincerely,



* D r Coo m arasw am y frequently stated that modern man lives in a ‘wo rld of

imp ove rished rea lity’, citing a phrase of W ilbur Marshall Urba n.

** O n so lipsism, cf the ‘non sen se’ limerick b elow , w hich is really no t all

nonsense:

There once was a man who said, “God

Must find it exceedingly oddIf he finds that this tree continues to be

When there’s no one about in the Quad.”

Dear Sir, your astonishment’s odd:

I am always about in the quad.

And that’s why the tree

Will continue to be,

Since observed by yours faithfully, God.

Richard Gregg,

Peter Sterry, Platonisl and Puritan, 16131672, A Selection from his writingswith a biographical and critical study by Vivian De Sola Pinto, 1934.

To RUTH NANDA ANSHEN

N ovem ber 8, 1946

Dear Nanda:

“To know and to be arc the same thing”; this was not, as is

com m only supposed, the meaning o f Parm enides’ w ords (fr 5):

to gar auto noein estin te kai einai. This simply means that “that

which can be thought is the same as that which can be” (see

Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy 4th ed, 1930, p 173, n 2).Plotinus, Emieads 5.9.5, quotes Parm enides’ words, but

although by this time it was possible for an infinitive to be the

subjec t o f a sentence (and in fact Plotinus uses to einai as subject

in Enneads 3.7.6), his citation o f Parm enides’ words is to showthat “in the immaterial, knowledge and the known arc the

same”; and while this implies that there the know er, know ledgeand the known arc the same, what is actually predicated is

hardly more than the Scholastic adequatio rei et intellectus —Plato’s “making that in us which thinks like unto the objects ofits thought”, which i f they be eternal and divine, will restoreou r being to its “original nature” ( Timaeus 90). It seems to have

been St Augustine w ho first explicitly enunciated that in divinis to live, to be, and to know arc one and the same thing (De Triti

6.10.11; In Joan Evang 99.4; and C o n f 13.11; also synthesis,



p 99). To be what one knows is not agiven status, but one to be achieved. What is presently true is that “as one’s thinking is, such one becomes” (yac cittas tanmayo bhavatv, and it is because o f this that thinking should be purified and transformed, for were it as centered upon God as it is now upon things sensibly

perceptible, “Who would not be liberated from his bondage?” (Maitri Upanishad VI.34.4.6).

In my opinion yac cittas tanmayo bhavati, Maitri UPVI.34.4 (or its English equivalent as above) would be the best motto for you. Second best would be to use Parmenides’ words without translation, leaving the reader to make what he can of them.

In any case, “to know = to be” is only true for us to the extent that w e are, not for so long as we arenot yet gewerden was

wirr sint.Cordially,

Ruth Nanda Anshcn was editor o f the Scicncc and Culture series published byHarper Brothers. She wished to use the sentence discussed here as a motto.Synthesis = A n Augustine Synthesis, Erich Przywara; see Bibliography.(fr 5) refers to the fragment in H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, seeBibliography.

To GEORGE SARTON

July 7, 1942

Dear Sarton:

You had originally asked for 5,000 words. If the enclosed is under present conditions too long, you must try to cut it down.

I cut out much on page 3.You may be interested to know that I’ve had considerable

correspondence with Jaeger lately. I find his belief in only one civilization properly to be so called— viz Greek (expressed in Paideia) rather disconcerting and nearly as dangerous as the doctrine of one superior race.

Very sincerely,

George Sarton, professor of the history of science, Harvard University,Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.



W erner Jaeger, classicist and professor at Harvard Un iversity; au thor o f

Paideia, 1943.

To MR R. F. C. HULL

Date uncertain

Dear Mr Hull;

Re Vedanta Sutra II.2.28;

In general one must take into account the proposition that

knowledge depends upon adequatio rei et intellectus.

Also that both Buddhists and Vedantists recognize a double

truth: one o f opinion, conven tion, pragmatic, empirical; theoth er o f knowledge, ccrtainty, intellectual; ie, relative and

absolute. N ow first, as to the “elephant” . The whole allusion is

contained in the words bravisi nir-ankusatvatte tundasya. Ankusa

= elephant goad, or any hook; tunda = beak, snout, trunk. The

phrase is a technicality , and is represented by Thibaut’s word s,

“You can make what arbitrary statement you please”. More

literal, but less intelligible to a reader would be “You can saywhat you like, but it’s all like guiding an elephant by its trunk

when you have no goad”. Thus the difference between Thibaut

and Deusscn is more apparent than real, and I think you might

stick to the former.

O f course, to me, the w hole controversy is stupid, because

both arc agreed on the distinction o f relative from real truth .

N either is it the Buddhist position that vijnana is any more realthan any other of the five skandhas that constitute the life of the

empirical Ego that “is not my Self’. But vijnana may stand forthe four com ponents o f conscious existence, so that sa-vijnana

kaya = soul and body, “soul” being the same as “empiricalEgo ” . You ask if the Buddhist argum ent (4) is meant to be

fallacious; I think you might call it a “straw man”In (9), “ the son o f a barren m othe r” is a stock expression for

any thing w ithout potentiality o f existence.The argument in (11) is very interesting, because it is actually

the well known nil agit in seipsum, first enunciated in the West by Plato. From it, it necessarily follows that duo sunt in homine.

It is also very interesting to find in the whole passage a



dcfcncc o f the actuality o f appearances, against the current (erroneous) supposition that Vedanta denies the reality o f the world of appearances, as such. Even a mirage is a real “mirage”. But obviously nothing that is an appearance can be callcd “real” in the same sense as that which appears; no image

is as “real” as that o f which it is an image. The word “phenomenon” itself has always an implied “of something”; the verb “appear” must have an implied subject.

The Buddhist agrumcnt in (12) seems to me fallacious; but here, again, I think we arc dealing with a “straw man”. However, taking it as it stands, the Vedantist reply in (17) is very good.

The Vedantist “witness” is, o f course, the “only seer”, ie,

the Self (o f the self) o f the Upanishads. Sankara always assumes that the Buddhist denied this Self, which was not the case; it is the Self in which the Buddha himself “takes refuge” and commends others to do the same; it is callcd “Self, the Lord o f

se lf’ in Sn*In your very last commcnt marked (14), I don’t see how both

subject and object can both be regarded as “selfproved”.

“Selfproved” can only refer to a pcrcipicnt, because it cannot be known as an object to itself; the well known proposition that “the eye cannot see itself’, though it proves itself by the act of its perceiving—similarly in the case of the Self that one is, but cannot know. Whatever can be known objectively cannot be my Self.

Sinccrcly,

* Cf Dhammapada 160: ‘The Self is Lord o f self; w ho else could be the Lo rd?’

Mr R. F. C. Hull, Thaxted, Essex, England, was translating Georg Misch’s Dcr Weg in die Philosophie (1926), w hich consisted of ma ny qu otations from

the Hindu scriptures; M r Hull had w ritten to A KC for help in clarifying

several points.

Sn, probably Sutta Nipata, an early Pali scripture.



To MR PAUL GRIFFITH

July 11, 1944

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your inquiry. I appreciate the importance of public opinio n and wish 1 could cooperate w ith you in this

most timely undertaking because India is the most misrepre-

sented country in the world, and it is about time America’s

intelligence on the subject was no longer insulted.

A book like the Bhagavad Gita would be particularly difficult

to illustrate. A metaphysical treatise hard ly lends itself to

illustration. In Indian copies, almost the only illustration ever

found is that o f the tnise eti scene, Arjuna in converse with SriKrishna; such illustrations arc of the type reprodu ced by L. D.

Barnett’s translation, published by Dent, which you could

easily find.

A brave attempt to illustrate the Mahabharata as a whole has

been made in the Poona edition, now in the course o f

publication. A considerable part o f this has appeared, and

copies are in numerous American libraries. To illustrate the

Mahabharata, easy as it would be (in a certain sense and

extremely difficult in another) [would be] really extraneous to

the content of the Bhagavad Gita.

To illustrate the Bhagavad Gita and its w hole backgrou nd

would be possible, but an immense undertaking, and would

am ou nt to an illustration o f Indian culture generally, includingthe mythology. I am afraid my feeling is that it is an almost

impracticable scheme to propose one illustrated magazine articleon the subject. Nanda Lai Bose, whom you mention, is the

best, or one o f the best o f the modern Indian painters. If time permits w hy not communicate with him at Santiniketan,Bolpur, Bengal, British India, directly. I shall be very glad to

hear from you if I can be o f further use.

Yours very truly,

Paul Griffith, London.



TO STEPHEN HOBHOUSE

Octobcr 21, 1944

Dear Mr Hobhousc:

With further rcfcrcncc to your last book on William Law, on the subjcct o f the divine “ love and wrath”, I write to express some surprise that you do not take into consideration the solutions o f the problem in other theologies, notably the Islamic and Hindu. Thus, in Islam, heaven and hell arc callcd the reflection o f the divine mercy and majesty respectively; and,

I may add also, an ultimate apokatastasis o f Iblis is foreseen. Your words in the middle o f p. 375 (“It means . . . evil or cowardly will”) are almost exactly a statement o f the theology o f the mixta personao f Mitra-Varunau in Hindu scripture, where Mitra (lit, “friend”) is the Sun (“not him whom all men see, but whom not all men know with the mind”), the “light of lights” , and Varuna is the stern judge o f the dark Sky; these arc also rcspcctivcly the sacerdotiumand the regnum, in divinis; and this world o f light and darkness is the concept and product o f the said conjoint principles which are themselves a unity, the

“Supreme Identity” o f God and Godhead. Thus, there is no

opposition of light and darkness ab intra (“lion and lamb lie down together”) but inevitably ab extra; for a world without contraries would not be a “world” (locus of compossibles), while (as Cusa says) God is to be found beyond them, so that the Hindu speaks o f “liberation from the pairs o f opposites”.

On page 291 you discuss the “soldier” and the Muhamma-

dan position, to which you might have added the Indian as stated in the Bhagavad Gita. There is a point that you ignore in

these positions, and that is the warrior’s vocation, as such, does not permit o f fighting with hatred, but only o f a fighting well in a given cause. The most notable illustration of the consequences o f this takes place in connection with Ali, who had nearly overcome his opponent when the latter spit in his face. Ali immediately drew back, and refused to take advantage o f his superior position. “Why?”, the opponent asked. Ali replied, “It was impossible for me to kill you in anger.” This naturally led to an ultimate reconciliation. I feel that one should not allude to a doctrine like the Islamic doctrine o f the jihad without a full grasp o f all its implications.



With rcfercncc to the “ fire” o f life, etc, on page 279, and to

the “ w ra th” as the wheel o f life, these ideas are expressed in

India in almost identical terms, in the notion o f the withholdingo f the fuel from ou r fire, and perhaps most notab ly in theBuddha’s ‘First Sermon” in which he describes all things in the

w orld as being “on fire” .My general point is that the fundamental doctrines of

religion arc to be found in every religion; and that, especially

when expoun ding the mystics it is of the greatest possible

advantage to bring together and point out these equivalents,

which throw so much light on one another as very often to

dispose o f difficulties that seem to inhere in any one form ula-

tion taken by itself.


Stephen Hobhouse, editor of Selected Mystical Writings of William Law,

London, 1940; identified on p.63.

Jihad, holy war; “a religious war with those who arc unbelievers in the

mission o f M uham m ad . . . an incumb ent religious duty . . . there are two

jihads: al-jihadu ‘l-Akhar . . the grea ter holy war w hich is against oneself,

and the jihadu ‘l-Asghar, against unbelievers, w hich is the “lesser ho ly w ar” .

T o F. S. C. NOR THROP

N ovem ber 6, 1944

Dear Professor Northrop:

I read with the deepest interest your brilliant paper in the

Hawaii Symposium. I entirely agree with you in this main

premise th at O rienta l philosophies start from an im media teapprehension o f reality, and in their extension arc not proce-

dures by abstraction, but statements about the reality in termso f analogy, for the sake of understanding and com munication. Iam not at all sure, however, whether it is safe to use the word

“aesthetic” univocally for what is directly apprehended by thesense organs, and what is immediately apprehended when thedirection o f vision is (as for Plato and the Upanishads)

“ inverted ” , so that it regards not the “seen” , bu t the “ seer” . O fcourse, wc do use a corresponding term, saks'at (“eye to eye”) inthe Upanishads, but there is a clearly understood hierachy of



saksat, paroksa and saksat (visible, occult, visible), but it wouldnot be supposed by anyone that the two visions arc both a

matter of sensible perception . If there is one thing certain, it is

that the Brahman-A tm an is not a knowablc object in the sensethat we know a blue area when wc see it.

M y position is that o f the Oriental before the Westerninfluences (see your p. 21); in this connection, incidentally,

yo ur w ords “ no t a M oslem” w ould only apply here if you

intend a strictly exoteric Islam; there can be no question but

that, as Jahan gir rem arked, “Y ou r Vedanta is the same as our

T asaw w uf” . In Jaisi o r in Kabir, w hat is “H indu” and what is

“Moslem”? in Rumi, too, who can distinguish the “Neo

Platon ic” from the H indu and B uddhist factors? C f also

Guenon who knows both Arabic and Sanskrit; his personalaffiliations are Islamic, but he prefers as a rule to expound the

philosophia perennis from Indian sources. 1 hold w ith Jcrcmias

that “the various cultures are the dialects of one and the same

universal language o f the spirit” , expounded semper, et ubique et

ab omnibus.

I fully agree w ith yo ur depreciation o f the translations by

“mere linguists”; I virtually never use a text without having

consulted and considered its original Latin, Greek or Sanskrit,

and th o ugh I am m ore d epen den t in the case o f Persian, even

there I do what I can; the versions I use in print are usually my

own. What I have observed is that it is precisely the merelinguists w ho m ost o f all emphasize the oppositions or

differences o f Ea st and West; as Schopenhauer puts it, they

exh aust them selves in trying to show that even w hen the same

things are said, the w ord s mean som ething different. O f

course, that is largely because the mere linguists, though

nowadays they are mostly rationalists (and at the same time theveriest amateurs in philosophy, as some even confess), inherit

(m ostly qu ite unconsciously) all so rt o f Ch ristian prejudices,

moralistic and other. What has most impressed me is that East

and West (and for that matter, other “dialects”, too, eg,

American Indian) have been forever saying the same thing; and

tha t no t on ly often in the same idiom, bu t so far as Greek and

Sanskrit are concerned, using cognate words, so that Sanskrit

could be rendered into Greek more directly and truly than intoany other language, though Latin also lends itself.

To take a specific case or two: I would say that the



fundam ental agreem ent o f Plato with Vedanta is most conspi-

cuous in their com m on doctrine o f the “tw o selves” , mortaland im m ortal, that dwell toge ther in us; the doctrine o f the

inner and outer man which survives in the Scholastic duo sunt in

homitie, and in countless phrases o f ou r daily speech such as

“ m y better s e l f ’. If, as you say, the Western “othe r se lf ’ is“ postu lated” , then it is no m ore than the empirical self or ego,

and hence the doubt about immortality. If the East has no such

doubts, it is because there, the “ other se lf ’ (identified with

Brahma, the ineffable) is apprehended immediately. But surely,

it is only for a “ m od ern ” that the “o ther se lf ’ is a mere

postu la te ; Socra tes’ daimoti was no postulate for him, but an

often very inconvenient “Duke” (hegemon, Skr Netr) “who

always holds me back from w hat T want to do” ; cf his words,“ Socrates you may dou bt, bu t not the tru th ” . Actually, our

own “conscience” (= Socratic daimoti) as Apulcius first, I believe, said; and = to the Scholastic synteresis, inwyt) is not a

postula te for us, but something im mediately known.It appears to me that the real postulates (and notably “I” as a

den otation o f ou r inconstant personality, which never stops to

be, as was equally explicitly remarked by Plato, Plutarch and

the Hindus and Buddhists) cannot be regarded as having anymore validity than attaches to the transient phenomena from

which they arc “ abstracted” ; like the “ laws o f science” , they

have only a convenient value, permitting men to make

predictions w ith a high, but never absolute, probability value.

To speak o f testing the truth o f postulates by experim ent is

only to argue in a circle; I do not sec how any theoria could be

proved or disproved experimenta lly, and, in fact, the Orienta l

position w ould be that w hatever is really true can never be

demonstrated, but only realized. What experiment provesregarding a postulate is not its truth, but its utility, for the

particula r end in view. That the postulates partic ipate in the

transcience of the phenom ena from which they are abstracted,moreover, appears in the fact that the postulates are alwayschanging, being discarded and replaced by others.

The unity o f eastern and w estern doctrines could be equallywell demonstrated from a monograph on the traditional

psycholo gy, from equivalent iconographies, and in many oth erways. As I sec it, your basic “op position” o f East and West isrecognizable only i f we set over against each oth er [the] modern



West and the surviving tradition of the East; for example,

Descartes’ cogito ergo sum is sheer pathos from an Oriental pointo f view, which w ould argue cogito ergo est, and in doing so

would be in word for word agreement with, for example,

Philo. I w ond er, too, if in making the opposition, you are no t

overlooking the whole Western via negativa: Dionysius, Eck-hart, The Cloud of Unknowing, Cusa, and all that aspect of

European culture w hich is a closed book to the modern man, so

much so that ou r M iddle Ages arc every bit as “ m ysterious” to

him as the East itself—is it really two very different things that

both appear so strange?

To be sure, as you say, the postulations arc necessary formodern technology. But is modern technology necessary for

man, I mean for the “good life” and “felicity”? The notion ofan everlasting raising o f the standard o f living, the perpetual

creation o f new wants (by advertisem ent, etc) is really in ord er

that someone m ay m ake mon ey ou t of supplying them after

which they becom e “ necessities”— has that any real connection

with the q uality o f life? Is it not as much as to w ill and decree

that men shall never be content ? The argument is still in a circle;

it is only after it has been assumed that modern technology is

necessary that it follows tha t we must “ postulate” . From w hat Iregard as the C hristian and O riental poin t o f view, all this

production fo r its ow n sake, and w ith it the postu la tes it

demands, are luxuries, rather than means to the good life.

Co uld one, in fact, think o f anything m ore “ luxurious” than

the egopostulate?I think we arc dealing with fundamental problems, the

importance o f which cannot be exaggerated. I hope w e shallhave the opp ortu nity to talk them o ver again some day. I could

almost wish that there were an opportunity, too, to presentsomewhere in print a rejoinder to your article on the above

lines.

With very kind regards,

Filmer Stuart Cuck ow N orthro p, professor o f philosophy, Yale University, N ew Haven, Connecticut, USA.

The Hawaii SymposiumDr Coomaraswamy enlarges the famous ‘Vincentian Canon’ expounded by

St Vincent o f Lerins as the test for true Catho licity and orth od ox y in belief:



that which has been believed semper, el ubique et ab omnibus — that which has

been be lieved ‘alw ays, every where and by every one’.

To F. S. C. NORTHROP

Date uncertain

Dear Professor Northrop:

Many thanks for your kind letter. My criticism rests upon

the fact that you speak o f “ the most profound and m atureinsig hts” o f East and West and seem to ignore the break in

Western thought that takes place with the shift (ca 1200) from

realism to nominalism; one cannot “compare” East and Westunless one makes it clear what West one is thinking of—what I

assert is the identity o f the “ most profound and m ature

insights” , w hich w ere an essential part of Christianity once, butarc ignored or even denied by the exoteric Christianity of

today, which virtually overlooks the Godhead altogether andconsiders only God*. The “Supreme Identity” is one essence

with two natures, human and inhuman, light and darkness,

mercy and majesty, God and Godhead, ie, humanly speaking,good and evil. In oth er w ord s also, finite and infinite; assuredly,as for the Greeks, the infinite is from the poin t o f view o f finite beings, “evil” .

As I see it, neither civilization has anything to learn from the

other. H ow often I respond to Western inquirers by saying“Why seek wisdom in India? You have it all in the tradition of

you r ow n which you have only forgotten. T he value o f the

Eastern tradition for you is no t that o f a difference, but that itcan remind you o f what you have forgo tten.”

N ow the East can differ from the West in its poin t o f view, in

that the one can be Traditional and the other antitraditional,and here a mutual understanding is impossible. However, Im yse lf am so perpetually accustomed to thinking simul-taneously it terms o f Eastern and Western tradition as to be ableto say that my perception o f their identity is imm ediate.

“ Why consider the inferior philosophers?” , as Plato says; and

that is why I can say that “the most profound and matureinsights” o f East and West arc the same, while if wc arcthinking only o f the modern West, I fully agree as to their



difference. To agree to differ is no solution. If you will not take Plato, Plotinus, Cusa, Boehmc, Dante, etc, as representing the “most profound and mature insights” o f the West, agreement and cooperation will be ruled out, cxcept upon those lowest levels o f refcrcncc on which there is always room to quarrel.

The notion o f a common humanity is not enough for peace; for what is needed is our common divinity, and the recognition that nothing is really “dear” but for the sake o f the immortal principle that is one and the same in all men Platonic love as understood by Ficino!

Jesus never emphasized the “ individual ” value of every soul, but the universal value in every soul, a very different story. Eckhart was right in saying that all scripture cries aloud for

freedom from self; and it is only to the extent that we practice sclfnaughting, or at least acknowledge that “I” is a postulate valid only for practical (and ultimately always “selfish”) purposes and not a truth (as Plato, Plutarch, et al, very well know), that we can approach the grounds o f peace.

1shall look forward to seeing you when opportunity affords, and thanks for the invitation. I have much to talk over with

Goodcnough, too.

I’m just, as it happens, attending Dr Marquette’s lectures on “Mysticism”. He also secs there the only practical solution.

PS: I think the problem o f truth as something that can only be rccognizcd but cannot be “proved” has a good deal to do with the importance attached to fa ith (assent to a credible proposition) in India as in the West. O f course, I distinguish faith from “fidcism” which only amounts to credulity, as exercised in connection with postulates, slogans and all kinds of

wishful thinking. C f Tripura Rahasya, Hemacuda Section, IX, 88: “That which is selfevident without the necessity to be proved, is alone real; not so other things.” This is with reference to the difference between understanding the universe and understanding the “space” or continuum, identified with Brahma— akasa, kha (and loka in its absolute sense).

Sincerely,

* And which is seen currently to have less and less time for God, preoccupied as it is with all manner of social questions.



F. S. C. Northrop, as above.

Erw in R. G ood enou gh, professor o f the history o f religion, Yale Universi-

ty, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.


June 5, 1946

Dear Prof Northrop:

I am delighted to receive your boo k and offer my congratula-

tions; 1have read considerable parts o f it, and in many passages

admire your penetration. I am still fully convinced that the

metaphysics o f East and West are essentially the same until the

tim e o f the Western deviation from the com m on norm s, beginning in the 14th centu ry. I am a little surp rised you do not

make any reference to Guenon who has treated these problems

at length. As to the identities: I would cite, for example, the

axiom that duo sunt in homine, one that becomes and one that is,

the former unreal because inconstant, the latter constant and

therefore real. It is interesting that the modern psychologists

(Jung, Hadley, Sullivan, Peirce, etc) have rediscovered the

unreality o f the empirical Ego; to realise which is the beginningo f wisdom and the sine qua non for happiness.

N ow a few notes: p 13, on the testing o f theory by fact;

hypothesis by fact, no doubt, but surely not teoria by fact.

H ypothesis is the produc t o f thinking , reasoning; bu t theory is

ju st th at which is seen, and fo r Plato, Aris to tle and the East

alike, “nous is infallible”. So fact cannot prove or disprove a

theory, but only illustrate it. Even so for Spinoza still, Veritas

norma sui et fa ls i est\ To propose to test theory by fact is simply pragm atism .

Y our recognition o f the positive reality o f the “ experience”

o f N irvana is admirable. H ow ever, it wou ld not be correct toidentify Nirvana with the “aesthetic continuum”, ic, Ether; in

Buddhism, it is explicit that Nirvana lies beyond the experienceo f the sole reality o f the infinitely etherial realm, and beyondthe distinction o f experience from inexperience. Necessarilyso, because “in” Nirvana there is no process while the

experience o f the und ifferentiated aesthetic con tinuum is still,as such, something that “takes place”, and an “event”; thebhavagga, “ sum m it level o f becom ing” , is still in the field o f



becoming and even from these highest “heavens” there is still a“further escape”.

P 359: It cannot be said that Hinayana Buddhism survives in

India. P 361, the Upanishads are only partly in verse; for

example, much o f the B U is in prose. Passim: I would not call

N ehru “ cultivated” ; he is very ignorant o f Indian culture,

which he has only quite recently begun to study in English

translations! If one is discussing East and West it is never any

use to quote W esternized Orientals, whose point o f view will

necessarily be tha t o f con tem porary Europeans. Incidentally,

too, Jinnah is equally ignorant of things Islamic.

p 487: The Chris tian claim to “ perfection” presents no

difficulty to an Oriental, who can readily grant it. It is merely

that the C hristian denial o f perfection to O riental m etaphysicsis an obstacle to C hristian und erstand ing, p 343: the Sea, for the

East, is not a sym bol o f time, bu t o f undifferentiated eternity.

As for Eckhart, Silesius, etc, the Sea is that in which the

“ rivers” (streams o f consciousness, “ individualities” ) lose their

name and configuration, ie, their limitations— panta rei. To

Eckhart’s “plunge in” corresponds such Pali terms as nibban’o-

gadham, “the dive, or immergence, into Nirvana.”

There arc many things in which I am in fullest agreementw ith you r interpre tations; b ut I am still very sure that, as before

modern times, all your differentiations from the East will befound to break down!

PS: Suppose we grant that at least the modern “western”

position is w hat you call “ theoretical” , and the Eastern

[attitude] founded in an Erlebnis [experience]. This does not

mean that the “Eastern” position is “empirical” or “aesthetic”,althou gh it is o f a reality erlebt, not inferred. The great

“ expe rim ent” consists in the arrest o f all aesthetic experience,

which can be only in terms o f subject and object. Th e Self canno more know itself than the eye can sec itself.* It is only the

transient Ego that can be “known”, like other natural phenomena, external to Self. That the Self itself is unknowable ,otherw ise than by negation o f whatever and all it is not,coincides w ith Ju ng ’s position (cf Two Essays in Analytical

Psychology, 1928, p 268, where he contrasts the known Egowith the unknown Self); I mention him only because he is atypically “Western” mentality, whose “orientalism” is quite



spurious—he expressly “repudiates metaphysics”. All this makes me very uncomfortable when you speak of ultimate reality as “an aesthetically perceived continuum”; the very fact o f perceptibility rules anything out from ultimate reality, all perception involving relations. In Buddhism, the “realm of

naught whatever” is only 6th in a hierarchy of eight states, all regarded as “relative”; Nirvana is explicitly and emphatically an “escape” from all these states.

Kindest regards,

*On the face of it, this sentence might be taken to imply some deficiency in

the Self, per impossible. God cannot be known as object; ‘only God can knowGod”, as a Christian or other monotheist might say. Ontologically, God’sknowledge of Himself is pcrfect and coincides with His Being. On thesupraontological level, that of the Godhead or Self, all distinctions, all positive statements arc transcended by excess of meaning, and one can onlysay ‘not this, not this’; hence, the ultimate necessity of a negative theologyand a via negativa which, however, in no sense imply privation in theSupreme Principle.

F. S. C. Northrop, as above. In 1946, Prof Northrop published The Meeting of East and West, a pioneering effort in the comparative analysis of cultures

and a book widely acclaimed in its time.


July 12, 1946

Dear Northrop:

Re atomism, in your book, pp 262263: it is, o f course, sufficiently obvious that the notions o f “indivisibles with magnitude” involves an antinomy. But that does not seem to be what the old atomists postulated. Relying on data in Burnet,

Early Greek Philosophy, p 336, I note that the Greek atoms are “mathematically” (ie, logically) but not “physically” (ie, really) divisible. In other words, they have conceptual but not actual extension. N ow Aristotle himself has a doctrine of atomic time (atomos nun), Physics IV, 13, 222 . . . , and this is the exact

equivalent o f the Buddhist doctrine o f the ‘‘moment” (khana) which has no duration but “in” which all accidents supervene, and o f which the succession never ceases. Similarly in the



Islamic doctrine of wagt, for which Macdonald inferred a

Buddhist origin; and the whole idea survives in the formula

“God is creating the whole world now, this instant.”

Very well. It seems to me that we cannot but consider at the

same time momentswithoutduration and pointswithout

extcnsion. Are not the latter what the old “atoms” imply?Remember that they arc “logically but not physically divisi-

ble” ; so, like the “ m om ents” , they have content but are not

measurable. T hus the antinomy “ indivisible m agnitud e” seems

to vanish; it docs not appear that a “reallyindivisiblemagnitude” was ever asserted. The fact that we have now

“split atoms” (theoretically into protons, etc, and also ex-

perim enta lly) has no bearing on the problem; it only means th at

what we called “a tom s” w ere not really the same thing as the old philosophical ato ms, ie, “ points” (Skr bindu — A V ) without

extension though not without content. The best illustration of

such a “ po int” is afforded by the centre o f the circle wh ich has

no extension and yet “in” which all radii coincide. This alsow ou ld lead us to a kind o f explanation o f exem plarism (as I

showed in H JA S , I) and to Bon aventura’s image o f God as a

circle of which the centre is everywhere and the circumference

nowhere.Moreover, just as all “moments” are in one sense the same

m om ent, so in one sense all atoms are the same atom (cf note 3

in Burnet i C); the atomic now being that which gives its

meaning to past and future (time flowing out o f eternity) and

the atomic point being that which gives its meaning to

extension (space deriving from the point as “size without size,

the principle of size”).

PS: a m inor point no t connected with the above: p 273, second

and third lines o f middle paragraph— the first “ form al” can be

taken strictu sensu, but surely the second “formal” should read:“actual”.

Very sincerely,

F. S. C. Northrop, as above. Early Greek Philosophy, J. B urnet, L ond on, 1930.

‘Vcdic Exemplarism’, AKC, in Harvard Journal o f Asiatic Studies, I, 1936.




July 25, 1946

Dear Northrop:

Y our letter is o f great interest, and at the least I think that w emay overcome at least such disagreements as are based on the

particular terms emplo yed.

You cite again the Roman Catholic attitude. Does their“b e lie f’ (opinion) in the exclusive perfection o f Christianity

make it true? They could assimilate Aristotle; now Aristotle is

so “Buddhist” (phrase for phrase in many cases) that some have

assumed (as I do not) “influence”. In other words, much that

Aquinas did get from Aristotle (and that is plenty) he mighthave go t from India, i f the same kind o f contacts had then been

available. Some o f my R .C. friends in England (one o f w hom

calls Sri Ramakrishna an alter Christus) are most seriously

considering, in view o f the present contact, what ought to be

the future attitude o f R.C. Christianity to “ Oriental studies” .So that I don’t think my argument for real difference can be

based on the hitherto R .C . position.I w on der if the “ tasting o f the flower” is so very different

from “O, taste and see that the Lord is good”? Suppose I

modified one o f yo ur sentences thus: “ W hatever one has

m isunderstanding between peoples . . . (it is always assumed

that there is) an underlying difference in their philosophy andtheir religion”?

I read Jones’ review in the N . Y. Times L it Sup* with inter-

est. I think he hardly gets the meaning o f yo ur “ aesthetic

continuum”. But I must not go on now. Needless to say, there

is very m uch in y ou r book that I greatly adm ire and fully agreew ith, and ou r discussion o f points o f disagreement in no w aydiminishes that.

Very sincerely,

^Presumably the New York Times Book review, the Literary Supplement beinga weekly section o f the Times of London.





July 28, 1946

Dear Northrop:

I have no longer any strong objection to your phrase“indeterminate aesthetic continuum”, since although the East

like the West is always pointing out that “the eye cannot see

itself’, still finds it unavoidable to use such expressions as

“seeing”, “tasting”, “knowing”, etc, with reference to the

ultimate reality, as regards the actual phrase “disinterestedaesthetic con tem plation ” (taken, o f course, from current

Western usage) I have nearly always put it in quotes, and morethan once said that as it stands it represents an antinomy,

“disinterested” and “aesthetic” being really incompatibles.After all, as the prim ary application o f language is to tem poral

“things”, one is obliged, as all expositors have recognized, to

use empirical analogies.

Christian Logos and Father correspond to Mitravarunau or

parapara Brahman — the “ tw o natures” predicated by both West

and East. The Father is the “Godhead”. Eckhart’s “free as the

Godhead in its nonexistence” is Nirvana, “the unborn,

unm ade, unbeco me, incom posite, which if it were not, therew ould be no way o f escape from the born, made, composite. “ I

do not see in w hat sense you can say that the Father “ transcends N irvana” unless you mean sim ply that the Chris tian regards it

for some reason as a preferable concept. One must not

overlook the Father’s “impassibility”.

Again, “Logos” = sabda Brahman, Father = asabda Brah-man ( sabada = sound, utterance: asabda = silent, unuttered.

Very sincerely,


To MR HUSZAR

August 8, 1947

Dear Mr Huszar:

I read your paper with pleasure and am very glad you are



pre senting it; and I like your choice o f a spruchwort from Andre

Gidc. I have often referred to the provincial limitation ofH utchin s’ position, eg, in my speech at Kenyon College last

year and in A m I M y Brother’s Keeper ? But these people arc

almost immovable, as I know from correspondence with and

pro tests made to the Dean o f St Jo hn ’s College and the Editoro f the “ Great B ook s” . In contrast, my ow n habitual method is

to treat the term s o f the com mon universe o f discourse in a

worldwide context; eg, my “Symplcgadcs” in Studies . . . of

fered in Homage to George Sarton . . . , 1947, and in Time and

Eternity, Ascona, Switzerland, 1947.

I know o f no b etter study o f the level at which internationalcontac ts should be made than Marco Pallis’ Peaks and Lamas.

Very sincerely,

Mr Huszar is not identified.

St Jo h n ’s Co llege, in its list o f ‘H un dre d Best Bo ok s’ prescribed fo r its

students did n ot include even one w ork from East of Suez and despite

pro te sts fro m both students and AKC, did not alter the list.

A m I M y Brother’s Keeper?, New York, 1947; see Bibliography.

Peaks and Lamas, see Bibliography.

To WALLACE BROCKWAY

July 29, 1946

Dear Mr Brockway:

In reply to yours o f Ju ly 15, received today; I feel com pelled

to say what I have often said before, that I am Tuly apallcd by

the provincialism which can [be seen] at St Jo hn ’s College andin you r series o f “ Great B ooks” ; it is an aspect of the extremely

isolationist tendencies o f Am erican education in practice at the

pre sent day , despite all the lipservice to the “ O ne W orld” idea.I consider that for the kind o f education we are considering,that to be cosm opolitan in the best sense o f the w ord it isindispensable for the European to be acquainted with not only

the great books in spoken Western languages, and Latin andGreek; but also w ith the great books o f the whole East; or if wespeak o f language (as distinct from the books to be know n in



translation), then I w ould say that a European is no t educated in

the full mean ing o f the w ord if he cannot read both Latin andGreek and at least one o f the classical languages o f the East,

Arabic, Sanskrit, or Chinese. Conversely, the time has comefor orientals to read Greek. That you ask me, supposedly an

O rientalist, to be o f any assistance in your imm ediate problemillustrates what I am saying; such assistance from me is only

possible because I am familiar w ith the Western as well as the

Eastern traditions, or putting this in terms o f languages,

because I do read Latin and Greek and the chie f spoken

European languages.

I will consider whether there is anything further that I can

do. In the meantime, in the Bibliographies for Art, and for

Beauty, I suggest that my own books, The Transformation of Nature in A rt (Harvard University Press, 1934), Why Exhibit

Works of Art? (Luzac, London, 1943) and Figures o f Speech or

Figures o f Thought ? (Luzac, London, 1946)—which latter

includes long translations from St Thomas and Ulrich. There

are prescribed reading in some University courses. In the

preface to the last mentioned I wrote : “W hoever makes use o f

these three books and o f the sources referred to in them will

have a fairly complete view o f the doctrine about art that the

greater part o f mankind has accepted from prehistoric times

until yesterday.”

I pu t forw ard no new theories o f my ow n; b ut I do say that

w ithout a know ledge o f the material I deal with, the pathetic

fallacy in the teaching o f art histo ry is inevitable, and as

inevitable as it is rampant. I add that under the heading of

N ature should certain ly be included R. C. C ollingw ood’s

Philosophy o f Nature. Re Art, see also the Bibliography in my

Why E xhibit Works o f A rt ? (Luzac, London, 1943, p 59). Othersuggestions will come to mind, no doubt, but in the meanwhile

perhaps you will be kind enough to send on those above to M rBcrnick.

Very sincerely,

Wallace Brockway was with Encyclopaedia Britlanica at the time.

Why Exhibit Works of A rt ? was later reissued under the title, Christian and Oriental Philosophy o f Art\ see Bibliography.



To GRETCHEN WARREN

August 8, 1946

Dear Grctchcn:

I have been looking at Collingw ood’s Idea o f Nature, pp. 1927,and see nothing alarming. I think Whitehead is quite right in

saying “there is no nature ( scire licet, natura naturata), in an

instant” (ie, “mathematical instant containing no time lapse at

all”). Also, “according to modern physics nothing whatever

w ould be left” if all m ovem ent were to stop is obviously so

because “ m otion” and “existence” are only tw o nam es o f the

same “thing”. One trouble for men like Collingwood is that

they do not start by clearly defining the distinction between

existence (ex alio sistens) and essence (in seipso sistens); so that it is

not always clear what they mean by “existence”. Existence is

always in some way and in some time observable, essence

never. All existence is summed up in essence, which is

“n oth ing ” , ie, no one o f those “ things” that exist and all of

which are perishable composites.

“ M en feel that w hat cannot be put in term s o f time is

mean ingless . . . [but] the no tion o f a static imm utable being

ought to be understood rather as signifying a process (or an“energy”, which is a better word), so intensely vivacious, in

terms o f time as extrem ely swift, so as to comprise beginning

and end at one stroke” (W. H. Sheldon in Modern Schoolman, XXI, 133). Plus la vie du moi s’identifie avec la vie du noti-moi (leSoi), plus on t>it intensement (Abdul Hadi).

“Past and future are to thee a veil from God . . . cast fire on

both (R umi, Mathnawi, I, 22012). God: ubi futurum et

praeteritum coincidunt cum praesenti (Nicholas o f Cusa, De vis Dei, C .x), as also in Buddh ism, o f the Arahan t, Freedman,

Im m ortal, “ for him there is neither past no r fu ture” (S. 1.141).W hoever finds the “ N ow o f E ternity” (con taining. x»o

timelapse at all) finds “nothing and all things”—all at once,not in a succession. Present vision of all that ever has been orshall be in the endless succession o f past and future aeons canhardly be tho ug ht o f as an “em pty” life, though it be “vo id” o f“things” in the sense that we experience them in succession,

where they never stop to be, and we lose them as soon as we



have them, ie, instantly, which is the very “tragedy” of“existence”.

AKC

Gretchen Warren, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

To ALDOUS HUXLEY

August 10, 1944

Dear Mr Huxley:

Yours o f Augus t 4 reached me ju st after I had sent o ff to youmy little tract on “Recollection”, etc.

I do not understand what could be meant by becoming a

good Catholic “ for the sake o f Christian bhakti”. Surely, one

only accepts a body o f doctrine (such as that o f the philosophia

perennis) because o f its se lf authentica ting intelligibility and

because it explains m ore th ings than are expla ined elsewhere. I

quite agree that as a rule (to which there are individual

exceptions) it is undesirable to exchange one religion foranother. Bhakti is a general proposition, not to be connected

exclusively with Christ or Krishna. The point is sine desiderio

mens non intelligit. Th is applies to an understanding o f “ reality”

by w hatever name we call “ It” . Granted that jn ana, karma and

bhakti (the latter being love or loyalty, but literally participation)

arc in a hierarchy; this does not mean that they are mutually

exclusive; even Sankaracarya “ w orship ped ” . W hich of the

three m ust p redom inate is a question o f individual talent. Allarc legitimate, and all can be misused. Your own feeling about

Kali is, as I see it, a purely sentimental reaction, quite as

dangerous as any kind o f devotion, h ow ever “ blind” ; one who“ loves G od ” really, loves H im “ in His darkness and His lig h t.”

I can’t agree that “art” is mysterious; it is no morem ysterious than anyth ing else. A rt is a kind o f know ledgeabout how things, which it has been decided are desiderate, can be made. It is mainly modern aesthetics that has th row n a veil

o f “ m yste ry” ov er “ art” , ju st as mo dern sentimentality hasmade a fool o f prudence (so to speak), by treating it not as a



means to an end. The differentiation o f styles is no thing bu t an

example o f the w orking o f the principle that “ nothing can be

know n but in the m ode of the kno w cr.”Y our “ C om m on Father” book, if it really deals with

dogmatic equivalents, and not merely with the general agree-

ment that one must “be good, sweet child”, should bevaluable. I have m yse lf collected an enorm ous am ount o f

“parallels”, and cited very many in my articles; in fact,

generally speaking, I dislike to expound any doctrine (such as

that o f the single essence and the two natures, or that o f lila or

any sym bolism (such as that o f “ light” , or the “ chariot” , or the

“Symplcgades”) from single sources only. There is, however,

the difficulty, that one cannot, generally speaking, trust

existing translations; and one docs not know enough languagesto be able to check on everything.

With kind regards,

Postscript to above letter:

You did not let me know whether Marco Palli’s book reached

you. My wife adds: your distrustful words about bhakti would be

und erstandab le if you were a Rom an Catho lic, faced with the pale and ovcrswect Catholicism o f these times. Indeed, the

R C C hurc h is imitating the Protestant churches o f the modern

world, and is not i tself* Even Thomism is only halfway back,

so to speak, to Meister Eckhart, and The Cloud of Unknowing.

Perhaps the Greek Church is still poor enough to be as clean as

one can be in this environment. For you, it ought to be no

long er a question o f C hrist or Krishna, but o f a Principle that

assumes every name by which His worshippers address Him.We so much admire Grey Eminence that we cannot bu t regret

the times w hen you r “ feelings” (taste) intervene . If I have learntanything, it is never to “think” (will) for myself. In all these

things my only will is to understand.

* I f this w as tru e in 1944, it is a fortiori true today, after the more than sixty

year debacle that has followed.

Aldous Hux ley, popular novelist who se fashionableness peaked between thetw o W orld W ars. Later in his career he turned to no nfiction and w rote Grey

Eminence, The Perennial Philosophy, etc.



‘Recollection, Indian and Platonic’, published as a Supplement to the Journal

o f the American Oriental Society, LXIV, no. 2, 1944.

To ALDOUS HUXLEY

September 28, 1944

Dear Mr Huxley:

I should like to begin by making it very clear that I fully

agree with you that Charity (maitri, not karuna, however) isindispensable for Enlightenment; nor am I any exception to the

rule that no one has ever hinted that because the end is beyond

good and evil, the means may be so. I further agree with the“ transcendent and imm anen t” point of view, and with the

distinction o f God from Godhead, in nature but n ot in essence.

What I do not agree with is your apparent assumption that practitioners o f hum an sacrifice arc necessarily “uncharitable” .

I am aw are that that w ould be a Buddhist point o f view. That itw ould also be a Christian point o f view is metaphysically

explicable by the fact that in the particular Christian formula-

tion, the sacrifice has been made once for all; that is why, while

it is necessary for M oslems to make all killing o f animals for

food a sacrificial rite (the same for the Jew s), this is not

necessary for Christians. In the same way, I would not at allagree that the warrior’s dharma is necessarily “uncharitable” or,

for that m atter, the hu nte r’s; these ways would be uncharitable

if followed by a Brahman, but not i f followed by a Ksatriya. It isall a ma tter o f “convenience” (in the technical sense o f the

word). At the same time I need hardly say that the fact that we

are too compassionate to practice human sacrifice, or some-times even to hunt, makes all the more contemptible ourreckless disregard o f the value o f hum an life (I am referring tothe industrial system in which things arc more highly valued

than the men who produce them) and our willingness tovivisect animals to save our ow n skins, as we imagine. I shouldsay that the Aztec was truer to his Way than we are to ours.

I do not approach the great tradition, as you seem to do, to

pick and choose in them what seems to me to be “ righ t” ; allcoercion repels me, but w ho am I to pass jud gem en t upon thosew ho must use force, and are only at fault if they do so



incorrcctly? No Way can be jud ge d in isolation w itho ut regard

to the enviro nm ent it presupposes. O n this poin t there is a verygood Indian story o f a Brahm an w ho maintained the service o f

a Siva Lingam, to w hich he m ade offerings only o f flowers,

water and chant. It was in the deep woods. One day a hunter,

who filled with devotion likewise, had in his own way placedon the Lingam pieces o f raw flesh o f his prey. The B rahm an

was infuriated, abused the hunter, and threw away his

offerings. Suddenly Siva appeared, and graciously accepting

the hu n ter’s, offering, pointed out to the Brahm an that the

hunter’s devotion had been no less than his own, and that he,

the Brahman, had given way to anger. We cannot jud ge o f

w hat is “ righ t” for others, but only o f w hat is right for us.

I am going to quote again from the friend from whom I havequoted before regarding your position:

O ne part o f him wishes to be free, but the other part insists

on m aking a nu m ber o f reservations. . . . One hoped that

Grey Eminence marked a more serious step in the direction of

seeking a guru. It is apparent that w ha t he needs m ost o f all is

an element o f bhakti for the simple reason that tho ugh he does

genuinely hanker after the truth and a unified existence, he

fears to trus t h im self boldly into the hands o f his aspiration; itis indeed ‘ab an do nm en t’ that is still m ost lacking in his

attempt, due to regret at having to give up so much that is

taken for granted in the modern w orld . . . hence the

electicism w hich seeks to express itself in anthologies— one

can be almost sure that though the quotations he will select

will be fine in themselves, the choice will be influencedunduly by private preferences and dislikes. For instance,

texts enjoining an attitude of ahimsa are more likely to besnapped up voraciously while the complementary textsconnected with, say, jihad are as likely to be rejected as being

uninspired; so also the traditions in which nonviolence plays

a great part such as the Gospels or Buddhism, will appeal tohim, but he will find it difficult to sympathize impartiallyw ith w arrior or hunting cultures. . . . He also continues totrust far too mu ch to his po wers o f extracting the meaning o f

doctrines th rou gh a mere reading o f texts. It is quite true, asGu enon said somew here, that he w ho kn ow s can often detectthe real sense of a text even under the disguise of modern



distortions; but this is quite impossible for one who trusts to

his academic training alone.

I shall send you shortly a paper o f Schu on’s on the Three

M argas and am only sorry I have no copy of his imp ortant

article on Sacrifice that I can send. I hope you duly received

“On the One and Only Transmigrant” (which is mainly

apropos of immanence).

Very sincerely,

Aldous Huxley, as above.

Marco Pallis, personal correspondence.

‘On the One and Only Transmigrant’ , Supplement to the Journal o f the

American Oriental Society, LXIV, no 2.Frithjof Schuon, see Appendix.

To ALDOUS HUXLEY

August 29, 1944

Dear Mr Huxley:

My adherence to the Traditional Philosophy is because itexplains m ore in every field o f thou ght than do any o f our

systemic philosophies; it can, indeed, explain everything, or

account for everything, to the extent that explanations are

logically possible. In the various religions this philosophy istranslated into the modes o f the knowers.

Let us take it for granted that “good”—or rather, “correct”

conduct is essential to Wayfaring; and also that evil is a

“nonentity”—as our word naught-y, German untat, andSanskrit a-sat (as evil) imply, the suppositio being that ens et

bonum convertuntur. I still maintain that your attitude, in

wanting to have a “good” God, and therefore finding the

problem o f evil so difficult, is sentimenta l. But Wayfaring isone thing, and the Goal another. The Buddha and Meister

Eck hart (amo ng others) are in absolute agreement that the Goalis beyond good and evil; cf Dhammapada 412 (he is a monk,indeed, w ho has abandoned g ood and evil); and cf Dante, Purg

18.6769, “those who in their reasoning went to the founda-tions beheld this interior freedom, therefore they left moralita to



the world”; and Rumi (Nicholson’s translation, Ode VIII, “to

the man o f God, right and w rong are alike”). The problem o fgood and evil, in other words, pertains to the “active life”

alone. In our correspondence I have ventured to assume wewere discussing ra ther the truth itself than its application.

Th e sup reme example o f bringing good out o f evil is that o fcreatio ex nihilo. Here the nihil is potentiality, possibility (always

evil when contrasted with being in act) but also that without

which no “act” could be, since the impossible never happens.

One must bear in mind that all these technical terms have a

double application; thus nonbeing as priva tion o f being is evil,

but a nonbein g that im plied only freedom from the lim itation

o f being in any mode is no t an evil, and we find Meister

Eckhart using the words “free as the Godhead in itsnon existence” . The God o f the traditional doctrines is the

“ Supreme Iden tity” o f God and Godhead, Essence and Nature,

Being and Nonbeing, Light and Darkness, Sacerdotium and Regnum. In creation and under the Sun these potentially

distinguishable contraries interact, and a w orld com posite from

them is brought into being ex principio conjuncto. So (as explicit

in Islam), Heaven and Hell arc the reflections o f the divine

Mercy and Majesty, Love and Wrath, Spirit and Law. Both are

the same “fire”; but as Boehme so often says, whether of

Heaven or Hell depending upon ourselves, whether we are or

are not “salamanders”. We have not, then, known or loved

G od “ as He is in H im se lf’, but only an aspect o f God, unless

both in his light and darkness.O n the doctrine o f sacrifice, I recom mend Frithjof Schuon ’s

discussion in Etudes Traditionnelles.

I am a “humanitarian” (an antivivisectionist, for example),

but I do not feel a horror o f animal or even hum an sacrifice; Irecognize, o f course, that it may not be “ convenien t” (becom -ing, right, proper) for us to practice either. At the same time, Ivery strong ly suspect that this is not a matter o f our superiorvirtue, and that all we have done is to secularize sacrifice (ofanimals in the laboratory; and o f men in the financialcommercial state, in the factory, or on the battle field).

Regarding art, I do n ot m yse lf see that Mayan art is devoid o f

sensuality. As for stylistic permanence o r change: one must, o fcourse, distinguish style from iconography; the latter can persis t indefinitely , and even long after .its reasons are no longer



understood, the former always changes, so that even in what seem to be the most static cultures, works of art can be closely dated on stylistic grounds, if we know enough. There is no inherent necessity for iconographic change, because the forms may be correct; accordingly in a living tradition one expects

Plato’s “new songs, but not new kinds of music”. It is our sensitive rather than our intellectual nature that demands novelties; for the intellect, originality is all that is required.

You still did not let me know whether you received from

Marco Pallis his book, which he had sent you; I would like to be able to inform him, as he wanted to send you another copy if the first had gone astray.

Very sincerely,

PS: A few addenda o f remarks that might have been included

above: the Buddha’s emphatic enunciation of a goal beyond good and evil docs not, o f course, prevent him from asserting with equal emphasis that there is an “ought to be done” and

“an ought not to be done”. We are responsible for what we do so long as we hold that we are the doers.

In gnosis, the fall o f man is his knowledge o f good and evil; his regeneration therefore, obviously, to a “primordial state” beyond good and evil, or “state o f innocence”, ie, o f “harmlessness”. What we call evil is as ncccssary as is what we call good to the perfection o f the universe, which can only exist in terms of contrasts. The shadow as well as the highlight is

necessary to the picture—so St Augustine (Con/ VII. 13; Erigena, M. Bett, p 71; Rumi, Legacy of Islam, p 234).

Aldous Huxley, as above.Frithjof Schuon, see Appendix.Marco Pallis, as above, p 26

To GERALD VANN, OP

February 26, 1947

Dear Gerald Vann, OP:

I agree with you (in current Blackfriars) that Huxley’s



philosophia perennis is “ trans itiona l” . I m yself have collected

much more, and I think much more impressive material, forthe most part directly from Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Pali and

other sources.But you say Christian “selfnaughting” is in order to be

reborn; but that the Eastern is not so. Who told you this aboutthe East? Do you kn ow the texts at first hand? If no t, have you

any right at all to make such statements?

As to Tat Tvam Asi, there is an extensive Indian literature by

authoritative exegetes discussing at length the meaning o f each

o f these wo rds. Arc you familiar with it?

A R om an Catholic friend o f mine is devoting at least ten

years to se lf preparation for w riting on w hat is to be the attitude

o f Rom an Catholics to Eastern religions as no w better

understood than formerly. For this purpose, in addition to the

Latin and Greek he already knows, he has learned Sanskrit.

I consider it morally irresponsible to make statements

(especially negative ones) about any “ oth er” religion o f which

one docs not have at least some firsthand knowledge. For

example, to know anything seriously about Hinduism or

Buddhism, you must have “searched their scriptures” as

Christians do their Bible, not to mention the great com m entar-

ies in both cases.

Very sincerely,

Gerald Vann, OP, Blackfriars School, Laxton, England

Blackfriars, a monthly review published by the Dominican Order (Order of

Preachers) in England

Aldous Huxley, as above

Bernard Kelly, identified on p 20.

To MISS ELIZABETH HEIMAN

December 30, 1938

Dear Miss Heimann:

It occurs to me to add that one must distinguish betweencontraries and mutually exclusive opposites without reciprocity.It is the fo rm er that are coincident on a level o f reference above



them both (and which is represented on our level by the

“mean”). It is only possible that can thus coincide; eg, being

and nonbeing. Whereas the opposite of possible, v iz , theimpossible, has no existence anywhere (even in divinis), as is

expressed in Christian doctrine by saying that “God cannot act

against his ow n natu re” (which is one o f possibility). StTh om as h im self observes in this connection that being and

nonbeing arc contradictory in themselves, b ut if we refer them

to the act o f the m ind there is som ething positive in both cases

(cf here Udana 80: “there is a notbccomc”, atthi . . . abhutam)-,

and the things are no longer mutually exclusive in intellect,

because one is the reason fo r knowing the other (Sum Theo l III,

64.3; c f 54,2 ad 1 and 35, 5 ad 2). It is precisely for this reason

that “primative” languages (which proceed from a level ofreference above dialectic) have roots and words that subsume

con trary meanings: o f w hich w e have a survival in such w ords

as “reward” which may imply a good or an evil, though our

m entality tends m ore and m ore to restrict the meaning o f such

words—reward, for example, generally meaning a good. We

call this kind o f limitation “ clear thinkin g” , and refer the

original ambivalence to a “ prelogical me ntality” . “ P rior” to

logic, perhaps, as principles arc “prior” to their consequences(and as the Middle Ages understood in principio)-, but let us not

forget that for India at least, logic (nyaya) is only one “point of

view” (darsana), and by no means the most profound.

Very sincerely,

Miss Elizabeth Heimann, London, England


August 27, 1942

Sir,

I cannot agree w ith C aptain Ludovici about everything . But Ishould like to say that he is absolutely right in saying that

“ values and truth are in different departments o f kn ow ledge .”This holds g ood even in the field o f empirical know ledge,where what we know factually about any phenomenon, social



or o therw ise, is independent o f the values, moral or aesthetic

that we may associate with it.Far more significant, however, is the principle that values,

which always arrive in pairs (good and evil, long and short, etc)

are always relative to the evaluator, and truth, considered

absolutely, ie, in divinis, belong to two different worlds. Inother words, God as He is in Himself, definable only by

negations, and not as we conceive Him in our own likeness,

does not value. At this point the line is drawn between religion

(which takes account o f values) and metaphysics (which, like

Socrates daimon, “that vulgar fellow, cares for nothing but the

tru th ”). B ut even the religions—all o f them — recognize that

there is a reality or truth transcending values; however

temporally (but no t eternally) im portan t these values may be asdispositive to, or even prerequisite to, grasp o f the reality o f

that final truth.

It is o f course, “dangerous” to pub lish such a doctrine,

how eve r true; it has happened m ore than once, both in Eu rope

and in Asia, that men have argued (always, o f course,

heretically) that it does not matter what I do, right and wrong

being only m atters o f preference. The catch lies, o f course, in

the words “I” and “preference”; since for so long as we hold

that “I am the doer” and for as long as we entertain any

preferences w hatever, we cannot shake off the burden o f

responsibility. God has no preferences; and can have none, for

if H e had, tha t w ould mean that He had something to gain by

action, which is excluded by hypothesis. It is only those who

are no lon ger anyone and have no preferences, w ho have a right

to look upon good and evil without approbation or disapproval.I have said above that all scripture is agreed that there is “a

beyond good and evil” . This could be show n at great length bycitation o f chapter and verse from the scriptures o f three

millenia and m any lands. To be brief, Meister Eckhart says o f the summum bonum that “there neither good nor evil ever entered

in”. For St Thomas Aquinas, morality is, indeed essential to theactive life, b ut only dispositive to the contemplative and higherlife. In the same way, Buddhism is not an ethical doctrineessentially but only accidentally. The Buddha affirms very

vigorously that there is an “ O ug ht to be done” and an “ O ug htno t to be don e” , but in the Parable o f the Raft, points out that aman w ho has reached land at the end o f his voyage does no t



carry the ship about on his back but leaves it on the shore; and in the Dhammapada he defines a true Brahman, not the Brahman by birth, but one who has abandoned all attachment to good and evil. St Augustine says “God forbid that we should still use the Law as a means of arrival when we have arrived.”

And Meister Eckhart, in almost verbal agreement with the Buddha, says that “having gotten to the other side, I no longer need a ship.” It is rather a pity that a doctrine o f “beyond good and evil” should be so closely and exclusively connected with Ncitzschc in our minds! Captain Ludovici’s opponent hardly seems to realize that he is, in effect, defending a doctrine o f salvation by works and merit, forgetting that we must be

judged, at last, not by what we have done, but by what we are.

AKC

The Dhammapada is perhaps the most popular element of the Pali canon. Itconsists of 423 verses, forms part of the Sutta-pitaka, and dates from well before the beginning o f the Christian era. Many translations are available.

ToHELEN CHAPIN

January 16, 1946

Dear Helen:

No time to answer at length at present as I have to prepare lectures for fixed dates. But about the unreality o f evil: this follows from the accepted axiom ens at bonum convertuntur. That is also why our English word naught-y means bad, just as

Sanskrit a-sat, “notbeing”, also is equivalent to “evil”. It implies that all sins are sins of ommission, not acts, but things not-done (Skr atertam), a point of view exactly preserved in German untat, crime. Or as in the case of darkness and light—darkness is not a positive principle, but only the absenceof light: or as" a lie is not a "false fact” but simply a not-fact or an un-truth. You’ll soon get used to seeing this!

As to your possessions, o f course, the best is [to] get them where they can be used and appreciated.

Congratulations on the prospect of going to the East!

Very sincerely,



Helen Chapin, Bryn Mawr College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA


October 1942

Sir,

. . . I think M r M assingham (in your issue Sept. 24, p. 187)

does no t qu ite sec that this is a w orld o f contrasts, and tha t there

could not be any other kind o f w orld. Hence a duality and

opp osition o f “ good and evil” in the w orld (“ under the sun”) is

inevitable. To realize this does not make one a “dualist”. A

“ radical correction o f corru pt prima ry and secondary instincts by in te llect” is, if I understand it rightly , just w hat Plato means

w hen he speaks o f “ rectifying the modes o f thoug ht in our

heads, which were distorted at our birth, by an understanding

o f the cosmic harmonies and motions, so that by an assimila-

tion o f the kno w er to the tobe know n in its primordial nature,

and having come to be in this likeness, we may attain at last to

tha t ‘life’s best’ that has been appointed by the Gods to m an for

this time being and hereafter” (Timmaeus 90 D, cf 47 C), and inm any other contexts in which he speaks o f “ selfrule” as the

go vernm ent o f the w orse part in us (the impulses and instincts)

by the best part (reason).We must bear in mind, however, that “intellect” like

“ reason” is one o f the m any terms o f which the meaning has

been lessened and degraded for us. In the tradit ional theology,

“Intellect” is equated with “spirit” and is not at all what we

may for convenience call “mentality” or what we mean by

“reason”, something a long way under Plato’s Logos! Alltradition assumes a duality o f “ m ind” , which is both hum an

and divine; c orrec tion is o f the form er by the latter, and it is tothis rectification that the word metanoia, which we render by

“ rcpcn tence” , bu t which is really “ change o f m ind” , refers. Iassert that this is the “true traditional line”.

AKC



To PROFESSOR MEYER SCHAPIRO

Octobcr 19, 1932

Dear Professor Schapiro:

Many thanks for your letter. My understanding would bethat as adequatio is in epistcmology, so consonnantia is in

aesthetic; these terms corresponding to sariipya (conformity)

and sadrsya (“convisibility”). It seems to me that Scholastic

and Oriental theory are in complete agreement that complete

knowledge and being arc one and the same: this “being”

(csscncc) representing the condition of reconciliation between the

objective as it is in itse lf and the subjective as it is in us, neither

of these possessing a reality of the same order as that of theircommon principle. This applies equally to knowledge (truth)and art (beauty): ratio pulchri est quadam consonantia diuersorum.

W hether or n ot this is the doc trine actually taught is, o f course,

a matter for investigation: apart from that, I feel it to be true.

N ow as to “ constata tio n” : I cannot understand the idea o f a

“ goo d” w orld picture, or any world picture that is not made upo f contrasts. Pu t otherwise, ho w can the primal pulse o f being

be thought o f oth erw ise than as sim ultaneous spiration and

dcspiration, extroversion and introversion, etc? (Expressed in

religious terms, “He makes his sun to shine alike upon the ju st

and the unju st” : or Indian, “Th e Lord accepts neither the good

nor the evil w orks o f any m an .”) This is from the point o f view

o f the absolute Self (not empirical Ego); good and evil, w isdom

and folly, are equally acceptable, there being no distinction betw een necessity and to lerability. O n the oth er hand, from the

standpo int o f the empirical Ego situated at a given here and

now , there will be an inevitable bias in favour o f good or evil,introversion or controversion, etc. What is most important isnot so much what the position is as whether the individual is

conscious o f his position. Any jud gem en t o f good or evil is to be sure a m atter o f taste, ie, the healthy indiv idual will alw aysapprove o f w hat corresponds to his ow n nature. W hether or

not “ natu ralistic” is a correc t characterisation o f a style inquestion is another matter: by “naturalistic” I do not so much

mean “photographic” in a bad sense (incidentally, I havem yse lf practised ph otog raphy as an “ art]’), as “e xtro ve rt” and“superficial” (in the etymological rather than the derogatory



sense o f the w ord). And i f in the said period aesthetic has been“idealistic” this seems to me to represent a sentimentality,

parallel to that o f the “ Pollyanna re ligious” which dispose o f

m atter and evil by asserting the only reality o f the soul and [the]

good.

I may add that in Indian logic, sadrsya is defined as identity in

difference —see Das Gupta , H ist o f Indian Philosophy. I, 318— and

sarupya in epistemology as sameness (ibid, 154). It seems to me

that these two terms, as also consonantia and adequatio exclude

both “objectivity” and “subjectivity”.

I have not yet read through Culture and Crisis, but o f course

agree w ith much that is there said. Still, the only w ay in which I

have complete faith is that of the regeneration or perfecting of

the individual.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Meyer Schapiro, Columbia University, New York, New York,

USA.

To MISS JENKS

N ovem ber 18, 1945

Dear Miss Jenks:

About negation: in the first place, as Sankaracarya says,“Whenever we deny something unreal, it is with reference to

something real” (examples: independence; immortality; a

pathetic, ie, not pathetic; im passible; ineffable— all o f whichare positive concepts, and unlike the denials of value implied by

such other expressions as unstable, unworthy, unclean,

where it is a m atter o f real “ priva tion” : one must not bedeceived by the merely gram matical likeness of the terms). O nthe general subject o f “ significant nega tion” see W ilbur U rban,The Intelligible World (N Y, 1929, pp 45253). If God isineffable, infinite, these denials that anything ultimately true

can be said o f Him, and o f spatial /imitation, are no t derogatory!Hence there has always been recognized in Christian exegesis,as well as elsewhere, the necessity for the two viae, of



“affirmation” and of “denial”, to be followed in sequential order.

From the point of view of the active life, our existence is important; but from that of the contemplative life (which I need hardly say is, from the Christian and whole traditional point of

view the ultimately superior life, though both are necessary and right, here and now), in the words o f Christ, “Let him denyhim self’ (Mark VIII 13, 14; cf The Cloud of Unknowing, chap 44: “All men have matter o f sorrow: but most specially he fecleth matter o f sorrow that wotteth and feeleth that he is. . . .

This sorrow, when it is had, cleancth the soul, not only o f sin, but also of pain. . .and . . . able to receive that joy, the which rceveth from a man all witting and feeling o f his being”)—that

he may affirm Me, for whosoever shall deny Me. . . . ” (Matthew X, 3439). St Paul had denied himself, and affirmed

Christ, when he said “I live, not I, but Christ in me.” That is what a Hindu means by “liberation” (moksa). In this connec-

tion, by the way, you asked me about catharsis (purgation); I

would say that the Hindu concept, which is expressed in terms of cleansing or washing (cf, “Lord, i f Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean”) corresponds much more to Plato’s than to

Aristotle’s katharsis; Plato’s definition being “separation o f the soul from the body as far as that is possible”; and Aristotle’s, I confess, a little dubious to me for it seems to imply not much more than “having a good cry, and feeling better”.

Regarding Buddhism (Hinayana), negative propositions predominate because the doctrine is essentially monastic, whereas Hinduism embraces both the “ordinary” and the

“extraordinary” norms of existence, and is both affirmative and negative accordingly. Thus (early) Buddhism is not strictly

comparable in all respects cither to the Hinduism from which it developed, or with Christianity; that is, not strictly comparable in total scope. Since it considers only man’s last end.

For negation in Western religious tradition (disregarding the similar formulae in Islam and Hinduism just now) cf: “My kingdom is not o f this world”; “and if any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know” (I Cor VIII, 2); “Thou of whpm no words can tell,

whom only silence can declare” (Hermetica I, 17); “Knowest thou of Him anything? He is no such thing” (Eckhart); God himself does not know what He is, because He is not any what”



(Erigena); “ If anyone in seeing G od conceivcs som ething in his

mind, this is no t God, bu t one of G od ’s effects” (Aquinas, Sum

Theol III. 92, 1 ad 4); “To kno w God as He is, we mus t be

absolutely free from k no w ing ” (Eckhart, o f Cu sa’s Docta

ignorantia, a good illustration o f the am biguity o f symbols,

“ignorance” bearing here its “goo d” sense). M uch more o f thelike could be cited from Dante. I do not understand how

anyone can claim to be a Christian w ho resents the idea of a

kingdom not o f this world; and it seems to me “heretical” (ie,“not knowing what is true, but thinking what one likes to

thin k” , ic, w ishfully) to reject the Christian trad ition o f the via

negativa, and at the same time for a Christian disingeniously to

cavil at the use o f the same m ethod (metodos, procedure) in

Islam and o the r religions. Finally, the grea ter part o f thecriticisms that C hristians com m only make o f other religions

are based on imperfect, ie, second hand knowledge, and to a

certain extent there fore are intellectually dishonest. In fact, they

know Christianity positively, and the others only “negative-

ly”. Under these circumstances, silence would be “golden”.

H ow many E uropean scholars arc reasonably equipped— I refer

to a knowledge of, at least, either Arabic, Sanskrit, or

Chinese—or failing that, then at least long and intimate personal association w ith the fo llowers o f oth er religions.

C f . . . Sir George B irdw ood in Sva (Oxford, 1919, pp 17

23), ending: “Henceforth I knew that there were not many

gods o f hum an w orship, but one God only, w ho was

polyonym ous and polym orphous, being figured and nam edaccording to the v ariety o f the outw ard conditions o f things,

ever changing and everywhere different, and unceasingly

m odifying o ur inward conceptions o f them ”— reminding one

of Philo’s w ords: “ But, if He exists wh om with one accord allGreeks and Barbarians acknowledge together. . . . ” (Spec II,

165) thus ascribing monotheism to all pagans as Goodenough

com ments. I m ight add, com pare the history o f religious persecution in Euro pe w ith the alm ost to ta l abscnse . . .

[thereof] in India w here there was, o f course, plenty o freligious controversy.

In an orthodox Indian family, it can quite easily happen that

different m embers o f the family m ay choose “ different Go ds” ,ic, different aspects o f God, differently nam ed, and no onethinks this strange. I . . . think it a state o f spiritua l infancy to



claim exclusive truth for one’s own religion (which one has usually inherited willynilly, being “born” a little Catholic, a little Protestant, a little Jew, or a little Muslim); one has only

the right to feel that “my religion is true”, not that yours is untrue. All this does n o t . . . exclude the possibility of heresy,

which may arise in any religious context; the reasonable thing is for those who are interested in the truth . . . to discuss the truth of particular doctrines, about which agreement can . . . generally be reached. I . . . hardly ever set out to explain a particular doctrine from the point o f view o f one tradition only, but cite authorities from many ages and sources; by “particular doctrines” , I mean, o f course, such as that of the “one essence and two natures, and many others about which

there is, in fact, universal agreement.

Very sincerely,

Miss Jenks is not further identified.

To ERIC GILL

March 6, 1934

Dear Eric:

I was glad to have yours o f February 16. I hear from Carey that there is still a possibility o f your coming over; i f so, I hope you will manage to spend a week with us.

Yes, I think the ideas o f “personality” and “void” can be reconciled—somewhat as the affirmative and negative theology can be. One might begin with “no one can be my disciple who does not hate animam suam”, and St Paul’s “I live, yet not I, but Christ in m e”, and “the word o f God . . . extends to the sundering o f soul and spirit”, going on to the Thomist “memory belongs to the sensitive faculty” and “only the intellectual virtues (ie, “spiritual”) survive”, and to The Cloud of Unknowing: “the greatest sorrow that a man can feel is to realise that he is”, and Eckhart’s “the soul must put herself to

death” as “the kingdom o f God is for none but the thoroughly dead”, and other such passages showing that the Christian should not be unduly alarmed at the use of the negative



MUSEUM OF FINE ARTSb o s t o n . Ma s s a c h u s e t t s

. Vi _____

iJ - t X j~

I WuvJCi Vv»JUv>*4aJ%-v •v*! feuftit.

W>- IV/ ■Ir . ( jlTUL JU j VJP'O 1 «. |wyA/»-lA_ t»

— ^ c L u L r u cu ^to i a j t >^. ^ i \ M U ^ t - l

I'VLwrtAfcMM I 'Vv'* ^ - I ^ v lU v s -~A- >1

io * v*rv~ c_ UV. y^Jl *. &MJL- 4*/»

It /t '•^vxrVjus. *| t~i

f|i^tJ | yII IT ft ifl £ fc-|hJL4. lv»-

. N. |^ —I £

1a*. UM^fcUl^p^ (Ia»aAWH

Va j a . ». WQ Sa. <v J , , U j I ^ » X ^ OA . r~ v o ^ t i i .

Lun. U*_ ltul«L H U*»^

urt^, »- jl ^ a _ _ • *a «x- |~wJ 'rt*Ali

(w \ . t A . ■ a -w w v *| l m g y / « i c l a J ^ ^ M t » -

-<-0 .*n I *V* IwJ

«n. U»» - >~W tv UjL tu _ ^ « . y ^ v U . < **r£b n ^ t o _

•y^A^U- >-'W~U *m /vL-~w*. U». Ci-^J~UL

VSAJUm-. j . W- ®bA I «-***

W-J I -* tf4

Id (LfnjO

»- L»—«V~*wi>—G U ,

SCLw >

An example of Coomaraswamy’s manuscripts—letter to Eric G ill



into being, bu t superior to being itself when it means thatwhich is not limited by any affirmative definition. All valuesare thus reversible, and from this point o f view the celestial powers o f darkness are superio r to the cosmic powers o f light.

The Janitors of the empyrean arcanum are “demons” to us,

because they keep us out; but good from the standpoint o f thedeity ab intra, to whom none may enter unless qualified.

Y our m ention o f Scorpio (who was originally a celestialJanitor) is curious, because I am just now working at the

icono graphy o f Sagittarius (another Janitor) in which that o f the

Scorpionman is also involved. These types were originally the

guardians of the door (Jama Coeli) o f the abode o f Anu (=Varuna) and o f T a m m u z (= Soma) that grew in A n u ’s “garden”.

The Tree was robbed by the Firebird ( Aquila)

in order that“ w e” m igh t have life, and ultimately eternal life. Scorpio is one

o f the equivalents o f the Che rubim w ho “keep the way o f the

Tree o f Life” in Genesis, where the “ flaming sword that turns

every w ay ” is an example o f the widely diffused type o f the“active d oo r” . The guardians are evil from ou r present point of

view, who are shut out, but not more absolutely so that St

Peter who keeps out those who have no right to enter. It is in

the same sense that pearls are to be witheld from swine. (This

reminds me o f a definition I have heard o f universal com pul-sory education: “ false pearls cast before real sw ine” !) Hence I

think you are right in saying that tamas can be associated withananda as its locus (loka)\ indeed, the analogy serves to explain

w hy it is that human intercourse (which reflects the “act offecundation latent in eternity”) “ought” to take place only in

the dark (cf S B VI. 1, 5, 19), and to explain the covering up o f

the Queen and the Stallion in the Asvamedha. O f these sufficient

metaphysical reasons our modern “decency” is only a weakrepresentative; “ prop riety” w ould be a better word, if under-

stood in its etymological sense, and in the original sense of“decorous”.

I am glad to have news o f M. Guenon. I have sent himvarious publications during the last tw o years, bu t do not kno w

if they reached him. I hear o f him indirectly throug h MarcoPallis. I shall be most gratefu l if you can, as you suggest, send

me a typescript o f his new boo k on the quantitative andqualitative; too often people forget tha t these are incompatibles!I have ju st been reading Dcm etra V aka’s Haremlik (Hought



on M ifflin, N ew York, 1909); you should get hold o f it if

possible (it may be in print, and anyhow should be easily

obtainable), for it is excellent and po ignant, and indeed throw s

a grim light on what we call our “civilisation”.


Very sincerely,

F. A. C utta t was a Swiss diplom at and at the tim e o f this exchange was

poste d to th e Swiss Legation at Buenos Aires, Arg entina.

Th e three gunas: sattvas, rajas and tamas, in Hindu cosmology, are qualities or

tendencies which exist in perfect equilibrium in the primordial substance,

prakriti (materia prima, to adapt a Scholastic term) but arc variously

combined in every manifested object; sattvas = the ascending tendency,

rajas = the expansive tendency, and tamas = the dow nw ard and compressivetendency. See Rene Guenon, Man and His becoming According to the Vedanta,

chap iv.

Rene Guenon, Cairo, Egypt; communications between Dr Coomaraswamy

and Guenon were interrupted during the II World War. His The Reign of

Quantity and the Times was circulated in typescript form before formal

publication. See Bibliography.

Demetra Vaka, Haremlik, Some Pages from the Life o f Tu rkish W om en,

Boston, 1906.

A N O N Y M O U S

Date uncertain

Dear M:

All religions arc agreed that the goal lies beyond logicalthought, beyond good and evil, beyond consciousness, and all

pairs o f contraries. The Way is anoth er matter; on the Way one

m ust use means; no tably means o f thou gh t and discrimination,valuation, etc. In other words, use the ordinary instruments of

thought, ie, symbols, verbal or visual. The alternative would

be not to speak o f God at all, but only o f w hat wc call facts orsensations. T he nam es o f God vary according to the aspect or

activity considered, eg, Creator, Father, Light.All religions assume one essence and tw o natures, o f which

there is the Supreme Identity, without composition. The

natures are personal and impersonal, immortal and mortal,infinite and finite, justice and love, royal and sacerdotal,transcendent and immanent, etc.



Such arc our images; by their means one advances on the

Way. Iconoclasm presupposes iconography; it is mere vanityfor those who have not used their images until they have no

more use for them. That involves total sclf-naughting; and few

have seen God without image. We have, therefore, the via

affirmativa, o r taugh t way; and the via negativa, or untau ght wayin which he is grasped w itho ut a ttributes; and these distinctions

are common to all theologies. The last step, no doubt, is one of

docta ignorantia; that does no t mean tha t there is any m erit in the

indocta ignorantia o f those w ho refuse to step at all.

In your paragraph 2, what you refer to is not “the” mystical

experience, bu t the stages o f it. The highest level of reference

we can grasp fro m below seems to us like the goal; bu t it is only

a temporary goal; the ladder is very long and has many rungs(stepping stones o f ou r dead selves). Y et the Way is no t

infinitely long; it is only incalculably long; and at the same time

so sh ort that it can be crossed in a second, if all is ripe fo r that.

Yes, any “mystical” experience remains for ever afterward a

“pointer” .

It is absurd to ask simultaneously for knowledge and for the

m ethod o f ob taining it (Aristotle, M et II.2.3). Try never

questioning the truth o f scripture and m yth, etc—regard it asyo ur business simply to un derstand it. In that way y ou will find

that you are getting somewhere, and before you know it,

actually you will have some degree o f know ledge. You w ill not

reject the means until you know all that there is to be known.

That is the sine qua non for “unknowing” .The best European teacher is Meister Eckhart; supremely

exact.

Buddhism and Hinduism (essentially the same) are not easy

to understand from published accounts by rationalist scholars

untrained in theology. Bo th require use o f the texts. How ever,there are no doctrines peculiar to any one body o f doctrine; any

real “m atter o f faith” can be supported from m any differentsources.

An “evolution” in metaphysics is impossible; but one canlearn no t to think fo r oneself (ie, as one likes). In mathem aticsone does not have private opinions about the sum o f tw o and

two; and so in this other universal science.Further, on why worship must be symbolic — figura tive— see

St Thomas Aquinas, Sum Theol I—II. 101.2. The use o f symbols



pertains to the via affirmativa, and includes all names given to

God. They can only be dispensed with gradually in the via

negativa leading to direct vision without means. Those who try to

dispense with symbols before they have attained to the beatific

vision are premature iconoclasts.

Symbols are, strictly speaking, supports o f contemplation. This

is why St C lem ent says, “ the parabolic style o f scripture is o f

the greatest antiquity”, and why Dante says “and therefore

doth the scripture condescend to your capacity, assigning foot

and hand to God, with other meaning” (Paradiso IV, 43. f.). In

the animal life (empirical life guided by estimative knowledge)

we value things as they are in themselves; otherwise, for what

they are in intellect, “ taken ou t o f their sense” as Eckh art puts

it. Life is empirical to the extent that we are unable to refer ouractions to their principles. When we do so, however, then the

things are the “ sym bo ls” o f the principles. A life with

communication based entirely on signs, and entirely lacking in

symbolism, is a purely animal life. A “Comprehensor” may to

all appearances do the same thing as othe r men, bu t for him sub

specie aetemitatis. Sym bolism bridges the schism o f sacred and

profane and th at is w hy meaningless art is fe tish im s or idola try.

On a somewhat lower plane, we cannot talk higher mathematics w ithou t using symbols. O ne cannot reduce everything to a

vocabulary o f 500 words. To kno w w ithou t images is to be in

the state where contemplatio supercedes consideratio, for as

Aristotle says “the soul never thinks without a mental pic

ture . . . even when one thinks speculatively, one must have

some men tal picture of which to th ink” (De anima III, 7.8).

This state o f kno w ing w ithou t images is the last stage o f yoga,

samadhi, which etymologically = synthesis.

Sincerely,

To E . R . G O O D E N O U G H

Date uncertain

Dear Professor Goodenough:

. . . I think that we have to be very careful no t to forget thatthe sym bol o f any immaterial thing is necessarily in itself



concrete, and not to fall into such blunders as Maine’s in his

introduction to Marcus Aurelius. We have all the same

problem s in India, where th e th eolo gy has been so hopelessly

confused by scholars w ho take terms such as vayu (“w ind” , but

really “ Gale o f the S pirit”) literally and n ot as a referent. Philo

him self is often w arn ing us against such errors (eg, C o n f 133),against wh ich all the “ laws o f allegory” militate, while in India

we have equal ridicule for those who “mistake the finger

for that at which it points.”

I have o f course, been able to make only a partial

concordance o f Philo’s ideas for myself, b ut it is fairly tho rou gh

for my purposes; I am using him largely in a study and

com parison o f Greek w ith Sanskrit Akasa in the respective

texts. One would be hard put to it really to distinguish Philo’s

forms o f thoug ht from Indian.

Sincerely,

E. R. G oodenough, professor o f the history o f religion at Yale University, N ew

Haven, Connecticut, USA.

To GRAHAM CAREY

N ovem ber 25, 1943

Dear Graham:

What the secular mind does is to assert that wc (symbolists)

are reading meaning into things that originally had none: our

assertion is that they arc reading out the meanings. The proof

o f ou r co ntention lies in the perfection, consistency and universality o f the pa ttern in wh ich these meanings arc united.

Always most cordially,

Graham Carey, identified on p 43.

This was a handwritten postcard.



To ROBERT ULICH

July 10, 1942

Dear Professor Ulich:

I am delighted to have your book—it is curious that I have

ju st been reading Jaeger’s Paideia which states the aristocratic

cultural ideal. I suppose I am nearest to what you would call a

Symbolist (p 311) and certainly agree that this position is in no

way incompatible with radical scientific thinking, though it

surprises me that you call this attitude “widespread in our

times” since I should have supposed that to think in symbols

had gradually become the rarest accomplishment. I do not

think 1 have ever felt the conflict o f reason and belief, and in a

way I cannot un derstand what such a conflict could mean, sinceit seems to m e that all facts are projec tions o f timeless form s on

a time-space surface. So too . . . miracles . . . arc things that

can be done even today by those w ho know how , and therefore

present no in tr insic problem ; on the other hand, the question

whether such and such a miracle was actually performed on a

given occasion seems to me unimportant compared with the

transparent meanings of miracles (this takes us back to symbol

ism).If ever you make a second edition, I hope you will take

account o f the O rien t and the primacy o f pure m etaphysics as

emphasized by Guenon.

One further remark about symbolism. I was delighted

recently to find out that Aristotle points out that mimesis

naturally involves methexis.

I should have seen this for myself. It is so obvious when

poin ted out. A pity Lcvy-Bruhl w ith his exaggerated notionsabo ut the illogical character o f “ mystic participa tion” had notrealized it; he might have written less.

Symbolism presupposes real analogies on different levels ofreference. Hence also symbols and their references arc

inseparable— the symbols arc the langugc o f revelation, no t a

language to be constructed at will in the sense o f “ let this beunderstood to refer to this” (that may be signification, but notsymbolism). The symbol is not so much o f X , as it is X in a

likeness—ie, in another nature. I would say that symbols aretechnical language of the philosophia perennis. Symbols (eg,



light) are used in essentially the same way at all times and all

over the world: hence this is a language o f common understanding.

Le symbolisme qui cherche is always individual and therefore of

little use for purposes o f com munication: le symbolisme qui sait is

another m atter, and m oreover o f enorm ous w eight because it is

only in term s o f this symb olism that the forms o f traditional artacquire meaning for us. Shape and conten t o f a sym bol are

inseparable (cf p 95).

I am afraid my booklet is hard reading. I was very much

pleased by your apprecia tion therefore. I have recently com

pleted articles on “ Recollection, Indian and Pla tonic” and “ The

Only Transmigrant” (inseparable themes; for it is only a

timeless om niprcscncc that can make the idea o f omniscience

intelligible).With very kind regards,

Yours sinccrely,

PS: p 283— H ow often I have also said that “ freedom to starve

is no t freedom ” ! I find Kicrkcgaad almost repulsive—always

whining. So also Paul Claudel and Rainer M. Rilke mean

nothing to me!PS: Your book suggests many things. Obviously and above

all, education for what, tow ard w hat: I canno t think o f any final

goal or summum bonum that does not include absolute freedom

and power to be as and when wc will, to know all that can be

known and also the unknowable. That is only conceivable byan identification o f ou r being no t w ith this ou ter m an so and so,

but w ith the im m anent deity, the inner man (daimon). No

psychology, then, seems so much to elucidate our inner

conflict, actual limitation and desired liberty, as the Platonicand Indian concc ption o f a U niversal S elf that is our real Self,

living side by side with the empirical Ego which is really a

process rath er than an identity. Education m ust be tw ofold, onthe one hand to enable the outer man to do the tasks for which

he is natura lly fitted, and second to enable us to recognize in theinner man our real Self, and in the outer man no more than avaluable tool adapted to contingent ends. In this sense I

understand gnothi seauton and its Oriental equivalents as the truedirection o f higher education. If wc also understand thetraditiona l sym bolism s, all the activities o f the ou ter m an can be



made the support o f this understanding.

PS: I do ubt if you are quite right in saying that Plato despised

manual labor; what he deprecates is mere manual labour,

anything that serves the needs of the body only, and not o f the body and the soul at the same time. Charmides 163B seems to

endorse Hesiod’s “work is no reproach”. Other refs: Euthydem us 301D, Republic 401C, 406C, Protagoras 355B and his

wh ole conception o f vocation, to eauton prattein being each

m an ’s Way to perfect himself. C f also original senses o f sophia

and episteme — skill, again a connection o f ideas well developed

in India where kausalya = skill, primarily technical, secondly

moral and intellectual.

Ulich, Heinrich G ottlob Robert, at the time o f this letter was professor and

chairman of the department o f education at Harvard U niversity, C am bridge,

Massachusetts, USA. As the book that occasioned this AKC letter is not

nam ed in the letter, w e can only conjecture that it ma y have been D r U lich ’s

Fundamentals o f Democratic Education, which was published in 1940.

Rene Guenon, Cairo, Egypt.

Levy-Bruhl, Lucien (d 1939), early social anthropologist and philosopher,

w rote w idely on the behavior and thinking of primitive man, thou gh

without ever having lived or worked among such people.

‘Recollection, Indian and Platonic’ and ‘On the One and Only Transmigran t’, published as supp lem ent 3 to the Journal o f the American Oriental Society,

vol LXIV, no 2, 1944.

To GRAHAM CAREY

July 29, 1944

Dear Graham: ►

Intellige Deum et scite quod vis seems to me absolutely O. K.I have been reading W. M. Urban’s Language and Reality

(Allen and Unwin, 1939) with great pleasure and profit.Answers on the color symbolism are not quite so easy. On

the whole, I agree with your remarks: however, I suggest that

Essentia is only apparently modified by matter, in the same waythat space is only apparently modified by its enclosure in say a

glass jar. We see this when the ja r is broken: in the same waywith Essentia when the material conditions determining Esse aredissolved. So I would say “God created the Universe by



revealing w hateve r o f H im self is susceptible o f man ifestation.”

Over and above this remains all that is not susceptible of

manifestation. I do not like the expression “passing Esse

through Posse.”

Betw een these tw o lies the colored w orld o f action. T hese are

the three “ gun as” o f Indian cosmology; c f Paradiso 29, 31-36.

These are the “3 w orld s” o f tradition— all under the Sun and

other than the Otherworld.

Blue, black and green are more o r less the same traditionally;

the im plication o f emptiness is right, bu t this is also po tential

ity, since emptiness demands fulfilment; the four castes and

four quarters are white, red, yellow and black. The “higherligh ts” (as you imply) are representative o f highe r values.

Purple rightly associated with black; purple connected with

royalty (also mourning) as black is with death. Prism: so “life

stains the w hite radiance o f etern ity.”

I hardly think the light returns to G od by the rotation o f the

wheel, b ut rathe r w hen it is stopped, ie, when the circumference

is reduced to the centre; then the centrifugal ray by which the

circumference was so to say pushed out, returns on itself to itssource. As Heracleitus says, “ the way up and the way d ow n are

the same”, the wheel continues to turn until the circumference

is contracted to the mo tionless centre (“rolling u p” o f tim e and

space). I w on der if you are no t using Esse (existence) w here you

mean Essentia (being), perhaps. Essentia apparently mo dified by

matter = Esse.

Dear Graham Carey:

I’ve been expecting to hear from you about Newport, as I’dlike to com e if it’s not too arduous.

both invisib le

Best regards,

Graham Carey, Catholic author, Fairhaven, Vermont, USA.

T o G R A H A M C A R E Y

December 8, 1943



I ju st discovered w hy a man carries his bride across the

threshold o f the new hom e: briefly, the new hom e is

assimilated to Paradise, the husband acts as psychopomp, and there

is the prayer addressed to the join ts o f the doo r o f the “ divine”

house, “D o no t hurt he r” . O ne has to f ly through the Janua

Coeli and the nearest to that in formal symbolism is to be carried thro ug h— you can easily see w hy it is “u nluck y” if the husband

stumbles.

Kindest regards,

Graham Carey, as above.

T o G R A H A M C A R E Y

July 20, 1944

Dear Graham:

I can subscribe to Revelationes multas, incarnatio unica which

seems to correspond to ou r doctrine o f the Eternal Avatar.

The omne falsu m . . . seems a little questionable: falsity, likedarkness, arises wherever the truth, spirit, light is absent. At

the same time, there could not be a world w ithout its contraries

(true and false, g oo d and evil, etc), and in the relative sense each

presupposes the oth er. G od is not ‘’good” in this rela tive sense,

bu t as transcending all values.

Very sincerely,

Graham Carey, as above.

T o GRAHAM CAREY

June 14, 1944

Dear Carey:

From the Indian po int o f view (dark) blue and black areequivalent. The three: blue, red and white correspond to thetamasic, rajasic and sattvic qualities. Indian images can be



classified in these terms as ferocious, royal, and mild or

spiritual in aspect. Now while knowledge and love are the

characteristic qualities o f Ch erubim and Seraphim, their prim

ary functions are defensive . . . and looked at purely from an

Indian p oint o f view one w ould think o f the colors blue and red

as corresponding to this m ilitant function. God him self would be white— or w hat is essentially golden, gold being the regula r

sym bol o f light, life and im m ortality.

From within the Christian-Hebrew tradition one would

recall that Seraphs are “fiery serpents” and connect the red with

this as well as with their characteristic ardor.

I am ju st n ow w riting the part of “ Early Iconography o f

Sagittarius” which deals with Cherubs and Seraphs. They are

both m ilitant and fierce types that “ keep the way o f the Tree o fLife”—the nearest to God (under the Thrones) in knowledge

and love because they are his “b od yg ua rd” , a sort o f “ K ing ’s

ow n” regim ent, an elite o f the angels. I am not quite able to

explain the blue for the Christian-H ebrew sources. Possibly the

blue, as for the Virgin , considered in her aspect as Sophia.

Very sincerely,

PS: From my outlook, blue or black is appropriate to theVirgin in view o f her identity w ith the Earth (goddess), the

M other*— o f which I was reminded the other day when seeing

the film The Song o f Bernadette (which is very fine and you must

see). Th is is the accepted explanation o f the Vierges noires (cf

Durand Lefevbre, Etude sur I’origine des Vierges noires, Paris,

1937), and Benjamin Rowland’s article on the “Nativity in the

Grotto”, Bulletin o f the Fogg Museum o f Art, VII, 1939, esp p 63.

* Given the n om inalist and reduc tionist attitudes o f m ind that m ode m

education instills, almost willy-nilly, in those whom it forms, it may be

w orth pointing ou t that this identification o f which A KC writes in no way

excludes other sy m bolic identifications involving the Virgin— no m ore than

an actress is inhibited from appearing simultaneously in m ore than one film.

Preeminelty Theotokos, Go d-Bea rer and M other o f God , she is also,

according to perspective and context: a young Jew ish girl in w ho m virtue

was perfect, Co-Redemptrix, the divine Sophia, the shakti of Christ, imago

Dei and the prim ordial p urity and beauty o f the hum an soul antelapsus, janua coeli. Spouse o f the H oly Spirit, materia prima (c f Genesis i, 2), etc.

Grahm Carey, as above.



O n B lack Virgins, see: L ’inigm e des Vierges noires, Jacques Huy nen, Editions

Robert Laffont, Paris, 1972; £tude sur I’origine des Vierges noires, Marie

Durand-Lefebvre, Librairic Renouard, Paris, 1937; and Vierges romanes, A

Gueme, Zodiaque, Paris, 1973.

U nfo rtuna tely, ‘Th e Early Iconog raphy o f Sagittarius’ was still incom plete

at the time o f D r Co om arasw am y’s death and has not been published. It may

be note d, how ever, th a t th e arrow gives th e sense o f the figure o f Sagitta rius,w hich is that o f fully unified man: animal, h um an and divine, the arro w

indicating the latter— Chosen Arrow was a name given to Christ in early

Christianity.

T o CARL SCHUSTER

December 9, 1931Dear Dr Schuster:

Both your papers interest me greatly. You are doing

invaluable and necessary work in recognizing the universal

symbolic motifs scattered so abundantly through Chinese

peasant art. O n chess in its “ cosmic” aspect, cf references given

by O tto Rank in A rt and Artist. But is not your game rather

“ race gam e” than chess proper? For similar games in Ceylon, cf

Parker, Ancient Ceylon. Shoulder flames are, I am sure, to be

distinguished from polycephalic representations, inasmuch as

the flames do no t imply othe r “ persons” o f the person

represented. On tejas, see Vogel, “Het Sanskrit Woord tejas” ,

M ed Kon A kad Wetenschapen, Afd Lettarkund, 1930; cf m y

“Early Indian Iconography, I: Indra” in Eastern Art. Shoulder

flames are represented in various divine and royal effigies onKusan coins, see Boston Museum Catalog o f Indian Coins, Greek

and Indo-Scythian, eg, pi xxviii, 26. T he shoulder flames o f aBuddha occur typically in connection with the “doublemiracle” (a solar manifestation) in which there are manifested

streams o f w ater from the feet and flames from the shoulders,cf Weldschm'idt in O z N F, VI, p 4, etc, and Foucher, L ’A rt

greco-bouddhique. For further data on shoulder flames I amsending you our Museum Bulletin for August 1927, see pp 53,

54. But I really don’t think the problem is closely related toyo ur present enqu iry; and it is ju st as im portant to exclude whatis irrelevant to a specific problem as to include w ha t is relevant.

On the Sunbird in Indian symbolism, it would be easy to



write a book. Hentze has made sound remarks on the Sunbird

in Chinese art; see my “Note on the Asvamedha”, Archiv

Oriental ni, VII, o f which I send you a reprint, see p 316, note 1.

The eagle, phoenix, garuda, hamsa, or by whatever name we

use, is two headed in the same sense as any othe r Janus type. I

presum e the Sunbird may also be represented as the bearer-across (the “ sea” ) o f other beings, ie, like Pegasus, as the

vehicle o f salvation, and in this case perhaps any additional

heads in general (and this includes the special case of the Janus

types) represen t the persons o f the Deity (we have representa

tions o f the Christian T rinity o f this type). O n sunbirds and

other solar m otifs, cf also Roes, Greek Geometric Art, its

Symbolism and Origin (Oxford).

I am sorry I cannot do more in a letter. I hope you will behere again some day.

With very kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

PS: Sunbirds hov ering above the T ree o f Life are o f course

abundant in Assyrian art.

Carl Schuster, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Otto Rank. A rt and Artist.

‘Early Indian Iconography, I; Indra’, Eastern Art, I, Philadelphia, 1928.

L 'A rt greco-bouddhique, Foucher.

‘A Note on the Asvam edha ' , Archiv Orientalni, VII, Prague, 1936.

Ancient Ceylon, H. Parker, London, 1909.

To JOSEPH SHIPLEY

July 12, 1945

Dear Shipley:

Very many thanks for your fascinating volume; as youknow, I am deeply interested in word-meanings; and itfrequently happens that the meaning I need to use is “obsolete”

or “rare” rather than the current sense.I feel mo st o f the pieces are too short. A good piece migh thave been done, s v, wit, on the distinction between gnoscere



from vitere, knowledge from wisdom, with other parallels. S v

element: from far back, both in Greece and India, the elements

are five, the quinta essentia being ether (this is a subject I have

done considerable research on); the four are only the'material

elements, the latter corresponds to “soul”. S v fairy, fata, is surely

plu ral, fates. S v angel, it would have been useful to point outthat Satan is still an “angel” , and our use of “ angelic” to m ean

“ sweet and good” is rather insufficiently based. Some o f the

unfallen angels are pretty fierce. Also I would have mentioned

that “ angels” correspond to the gods (other than God) o f paganmythologies. (Philo equates “angel” with Greek here and

daimon.) S v idiot, virtually “one who thinks for h im se lf’. S v

nest, the Skr is nida; there is no nidd —probably the second d is a

misprint for a.Also fa k ir (lit, “ p oo r” , designation o f Islamic ascetics), no

connection with “faker” (as you say). You have fa kvir ; it is,

however, wrong to add v after the g. . . .

Very sincerely,

Joseph Shipley, Dictionary o f Word Origins, New York, 1945. A copy was

inscribed to AK C, ‘w ho know s the ways o f w ord s.’

T o PROFESSOR ALFRED O. MENDEL

Date uncertain

Dear Dr Mendel:

Right and left, o f course, play an im po rtan t part in all

traditional philosophies. For right and left as male and female

perhaps the m ost convenient references are Satapatha Brahmana

X .5.2 .8-1 2 (see in S B E XLIII, p 371) and Maitri Upanishad

VII. 11 (see Hume, Thirteen Principle Upanishads, Oxford, 1934,

p 457). These tw o, o f course , correspond to Sun and M oon,and also to Manas and Vac.

You might also, for the past as maternal and the future as paternal, lo ok at Sankhayana Aranyaka VII. 15 (and other triads

listed in same context) in the version o f A. B. K eith, London,1908, p 47.

W ith slight modification o f you r ow n w ords, I w ould



agree— m other: past, self (ego, psyche); father: future , Self,

spirit, and “Common Man” (not “fellow man”, but the

“ M an” in all men and wom en, which was the original meaning

o f this expression, n ow perverted to refer to the “ man in the

street”.

It is hermeneutically (not etymologically) interesting that

“ left” has the am bigious sense o f (1) opposite to right and (2)

meaning “left behind ”; similarly, “right”, (1) not left in position

and (2) upright. Hence I would not agree to equating

“ tradition ” ' w ith the past; properly speaking, “ tradition”

represents what is timeless, stable, correct (con + right), while

the feminine is the changeable factor; as, indeed, we see in the

use of right and left in their political senses.* Tradition is no

more past than future; it represents the philosophia perennis, notto be confused w ith fashions and habits which w ere new in their

day, but arc now passe.

Sincerely,

*Here actually you get the above and below rather than right and left

relation.— A K C ’s note.

Alfred O . M endel, identified on p 45.

T o PROFESSOR ALFRED O. MENDEL

August 5, 1947

Dear Dr Mendel:

Circle, vertical, and horizontal: to answer at length wouldcome near to writing a book. You will observe that the

essential parts o f a circle are centre, radius, and circumference;

and that if the radius is large, radius = vertical, circum fcrcnce

= horizontal. In terms o f light, the ccntre = lux, radius (ray) =lumen, circumference = color, and what is outside the cir

cumference = ou ter darkness. In terms o f textile sym bolism,

radii = warp, circumfcrcncc = woof. If there are manyconcentric circlcs, each circumfcrencc represents a level o f

reference or w orld , ie, locus o f compossibles. A lso, in anyworld, centrc corresponds to sun, area to atmosphere, circumference to earth. Further, vertical (radius, ray) will be



“ male” to ho rizontal (circumference) “ female” . The position o f

the individual existing in time and space will always be at

which a radius meets the circumference; motion along the

circumference will be temporal, while centrifugal or centripetal

(down or up) motion will be atemporal; hence spiritual

progress from the point o f view o f the individual cx-istcnt in

time, being the “ resultent” of both motions, horizontal and

vertical, will be spiral; the symbol o f the double spiral

represen ting the w hole process o f descent and ascent from the

centre. A pure ly materialistic concept o f progress, how ever,

will be represented only by motion along the circumference;

while on the othe r hand, centripetal m otion considered by itself

will be “sudden”, having precisely the well-known “instan-

taneity” o f “ illum ination” . This last you will see more easilywhen you get my Time and Eternity (to be published, probably

by September, by Artibus Asiae, Villa Maria, Ascona, Switzer

land).For some references: my “ Kha . . . ” in Harvard Journal o f

Asiatic Studies, 1, p 45; my “ Rgveda 10.90.1” , note 37, in JA O S

66 (I send you this); my “Symplegades” note 37 (I send you this

also); Rene Guenon, Le Symbolisme de la croix and La grande

triade; E. Underhill, Ruysboreck, 1915, p 167 (quoting The Seven Cloisters, ch xix); St Augustine, De ordine 1.3; Rumi, Mathnawi

3, 3530; Parmenides in Aristotle On Xenophanes 977B and 978B;

St Bonaventura, Itin mentis 5; Dante, Paradiso (many references

to “circle” and “centre”, punto)-, Dionysius, De D iv nom 5.6;

Meister Eckhart in Pfeiffer, p 503; Plotinus, Enneads 3.8.8.

I might find more, but this is all I have time for now.

I send w ith the tw o othe r papers also the “ Janua Coeli”, but Im ust ask you to re turn this, as I have only a few lending copies.

Very sincerely,

PS: Boethius, D e consol 4.6: A d id quod est quod gignitur, ad

aeternitatem tempus, ad punctum medium circulus, ita est fa ti series

mobilis ad providentiae stabilem simplicitatem.

Alfred O. Mendel, as above.‘Kha and Other Words Denoting “Zero” in Connection with the Metaphy

sics o f Space’ was actually published in the Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental Studies VII, 1934, U nive rsity o f Lond on.



'Rgveda X.90.1: atv atisthad dasangulam’, Journal o f the American Oriental

Society, LX VI, 1946, no 2.

‘Symplegades’, in Studies and Essays in the History o f Science and Learning

Offered in Homance to George Sarton on the Occasion o f His sixtieth Birthday,

edited by M. F. Ashley Montagu, New York, 1947.

‘Svayamatmna: Janua Coeli’, in Zalm oxis, II, no 1, Paris, 1939.

Rene Guenon, see Appendix.

Meister Eckhart, edited by Franz Pfeiffer.

This letter was in answer to an appeal from Professor Mendel, who wrote

the following: “ T oda y I examined the first five books and articles am ong the

hundreds that were written about symbolism, but could not yet find any

explana tion o f the vertical and the horizontal stroke, and the circle. N o d oub t

you kn ow w here I have to look— will you kindly give me a hint?” N ote that

AKC responded only a little over a month before his death.

To PROFESSOR ROBERT ULICH

August 14, 1946

Dear Professor Ulich:

I hope you will no t think it excessive if I add still ano ther

com m ent. In yo ur boo k, p 200, the importance that Froebelattached to the ball interests me. This could be “fantastic” in

him , if based only on personal fancies. O therw ise it could be

very significant. If I had to choose any one sym bol as the basis

on which to expound the traditional (“perennial”) philosophy,

it wou ld be the sphere or circle (hoop) w ith its centre and radii;

I think no more would be necessary to support the whole

develop m ent. For example, God as the circle o f which the

centre is everyw here and the circumference nowhere: revolving

m otion the best (freest) o f the “ seven” possible m otions

represented b y the arms o f the three dim ensional cross and their

intersection; rays as “extensions” (teino, tan), according to

which individuals (their termini on any circumference, where

A



“color” appears, according to the recepient oflight) participate

in the divine luminous nature; exemplarism, whatever is

contained at A being represented at B, C, etc, and conversely

whatever is at B or C being present eminently at A; significance

o f ball gam es (1) con test for the possession o f the Sun, (2) aim

to drive the ball (oneself, Sun as in R V 1.115.1) through the

goal posts, ou t o f the “field” , the “ posts” represen ting the

contraries or Sym plegadcs. C f Cusa, De vis Dei IX ad ftn . So

Froebcl might indeed have meant such by his emphasis on the

ball; w hether he did, I do not know. We who have forgotte n

the m etaphysical significance o f the traditional “ sports” (in

which, as in the traditional arts, there was always a “polar

balance” o f physical and metaphysica l) certain ly overlo ok

eno rm ous ranges o f educational possibility. I w onder alsowhether Froebel realised that there is a point at which the

distinction o f w ork from play elapses?

Very sincerely,

Ulich, Hcinrich Gottlob Robert, professor and chairman of the department o f

education at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

To J O H N L A Y A R D

N ovem ber 26, 1945

Dear John Layard:

The basic idea is similar to Meistcr Eckhart’s “he who sees

me sees my child” ie, the real “me” is not the visible man, buthis child, ie, Christ brought to birth in the soul. So to, Rumi,

“The body, like a mother, is big with the spirit-child”, M athnawi i .35.11. Th e idea is form ulated also as part o f the

sym bolism o f archery; the drawn b ow is pregnan t with thearrow -child; identify you rself w ith the arrow [and] let fly (muc ,

the root in moksa), stFaight to the mark, which is God.

John Layard, identified on p 42This was a postcard, without salutation and unsigned.



T o J O H N L A Y A R D

N ovem ber 24, 1945

D ear Joh n Layard:

Very m any thanks for you r letter and the reprints, o f which“the Incest Taboo” and the “Poltergeist” articles particularly

interested me. Your letter raises so many points that I wish,

indeed, we could meet; but it is some thirty years since I was in

England and I hardly expect ever to be there again; our plan is

to retire to the Himalayas some four years hence. You ask

about people o f m y kind in England: I would suggest Marco

Pallis (13 Fulwood Park, Liverpool), author of Peaks and Lamas,

which you m ay have read. Rene Guenon is in Cairo; but I think

his last book, La Regne de la quantite, would interest you.

Regarding m y ow n w ritings, I would like to troub le you to let

me know what I have sent you already and especially whether

you received “Spiritual Paternity” (Psychiatry, 1945). What of

mine is available in print can best be found at Luzac in London;

they publish m y Why Exhibit Works of A rt ? and will be issuing a

companion volume almost immediately, Figures of Speech or

Figures of Thought ?, and I think you m ight find both o f these

useful, especially the latter. You probably do know N. K.,Chawick’s Poetry and Prophecy, and also Paul Radin, Primitive

Man as Philosopher; the m ention o f these two books reminds m e

to say that w here I am a little inclined to differ from you is that I

very much doubt that the raison d ’etre o f taboos, etc, w as

“ un kn ow n to the conscious minds o f the earliest cultures” ; it

much rather seems to me that these meanings have been

forgotten since, by degrees; this will apply also to archetypal

symbols generally. In other words, I do not believe in thevalidity o f the application o f the no tion o f evolution to the ideas

of metaphysics.

I fully agree to your comments re Se l f (the Socratic daimon,

Logos; H eracleitus’ Common Reason, etc). However, the dis

tinction o f Self from self, le soi from le moi, is not mine; it has

long been necessitated by the exact equivalence o f suchexpression as atamano’tma (“ the Atman o f the A tm an” ), to such

as Philo’s “a spirit guide, munificent, to lead us through life’smysteries” (Menander, fr 549K— F. G. Allison’s translation).The realisation that duo sunt in homine is almost universal and



ou r evcrday language bears innum erable traces o f it, forinstance w hen we speak o f “ forgetting o nes elf’ in explanation

o f some error com m itted. So we have throu gh out literature the

contrasted notions o f “ self-love” (wrong) and “ Self-love”

(good). I have lots o f references to Self-love from Upanishads,

St Thomas, Ficino, but not under my hand at the moment.However, see Brhadarnyaka Up 1.4.8, and II.4; Ficino in

Kristeller pp 279, 287; St Thomas, Sum Theol II—II.26.4; Scott,

Hermetica 11.145 on the true Aristotelian.O n caste, I have ju st finished a lecture, and will send you a

copy when available. The best book is Hocart’s Les Castes. For

“ externalisation o f psychological functions in terms o f the

structure o f society” , see Plato, Republic 441; “the same castes

(=jati) are to be found in the city and in the soul o f each o f us.”A bo ut circles and straight lines: A Jeremias, Der Antichrist in

Geschichte und Gegenwart, 1930, p 4: Der Abendlander denkt

linienhaft in die Fem e, darum mechanish, areligeos,faustish . . . das

Morgenland und die Bibel denken nicht linienhaft, sondern seitraum-

lich, spiralish, kreislaufig. Das Welgeschen geht in Spiralen, die sich

bis in die Vollendung for tsetzen.

Very sincerely,

John Layard, identified on p 42.

‘T he Incest Tab oo and the V irgin A rchtyp e’, Eranos-Jahtbuch, vol XII, 1945.

The ‘Poltergeist’ articles arc not further identified.

Marco Pallis, Peaks and Lamas, see Bibliography.

Rene Gueon, The Reign o f Quantity and the Signs o f the Times, translated by

Lord Northborne, see Bibliography.

‘Spiritual Paternity and the Puppet Complex’, AKC, Paychiatry, VIII, 1945.

Why E xhibit Works o f A rt ?, London, 1943.

Figures o f Speech or Figures of Thought ?, London, 1946. N o ra K. Chadw ic k, Poetry and Prophecy

Paul Radin, Primitive Man as Philosopher, New York, 1927.

Walter Scott, Hermetica, O xford , 1924. The four volumes o f this notable

work have been reissued by Shambala, Boston, 1986.

A. M. Hocart, Les Castes, Paris, 1938; English version, Caste, London, 1950.



To J O H N L A Y A R D

N ovem ber 26, 1945

Dear Dr Layard:

I have taken the greatest pleasure in your Eranos paper.Understanding, candor, and couragc arc all in it.

The basic idea is similar to Meister Eckhart’s “He who sees

me sees my child”, ie, the real “me” is not the visible man, but

his child, ie, Christ brought to birth in the soul. So too, Rumi,

“The body, like the mother, is big with the spirit-child”

(Mathnawi 13.511). The idea is formulated also as a pa rt o f the

symbolism o f archery; the drawn bow is pregnant w ith the

arrow -child; identify yo urse lf w ith the arrow, let fly, straight

to the mark, which is God.You doubtless know the Yama-Yami hy m n o f the Rg-Veda,

but possibly not the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana 1.53ff (see in J A O S XVI, 1894, 131ff) where the wooing is brought to a

happy ending, the sun-child is born.

O ur word concept is also noteworthy; the thing conceived isquite literally the offspring of a coition of (Skr) manas and vac.

Apart from this fathering, “Vac only babbles”.

P 273: “ Moieties . . . Male and Female” : invo lves thedistinction o f gender from sex, which scholars so little

understand; the moieties are o f different genders, bu t notsexually differentiated. Gender has to do with function, sex

with characterisation, with specific physical organs. Moreover,

every man and woman is bisexual; and when it is said that in

heaven there are only “masculine virgins”, it means that

salvation is only for the virile, not for the effeminate; not that

women as such are excluded.Your Ishtar corresponds to Vcdic Usas (“Dawn”); Sri

(Fortune, Regnum ); Vac (for whom the Gods and Titans arc

ever fighting), all o f w hom arc notably “ free w om en” w ho willfollow whatever hero really “wins” them.

Do you know the poem “Mary and the Blind Clerk” (forwhich sec Coulton, Five Centuries of Religion, I, 509). How

painfully Coulton, from the moralistic poin t o f view, misunderstands it; as if one m igh t no t gladly su rrender on e’s

physical vision for that sight (cf R um i’s “ His [God’s] eye fo rmine, what an exchange!”).



A wife is Jaya bccausc one is bo rn again (jayate) o f her, so that

she becomes his second mother; this, primarily in the esoteric

sense o f reincarnation (incidentally, this “ progenitive rein

carnation” is the only orthodox doctrine o f reincarnation taugh t

in the older books). I have little doub t the esoteric m eaning was

well known; of Ja im inaya Brahmana I. 17 (in J A O S XIX E,1898, p 116) on the two wombs, human and divine, from

which one is born o f the flesh, or o f the spirit. C f also the

doctrine that a man is still unborn, so long as he has notsacrificed. For the wife as jaya, see Aitareya Brahmana VII, 13

(Harvard O rien tal Series, 25, p 300)— “T herefo re a son, his

m oth er and his sister mounteth; this is the broad and auspicious

path”— you can im agine w hat C oulton and the missionaries

w ould make o f that!Finally, it is repeatedly emphasized that what is “yes” for the

Gods is “no” for man; things are done and said in the ritual

which it would not be proper to do in everyday life, and

vice-versa. In the sacrifice, m an ’s way o f do ing things wou ld be

inauspicious.

Very sincerely yours,

G. G. Coulton, Five Centuries of Religion, Cambridge, 1923.

T o J O H N L A Y A R D

August 11, 1947

My dear Dr Layard:

I must say that your letter both surprised and saddened me,

in fact it brought tears to my eyes. Yours is a personal instanceo f the state o f the whole m odern wo rld o f impoverished reality.

I find my own way slowly, but always surely; surely,

because it has been charted, and all one has to do is follow upthe tracks o f those w ho have reached the end o f the road. By

“ the W ay” , I mean o f course that o f self-denial and o fSelf-realisation—denial primarily in the ontological sense rather

than in the m oral sense, w hich last can only be safely supportedwhen it has been realised that it cannot be said o f the Ego that itis, bu t only that “ it” become; w hich is the teaching no t only o f



all traditional philosophers, East and West, but also that of

modern psychologists, eg, Hadley and Sullivan.

The way o f healing is one o f integration; resolution o f the

psychomachy; making peace w ith one’s Self; su werden as du

bist. All this can be found in all the great religious contexts. In a

forthcoming article (containing references on “being at warwith one’s Self’) I have argued that Satan is the Ego, Christ (or

how eve r the im m anent deity be called) the Hero, and the battle

“within you”, to be finished only when it has been decidcd (in

Plato’s words) “which shall rule, the better or the worse”; a

battle that St Paul had won when he could say “ I live, yet not I,

but C hrist in m e” . The nature o f the resultant peace is

wonderfully stated in Aitareya Aranyaka II.3.7, “This self (Ego)

lends itself to that Self, and tha t Self to this self; they coalescc(or, are wedded). With the one aspect (rupa, “form”) he is

united with yonder world, and with the other aspcct he is

united with this world.”

I do not agree that there has been any mistake in your work ; it

has healed others, and delayed at the same time the coming on

o f yo ur ow n crisis. Neither were you w rong to publish it.

M uch in the Stone Men, “Hare” and “Incest” has positive value

for others; and you should realise that misunderstandings andmis-interpretation are inevitable, and ignore them. It is only

your present condition that makes you turn against the most

solid ground you have been standing on.

But you caught the very sickness you were treating. You did

no t have the art o f self-insulation, or detachment; you did not,so to speak, shake the effluvium from your fingers after laying

on y ou r hands. If you do n’t do that, you m ay still cure thevictim , bu t at the price o f taking on his burden, which is neither

necessary nor is it right, since it is for you to remain intact inord er that you may cure others. O nly the well can cure the sick,

and it is utterly true that “charity begins at home”; you cannotlove others- w itho ut first loving your Self, which is no t only

yours, bu t tha t o f all beings. N ow cut your losses. Repentence and remorse are tw o

different things. “Repentence” (metanoia), is literally and properly a “ change o f m ind” , as if from sickness to health. The

past is no m ore relevant. You have been a m artyr to psychology. But there is no reward for such a m artyrdom ;forget it. Learn the traditional psychology and Der Weg sum Selbst



(this last is an allusion not merely to the Vedanta, but to

Zimmer’s work, published by the Rascher-Verlag in Zurich,

and that I think you ought to read). There is nothing better

than V edanta, bu t I know o f no Sri Ramana M aharsi living in

Europe. I do not trust your young English Vedantist, nor any

o f the m issionary Swamis; thoug h there may be exceptions,m ost o f them are far from solid. I w ou ld no t hastily let any one

o f them have a chance to become for you another “ false guide” .

N o t even Vivckananda, were he still alive. Were Ramakrishna

him self available, that w ould be another matter.

But there are other ways, in some respects for a European

easier. It was emphasized in India by Jaha ngir and by Dara

Shikuh that the Muslim Tasawwuf (Sufism) and the H indu

Vedanta “ are the same” . You say “ the written w ord ” is o f little

use to you and that you need some personal contact. And it is

true tha t eve ryone needs to find their Guru. At the same time it

is certainly vain to search for one; the right answers will come

when we are ready and competent to ask the right questions,

and not before; and so with the Guru. There is a necessary

“intellectual preparation” . Th at is why , in spite of your

rejection o f the written w ord , I feel you may perhaps no t have

found the w ritten words you need, and why I suggest that you

lay aside the sources you arc m ost familiar w ith and p lunge intoa study o f the traditional sources— Greek, Islamic, and Indian

and Chinese. Try to build up your physical strength, and at the

same time to undertake to spend at least two years in makingyourself familiar w ith Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Hermes,

Dionysius, Eckhart, Boehme, the Brahmanas, Upanishads and

the Gita, and the Sufis, especially Shams-i-Tabriz, Jalal ud’Din

Rumi, Ibn al-Arabi, Attar (for the latter begin with Fitzgerald’s

version of the Bird Parliament, a work of infinitely moreimportance and greater beauty than his Omar Khayyam).

Overcome the idea that you, John Layard, are the “doer” and

lay the burd en on the O ne w ho bears it easily. For in the wordso f Apollonious o f Tyana (whose Vita by Philostratus you

should read by all means) in his Ep 58 to Valerius (striken bythe loss of his son, a loss by death, bu t quite analagous to you row n loss that I asked you to “ cu t” ), w ho m he exhorts in part asfollows:

Why, then, has error passed unrefuted on such a scale? Thereason is that some opine that what they suffer they



themselves have brought about, not understanding that one

who is ‘bom o f parents’ was no more generated by his

parents than is what grows on earth a growth o f earth, or that

the passion o f phenomenal beings is not that o f each, but that

o f One in everyeach. And this One cannot be rightly spoken

o f except w e name it the First Essence. For this alone is both the agent and the patient making Itself all things unto all and

throughout all— God Eternal, the idiosyncrasy of whose

Essence is wronged when it is detracted from by names and

masks. But that is the lesser evil; the greater is that anyone

should wail when God is born out o f the man [this refers to

the son’s death when he gave up the (holy) Ghost, and the

Spirit returned to God who gave it] by what is only a change

o f place and not o f nature. The truth is that you ought not to lament a death as it affects yourself, but honor and revere it.

And the best and fitting honor is to remit to God that which

was born here, yourself continuing to rule as before over the

human beings entrusted to your care.

Thus Apollonius offers to Valerius “the consolation ofPh ilosop hy ” (o f Bo ethius), or rather, metaphysics. W hatever

can be lost was nev er really yours. O ne m ust consider on wh at

basis “ th ings” (people, ideas, causes, all th at one can be“attached” to or wish to “serve”) arc really dear to us; of

Brhadaranyaka Up 1.4.8. (“ O f one w ho speaks o f anything but

the Self as ‘dear’, one should say ‘He will lose what he holds

dear. ’ ”); and ibid 2.4 and 4.5 (“no t for the sake o f others are

others ‘dear’, bu t for the sake o f the S e lf’.); and Plato, Lysis

21 9-2 29 (“ the one First ‘dea r’, for the sake o f which all other

thin gs can be said to be ‘dear’ ” .); viz, their and our Self. I think

you have been too m uch attached to the idea o f servicc to berendered to others, ove r-looking that the very notion o f “ self

and oth er s” is a par t o f the great delusion. N oth ing is more

dangerous than “altruism”, for it is only the correlative of“eg oism ” . Yo u can only “ love thy neighbo ur as th ys elf ’ when

you have realised that what he is, you are, not what he calls“ h im se lf’, no t “ w hat thou callcst ‘I’ or ‘m yse lf ” , but “That

art tho u ” wh ich underlies the names and masks of “ne ighbo ur”

and “self’ .

Yo u m ay have outgro w n the temporary form o f Europeancivilization that has wounded you, and in which you recognizeyo ur o w n destruc tion; and o f wh ich Picasso’s Guernica is a



realistic picture. Moreover, it has done with you. I think you

are no longer o f it; n ot a U top ist, w ho can believe in salvation

by plans alone, w ithout a change o f heart. I said above that

there were more ways than those you have already followed,

and you have also emphasized that you need personal help. I

send you the following names in Europe. . . .All this in order that you may in the end be able to return to

your own work — to heautou prattein kata phusin — but “ other

wise minded than now”, ie, may “return to the cave” to play

your part in the world without letting it involve you.

Please let me hear from you again soon. 1 do not think you

should try to come to the USA. I have not reached the end of

the road myself, and am only your fellow-traveller, though

possib ly better equipped w ith road-maps. I hope that what Ihave said may be o f som e assistance; do no t hesitate to w rite

further if there is anyth ing you think I can do m ore.

With kindest regards and sympathy,

Joh n Layard, cultural anthropolog ist and Jungian analyst, as above; author o f

The Stone Men o f Malakula, London, 1942; ‘The Incest Tabbo and the Virgin

Archetype’, Eranos Jahrhuch, X II, 1945; ‘The Lady o f the Hare: a Stu dy in the

Healing P ow er o f D ream s’, Psychiatry, VIII, 1945; etc.C f A K C ’s study, ‘O n the Indian and Traditional Psychology, o r Rather

Pneumatology’, in Coomaraswamy: Selected Papers, vol II, Metaphysics; edited

by Roger Lipse y, Boll in gen Scries LX X X IX , Prin ceto n, 1977.

Heinrich Zimmer, Der Wcg sum Selbst, Zurich, (date?).

Salaman and Absal and The Bird Parliament, as translated by Edward

Fitzgerald, various editions.

Philostratus, The Life o f Apollonius of Tyana, translated by F. C. Conybeare,

Loeb Classical Library, Combridge, Massachusetts, USA, and London,

England.

The names o f those to whom D r Coom araswamy referred D r Layard have been w ithheld at th eir request .

T o FATHER H. C. E . ZACHARIAS

August 12, 1935

Dear Father Zacharias:

Very many thanks for your kind letter and reminiscence. Iam entitled to assume that you depreciate the constant use of



“ em anation” in the Dom inican Fathers’ version o f Thom as

Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

I must also premise that wc have, as it were by hypothesis,

two d ifferent preoccu pations (1 do no t, o f course, m ean whole

preoccupation): you to establish no t only the truth, but at the

same time the exclusive tru th o f the Christian trad ition, and I

(who if required to profess, am a Hindu rather than a Christian,

although I can in fact accept and defend every C atholic doctrine

except this one of exclusive truth) to demonstrate the truth of

both traditions, to expound w hat is for me th e faith, not a faith.

Is this “exclusive tru th ” , I w onder , really a m atter o f faith? As

to that, I am not informed. In any case, I think the Catholicstudent o f Hindu doctrine should ask him self wh ether, if it

could be proved (such things cannot, o f course, be “ pro ve d” inthe ordinary sense o f the w ord) that H indu tradition is also a

divine revelation, and therefore also infallible, he would feel that

his own faith was shaken or destroyed; an affirmative answer

would surely by shocking.

I am aware that the problem involved is that o f pantheism. It

would take too long to w rite fully on this subject, w hich I hope

to do elsewhere; I will only say that we repudiate what from

our point o f view is strictly no thing bu t the accusation o f pantheism levelled at H in du doctr ine, and as an accusation

comparable to the Islamic denu nciation o f Christian ity as

polytheistic, a posit io n which m ight seem to be supported by

such words as those of Sum Theol I q 31, a 2: “ We do no t say the

only G od, for deity is com m on to several.” C f also note 42 in

my N ew Approach to the Vedas, and Pulby, “Note sur le

pantheism c” in Le Voile d ’lsis, no. 186

With these premises, I will say that it is true that srj implies a“ pou ring o u t” or perhaps “osm osis” . After creatures have been

thus poured out (srj) the deity in numerous Br passages is spoken

o f as “em ptied out like a leathern w ater ba g.” Yet he survives.

Alternatively, he is “cut to pieces” or “thought into many

parts” (R V) one becoming many in this way, which may berepresented either as a voluntary or as an imposed passion, just

as the Crucifixion is bo th o f these at the same time. In any case,the deity has to be put together again, which is done

symbolically in the ritual; which in ultimate significance Ishould be understood to mean . . . a reduction o f the arms of the

cross to their po int o f intersection. Th e notion o f a “ rcintegra-



tion” (samskr) to be accomplished ritually could be said to have

a pantheistic look.But: you m ust be fully aware how dangerous it is to take into

consideration one part o f a doctrine, excluding the whole

context. It is repeatedly affirmed (RV and AV) that “only a

fourth part of him bccomes (abhavat) here”, “three fourths

remain within” (nihita guha = ab intra). Distinctions are

repeatedly draw n between wha t o f him is finite and explicit,

and what infinie and untold (parimita, nirukta, and their

opposites); eg, rites with spoken words having to do with the

finite, ritual without words and orationes secretae (when manasa

stuvante) with the infinite. There are also the explicit statements

(AV and Ups) that when plenum is taken from plenum,

plenum remains. N ow , as to material cause in Chris tian formulation. St

Thom as speaks o f “ nature” as remote from God bu t yet

“retaining” a certain likeness. Likeness to what? Surely to natura

naturans, Creatrix, Deus, the “wisdom” that in Proverbs was

w ith G od in all his work. If nature w ere absolutely remote from

God, that would limit his infinity. To put the matter in another

way, take the doctrine o f the two births o f Christ, tem poral and

eternal (Vedic and Indian parallels are plenty). T here m ust be insome sense a mother in both cases, since the birth is always a

vital operation. In the case o f the eternal birth (that o f w ho m

we should employ the expression “Eternal Avatar” as distinct

from other avatarana), is not the “mother” the divine nature,

not distinguished from that divine essence, these being one in

Him? In this sense, it seems to me that Christian doctrine

assumed in God a material cause in principe, which only

becomes a material cause rem ote from Him in fact; in oth erwords, secundum rationem intelligendi sive dicendi, when the

creation takes place and the divine m anner o f know ing is

replaced for all beings in multiplicity by the subject and objector dual m anner o f know ing, which determines inevitably the

kind o f language in wh ich eternal truths are worded. Is no t thislatter m anner o f know ing on ou r part really the ocassion o f thecrucifixion in its eternal aspect? Truely, we kno w not w hat w edo, and need to be forgiven! It does no t alter the ma tter if we

say ex nihilo fi t, for what is nihil but potentiality as distinguishedfrom act? If then he is “em ptied ou t” , or as Eckhart puts it,“ gives the whole o f what he can afford” , what does this mean



except the same as to say that he is wholly in act? By infallible

necessity he gives wh at o f him self can be given, viz, the Son,

the Light; w hat he canno t give being the God-head, the divine

darkness, his inifinity.Hence if srj be str ic tly “ em anate ” (and it seem s to me

“ ex-p ress” is on ly a more active w ord fo r wha t is in any case asit were a fontality), it represents at the worst an imperfect choice

o f w ords, as in the D om inican Fathers’ Summa Theologica. But

taking into consideration the explicit character of Vcdic

Exem plarism (“ thou art the om niform light” , joytir visvarupam;

“integral multiplicity”, visvam ekam; “o m niform likeness o f a

thousand”, sahasrasya pratimam visvarupam, etc) 1 should say that

srsti is the same as “ fontal rayin g” (Dionysius), the act o f being,

com plete in itself, although to o ur temp oral spatial unde rstanding appearing to go ou tw ard from itself. C f “H e proccedeth

foremost while yet remaining in his ground” (anu agram carati

kseti budlunah, RV III, 55.6).Tam sending you a couple o f recent papers, one on Scholastic

Aesthetic which I am sure you will be interested in. I wouldsend some others on Vcdic Exemplarism, Vcdic monotheism,

etc, later as they appear, if you wou ld care to receive them .

Meanwhile, with cordial greetings,

Very sincerely,

PS: It seems to me that there is som e dang er o f ou r fo rgetting

that the current m eaning o f “ express” , hardly m ore than o f to

“ say” om its a good part o f the original force, to “ press ou r”

Re srj, cf also Bhagavad Gita: nakartvam ne karmani srjati.

H. C. E. Zacharias, PhD, Fribourg, Switzerland, was a layman, which was

unclear at the time AKC wrote this letter.

Summa Theologica o f St Thom as Aquinas, translated literally by the Fathers

o f the English Dom inican Province, Burnes, Oates and W ashbourne, Ltd;

see Bibliography.

Pierre Pulby, ‘Note sur le pantheisme', Le Voile d’lsis, Paris, 1935; this jo u rn al

later carried the name Etudes Traditionnelles.

A New Approach to the Veda, an Essay in Translation and Exegesis, London,

1933.

‘Vedic Exemplarism’, Harvard Journal o f Asiatic Studies, I, 1936.‘Vedic Monotheis’, Dr S. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar Commemoration Volume,

Madras, 1936.



Bo th o f the last two references are reproduce d in Coomaraswamy: Selected

Papers, Vol II, Metaphysics-, see Bibliography.

T o H. C . E . ZACHARIAS

August 18, 1935

Dear Father Zacharias:

The following continues my previous letter. It would not, you

see, occu r to us to have to defend the Hindu doctrine against an

assump tion o f pantheism, any m ore than it wo uld naturally

occur to a Christian to have to defend Christianity against a

charge o f poly theism . Nevertheless, the defence can be made incither case. In addition to the previously cited passages I come

across the following, which throw light on what was under

stood to be meant by srj. In Bhagavad Gita, V. 14, nakartatvam

tie karmani srjati. M ore cogent, Mundaka Up, 1.7, yatha urnanabhi

srjate ghrnate. . .tatha aksarat sambhavati iha visvam, where

aksarat, “from him that does not flow”, “from the non

proceedin g” leaves no meaning possible for srjate ghrnate but

that of “seems to withdraw”, (ghrnate is o f coursc literally

“dessicates”, one might say that as fontal, the deity is here

envisaged as Parjanya, as inflowing or indrawing, as Susna).

The re is again Bhaskara’s exposition o f mathem atical infinity as

comparable to that o f deity in that it is neither increased no r

diminished by whatever is added to or taken from it,

impassissima verba: “just as in the Unmoved Infinite (anante

‘cyute) there is no modification (vikarah) wh en hosts o f beings

are emanated or withdrawn” (syal laya-srsti-kale ‘nante’ cyute

bhutaganesu yadvat). After all, what we want to get at is whatHindus understand by srj, and here it is as always in such cases

largely a matter of crede ut intelligas followed by intellige ut

credas. Philology is not enough, the word must live in you. As

an outsider, you naturally claim a right o f “ free exam ination” ,

as do P rotestants w ith regard to the teachings o f the Ch urch ,

yet however learned they may be, they may have missed the

essential. Y ou have a righ t to “ free exa m ination ” , or at any rate

assume the right; so I do n o t ask you to agree w ith me. But I doask you to ask youse lf faithfully the prelim inary question,w hether you w ould be disappointed if you became convinced



that pantheism is not to be found in H induism. If the answer

were “ yes” , could you still claim to be able to make a perfectly

unbiased judgement?

I m igh t add that a very usual Christian criticism o f H induism

is based on the “ pure illusion” inte rpretation o f the Maya

doctrine. In this case, if there is no real wo rld, it cannot at thesame time be argued that an origin o f this non -existant w orld

from its source implies a materiality in that source. I should

not, how ever, m yself resort to this coun ter-argum ent, as I

understand the true and original meaning of maya to be natura

naturans, as the “means whereby” the essence is manifested.

Very sincerely,

H. C. E. Zacharias, as above.

Ed itors’ note: the following fo otnote, taken from A K C ’s published writings,

explains the difference between natura naturata and natura naturans.

“Although St Thomas is speaking here with special reference to the art of

medicine, in which means are employed, it is not these natural things that

effect the cure, bu t rather N ature herself, ‘opera ting’ throu gh them; ju st as it

is not the tools, but their opera tor that makes the wo rk o f art. ‘N atural things

depend on the divine intellect, as do things made by art upon a human

inte llect’ (Sum Theol I, q 17, 1 C) . T he ‘N atu re ’, then, tha t all art ‘im ita tes’ in

operation is not the objective world itself, our environment, natura naturata,

b u t natura naturans, Creatrix Universalis, Deus, ‘that nature, to wit, which

created all others’” (St Augustine, De Trinitate XIV. 9).

To H. C . E . ZACHARIAS

October 1, 1935

Dear Dr Zacharias:

Very many thanks for your letter. I am very glad to sec that

we have grounds for agreement on many matters. The

tradition o f a prim ordial revelation received by “ A dam ” (our

M anu ) especially constitutes a po int o f departure from wh ich

can be d iscussed the relative positions o f the now separatelymaintained traditions. I do not agree that the Vcdic tradition

embodies a large amount o f irrelevant matter, but rather that it

preserves m ore o f the prim ordia l doctr in e than is to be foundelsewhere, thoug h I w ou ld agree that the whole o f the prim ordia l doctrine underlies and is im plicit in every branch.



So far from finding any inconsistencies in the Vedic tradition, it

is precisely its extraordinary consistency tha t is the source o f its

convincing charm (I use this expression bearing in mind that

Scholastic and Indian aesthetic consider beauty as related rather

to cognition than feeling).

N ow , as to material cause: there cannot have such aconfusion o f the “ subtle” (suksma) with the immaterial as you

suggest. For the expression suksma and sthula refer only to sarira;

while the deity is outw ardly sariravat (incarnate), he is inw ard ly

asarira, discarnate. A confusion of suksma w ith asarlra w ould be

inconccivablc. As to the deity being “ all act”, yes if by deity we

mean strictly speaking “ G od ” . But if we consider the m ore

penetrating theology in which a dis tinction is draw n between

“God” and “Godhead”, notwithstanding that both conjointlyform a Supreme Identity (Skr, tad ekam, satasat, etc), then it is to

be rem em bered that He is both eternal w ork and eternal rest.

That He does not proceed from potentiality to act (as we do) is

true, because His act o f being is not in time; nevertheless as

Godhead He is all potentiality and as God all act. It is in this

sense that I spoke o f the “ M aterial” because being represented

in Him in principe, the Godhead representing in fact that nihil

ou t o f wh ich the w orld w as made, that divine darkness that is

interpenetrated by the creative light o f the Supernal Sun. Vedic

tradition does not, I think, employ any category exactly

corresponding to the expression “ spirit and m atter” , bu t rather

those o f “ body , soul and spirit” (rupa, nama, atman). “Mat

ter”, in other words, is a phenom enon, rather than a thing.

N othing is m ore constant in Vedic tradition than the insistence

on this, that in so far as He reveals him self phenom ena lly (in

phenom enal sym bols , in the th eophany, by the traces o f his

foo tprints, etc), all o f these forms are imposed by theworshipper, and are not intrinsic or specific to himself, who

lends H im self nevertheless to every im agery in w hich H e is

imagined. In other words, the “material” cause is not in thesame sense as the other causes, a real cause, but simply the

possib ility o f m anifesting form. Thus I have never said, nor has

Indian tradition taught that there exists in Him a material cause

in any concrete sense, but merely that there lies in Him all

possib ility; we say that in H im all is act ju s t because apart fromtime He realises all this possibility, whereas we develop onlysome o f these potentialities at any one time and in the course o f



a process in which effect seems to succeed cause. The above

remarks apply also to what you say about passivity in Him;

insofar as He is “self-intent” , that self which He regards m ust

be called in rela tion to th at self which regards. The Godhead is passive in rela tion to God, though both are a Supreme Identity ,

viz, the identity o f w hat Thom as calls a “ conjoint principle” . If

there were not both an active and a passive relation conceivable

within this identity o f con joint principles, it wou ld be

impossible to speak as Th om as does, o f the act o f fecundation

latent in eternity as being a “vital operation”. In other words,

the divine nature is the eternal M other o f the manifested Son,

just as M ary is the temporal mother. Being Father-M oth er

(essence-nature), either designation is that o f the First Principle.

It is very interesting that the doc trine o f the tw o Theotokoi which is thus present in Christianity (and symbolized in the

C oronation o f the Virgin) should be so definitely and clearly

developed in the Vedic tradition, and even exactly preserved in

the heterodox systems o f Buddhism and Jainism. There could

hardly be a better illustration o f the strict orthodox y o f both

traditions.*As regards Thomas**, I may add that already among the

Scholastics, he is evidently o f a rationalistic tendency. M y ownChristianity would tend rather to be Augustinian (Christian

Platonism), [that of] Erigena [and] Eckhart. It seems to me thatit is significant that the full endorsem ent o f Thom as took place

only in the latter part o f the 19th century. When the Ch urch at

that time realised the need o f a return to the M iddle Ages, wasit not perhaps the case that Thomas, represented, so to speak,

all that could be endured? I by no means intend to say that I

have not m yse lf a tremendous admiration for and appreciationo f Thom as, bu t that while I find in him rather a com m entary to

be used, a rational exposition, I find in Eckhart a far m ore bit ing truth, irresistible in quite a different way. N o t that they

teach different things, but that their emphasis is different, and

Eckhart comes nearer to the Indian and m y ow n way o f seeingGod.

With most kind regards,

Very sincerely,

H. C. E. Zacharias, as above.



♦The contradiction in these last two sentences may well have been

inadvertent. In any event, in his later years AKC definitely held that

Bud dhism was an orthodox tradition and believed in the orthodoxy even o f

Jainism. He and Marco Pallis were instrumental in getting Rene Guenon to

accept the orthod oxy o f the former, which was bom from Hinduism in ways

analogous to the birth o f Christianity from Judaism. Jainism w ould seem

more problematic at first glance. But one must consider the great antiquity

o f Jainism: Jain legends, eg, make o f their tw enty-second (of twenty-four)

Tirthankara (one wh o overcomes) a contem porary o f Krishna w hich implies

that Jainism was an already venerable tradition at the time o f the w ar w hich

figures in the Mahabharata. By the canons o f m ode m history, Jainism can be

traced back at least as far as the third century BC. This great antiquity, the

fact that Jains still form a viable community in India, and the broad

concordance o f Jain doctrine w ith that o f Hinduism and Bud dhism all point

to the ortho do xy o f Jainism.

** Th e T hom as in question is o f course, St Thom as Aquinas (circa1225-1275) major intellectual figure in western Christianity and the ‘Angelic

D oc tor’ o f Rom an C atholicism.

T o MRS GRETCHEN FISKE WARREN

N ovem ber 6, 1942

Dear Mrs Warren:We m ust first o f all be quite clear that the highest M ind,

wh ich the U panishads sometim es call “ M ind o f the m ind” o r

“ Lord o f the m ind ” , while it is the principle o f thou gh t, does

not “ thin k” . Th us A ristotle in M et XII. 9.5 says . . . th inking

canno t be the supreme goo d. Therefore, if we m ean the highest

Mind thinks itself (only), its ‘think ing’ is the Th ink ing o f

thin kin g” , ie, principle o f thinking. W hat w e mean by thinking

is o f contingent things, in term s o f subject and object. Hence

ne ither the aesthetic (sensitive) n or the poetic (creative)mind are

the highest. We get a hierarchy in M et 1.1.17, where in

ascending order we have sensation, experience (emperiria), art

(techne) o f the skilled w orkm an, and architectonics, “ and the

speculative sciences (theoretikea) are superior to the productive

(p .e ie t i cha i )That is to say, feeling is inferior to productive

action, and action inferior to contemplation. Similarly, De

Anim a III.5.4: Mind in creative act is superior to mind as

passive recip ient o f experience; the la tter (sensitive) m ind is perishable and only “ thinks” when it is acted upon fromwithout; only when “separated” (cf Maitri Upanishad VI.34,6:



kama-vivarjitam, “from desire divided off”), and as it is in itself

and impassible, is it immortal and eternal: ibid, 430 . . . , mind

twofold, (a) when it becomes everything and (b) wh en it makes

everything; o f these two, (a) refers to the mind “in ac t”

separated, impassible and unmixed; what is meant by “in act”

is the identity o f the mind with its object; ie, M et XII.7.8, 1072

B 20ff, when it is “thinking itself’. Thus, once more, the

activity of making is inferior to the act of being, and both, o f

course, [are superior] to the passivity o f the sensitive mind; and

that itself becomes e very thing is perfectly illustrated by

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10: “The Brahman knew itself

alone, thereby it becomes the All”.*

Further, M et XII.7.1072 B f, goes on to say that the aforesaid

impassible Mind in act (not meaning in “activity”) is acontemplation (theoria), that it is life, life eternal, God Himself.

And this is the backg round o fjo h n I, 3-4 , “ and that wh ich was

made was (had been) life in Him” (this is not RV, but the

regular older understanding o f the wo rds, rendered by Eckhart,

for example, in his Com m entary on John , by Quod factum est in

ipso vita erat). (The ed itor says “ such is the reading in almost all

the older manuscripts.” It is a far better rendering than that of

the Revised Version, ie, more intelligible.) Thus we haveclearly before us the two acts involved in any “creation”, viz

primus, the contemplative, and secundus, the productive.I am not perfectly clear what you want to get at, but the

hierarchy starts from the aesthetic (sensitive) at the bottom,

through productive activity in the middle, to contemplative

possession o f the form (w ith out dis tinction o f subject andobject) at the top. C f the series, cogitatio, meditatio, contemplatio.

Always cordially,

PS: St Thomas Aquinas, “When the mind attains to truth, it

docs not think, but perfectly contemplates the truth” (Sum

Theol 1.34.1 ad 2).

*This citation m ay, at first glance, seem ou t o f context; but the “ its el f’ in the

second clause refers to the Divine Mind. Notwithstanding possible

difficulties in this letter, we think A K C ’s ma in line of arg um en t is

sufficiently clear, and the letter is included because o f the great im porta nce o fthe topic discussed.

Mrs Grctchcn Fiske Warren, Boston, Massachusetts



T o RICHARD GREGG

October 12, 1946

Dear Richard:

Your questions need a book for the answers! However; the

universe em braces an indefinite series o f “ states o f being” (cfGuenon’s Etats de I’etre; the expert yogi can “visit” and return

from any o f these at will. How ever, they are all strictly

speaking states o f “ beco m ing” , ie, o f experience and o f

mutability in time; liberation is from time and all that time

implies. The Brahmaloka itself is a series of states. Early

Buddhism emphasizes that liberation is from both worlds, ie,

the world in which one is and the future world, whatever it

may be for anyone. Hence the Buddha is called “teacher ofGods and m en ” ; he is the teacher of Brahmas and shows them

the way to “ final escape” . A Buddha is no t a Brahma; he has

already occupied that high position in time past; now he is

brahma-bhuta, “become Brahma”, a very different matter. The

Ego, w hether ours or that o f any God, is a postulate, n ot an

essence; a pragm atic postulate, for no one can say of anything

m utable that it is. Body and soul alike are for the Buddhist (and

for St Augustine) equally mutable; St Augustine is thoroughly

Buddhist and Vedantic when he says “Reason (ratio = logos) is

im m ortal, and ‘I’ am defined as something b oth rational and

m ortal at the same time. . . . If I am Reason (tat tvam asi), then

that by which I am called mortal is not mine” (De Ordine

11.50) , — vir tually the com m on Buddhis t form ula , “T hat is not

I, that is no t myself, that is no t m ine .” Liberation follows w hen

we can detach ou r consciousness o f being from identification

with the no tion o f being this man or this God. It is only relati

vely better to be a God than a man; both are limited conditions.Vedanta and B uddhism both allow o f a karma-mukti\ libera

tion may take place here and now, or at death, or after death

from the position in some other state o f being that corresponds

to the stage in the process o f becom ing w hat we are, that has

actually been reached. This life is determinative only in thissense, that w ha t we are when we are at the point o f death, that

we still are immediately afterwards; as Boehme says, the soul

goes nowhere after death where it is not already. But in thatnew condition further growth can be made.*



“Twenty-one” is a simple matter; the (Supernal) Sun is often

called the “twenty-first from here” and “what is beyond him

the tw enty -seco nd” ju st because seven worlds, each w ith three

levels (earth, air, sky, or ground, space, and roof) make

twenty-one. I point this out in “RV X.90.1”, note 37, and

elsewhere. Cosmologies vary in detail, but have many fundamentals in com m on; eg, the seven rays o f the sun, w ith

correspo nding seven directions o f motion; the notion o f the

(sun)-door throu gh which one breaks out o f the cosmos = also

the passage o f the Sym plegades which are the “ pairs o f

opp osites” o f which, as Cusa says, the “ wall of the celestial

paradise is built” : the narrow way and the straight gate passing

betw een th em (as poin ted out in m y review o f The Lady o f the

Hare in Psychiatry, VIII, 1945, and elsewhere).As to karma: causality operates in any world, in any order of

time; bu t does no t imply succession in the timeless, w here there

is no sequence o f cause and effect, beginning and end, essence

and existence, being and,knowledge.

Arhat is virtually synonymous with “Buddha”; both can be

used in place o f each other. O f such liberated beings, the life is

“hidden”; only to others does it seem to be in time. I don’t

think there are any fundamental differences between the

Mahayana and the Hinayana. In any case, “reincarnation” is

only a fagon deparler bound up w ith and inseparable from that o f

the postulated Ego; it is a process, not the same “individual”

that reincarnates; and in fact, in this sense the “reincarnation”

or “becoming” from which liberation is desired is that which

goes on all the time, from moment to moment; becoming in a

future life is only a con tinuation o f this present becoming; no

one who still is anyone can have escaped it.

The phrase “psychic residues” does not properly apply tothese continuations o f persons elsewhere, b ut only to pseudo

personalities or “w andering influences” in process o f disin

tegration, and which the spiritualistic medium temporarily

enlivens and communicates with—a procedure abhorrent to all

orthodox traditions. Communication with the dead and theGods is possible, but only by our going to them, not theircoming to us (in general; some modification might be needed

here); in early Buddhism, competent contemplatives areconstantly represented as “v isiting” some heaven, and even theBrahmaloka (Empyrean).



I think this am oun ts to some kind o f answer to m ost o f the

questions. I daresay you saw som e report o f the Conference at

Kenyon College; I found it quite interesting; I expect my

speech (to which several papers, including the N Y Tim es gave

nearly a column) will get printed in due course; it was mainly a

destructive analysis o f the “ educa tional” and m issionary effortso f the Eng lish speaking peoples in o ther lands; it was rather

well received.I am rather near finishing the paper (circa 70 pages of

typewriting) on Time and Eternity; it traces the doctrine briefly

enunciated by Boethius in the words nunc Jluens facit tempus,

nunc stans faci t aeternitatem, in Indian, Greek, Islamic and

Christian contexts.

Wc arc both well and send our love. Greetings to all ourfriends.

Yours sincerely,

* Th e reader is referred to the rem arks o f Whitall Perry in His Forew ord to

this collection, pp v -v ii, and also to Frithjo f Schuo n’s Approaches du

phenomen religieux, pp 26, 27; and to the sam e auto r’s Sur les traces de la religion

perenne, pp 97fF.

Richard Gregg , Am erican friend o f Gandhi, w rote on non-violence.Rene Guenon, Les Etats multiples de I'etre, 1932 and numerous other editions;

see Bibliography. See also his L ’Erreur spirite for the traditional judg em ent

upon and explana tion o f spiritualistic phenomena.

Rigveda X.90.1: aty atisthad dasangulam’, Journal o f the American Oriental

Society, LXV1, 1946.

‘For What Heritage and to Whom Are the English-Speaking Peoples

Responsible?’, in The Heritage o f the English-Speaking Peoples and Their

Responsibility, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, USA 1947.

Time and Eternity appeared as a book, published by Artibus Asiae, Ascona,

Switzerland, 1947; see Bibliography.

T o PROFESSOR KURT VON FRITZ

October 29, 1945

Dear Professor von Fritz:

I read yo ur article on Greek prayer w ith interest. May I offera few suggestions? M ostly in the na ture o f parallels.

Page 8, the w hole passage from “Y et . . . go d” 7, w ith



note 7 corresponding almost exactly to what one has in India

where there is 1) no early authority for “rebirth” in the

com m only und erstood sense o f reincarnation on earth (cf m y

“Recollection, Indian and Platonic” and “The One and Only

T ran sm igra nt” ), and 2) the concept o f a “participation in the

eternity o f life by knowledge o f it” w hich is precisely w hat wefind in the Brahmanas and Upanishads. I would add that the

dual concept o f “ Hades” , the otherw orld, land o f the dead,

land o f no return, as either a “heaven” or “hell”, according to

the quality o f those w ho go there, is very w idespread; one

m igh t say tha t the concept o f a distinct place is exoteric, that o f

distinct conditions, the esoteric doctrine. On the question of

“mystic deification”, is not this rather implied by the equation

o f Zeus w ith E ther (Aeschylus, Euripides) and such passages as Eur, fr 971; and Chrys, fr 836?

N ote 15: so in India. I th ink the notion o f a miracle as

something against nature is something comparatively modern.

Th e traditional n otion is o f the exercise of latent pow ers o f

which the control can be gained by anyone who follows the

necessary procedure. Hence a Hindu would naturally wonder

why a Christian is so much embarrassed by the Gospel

“miracles”.

Page 26: So the art or skill with which the Vedic hymns are

constructed (often with comparison to other crafts, esp of

joinery) is regarded as pleasing to the gods.

Regarding the last com plete sentence on this page: if I were

describing the Vedic conception o f sacrifice, I wo uld say that

exoterically it implies the giving up o f som ething to the deity,

which something in the ritual is really oneself represented by

the victim or special symbol; but esotcrically, not so much the

actual giving up o f ‘som eth ing ’ as a reference of all activitieswhatev er to God, the who le o f life being then ritualized and

made a symbolic sacrifice; with your words “joyful activity. . . most appropriate offering”, compare them to the follow

ing in Chandogya Upanishad III, 17.3: “When one laughs and

eats and practices sexual intercourse, tha t is a jo in ing in the

Chant and the Recitative”. It becomes unnecessary to oppose profane and sacred. It may be regarded as one o f the great

defects o f developed C hristianity to have em phasized theiropposition—acts are only profane in so far as they are treated asmeaningless, and not “referred” to their ideas. So for example,



we distinguish “useful” from “fine arts” and so find ourselves

opposed to the preh istoric and Platonic concept o f arts that

provide for the needs o f the soul and body sim ultaneously .

Very sincerely,

Professor Kurt von Fritz, New Rochelle, New York, USA. His article is not

further identified.

Bo th ‘recollection, Indian and Platonic’ and ‘O n the O ne and O nly

T ran sm igra nt’ appeared as supplem ents to the Journal o f the American Oriental

Society, LXIV, 1944, and were published also in Coomaraswamy: Selected

Papers; see Bibliography.

T o PROFESSOR KURT VON FRITZ

N ovem ber 7, 1945

Many thanks for your response. Regarding its second

paragraph, the sense o f num erous presences is perhaps m ore

emphatic in Greece, but certainly not absent in India (eg,

thu nd er as the voice o f the Gods). I think it wo uld be true in

India to say that the notion o f union is w ith the impersonal, and

that o f association w ith the personal aspect o f diety— bu t these

tw o aspects me rge into one another, as being the two natures ofa single essence.

AKC

Postcard to the above.

T o D R J . N . F A R Q U H A R

February 1, 1928

Dear Dr Farquhar:

I am o f course in general agreemen t with your view

expressed on the origin o f image w orship in the last J R A S,

except as regards the statement that a monotheist cannot be an“ ido lator” . O n the purely sym bolic value o f images (ie,non-fetishistic), there is an interesting passage in Divyavadana,



Chap LXXVII, where Mara impersonates Buddha and Up-

agupta worships the form thus produced, explaining that he isnot worshipping Mara but the teacher who has departed “just

as people venerating earthen images o f gods do no t revere the

clay, but the immortal ones represented by them.”

My views were actually based not on the tradition, but onthe art itself and the literature. You will find a great deal o f

material bearing on the subject in the two papers o f mine about

to appear: “ O rigin o f the Buddha Im age” , A rt Bulletin, vol IX,

pt iv, 1927; “Yaksas” , Smithsonian Miscellaneous Publications,

LX X X , no 6, W ashington, D. C ., 1928.

Also sec in Charpen tier, J, “ U ber den Be griff und die

Etym ologie von Puja”, in Festgabe Hermann Jacobi, Bonn, 1926;

and in Louis de La Vallee-Poussin, . . . Indo-Europeens et Indo-Iraniens: I’Inde jusque vers 300 av J - C , Paris, 1924,

pp 314ff.

Very sincerely,

PS: My two papers will be sent to the R. A. S. Library.

J. N . Farquhar, M anchester, England, was a well kno w n w riter on Indian artand culture.

R. A. S. = Royal Asiatic Society: J. R. A. S. = Journal o f this same Society.

For the two papers by AKC mentioned in the letter, see Bibliography.

T o PROFESSOR B. FARRIN GTON

October 8, 1945

Dear Professor Farrington:

Many thanks for writing in reply to my note. What I meant

was, that to explain physis in terms o f techniques has been theuniversal procedure. And in reply to the further objection, I

meant to suggest that what might have been described as“physical” [in] pre-Socratic thought is really “theological”thou gh t, since the “n ature” they w ere trying to explain was no t

our natura naturata but natura naturans, creatrix universalis, Deus, and tha t to do this is to im ply that nature herself operates per

artem et ex voluntate, ie, that she is a “Person”.



For the rest, I find it very difficult to see uniqueness in any

local thou gh t; only local colour. 1 have often asserted that there

is noth ing peculiar to “ Indian tho ug ht” , and could sup port this

by innumerable parallels. In fact, I try never to expound any

doctrine from only a single source. I cannot, indeed, conceive

o f any valid p rivate axioms. If by any chance Psychiatry is

available there, you might care to look at my article in VIII, 3(the last part published, Sept 1945).

Very sincerely,

Professor B. Farrington, De partm ent o f Classics, U niversity College,

Swansea, Wales.

Th is letter was in response to one from Prof. Farrington, part of wh ich read

as follows: “ . . . Yo ur po int, i f I have un dersto od y ou, is that I am righ t in

m y description o f early Greek science, b ut w rong in thinking the attitude o f

the early Greeks unique. In fact, you say, it is Hebrew, Sanskrit and

Scholastic as well as Ionian Greek. Bu t is there no t a misun derstan ding here:

the early Greeks attempted to explain physis on the analogy o f techni

ques. . . . the early Greeks had begu n to distinguish a world o f natu re from

the w orld o f man, to conceive o f the wo rld o f nature as the realm o f objective

law. . . . ” “ Spir itua l Pe tcrnity and the Puppet-Com plex” , Psychiatry, VIII,

1945.

ANONYMOUS

Uncertain date

Sir;

It is stated that “naturalists maintain that ‘reliable

know ledg e is publically verifiable.’ ” This position M r Sheldon

very properly opposes; it is in fact, unintelligible. The proper

form o f such a statement would be: “ reliable know ledge isrepeatedly verifiable.” This is Aristotle’s proposition that

“know ledge (episteme) is o f tha t which is always or usually so,

never o f exceptions” (Met VI, 2.12 & 1, 813); and a particularly

interesting application can be made to the problem o f the

“h istoricity” o f an “ incarnation” o r “ descent” (avatarana)\ for

example, the historicity ofJesus will be automatically excluded

from the domain o f reliable know ledge and intelligibility i f it is

not also assumed that there have been other such descents.

Th e supernaturalist maintains no t only that the reality o f the



Divine Being has been repeatedly verified, but that it can be

repeatedly verified, viz, by anyone who is willing to pursue the

“Ways” that have been charted by every great metaphysical

teacher; and that it is just as “unscientific” for one who has not

made the experim ent to deny the validity o f the experience as it

would be unscientific for anyone to deny that hydrogen andoxygen can be combined to p roduce water, i f he is unw illing to

make the experiment, employing the necessary method. The

layman w ho will not experiment, and will no t believe the wo rd

o f those wh o have experimented, may say that he is not

interested in the subject, but he has no right to deny that the

thing can be done; the scientist is in precisely the same position

with respect to the vision o f God.*

It is also stated that the naturalist’s horror supertiaturae is not acapricious rejection o f well-established beliefs “ like the be lief in

gh os ts” . This is naive indeed. For ghosts, if any thing , arc

phenomena, and as such a proper subjcct o f scientific investiga

tion; only because of their elusiveness, ghosts pertain to the

realm o f “occultism” . But it is precisely in occultism that the

supernaturalist is least of all interested (cf Rene Guenon,

L ’Erreur spirite, Paris, 1923 and 1930 [and 1952 and 1977]). The

metaphysician, indeed, is astounded that so many scientists

should have become “spiritualists” and should have attached somuch importance to the survival of those very personalities

which he—the metaphysician in this matter agreeing with the

materialist—regards as nothing but “becomings” or processes

(“behaviours”), and not as real beings or in any possible way

immortal.

Finally it should be overlooked that “supernatural” no more

implies “unnatural” than “supcrcsscntial” means “unessen

tial”. The whole question depends, in part, upon what wemean by “nature”; generally speaking, the materialist and thesupernaturalist mean tw o very different things, o f which one is

not a “th ing ” at all. T he modern naturalist limits him self to the

study of natura naturata, ie, phenom ena; the interest of the

theologian is in natura naturans, creatrix universalis, Deus, not so

much in appearances as in that which appears. As for

“miracles”: the metaphysician will agree with the scientist that“the impossible can never happen”. Orientals take it for

granted that the power to work “wonders” can be acquired ifthe proper means arc pursued; but he does not attach to such



performances any spiritual significance**. For him, the possi

bility o f w orking w onders (wonderfu l only because o f their

rarity, and in the same way that mathematical genius iswonderful) is inherent in the natural order o f things; but the

m ode rn scientist, if con fronted w ith an irrefutable “ miracle”

would have to abandon his faith in order!I have never been able to see any meaning in the “conflict of

science with religion”; those who take part in the quarrel are

always mistaking each others’ positions, and beating the air.

Sincerely,

* ‘E xp erim en t’ com m only denotes ‘ tr ia l and erro r’; how ever , i t also

implies experience, experienced and expert, and these three latter senses areimplied in this paragraph. To find one’s way to salvation or enlightenment

by ‘tr ia l and e r ro r ’ w ou ld be v irtua lly an im possib ility ; p ractically , one

m ust have the benefit of those w ho are experienced and expert.

** It w ould appear that D r Co om araswam y had in m ind here primarily

theurgy. In monotheism, miracles definitely have spiritual significance. In

Christianity, eg, consider the multiplication o f the loaves and fishes, o r the

raising o f Lazarus; in Jud aism , conside r the miracles o f Mo ses; and in Islam,

the N ight Jou rney o f the Prophe t and the descent o f the Q u’ran, to mention

only a few o f m any miracles that serve as channels o f grace, authentications

and doctrinal illustrations.

T o GEORGE SARTON

N ovem ber 3, 1944

My dear Sarton:

I am hoping that your tolerance may extend to an acceptanceo f the enclosed continua tion o f my earlier article. Personally, I

cannot but think that to kno w precisely w hat ideas of an

evolution were held prior to the formulation o f m odern ideas of

mutation, and are by some still held side by side with these

m ode rn ideas, pertains to the history o f know ledge: and that ifthe scientist and metaphysician could learn to think once more

in one another’s dialects, this would not only have a tremendous

hu m an value, b ut w ould avoid a great deal o f the wasted

motion that now goes on.




G eorge Sarton, professor o f the history o f science, H arvard U niversity.

‘Gradation and Evolution, II’, Isis, XXXVIII, 1947.

T o GEORGE SARTON

June 21, 1943

My dear Sarton:

M any thanks for your “ answ ers” . I can agree w ith nearly

everything. The misfortune is that while “science” deals withfacts and not with values, there has been a tendency to think of

these measurable facts as the only realities—hcncc the necessity

expressed in your last sentence.W here 1 m os t radically agree is as to cogito ergo sum which 1

have long regarded as an expression o f the bottom level of

European intelligence. “Thought” is something that wc may

direct, not what wc are. I do not credit Dcscartcs with a

distinction between the two egos implied (1) in cogito and the

other in sum — if one did credit him with that, then one could

acccpt the statement in the sense that the phenomenon or

manifestation (thinking) must imply an underlying reality. In

any case, the most essential ego (in sum) is the one that “nolonger thinks, but perfectly contemplates the truth”. Thinking

is a dialctic—a valuable tool, but only a tool.

I agree both that scientia sine amore est— non sapientia, sed nihil,

and similarly ars sine amore is not sophia, but mere techne. These

propositions arc implied in the Scholastic operates per intellectum et

in volunate.

Kindest regards,

G eorge Sarton, professor of the history o f science, H arvard U niversity.

To GRORGE SARTON

March 11, 1942

Dear Dr Sarton:

I am sending you “ Atm ayaja” , parts o f which may interest



To HENRI FRANKFORT

April 16, 1947

Dear Frankfort:

From time to time I have been looking at your Intellectual Adventure . . . I do n’t much like the heading “Em ancipation of

T ho ug ht from M yth ” ; it seems to me to imply a sort of

prem ature iconoclasm which most o f us are not yet at all ready

for. An iconoclasm not yet extended to the very notion o f “se lf ’

as an entity is very incomplete. For the Sufis, to say “I” is

poly theism. Few are “emancip ated” even from histo ry.

P 367: arc you not overlooking that the Hebrew means “I

becomc what I becom e” , while “ I am that I am ” is a Greekinterpretation?

P 380: Hcraclcitus, fr 19: gnome, here = gnome in Euripides,

Helen 1015 (for which, as in all the material you are discussing,

there are remarkable Indian parallels).

P 382: Hcraclcitus never denied being. One must not over

look that in panta rei, panta is in the plural. Being is not one of

many, but inconnumerable. One must not confuse his “Fire”

with its “ measures” (cf my “ Measures o f Fire” in O Instituto,

100, Coimbra, 1942; and Ritter and Prellcr, H is t Phil G k, 40,note a: Zeus, Dike, to Phon, Logos: varia nomina, res non

diversa . . . pyraeizoon, unde manat omnis motus, omnis vita, omnis

intellectus). Hcraclcitus never said that “all being was but a

becom in g” (p 384); he would have said this only o f existence,

not of being.

P 385: “The thing that can be thought. . . .”; here Parme

nides is speaking of noein, not of gnome as used by Hcraclcitus

and Euripides (who expressly distinguishes nous as mortal fromgnome as immortal). Gnome need not be o f anything. With

Euripides, Helen 1014-6; cf B U IV.3.30 (in Hume, p 138 at t p).Finally, the Pythagorean doctrine, identical with Vedanta, is

best o f all, I th ink, enunciated in Apollonius Ep 58 (to

Valerius). As in. Buddh ism, the “ reincarnation” o f the individual “soul” is a doctrine only for laymen and beginners.

Very sinccrely,

Henri Frankfort, Dorset, England.



collaborating in a book consisting o f a selection o f the B uddha’slogoi, new ly translated; and in any case translations o f all theBuddhist material are available in the publications of the Pali

Text Society itself, though it would be better to have them

revised, so that I would rely on Dr Horner, who is a most

competent scholar in this field. Thirdly, I trust you will not

repeat M isch ’s barbarous spellings o f Indian names bu t adhere

to the international rules (as to which, also, Dr Horner would

be able to aid you). Fourth ly , I am now 69 and have more than

enough w ork in hand to last me another 25 years, if that were

available, and I have to refuse all sorts o f invitations to

und ertake anything else. Yeats’ version o f the Upanishads is

negligible; he knew no Sanskrit and his assistant knew no

English o f the kind required; I regard such undertakings asimpertinent. Hume’s Thirteen Principle Upanishads is by no

means consistently reliable, all scholars are agreed. In my

opinion the versions in W. R. Teape’s Secret Lore o f India are the

truest; bu t they are hardly as literal as you m ay require. O f the

Bhagavad Gita, there must be over 20 versions in English; the

best are, in one kind, Edwin A rnold ’s, and in anoth er, th at by

Bhagavan D as and Annie Besant. In all matters o f procu ring

books, Luzac (46 Great Russell Street, London W. C. 1) would be your best source.

, I do think that 1 am perhaps as competent as anyone you

could find to p rovide you with versions o f texts from the

Upan ishads. For the texts from the SBE volumes XXX IV (and

XXXVIII), I think you might take Thibaut’s existing versions

as they stand, not tha t they arc incapable o f imp rovem ent

altogethe r, bu t he is a goo d scholar and the versions arc for the

most part excellent. This leaves me somewhat tempted to tryand do the pieces from B G and the Upanishads, I should not

want to do the Samkhya texts with which I am less familiar;

and the B G and the Upanishads arc daily reading for me. Ifyou are not in too great a hurry I might agree to “help” to thisextent.

Re the spellings: it would be desirable for your printer to beequipped with the diacritical marks and, as I said, to adhere tothe forms on which there is international agreement (these can

be seen, for example, in the Journal o f the Royal Asiatic Society, 74 Grosvnor St, London). Such spellings as Vinaja (side by sidewith N ik aya) are absurd; they should be Vinaya and N ikaya.



Njaja should be Nyaya; Tschandooja should be Chadogya\

Brihadaranjaka should be Brhadaratiyaka\ and so on.*Even to do what I offer, I should be glad to have the original

book. 1 presume the publisher would be willing to make some

paym ent for the work, and that I should ultim ately receive a

copy o f the volume as translated.

Very sinccrcly,

* We have not strictly followed D r Coo m aras w am y’s well founded

preferences in this matter o f diacriticals in Sanskrit, Pali and Greek word s that

appear in the pages of this v olum e because of the constraints o f time, talent

and type faces.

Mr R. F. C. Hull, Thaxted, Essex, England, was translating Georg Misch’s

Der Weg in die Philosophic (B. G. T eu bn er, 1926), which consisted o f a great

many quotatios from the Hindu and Buddhists Scriptures, and had writtento obtain help in clarifying several passages.

The Liuitig Thoughts o f Gautama the Buddha, presented by Ananda K

Coomaraswamy and I. B. Horner, London, 1984; see bibliography.

To R. F. C. HULL

August 30, 1946

Dear Mr Hull:

I have yours o f the 24th. 1 meant to say that I would do the

few picccs from the Bhagavad Gita also, so please send list of

these. It is still my intention to do the Upanishad picccs before

Christmas, but I have no free time before mid-October.

Teape. is obtainable from Blackwell, O xfo rd, and also, I

think, from Heffcr, Cambridge, but try Blackwell first (7/6

with the Supplement). Teape is unquestionably literary. I don’tagree that Yeats is so consistently.

As regards the two Rgveda hymns: I have a learned friend

here who is making the RV his life work, and is thoroughly

competent both from the linguistic and the literary point of

view. If you will write to him directly (Dr M urray Fowler, c/o

P ro f B. Row land, 154 Brattle St, Cambridge, M assachusetts,

USA) merely explaining that they are for a translation ofMisch’s book and that you are writing at my suggestion, I amsure he could do them for you within a month.



Incidentally, o f course, Dcusscn ’s Sechszig Upanishads would

be available in any good library, and so would Teape be, eg, at

the Royal Asiatic Society (where you could mention my name

by way o f in troduction, though it is hardly needed). There,

also, you could use all the Pali T ex t Society volum es (their own

stock was destroyed by a bomb).The Nidanakathd passage Miss Horner could do, or you can

take it from Rhys D avids’ Buddhist Stories, London, Trubner,

1880.

In case you cannot use all the proper diacritics, the two

important points would be to spell correctly and to distinguishthe short and long vowels (a and a, etc). In this case it would be

permissib le to use sh for s, but it would still be desirable to

distinguish s, and I think most printers could do this.Very sincerely,

R. F. C. Hull, as above.

T o R. F. C. HULL

August 30, 1946

Dear Mr Hull:

I was tempted to do a specimen for you from K U . In citing

from the Upanishads, I find I hardly ever make an identical

version; in any case, I work directly from the text, choosing

words very carefully and bearing in mind the many parallel

passages. I have tr ied to transla te for those w ho will not havethe background o f com parative knowledge. But it must be

realized that to get the full conte nt o f a text a C om m en tary is

often really needed. For example, in K U 15, the “Jaws of

dea th” are one form o f the Symplegades, Janua Coeli; in IV. 1,

the “inverted version” (for which Plato has numerous parallels)

corresponds to the “ instaring” o f W estern mystics; in III.9 ff, o fcourse, there is no thing unique in the use of the “ chariot”

symbolism, more familiar in Platonic contexts—and always aformula becomes the more comprehensible the more one becomes aware o f its universality. But I suppose that Misch



poin ts all this out, at least in the present contexts it is his affair

to have done so.I don’t expect to do more until, as I said, mid-October; the

difficulties arc not in the Sanskrit, but in finding the right

w ords w ith w hich to carry over as much as possible o f the

meaning w ithou t obscu rity. In III. 13, I used “oblate” , bccauscthe original verb throughout (sam) is literally to “ sacrifice” ,

“ give the quie tus” , and this is lost for all bu t philologists; if one

speaks of the “ peaceful S e lf’, where “ dedicated” or “ im m o

lated” w ou ld be nearer, the “ Self o f the se lf ’ or “ selfless S e lf ’ is

meant. Nevertheless, I think “oblate” is too recondite for

present purposes, so I would render K U IV. 13:

St i ll in g in th e m in d a ll sp ccch , th e k n o w led g e .

sho uld s ti ll the m ind i t se l f in the gn ost ic se l f ( the reason)

T he G no st ic is the G reat , and the G reat se l f is the

Se lf at peace.

Here are some o ther parts o f the Katha Upanishad:

(3 ) Kn o w th o u th a t th e Sp i r i t i s th e r id e r in th e “ch ar io t” ,

the “’ch ar io t” , the bod y:

K no w tha t Reason is i ts fe l low, M ind i t is that ho lds

the reins.(4) T he po w ers o f the sou l arc the s teeds , as they say ; the

o b jec t s o f p e rcep t io n , th e i r p as tu re .

T h e S p i r i t c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e m i n d a n d i t s p o w e r s ,

m e n o f d is c e rn m e n t te r m “ th e e x p e ri m e n t ” .

( N B : I t i s a p i t y t h a t w e h a v e n o w o r d c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o “ f r u i t i o n ”

a n d m e a n i n g “ o n e w h o h a s f ru i ti o n o f ’.)

Katha . . . I I I .9 -15 :

(9) H e , in d eed , w h o se d i sce rn m en t is th a t o f th e f e l lo w - r id e r ,

o n e w h o se m in d h as th e re in s in h an d —

H e reach ed th e en d o f th e t r ack , th e p lace o f V ish n u ’s

u l t imate s t r id e .

(10) A b o v e th e p o w ers o f th e so u l are th e i r a im s , ab o v e

these a ims is the mind ,

Ab o v e th e min d , th e r easo n , an d ab o v e th e r easo n

the G reat Sel f (o r Sp ir i t)

(1 1 ) Ab o v e th e Grea t i s th e Un rev ea led , an d th e reab o v e

th e Per so n ,



B e y o n d w h o m t h e re is n a u g h t w h a t e v e r: t h a t is th e g o a l -p o s t ,

t h a t t h e e n d o f t h e t ra c k .

(12) T he l igh t o f the S p ir i t by a ll th ings h idd en is no t

a p p a r e n t .

Y et it is seen by the sha rp and sub t le eye o f reason ,

b y su b tle seers,(13 ) O b la t in g sp eech in th e m in d , th e k n o w led g ab le man sh o u ld

th en o b la te th e m in d in th e g n o s t i c se l f ( th e r easo n ),

T h e g n o s t i c in th e G rea t , an d th e G rea t Se l f in th e O b la te

Self.

(14 ) S t a n d up ! A w a k e ! W i n y e w o r t h s , a n d u n d e r s t a n d t h e m —

T h e sh arp en ed ed g e o f a razo r , h a rd to o v erp ass , a d i ff icu l t

p a th — w o rd o f th e p o e ts , th is.

(1 5 ) So u n d less , u n to u ch ab le , u n sh ap en , u n ch an g in g , y es , an d

tasteless, eternal , scentless too,W i th o u t b e g i n n in g o r e n d, b e y o n d t h e G r e at , im m o v a b l e—

w h e r e o n i n te n t , o n e e v a d e s th e j a w s o f d e a th .

Katha . . . IV . 1, 2:

(1 ) Th e Se l f - su b s i s t en t p ie rced th e o r i f i ces o u tward s , th e re fo re

i t i s tha t one look s fo r th , no t a t the Se l f w i th in :

Y e t t h e C o n t e m p l a t i v e , s e e k i n g t h e U n d y i n g , w i t h i n v e r t e d

v i s io n , saw H im self .

(2) C hi ld ren are the y that fo l low af ter ex terna l loves , they w alk i n to t h e w i d e s p re a d s n a r e o f d e ath ;

B u t t h e C o n t e m p l a t i v e s , k n o w i n g t h e U n d y i n g , l o o k n o t f o r

t h ’i m m o v a b l e a m o n g s t t h in g s m o b i le h er e.

Katha . . . V . 8 - 1 2 :

(8) H e w h o w ak es in th em th a t sl eep , th e Per so n w h o fash io n s

man i fo ld lo v es ,

He in d eed i s th e Br ig h t On e , th a t i s B rah ma, ca l l cd th e

U n d y i n g ;O n w h o m th e w o r ld s de p en d ; that n o o n e s o e v e r t ra n s c e n d s —

This veri ly , is That.

(9 ) As i t_ is one F i re tha t indw el ls the w or ld , and as sum es the

s e m b l a n ce o f e v e r y a p p e a r a nc e ,

So th e In n er Se l f o f a ll b e in g s assu mes th e sem b lan ce

o f ev ery ap p earan ce , an d i s y e t ap ar t f ro m all.

(1 0) A t i t is th e o n e G a le th a t in d w el ls th e w o r ld , an d assu m es

t h e s e m b l a n c e o f e v e r y a p p e ar a nc e ,

So th e o n e In n er S e l f o f a ll b ein g s assu mes th e sem b lan ce

o f ev ery ap p earan ce , an d i s y e t ap ar t f ro m a ll.



(11) As the Sun , th e w ho le w o r ld ’s eye , is un s ta ined by the

o u t w a r d f au lt s o f w h a t h e s ees ,

So the Inne r S el f o f a ll be ings i s uns ta ined by the i lls

o f t h e w o r l d , b e i n g a p a r t f r o m t h e m .

(1 2) T h e In n er S e l f o f a ll b e in g s , w h o m ak es h is o n e fo rm to b e

m a n y ,T h o s e w h o p e r ce iv e H i m w i th i n th e m , t h es e, t h e C o n t e m p l a -

t ives , the i rs ’ and no ne o th er s’ is eve r las t ing fe lic ity .

Katha . . . V I . 12, 13:

(12 ) N e i t h e r b y w o r d s n o r b y t h e m i n d , n o r b y v is io n c a n H e

b e k n o w n ;

H o w c a n H e b e k n o w n b u t b y s a y i n g t h a t “ H E I S ” ?

(13) H e c a n i n d e ed b e k n o w n b y t h e t h o u g h t “ H E I S ” , a n d b y th e

t r u t h o f b o t h h i s n a tu r e s ;F o r w h o m H e i s k n o w n b y t h e t h o u g h t “ H E I S ” , t h e n H i s

t rue nature p resen ts i t se l f .

K U , in the letter above = Katha Upanishad.

To R. F. C. HULL

September 26, 1946

Dear Mr Hull:

Brahma and Brahman are both legitimate, but I prefer the

nominative form, Brahma: the important distinction is from

the masculine Brahma.

For Greek, C ornfo rd is, o f course, all right; Jo w ett is

perfectly acceptable, but has a slightly Vic torian flavour. Ingeneral I use the Loeb Library versions, which are not always

perfect, but good on the whole. I also use the Loeb Library

version o f Aristotle. The title o fj . B urn et’s book is Early Greek

Philosophy. In the case o f any difficulty it should be easy to getthe advice o f som e Greek scholar in England.

In general, Sutras arc texts; Karkias rather o f the nature o fcommentaries, in verse.

I shall be glad to read the Brahm an-A tm an passages you referto. T he only translation o f Vacaspati Misra’s Samkhya-Tattva-

Kaumudi I kn ow o f is that by G anganatha Jha, Bo mbay



Theosophical Society Publishing Fund, 1986; you could prob

ably find a copy at the Royal Asiatic Society or at the British

Museum. There is also a German version by Garbo in Abh

Bayerischen A kad Wiss Phil K l, 19.3 (1892). For Vijnana Bhiksu,

seej. R. Ballantyne, Samkhya Aphorisms o f Kapila in Trubncr’sOriental Series (1885). For Narayana Tirtha (sic) see S. C.

Banerji, Samkhya Philosophy, Calcutta, 1898. For Sankhya

books in greate r detail, see list in th e U nio n List . . . (A merican

Orien tal Series, N o 7, 1935, N os 2513ff.

I am using a borrowed typewriter, excuse results.

Very sincerely,


To R. F. C. HULL

October 18, 1946

Dear Mr Hull:

In the first place, I am sending you my RV X.90.1 which

may give you some help on the general psychological

background.

2) Y our passage, “This is perfect . . . (Yeats p 159): the

reference is to BU 5.1. The word he renders by “perfect” is

piirnam, which means “pleroma”, or as Hume has it, “fulness”;

“ perfect” m ay be true, bu t it is no t the meaning o f the text.

Root in piirnam is pr, “ fill” , same root as in “ plerom a” .

3) I shall make some necessary spelling corrections on theMs; notably, Yajnavalkya for Yadnavalkya throughout.

4) As regards y our main question , I shall append m y

proposed transla tion o f BU IV. 1.2. “ N ot beyond our ken” in

the original is literally aparoksa, “n ot out o f sight” , “eye to eye”

ie, “ face to face” , coram\ cfin my RV paper, note 12, esp Taitt

Up 1.12, where pratyaksam = sdksat {pratyaksam, literally,“ against the eye”— hence “eye to eye” ). Such im mediate vision

applies in the first place to the percep tion o f ord inary “objects”and contrasts with paroksam, “ out of sight” (the word aksa,

“eye”, being present in all three words), which last applies toall that has to do with the (invisible) Gods, who arc said to be



priva, “ fond of, o r wonted to, the ob-scure” , C f Chapter V o f

m y Transformation o f Nature in Art.

N ow the transla tion:“Then U , the son o f Cak ra, asked him: ‘Yajnavalkya’, he

said, ‘demonstrate (or make known) to me the B[rahma].Brahm a face to face, not ou t o f sight (saksat-aparoksat )”. “He is

your Self that is w ithin all thin gs .” “ But, Y ajnavalkya, which

‘self is it that is ‘in all things’?” “That which breathes together

with the breath (prana) is both y ourself and all-within. Th at

which breathes (or expires when you expire) out with your

breathin g out (apdtta) is your Self and all-within. T ha t which

distributively breathes with your distributive breath (vyana) is

you r Self and all-within. Th at w hich breathes w ith yourdistributive breath (vyana) is your Self and all-within. T ha t

which breathes upward (or aspires) with your breathing

upward (udana) is yo ur Self and all-within.’

Yajna is perfectly correct; the Brahma is manifested only by

its vital functions (prana, often explicitly = ayus, “life”); all the

vital and sensitive functions o f the psyche are extensions o f the

Spirit, Self, or Soul of the soul, thought o f as seated at the centre

o f our being and in all beings. In the next part, U objects that Y

has only referred to various aspects o f the G, just as if one were

asked what an animal is, and told only “for example, cows and

horses”—which answer docs not tell us what an animal as such is.

Y explains that the B o f A is not an object that can be know n by

a subject. . . . So, 2) U, the son of C, said “ you have expressed

it, as one might say yonder cow, or yonder horse. (Again, I

ask), d em onstrate to me the B[rahman], n ot out o f sight— who

is the Self w ithin all thin gs.” (Y repeats) “ He is your Self, the

all-within. You canno t see the seer o f seeing, o r hear the hearero f hearing, or think the thinker o f though t, or discriminate the

discriminator. For He is your Self, the all-within; all else is a

m isery .” “The reat, U , son o f C, desisted.”

Th e unknow ability o f the Self is often insisted upon — as also by Jung, w ho poin ts out that only the Ego can be know n

objectively; the eye cannot see itself, and so it is with theuniversal Subject. I have read Sankara’s commentary and made

my version as literal as possible, w ithout think ing o f any thingthat Misch says.I don ’t see that Misch is far off the mark, bu t he does seem to

attribute to U what is really Y’s doctrine (and the common



one), viz, that the functions o f life are the m anifestations o f B,and it is this mistake (which I think you should regard as a

lapsus linguae to be corrected) that makes Misch’s account

confusing to me. Moreover, I would not say “was reduced to

the identification o f the various vital functions” ; B is manifested

in these functions, not “reduced” to them. For this epiphany

otherwise formulated, see Kaush Up II. 12.13 (Hum e, pp 316,

317) and cf B U 1.5.21 (ibid, p 91). Perhaps you had best let me

know how far all this meets your difficulty, before I try to go

into it any further, if needed. In any case, I shall regard the

translation o f B U 4.1.2 as done. I m ight add that the “ Breath”

(pratja) is repeatedly a tremendous concept, not merely a flatus,

but an im m anent princip le equated w ith the Sun, Self, Brahma,

Indra, etc. On the “Breaths”, see also note 29, 2nd para, in myRV paper.

Very sincerely,


‘R V X. 90.1: aty atisthad dasangulam', Journal of the American Oriental Society,

LX VI, 1946, no 2.

Kaush UP = Kaushitaki Upanishad B U = Brhddaranyaka Upanishad

T o MISS I . B . HO RNE R

14 May 1947

Dear Miss Horner:

Brahma-khetta, c f Buddha-khetta, Vism 414; also, Vism 220 punna-khetta=brahma-khetta. In Stt 524 T think brahma-

khetta=brahma-loka as distinct from Indra-loka, and perhaps

we should understand Brahma. The khetta-jina is one who isno longer concerned with any “fields”, having mastered and

don e w ith all. Khetta-bandhana is attached to o r connection w ithany “field” znd^samyoga; to see this read BG 13.26. All threefields are spheres of samsara, and the khetta-jina is one who has

done [with] the m all, and has m ade the uttara-tiissaranam. Is this

adequate?Thag 533, taya, m ust be ablative or instr., neither o f which

seems to justify “ in” , so I w ould think “ for thee” better than



“ in thee” . O f course, saccanamo, as elsewhere, is “whose name

is Truth”, not “in very Truth”, for which one would expect

simply saccam at the beginning o f the sentence, ju st as satyam is

used to mean “verily”.

By the way, J IV. 127, attanam attano is interesting, and mustmean “ Self o f the se lf ’, as in M U 6.7, atmano’tma.

I would’nt like “used up” for nibbuto. One good sense would

be “ dow sed” . By the way, cf Oratio ad Graecos..., “O teaching

that quenches the fire within the soul.”

Kindest regards,

PS: With Vin 1.34: jivha addita c f James iii, 6: “ The tongue is a

fire and setteth afire the wheel o f becom ing .”

4

Miss I. B. H orn er, Secretary o f the Pali T ex t Society and a well kno w n

scholar living in London . She collaborated with AK C in The Living Thoughts

o f Gotama the Buddha, London, 1948.

Vism = Visuddhimaga

Sn = Suttanipata

Thag = Theragatha

] =JatakaVin = Vinaya-Pitaka

The above are Pali texts, the language of Hinaya B uddhism.

To MISS I. B. HOR NER

Date uncertain

Dear Miss Horner:

Re sclf-naughting: this is the same as Self-realisation.

Abhin ibbut’atto (= abhinibbout’ attana atta) but the atta referred to

is not the same! In fact, nibbuto applies only to self and vimutto to

Self. If the B [uddha] is nibbuto this does not mean that he is

extinguished , bu t that he is abhinibbut’ atto, one in who m self has

been to tally extinguished; he is therefore sitibhuto.

“He that would save his soul, let him lose it.” “He whowould follow me, denegat seipsum” (not an ethical but anontological demand). “All scripture cries aloud for freedomfrom self.” So in Islam, as God says to the man at the door,“ W ho’s there?” “ I” . “ Begone. N o room for tw o here .” All this



is quite universal and not in the least peculiar to Buddhism.

D 11.120 katam me saranam attano\ this atta certainly not the

maranadhammo atto (M. I. 167), only the former is the saruppam

attano o f Sn 368. T he great error is to see attam anattani, “ Self in

what-is-not-Self”, (NB: I am very careful with my s and S), eg,

in the sabbe dhamma anatta. . .

AKC

Miss I. B. Horner, as above.

T o MISS I. B. HO RN ER

June 24, 1946Dear Miss Horner:

Appamada: lit, absence of infatuation, intoxication (mad),

pride, etc, im plies diligence , no doubt, but diligence is hardly a

translation, is it? Yours ofJune 21. I’m glad we agree on several

points. I th ink we had better keep ariyan — “ w orthy” w ould be

goo d in itself, b ut wou ld not convey w hat is needed. Regarding

samaya and asamaya, I’m very sure that your “unstable” and

“stable” arc good in themselves (whether or not in every

context): this would fit in very well with khana, where alone

true thiti can be found— khana, strictly speaking is that in which

a thing is in-stant, eg, as arahat paramgato thale titthati.

AKC,

Miss I. B. Horner, as above.

To MISS I. B. HORNER

July 2, 1946

Dear Miss Horner:

I have yours o f 9th and 20th and an undated one w ith

“ H ouseholde rs” . I’m in such a position, too, that I can hardlyfind another minute to give! Anyhow, final decisions onrenderings must be yours: it is good that we are agreed on



many o f them, eg, metta, love. To be sure Bhagavata is a word

common to other religions, especially early Vaisnavism con

temporary with the great Nikayas —and this too m ust be taken

into consideration in connection with the great importance

attached to bhatti = bhakti in the sense o f devoted service;

“beneficent” or “generous” seems to be the real meaning of Bhagavat — or “ wealthy dispenser” . Perhaps you are right in

retaining “lord”, though it is a paraphrase rather than a

translation. . . Viriyavada seems to me that “ Doctrine o f ener

gy” implying (as often stated in other words) that “manly

effort must be made”. Kammavada, “doctrinc that there is an

ough t to be do ne.” Sanditthika and ditth’ eva dhamme seem to me

both = “ here and now ”— or one m ight differentiate by saying

“immediate” for the first. I do think it important to renderkhana by “moment” or “ instant” .

(Incidentally, Macdonald in his, writing on the Islamic

doctrine o f the moment suggests a Buddhist origin for it; but I

find more Greek sources also, than he does.)

Pamada is something like “elevation” in the way one can call

a drunk person “elevated”, but probably “temperance” and

“ intem pera nce ” are the best words to use. It is a pity tha t there

is no literal opp osite o f “ infatuation” .

The whole problem of nirvana, etc, is very hard: one should

always bear in m ind the desirability o f using renderings that are

no t incompatible w ith the putting o ut o f a fire, wh ich was

certainly the dominant content for a Buddhist.

Certainly, -jo and -nimmito are more or less equivalent terms:

one = genitus, the other = factus; both apply to production.

Perhaps “formed” would be best for -nimmito — “ form ed by” ,

or even.“moulcd by”; -jo, m ore literally, “ begotten o f ’. The

idea that the pup il is reborn o f his teacher is com m on. Viraga: I’m willing to accept “aversion”. Skr vairaga is really contemptus

mundi. For gocara, “field” would do for psychological contexts.

Ajjhattam and paccattam seem to me nearly the same: perhaps

“inwardly” rather than “subjectively” which has a slightlydifferent value— or as you say “personally” , with application to

one’s own experience. . . . Ariya is difficult unless one says just “ Aryan ” , bu t that

w ould need reservations; when E ckhart says “ the fastidious soulcan rest on nothing that has name”, that is the meaning—thenotion is of an elite. . . .



PS: I just received Edgcrton’s Bhagavad Gita (HOS 38 & 39). I

am rather appalled by the spectacle o f a scholar who confesses

ignorance o f and lack o f interest in m etaphysics, and yet

undertakes such a task. However good his scholarship, he has

hardly any m ore understanding o f what is being talked about

than W hitney o f the Atharva Veda. It is works like these that

have led som e Indian scholars to speak o f European scholarship< t M l

as a crim e !

G eorge Sarton, professor of the history o f science, H arvard U niversity,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

‘Gradation and Evolution, II’, Isis, XXXVIII, 1947, numbers 111 and 112.

Franklin E dgcrton translation o f the Bhagavad Gita, Harvard Oriental Series,

N um bers 111 and 112.

W. D. Whitney, Atharva-Veda Samhita, Harvard Oriental Series, No 7.

To GEORGE SARTON

N ovem ber 4, (year uncertain)

My dear Sarton:

Apropos o f ou r discussion o f spoken languages. C f Keith in Aitareya Aranyaka, Oxford, 1909, p 196, no 19. Sanskrit can

only have been a vernacular very long ago (say before 800B C). Later, the educated classes used a Prakrit for every day

purposes, though still understanding Sanskrit, which was

partially understo od even by peasants (as now). Sanskrit is still

sufficiently widely kn ow n that some European scholars travell

ing in India could use it as a lingua franca. I take it modern Greek

is nearer to ancient Greek than Hindi is to Sanskrit.

AKC

Geo rge Sarton, professor o f the history o f science, H arvard Un iversity,




T o MRS C. MORGAN

Date uncertain

Dear Mrs Morgan:

When you first spoke o f “ stages” I thou gh t you had in m indthe successive levels o f reference or stages o f being attained in

contem plative practice. For stages in the progress o f the

individual, I suggest G. I. Wade, Thomas Traherne (Princeton,

1944), c f pp 52, 53 and 62, 64.

At the university . . . I saw that there were things in this

w or ld o f which I had never dreamed; glorious secrets and

glorious persons past imagination. . . . Nevertheless, some

things were defective, too. There was never a tutor that did professly teach Felicity, though that be the mistress o f all

other sciences. N or did any o f us study these things but as

aliens, which we ought to have studied as our own

enjoym ents. We studied to inform o ur know ledge, bu t knew

no t for what end w e so studied. And for lack o f aiming at a

certain end we erred in the manner.

Later Traherne realized that:

Outward things . . . lay so well, methought, that they

could not be mended: but I must be mended to enjoythem.

Wade adds:

Tha t mending, that purification of the will, constitutes the

spiritual history o f the nex t ten years.

In that g row th a large part o f the means was certainly Plato,Plotinus, Hermes. “Searching the Scriptures” is a liberating

procedure; one learns to th ink, not “ for onese lf’, b ut correctly,which is better.

For the Kundalini, abou t wh ich you enquired: cf Avalon,The Serpent Power, Luzac, 1919.

Further for “stages” the following might be useful: JohnCordelier, The Spiral Way, Meditations upon the Fifteen Mysteries

o f the Soul's Ascent (Watkins, London, 1922) and perhapsDietrich von Hilderbrand, Liturgy and Personality (LongmansGreen, N Y, 1943).



Other references include Fritz Marti, “Religion, Philosophy

and the College”, in Review o f Religion, VII, 1942, 3; J. A.

Stewart, The M yths o f Plato (Macmillan, N Y, 1905); N. K.

Chadwick, Poetry and Prophecy (Cambridge, 1942); Avalon,

Shakti and Shakta (Luzac); and Swami Nikhilananda, The

Gospel o f Sri Ramakrishna, N. Y., 1942).

It is ju st because wh at w c are after is hardly to be found “ in

N cw buryport” th at one m ust read and read; it can be found in

the living books, which are available even here and now.

This is all I can think o f at the m om ent. Wc enjoyed your

visit very much.

Very sincerely,

Mrs C. Morgan, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

T o M U R R A Y F O W L E R

March 4, 1944

Dear Murray:

I read your review with pleasure. I can only promise to think

about the “love” and “ethic” problem. O ne wo uld have to start

from the question, w ha t is the true object of love? O ne could

show that the Upanishads, Aristotle and Aquinas agree that it is

ou r “ S e lf’ (if wc k now “ wh ich s e lf ’); and that the same is

implicit in “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto these, ye have

done it unto M e” . Altruism, the love of “ others” as such is as

much as the hatred o f “ othe rs” a delusion. Even if we subm it to

this delusion o f “ othe rs” , our love for them should be foundedin ou r love o f the One.

As for “ethics”, one would have to show that, as for Plato,

there is no real distinction o f “ ethics” from “ politics” .As for the other point, sannyasa: this corresponds to the

Pauline distinction of liberty from law. I think I made it clear

that a complete socicty must recognize that the f in a l end of

the individual is one o f deliverance from his ob ligations;although an end that can only be approached by a fulfilment ofthem. C f Ed gerton in JA O S 62.152, recognizing the ordinary



and the extraordinary norm s. Th e very concepts o f finite and

infinite necessitate both. . . .

Kindest regards,

PS: I take it tha t the true doctrine o f inaction is not to do

nothing, but to “act without acting”; as in the Chinese doctrine

o f u’u wei.

M urray Fow ler, M adison, W isconsin, USA , friend o f D r

C oom araswam y and lifelong student of the Rig Veda.

T o GEORGE SARTON

February 6, 1945

Dear Sarton:

I did no t k now o f D atta’s change o f life (which is one way o f

referring to that kind o f retirement). The w ord Saha must have

been either sadhu or sannyasin (the former literally “hitting the

mark”, the latter “giving up”, ie, surrendering all duties and

rights). This represents the “4th stage” or the normal Indianschema o f life (and also corresponds to Plato ’s concept o f m an ’s

latter days, Rep 498, C, D . . .). Sannyasin is pretty near to

what Eckhart calls a “truly poor man”. On the ghats at Benaresyou will find amongst others, university graduates and

cx-millionaires, now “truly poor men” owning nothing. By

the way, too, there arc 4 American sadhus in India; my wife

knew one o f them and he was a good friend o f ou r bo y’s. . . .

As a rule, the funeral rites arc performed for a man who becomes a sannyasin\ he becomes in fact what Rumi calls a

“ dead man w alkin g” ; cf Angelus Silcsius, stirb ehe du stirbst. We

ourselves, in fact, in a few years more, plan to return to India to

approximate, as far as it is practicable for us, to this ideal. InIndia, one does no t look forw ard to an old age o f econom icindependence but to one o f independence o f economics. The re

are many hu m bu gs in India, bu t as one sadhu said to my wife, aslong as there arc even 2 real sadhus in 100, so long there will be

an India.Did I commend to you M. Beck’s “Science in Education” in

Modern Schoolman, Jan 1945?



I have a num be r o f things in the press that will interest you. I

am still w ork ing on the “ Early Iconography o f Sagittarius”,

but am alm ost bogged dow n in the mass o f material (cherubs,

centuars, Janua Coeli, Rape of Soma, etc); and on the concepto f Ether in the Greek and Sanskrit sources.

Perhaps we shall see you at the Pelliot tea tomorrow.

Kindest regards,

PS: You will find an old account o f a man becom ing a

Sannyasin in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad XI.4.1 (in Hume will

do), in which the Atm an (Hume’s “Soul”) is the Common Man

whom we have now reduced to the dimensions of T om , Dick,

and Harry, and whose legitimate title of Fuehrer has now beengiven to tyrants!

Geo rge Sarton, professor of the history o f science, H arvard U niversity,


‘Early Iconogra phy o f Sagittarius’ was incom plete at the time o f A K C ’s

death and has not been published.

To MRS NORBERT WEINER

December 14, 1945

Dear Mrs Weiner:

This is ju st a line to improve up on w hat I was trying to say

the other evening. I quite agree that we have to put our ownfires out, and ou gh t to help ou r neighbour w hen his house is on

fire. But in either case, such activities are distractions from our

own proper work; and the real point is that “helping others”directly is not a vocation, and that we have no right to make a business o f it. We ought to have our ow n w ork to do, and

dqvote our energies to it, with only such interruptions as areinevitable when they arise; we certainly ought not to look for

occasions that call upon our time, but only ought to attend tothem when we are naturally made aware o f them.

Very sincerely,



Mrs N orbe rt W einer, wife of Norb crt W einer, professor at the Mas

sachusetts Institute o f Tec hnology , C am bridge, M assachusetts, U SA, and

author o f the popular book that philosophized about the dawn o f the

computer age, Cybernetics.

To T H E N E W E N G L I S H W E E K L Y, L O N D O N

January 13, 1938

Sir,

Apropos of various Articles in recent issues of the N ew

English Weekly, it seems to me that what wc need is not an

emphasis on Christian ethics, goodwill, ctc. What we need is

the revival o f Christian dogm a. (This is precisely w here theEast is o f use and help— I have even been told by Catho lics that

my own work has given them renewed confidence, which is

jus t the effect it should have.) . . . Ethics have no power o f their

own to bring abo ut peace o r justice or even to hold their ow n in

theory; they have become mere sentiment and will do little or

nothing to better the world. W ith a revival o f dog m a you will

have a new life put into both making and doing (art and

prudence). Wc may then once m ore learn to act, not “ prettily” , but “ correctly” . If people w ould only treat prudence as they do

mathematics: a m atter o f right or w rong, no t from “feeling”,

but in the same sense that 2 + 2 = 4, and no t 5!

AKC

To PAUL HANLEY FURFEY, S . J .

February 2, 1938

Dear Professor Furfey:

Enclosed may interest you. I should mention it is an extractfrom a private letter, published without permission, hence itscolloquial style.

Very sincerely,

PS: Still, I feel the point about dogma is important, and that



conduct should be first a matter of order and secondly a m atter ofthe will (will following the intellect).

Paul Henley Furfey, S. J., depa rtme nt of sociology, C atholic Unive rsity of

America, Washington, D. C., USA.

The previous letter was enclosed; it had been sent to the editor of The New

English Weekly, a personal friend of AK C, and was published by him despite

the fact that it was p art o f a personal letter.

T o GEORGE SARTON

October 14, 1938

Dear Sarton:

Many thanks for your interesting leaflets. I only rather

dem ur to the idea o f “ individual conscience” , since I cannot but

regard the “conscience” (the word o f course originally m eant

“consciousness”, an awareness) as “impersonal”—in the sense

that the “active intellect” is for some Schoolmen impersonal

and that Synteresis is impersonal and the Vedic “Inner

Controller”, the Platonic and neo-Platonic hegemon, viz, theSpirit o f God within you.

Further, I believe good will can only be [universalized]*

insofar as the good will is made to rest on strictly intellectual

(metaphysical) sanctions, so conduc t is regulated by knowledge

rather than by opinion-feeling. A consent o f East and West can

only proceed from this highest ground and must first of all (as

Guenon says) therefore be the work o f an elite.

Very sincerely,

* T he w ord “ universalized” is supplied because o f the illegibility o f the text,

but it com ple m ents and does not contra dic t th e context o f th e le tter.

G eorge Sarton, professor of the history of science, Ha rvard Un iversity,




To GEORGE SARTON

July 13, 1947

Dear Sarton:

Y our birthday boo k is full o f interest. Bu ffon’s tout ce qui peut etre, est is very good philosophy. Leake’s paragraph 3 on page

264 is quite ridiculous— no t on ly as if anyone ever did any thing

w ithout a view to som e result to be secured or avoided, b ut also

he does no t realise that the whole business o f doing u nto others

rests upon the question Who am /?, and Who are you? A nd again

he know s no thing o f the contexts (people are so glib in citing

Indian term s and ideas secondhand!), or o f such contex ts as the

Buddha’s “Whoever would nurse me, let him nurse the

sick” . . .

Q uite ano ther point: I find it of the highest interest that

Dante (in De Monarchia) uses “G od and Nature ” w ith a singular

verb— as if the expression w ere a gramm atical dual den oting a

mixta persona (“not that the one is two, but that the two are

on e” , as H erm es says). Th is is a survival o f the oldest

• meanings. . ., those o f the early Greek “physicists” , and one

that can be co ntinuously traced thereafter, side by side w ith the

other meaning (that of natura naturata).

Kindest regards,

George Sarton, as on p. 274.

To MEYER SCHAPIRO

May 2, 1932

Dear Professor Schapiro:

On rereading your letter it occurs to me to add one thing to

mine. You speak o f the values of contem plation being detachedfrom those o f daily use. T o m y m ind, speculation about a kindo f truth conccivcd to exist in vacuo is nothing but “curiosity”;

m oreo ver, it goes for me tha t the ultima te truth is precisely and by defin ition th at which cannot be know n. However, so far asthe best sort o f relative truth goes, and apart from m y ow n



views, I w ou ld say that in India we have no philosophy pursued

as such for its ow n sake, for the sole purpose o f con structing a

ne tw ork o f w ords that shall be as far as possible unassailable.

Indians have sometimes said w ith perfect justice that European

students cannot understand Indian philosophy (or as it ought

rather to be called, metaphysics) because they do not live it.Indian metaphysics is in origin a means to power, in develop

ment becoming means to the summum bonum; it is never an end

in itself. On this sec Guenon, L ’Homme et son devenir selon le

Vedanta (Paris, 1924 [and numerous subsequent editions]). So

we shall no t get anywhere as to understanding the East if we

start from an idea o f contemplation as a thing in and for its own

sake; it is a means to becom ing w hat w e are, b ut there are other

means co ncom m ittant and inseparable. O f course, in saying“ m ean s” , I speak em pirically— there arc no m eans to enlighten

m ent (perfection), to a thing o f which w e are already possessed,

but only means to the destruction o f our unawareness o f it,

which unawareness is our “imperfection”.

Very sincerely,

D r M eyer Schapiro, professor o f art history, C olumbia Un iversity, N ew

York.

To THE ART BULLETIN

Date uncertain

Sir:

In Professor Schapiro’s review o f the Survey o f Persian A rt inthe March* issue of the A rt Bulletin, I sympathize with his

criticisms o f the E dito r’s tendency to isolate and exalt Persian

art from and above all others. But when he says that “The

renderings o f terro r and rage wo uld be as unlikely here . . . ” ,

and tha t “ the rigid hands o f the archaic statues were notrepresentations o f psychological states, bu t characteristics o f a

style”, in the w ords o f Apollonius o f Tyana, “ simply the styleo f the ancien ts” , false conclusions are implied. For there is nosuch thing as “simply the style”: nothing happens by chance.The better we come to understand the mind o f the ancients (I



find it mo re intelligible than the mind o f the moderns), the

more clearly wc see that their “style” corresponds to this

“ m ind” . I say “m ind” deliberately, because it is to the mind far

more than to the feelings that art (and especially geometric art)

is pertinent. All that Plato has to say about art is tantamount to

praise o f Greek archaic or even geometric art, and dispraise o fGreek naturalistic art; while for Aristotle the representation of

charac ter in tragedy is still subordinate to that o f action, ie,

essence, since for him as for the ancients generally, the man is

what he does.

Whether Professor Schapiro means to say that style is an

“accidcnt”, or that a style is brought into being solely for

“aesthetic” reasons, he is ignoring the fact that “the style is the

m an” (or group o f men) and inevitably expresses their po int ofview, if it is no t to be d ismissed as an “ artificial style” , which

would be rather ridiculous for the neolithic pottery painting.

Style reveals essence; and i f an archaic face is impassive, it

means that those whose style this was, or rather those with

w ho m this style originated, were “ stoics” in this sense and that

of the Bhagavad Gita, “able to stand up against pleasure and

pain” , and in this sense, although not in ours , “ apathetic” .

Moreover, is not Professor Schapiro confusing style with

iconography? “ Prim itive” a rt is essentially an “im itation o f the

actions o f the Gods and H ero es,” and as Plato says in this

connection, whoever would represent these invisible realities

“truly” must have known “themselves as they really are.” But

noth ing can be kno w n except in the mode o f the knower; to the

extent that the Gods are man-made they “take the shapes that

are imagined by their worshippers,” and these are an index to

the w orshippers themselves. N or m ust wc forget that the body

is traditionally an image o f the soul, w hich is the fo rm of the body; ju st as the shape o f the w ork o f art is dete rm ined by its

form. Things such as facial expression and gesture are therefore

significant o f states o f being, as is explicit in X eno phon ,

Memorabilia, III. 10.8; where textual sources are available, as inIndia, these gestures arc ma tters o f prescription, no t o f taste,

the intention being to conform the icon to its paradigm, so thatthere may be what Plato calls not so much “likeness” as an

“adequate” representation. It is surely to all sculpture that theremarks o f Socrates q uoted by X enopho n, Mem III. 10 .6-8apply: he concludes, “Then must not the menacing glance of



fighters be correctly represented, and the triumphant glance of

victors imitated? M ost assuredly. So then, the sculptor is able to

represent in his images the activities o f the soul.” Unless we

mean to stop sho rt at the aesthetic surfaces o f w orks o f art,

ignoring their content, it will not be enough to know the what

o f iconography , we m ust also understand its why. And in so faras the theme is mythical, as is notably the case in “primitive”

works o f art, this will mean a reductio artium ad theologiam, “ areference o f the arts to th eo logy.”

AKC

* T he year was 1941, and this exchange appeared in volum e XX III of the Art

Bulletin.

To TREES (A BRITISH JOURNAL)

1945— date not specified fur ther

M r Finlay son’s Providential Order o f Fairplay

Mr Richard St Barbe Baker, whom I have had the good

fortune to know personally, and whose own book, Africa

Drums, I greatly admire, asks me to write a note on

M r Fin layson ’s Providential Order o f Fairplay. This minimum, as

he also calls it, is one o f fairplay to earth, ne ighbour, and

“ (better) se lf ’. This “ bette r s e lf ’ is, for the philosopher or

theologian at least, anyth ing but “ a rather vague term ” ; for this“ Self o f the s e lf ’, the “ se lf s im m ortal Leader” , as we call it in

India, is at once the “G od o f Socrates” and ou r “ C om m on

M an” , the imm ane nt deity, and it is to this M an and no t to theaverage m an (a statistical illusion, o f much u tility to dem ago

gues and bankers) that the term “common” is properlyapplicable; it is to this Man in every man and woman, this

Fuhere, that obedience is primarily due. If only w e had in m inda “ century of this Co m m on M an” !

Fairplay is a good enough word, although with rather toom uch the flavour o f the “sporting instinct” . I w ould prefer,

without insisting upon, the rather more pregnant and morecatholic term “Justice”, Greek dikaiosune. This word is rendered by “righteousness”, (. . .and all these things shall be



added unto you); but better by “justice” in most translations

from other Greek sources. Why the seeking first of this Justice

should invo lve (as it necessarily does) a provision for all hum an

needs, will be understood if wc p resume that the conno tation is

that o f Plato ’s definition, for w hom Justice is “ for every man to

do what it is his to do, in accordance with his own nature”, to“do what it is natural for him to do”, or, more colloqually,

“ mind his own proper business” . This is the definition o f a

vocational society and o f “ fairplay to neighbou r” .

Similarly, in India, where the word for Justice is Dharm a: and

this is Dharma, and the means of his ow n perfection, for

evcryman to fulfil his own share of justice, his sva-dharma, that

function which is determined for him by his own nature and

native endo w m ent. This, in turn, is a statement o f the principleo f the nowad ays so much m isunderstood “ caste system ” in

which, as the late A. M. Hocart (whose book Les Castes is the best on the subject), says chaque occupation est une sacerdoce —

every metier a minis try, to which he adds that the feudal system,

a system o f personal relations and m utua l loyalties, has only

been pain ted in such dark colours because it is incompatible

with an industrial organization where there arc no personal

relations and production is not for use but for profit. The castc

or vocational forms o f society, once universal (not only

Indian), prov ided for all human needs, just because o f the

variety o f hum an e ndow m ent (“ It is the wealth and genius o f

variety among our people, both in character and kind, that

needs to be rescued now ”— the Earl o f Portsm outh , Alternatives

to Death, page 30) . . ., and by the same token, at the same time

that it provided for every man’s individual dignity, such

societies represent the only true fo rm o f democracy, based

upo n the all-im portant concept o f Equality, so much stressed by the Greeks. M odern democracies, on the other hand, so

called, are forms o f m ob-rule , resulting only in a balance of

pow er as between groups o f com peting interests — an entirelydifferent conception from that o f a governm ent according ttf

Justice o r “ Fairplay”— the exercise of power by one w ho rules“in his ow n interest” . The conflict of interests in a m ode rndemocracy, so called, inevitably leads to a Dictatorship, ie,

to the v ictory o f the interest of some one class, w hether Capitalist (as in Facism) or proletarian (as in a Soviet), cf Plato, Laws

700 ff.



This leads to the further consideration, almost always

overlooked, that the Christian concept of a “ Kingdom o f God

on earth” remains completely unintelligible for so long as we

have no clear understanding, but only a prcjudical misconcep

tion o f w hat was the Classical and O riental theory o f Kingship

to which this expression refers, as to a well known pattern. Thetrue King, like his divine prototype, is a viceroy, governing in

no bo dy ’s private interest, w he ther his own o r that of any one

class, b ut according to Justice, or Equality (“ I’m for M onarchy

for the sake o f Equality” , as Goldsm ith said). N o King, for

example, would permit such commercial exploitations of

natural resources, no such a “ rape o f the earth ” as is possible

and perhaps inevitable in a so called dem ocracy o r state o f “ free

enterprise” , such as we call in India “the law o f the sharks” .Bu t here again, in speaking o f Equality, wc have to be

careful. What the ancients, eg, Euripides or Philo, meant by

“ Equality” , as the only true basis o f polity, was no t the

arithmetical and egalitarian equality that is interpreted in a

contem pt o f “ aristocracy” and the boast that “ I’m as good as

you arc” , o r the belief in the equal validity o f eve ryone’s

opinions. The Classical Equality is not an arithmetical but a

“ prop ortio na te” equa lity o f exactly the same sort as that

“proportion” that makes a symbol an “adequate” representa

tion o f its arche type, and it is this kind o f Equality that

correspo nds to Justice as defined above. Ra ther than a

government by counting all noses (a valid procedure only

w ithin groups, guilds or castes of similarly gifted men), the

Classical Equality means “from each according to his ability,and to each according to his need”.

O ne last word: the prim ary European ex ponent o f Justice or

Fairplay in this sense was Plato, who has nevertheless beenfreely accused o f advocating a totalitarian or technocratic form

o f governm en t. In two notable passages, on the contrary, Plato

expressly lays it dow n that the capacity for justice is no t, likethat for particular sciences or arts, private to any individuals or

classes o f men, bu t accessible to all; and that it is for those w hoare really ju st men , and only for them, even if they are illiterate

or in any o ther way devoid o f technical training, to take part in

government.U ntil we are prepared to return from the notion o f agovernment (whether internal or international) by a balance of



pow er, from the notion o f the governm ent o f a m inority by a

m ajority, and from that of the governm ent o f colonies by

self-styled “ em pero rs” , to a notion o f govern m ent in term s o f

Justice, Equality or “Fairplay”, we might as well abandon all

hopes for a “ better w orld” . N o “ plans” will, o f themselves,

brin g into being a better world ; the creation o f a kingdom o f

heaven o n earth dem ands a change o f heart, alike as regards o ur

fellow m en and that “n ature” that we boast o f “c onq uering” ,

but have forgotten how to woo and w in and live w ith.

AKC

H. G. D. Finlayson is not further identified. Similarly, his Providential Order

o f Fairplay could n ot be identified from any o f the standard bibliographictools, tho ug h the rem ark near the beginning o f the letter suggests that it was

a book or pamphlet. This communication from AKC (published in Trees,

IX, 1945, n o 2) is include d here desp ite the unavailability o f the original,

because th e sequence o f letters that follow w ould be less m eanin gful w ithou t

it.

Richard St Barbe Baker, Africa Drums, London, 1945.

A. M. Hocart, Les Castes; see Bibliography for English translation.

T o MR H. G. D. FINLAYSO N

July 14, 1944

Dear Mr Finlayson:

Many thanks for your letter and enclosures. So far as I can

tell from this rather br ief material, I am fully in agree m ent w ith

you on the “p rovident m inimu m o f decency” . Regarding “ I

A M ” , a goo d deal depends on all that we und erstand by this.B ut by your equation o f the individual spiritual life w ith the

cultivation o f ou r “ better se lf ’, I presume we see together. In

my article “ Sir Gawain . . . ” in Speculum (Jan 1944), I pointed

ou t that the true argum ent is not Cogito ergo sum, but Cogito ergo

Est. However, I don’t see my way at present to write anythingspecifically on the “minimum”.

Regard ing “ cosmic stricture” , I think Przyluski, La Participa

tion might interest you. On the other hand, also Giono, Letters aux paysans.

Very sincerely,



H. G. D. Finlayson, as above.

“Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Indra and Namuci”, Speculum, XIX,

1944.

J. Przyluski, La Participation.

Jean Giona, Lettre aux paysans.

T o MR H. G. D. FINLAYSO N

Date uncertain, but presumably autumn 1944

Dear Mr Finlayson:

M any thanks for yours o f A ugust 22 (my 67th birthday). I

certainly do no t see anything in yo ur “ m inim um ” as defined in

yo ur “ Statemen t o f acco unt” . W hat you call the “ charitable

poise” seems to me much m ore actual in oth er religions th an in

Christianity, with its Extra ecclesium nulla salus; although, of

course, this formula is not to be taken literally, Christian

theo logy recognizing a “baptism o f the spirit” as well as the

“ baptism o f w ater” . I do n’t think you need be afraid o f any

spread o f interest in C om parative Religion, but o nly o f a

w rong approach to the subject. T he fact o f the universal

enunciation o f the fundam ental doctrines, often in almost thesame idioms, is actually very impressive; this universality

deriving from the Perennial Philosophy on which all religions

ultimately rest. I think the recent paper on “The Only

Transmigrant” would interest you as it deals with the divine

imm anance as the only real basis o f agreem ent

Very sincerely,


“On the One and Only Transmigrant” , Journal o f the American Oriental

Society, LX IV, S upp lem ent 3, 1944.

T o H. G. D. FINLAY SON

N ovem ber 2, 1944

Dear M r Finlayson:

I think you w ou ld be interested in Pr o f F. W. Bu ckler’s



franca o f all cultures before the “confusion o f tongues” .

Very sincerely,


‘On the One and Only Transmigrant’, see previous letter.

To HORAC E M. KALLEN

December 7, 1943

Dear Prof Kallcn:

I w rite to thank you for sending me the Jefferson paper.

There is very much in his notions about art with which I

heartily agree, especially as summarised in the beginning ofyour section VI.

On the other hand, naturally, I do not agree with your

interp reta tion and estimate o f feudal, ie, vocational, societies,

for I hold with those who believe that “the need for a

restoration of the cthics of vocation has become the central problem o f socie ty ” . I will only go in to this for a m om ent in

conncction with art. In the vocational societies it is not only

held that to heautou prattein kata phusin is o f the very essence o f

justice (dikaiosune , rendered in the New Testament by “right

eousness”) but ou r conception o f fine or useless art, and o f

“connoisscurship” as a luxury arc unknown; all art is for use,

and to be jud ge d by its utility (not, o f course, in the nar row

“ utilitarian” sense, b ut w ith reference to the needs o f the wholeman). Your inference that the artist is only a ijieans to the

consumer’s ends is perfectly correct, but does not involve what

you infer. O ne can best grasp the relations if wc consider first

the case in which the artist is working for himself, eg, buildinghis own house; in this case it is evident that the artist as such is

“means” to the man as such. There is no difference in principlewhen artist [and consumer] arc two different persons; how can

the maker be other than “ means” to the user? The user (patron,

consumer) is the “ first and last cause” o f the work; it is done forhim and d irected to him; all other causes, inc luding the efficientcause, arc by hypothesis “means” to this “end”. The balance



here is “corrected” in various ways. In the first place, in such

societies, the artist is not a special kind o f man, bu t every m an is

a special kind o f artist; hence, while A is “ means” to B, in one

relation, B is means to A in another. M em bers o f a vocational

society, in other words, provide for one another’s needs, and

each in turn does a service to the other. There is nothing

whatever degrading in this “servility”. In the second place, in

such societies the “ fractioning o f the hum an faculty” involved

in our mcchanical and industrialised m ethods o f production has

not arisen; the artist is still an individual responsible for the

product, either indiv idually or through his guild. His w ork is

never, therefore, entirely “servile” (using the word now in its

more technical sense), but both free and servile; free inasmuch

as he works by art, and servile inasmuch as he works by hand.

It is in our socicty, preeminently, that “excellence in the liberalarts is the stu ff o f ho no ur in the eyes of men and that w orkm en

are no t capable o f this excellence or ever w or thy o f such

honour .”

Cordially

H. M. K allcn, N ew York, U SA.

To H. M. KALLEN

December 9, 1943

Dear Professor Kallcn:

Many thanks for your kind note. I don’t, however, agree

w ith yo ur interpre tation o f the “ reco rd” . As I see it, men havenever been less “ free” (except, o f course, to w ork or starve)

than here and now . Th e no tion o f a hierarchy o f functions I

accept. But “despising the worker and treating him as a tool of

the consumer” is not attributed to Christian doctrine, but tothe aband onm ent o f the Christian doctrine against usury andthe accompanying gradual industrialization substitution offactory for workshop, etc. Exactly the same process can bewatched today wherever industrial methods impinge upon

vocational societies; the responsible workman is reduced to a producer o f raw materials. The w orkm an to be “ despised” (or,



I w ou ld ra ther say, “ pitied” ) is one whose p rodu ction is for the

needs o f the bod y alone, and no t for the needs o f the soul

toge ther and sim ultaneously (Plato’s dem and, and according to

the anthropologists, the condition that existed in savage

societies). Also, there is a great deal o f difference between being

the “ too l” o f the consumer, and the “ servant” o f the consumer;

one involves degradation, not the other.

Very sincerely,

H. M. Kallcn, as above.

T o BERNARD KELLY

Date uncertain, but 1943 or later

Dear Mr Kelly:

It is no t very easy to give a brie f and at the same timeadequate answer to your question. I would say that from the

Indian point o f view, Laborare est orare; and that the emphasislaid upon perfection in doing-and-making (karma) in terms of

vocation, by which at the same time the man perfects both hiswork and himself, is very strong. The Bhagavad Gita defines

Yoga as “ skill in w ork s” (here “skill” is wisdom , ju st as Greek

sophia w as originally “ skill”). F urthermore, o f the H indu terms

for Sacrifice, karma (action) is precisely a doing in the sense of

sacra facere. This establishes the norm o f all activity; as I have

tried to indicate in Hinduism and Buddhism, the requirements

o f divine service and the satisfaction o f hum an needs are

inseparable.Again, there is no liberation b ut for those wh o are “all in ac t”(krtakrtyah, “having done what there was to be done”). I think

it is difficult for the modern Western mind, which does not

merely and p rope rly recognize the validity of bo th the activeand contemplative lives, but reverses their hierarchy (setting

Martha above Mary), to realise that alike in Christianity andHinduism, there is recognized a double norm, an ordinary and

an extrao rdina ry n orm . We have no t only to live this life well,

but also to prepare for another. There are not only “values” , but also an ult im ate “w orth ” beyond all contraries.



We shall die; and it is the Christian (Thomist, etc) doctrine

that it is the “intellectual virtues” that will survive. In the

H indu scheme o fli fe there are recognized four “ stations” (<isra-

ma), those (1) o f studen tship, (2) marriage, p rocreation and

vocational occu pation, (3) retirement, and (4) total renunciation

(sannyasa) o f all rights and duties (w hich are handed over,naturally and ritually, to one’s dcscendcnts, in whom our

“character” is reborn and who take our place in the world of

rights and duties, o f which the incumbency is thus hereditary).

There is also recognized the possibility o f the special vocation

by which one may be im periously sum m oned to a to ta l

renunciation o f status and obligations at any age; and how everstrong the Hindu emphasis upon social rcsposibility may be,

the presence in the w or ld o f those who , at least in old age, have

laid down their burden, is a perpetual witness to the reality of

the worth that transcends all virtues and vices. A society that

made a final end o flife itse lf wou ld be materialistic indeed; that

w ou ld be to su bstitute an ideal of mere prosp erity and

“ prog ress” for the kingdom o f heaven [which on earth] can

only be realised . . . “within you”.To abandon one’s vocational activity is not essential to

perfection (the “ unified sta te”). The ideal is to “ act w ithout

acting”; this is like an actor who plays his part perfectly, but isnot involved in it; and who is, therefore, the unmoved

spectato r o f his ow n “ fate” , at the same time that this destiny is

enacted by his own temporary psycho-physical vehicle. It is in

these terms that an Indian “Utopia” is conceived.

You will find, I think , this philosophy o f life explicitly

enough expounded in the Bhagavad Gita (esp III, 15—35 and

XVIII, 45-49); and the extent to which this compendium of

Vedic tradition underlies and informs Hindu society couldhardly be exaggerated.

I trust you will find at least a partial answer in the above; or if

not, please write further.

Very sincerely,

Bernard Kelly, Windsor, England; see page 20.

Hinduism and Buddhism, New York, 1943; also see Bibliography.



To M R L U D O V I C D E G A I G N E R O N

December 16, 1935

My dear Mr Gaigneron:

Let me add tha t a further perusal o f your book leads me to

admire very much your most able dialectic.O n ju st one p oint, 1 feel that the argu m ent is a little

precarious, viz, in conncction w ith the doctrine o f “ lost

cultu res” . It seems to me very unsafe to assume that precisely all

the evidences o f a mechanically superior civilisation have been

lost and only those o f a mechanically inferio r civilisation

preserved. It w ould be a strange chance th at preserved only the

stone w eapons o f “ prim itives” (ie, early) m an all over the

w orld and no where any trace of his m ore elaboratemechanisms—if such there were. I think the po int is much

rather that the lost cultures were superior intellectually, but not

materially. By w ay o f illustration, the mode o f thoug ht o f an

American Indian shaman is even now more abstract than that of

the “civilised” man, by far. W hen the Chinese speak of the “pure

men o f old ” , they rather assume that they had very few wants,

and used very little means, than the contrary. If early man was

more “angelic” than ourselves, must he not, like the angels,have had “fewer ideas and used less means than men”? The

m agn itude o f our means and multiplicity o f ou r ideas are in fact

the m easure o f ou r decadence. The pure men o f old were not

“ civilised” w ithin the profane meaning o f the word.

Sincerely,

Ludovic de Gaigneron, Paris, France, author of Vers la connaissance interdite,

Paris, 1935.

To GEORGE SARTON

March 25, 1939

Dear Dr Sarton:

You probably know and must have reviewed F. M. Lund, A d

Quadratum, London, 1921. It seems to me a quite remarkablew ork . If by any chance you have no t dealt with it, it seems to



me it would be good to have an article on this and Ghyka’s Le

Nombre d ’O r (many editions, eg, Paris, 1931) toge ther. N ot o f

course a jo b I could do, though there is much material in bo th

o f deepest interest fo r me. As I have often said, “ pririiitive”

man knew no thing o f a possible divorce o f function and

meaning: all his inventions were applied meaning.

Very sincerely,

Ge orge Sarton, professor o f the history o f science, H arvard Un iversity,


A N O N Y M O U S

Date uncertain

Sir:

The effect o f ou r civilization and o f industrialism upon any

traditional society is to d estroy the basis o f hereditary vocation

on which such societies are based: and we may say that thus to

rob the man o f his vocation, even tho ugh it be done in the nameo f “ liberty” , is to rob the m an o f his “living” , not only in an

economic sense, but in the sense that “man does not live by

bread alo ne” : since it is precisely in such societies th at the

professions themselves and for the very reason that the

vocation is in every sense of the w ord natural, prov ide the solid basis o f in itiatory teaching.

Sincerely,

The above handwritten letter was neither addressed nor dated.

T o T H E N E W E N G LI S H W EE K L Y , L O N D O N

April 1, 1943

Sir:As against Mr Couscns, I maintain that Pontifex Ill’s fine

saying, “The first essential is for Teaching to become a



Vocation, which on ly they may enter who have heard the call”,

should be engraved on every school and college protal, and tha t

“only they may enter who have heard the call” should be

understood to apply to pupils as well as teachers. Assuredly, in

this case there would be fewer teachers and fewer pupils. So

what? 1 take it wc are all agreed that a dem and for quality

should take precedence o f any demand for quantity. We are

suffering nowadays not from too little, but from too much

educa tion, or w hat is so-called. The im portance o f even literacy

has been immensely overrated. Innumerable peoples have been

profoundly cultu red w ho could not read or write : for example,

o f the late Dali M or o f the Uses, Carm ichacl writes that “ he

played w ith equal skill upon several in strum ents . He had a

marvelous ear for the old-world music and melodies, and aw onderful m em ory for old songs and hymns, m ost of which

died with him when he died. The man was unlettered, and

knew Geolic on ly .” W hat was true for the Gael was true no lessfor the American Indian, the Indian peasant and a thousand

others before the w ithering touch o f ou r “ civilisation” fell upon

them like a blight.

Apart from an elite o f teachcrs and pupils, the effects o f a

modern education, school or college, are almost whollydestruc tive o f any existing culture, and wh at they put in its

place is som ething that moves on a much lower level o f

reference. I have known more than one Professor who has told

me that it took him ten years to outgrow his Harvard education.

If that can be said o f one o f the best existing colleges, wha t can

be said o f the products o f English and American systems o f

“Universal Compulsory Education”? Speaking for what survi

ves o f the trad itiona l cultures o f the East, I have said m yself ina kind o f O pen Letter that will appear in the March Asia , that

“ w hatever you do to us in the future by way o f wars o f

agression or ‘pacification’, keep at least your college education

for home consumption.” As you have so well said in the sameissue in which Mr Cousen’s letter is printed, “how seldom

nations can be relied upon to keep the peace unless their internal

life fulfils for them their own ideas as to what it ought to be.” Isthat w ha t you r “ edu cation” has done for the Gael, the Irish, the

American Indian and the South Sea Islander? Is that what it hasdone for you?

Surely ou r crying need is for less and better rather than more



and (if possible) w orse education? And that should app ly to

every o ther aspect o f life; the first essential is that occupa tions,

however “practical”, should not be “jobs”, but professions. The

kind o f book -learning that can be handed ou t in large quantities

will no t provide for that! That was the basis o f a caste system inwhich, as Hocart says, chaque metier est une sacerdoce. What has

our education got to offer to compare with that? We cannot

pre tend to culture until by the phrase “standard o f living” we

come to mean a qualitative standard. It is only where trades are

callings that, as Plato says, more will be done, and better done,

than in any other way.

If that applies anywhere, it surely applies to education, bywhich our very being can be either warped or erected. Literacy

is o f suprem e importance only for shopkeepers and chain-beltworkers, who must be able to keep accounts and able to read

the instructions that are pu t up on the factory notice board. For

the rest, it were far better not to be able to read at all than to read

what the great majority o f Europeans and Am ericans read

tod ay .* M odern education is designed to fit us to take ou r place

in the counting house and at the chain-belt; a real culture breeds

a race o f men able to ask: “ W hat kind o f w ork is worth doing?”

AKC

* H ow mu ch m ore ex cruciatingly pe rtinent is this observation in the

conditions prevailing over forty years later!

To DR ROBERT ULICH

August 24, 1942

Dear Dr Ulich:

I think one o f the best points made in you r book is the

statem ent that “ all good teaching consists in changing passivityinto activity” . For is it no t the whole nature o f progress to progress from pote ntiali ty to act? God is “ all in act” . M oreoverit is consistent with the Platonic and Indian doctrine that all

learning is a recollection; a picture o f a lesson based on thisassumption is given following [ie, in^or according to] Meno.

I often feel that one cannot teach any understanding directly,



but only break down misunderstanding: in other words, dialectical

procedure. The Buddhis t texts often describe a fine serm on as

like bringing a lamp into a dark room. The destruction of

something enables us to see for ourselves what was already

there.Very sincerely,

PS: I think you would enjoy P. K. Barlow, The Discipline of

Peace, Faber and Faber, 1942.

D r Ro bert U lich, professor of education at Harverd Un iversity, Cam bridge,

M assachusetts, U SA, and author of num erous books on the history, theoryand practice o f education.

To P R O F E S S O R L A N G D O N W A R N E R

April 13, 1932

My dear Langdon Warner:

Many thanks for your letter. I am sorry indeed nothing can be done in the case o f Aga O glu, w ho w ould be such a great

addition to our forces—but is useless to grieve over a thing

which cannot be amended, after one has done everything

possible.

A prop os o f ou r conversation, I reflect that I cannot really

agree with the idea that it is good to say to students “ bring y ou r

ow n standards” . It is the beginning o f w isdom to realise that all

standards are relative, and why not let them face this fact atonce? In my N Y lectures, beginning with a few words as to

the “ value o f ou r discipline” , I suggested that if this fact were

learnt from the course, it w ould be of m ore value to the studentthan any o f the facts o f the art history that he m ight acquire

from it. I tell them that art is not a universal language; “pure

aesthetic experience” is immutable and universal, indeedinscrutable, but no one is competent to enjoy aestheticexperience until all his objections (based on his own standards,for example) and curiosities have been allayed. So I set myselfto rem ove these barriers, thinking that it depends then entirelyon the student’s own nature, when he is in a position to possess



the art, o r at the very least to take it for granted, whethe r or not

he can enjoy aesthetic experience. O therw ise, 1 tell them , in

merely liking and disliking any work they are doing no more

than gaining one more new sensation; than which it would be

bette r not to go abroad, mais cultiver son jardin. All this may behard sledding for the average student, but the m ore you ask the

m ore you get, and I do no t believe in comprom ise. I know you

will be shocked.

Very sincerely,

Langdon Warner, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

T o STUART CHASE

3 February 1941

Dear Mr Chase:

I was much interested in your article in the February Reader’s

Digest, which I saw by chance. It affords another instance o f the

rediscovery o f a principle that has always been kn ow ntraditionally. Plato ( Republic 395 B, 500 D) points out that the

practice o f an art and the wage-earning capacity or business

instinct are two different things, so that “a man does not earn

wages by his art” as such, b ut accidentally. He says that “ m ore

things are produced, and better and more easily, when one man

perform s one kind o f w ork in accordance with his own nature,

opportunely and at leisure from other cares” (ibidem 370 C, cf

374 B, C , 347 E, 406 C, etc); and this “doing o f on e’s ow nw o rk ” is his type o f “justice” (ibidem 433 B, 443 C). St.

Thom as Aquinas says that the wo rkm an is “ inclined by justice

to do his work faithfully” (Sum Theol I-II 57.3 ad 2) and that he

is “o nly concerned w ith the good o f the wo rk to be done”

(ididem 1.91'.3). I have m yself po inted out in print, as did also

Eric Gill, that un der no rm al (vocational) conditions the man atwork is doing what he likes best and would rather do than even

play. The fact that under a system o f production for pro fit, in

which the w ork m an is no longer a responsible maker bu t only atool himself, a system in which livelihood is earned not in thecourse o f following a vocation, but in a jo b to which one is



forced by need and to which one could never be “callcd” by

anyone but a “manufacturer”, the traditional axiom that

“pleasure perfects the operation” can no longer apply. I will no t

lengthen out this letter by citing Oriental sources, but only say

that I have m yse lf em ployed hereditary craftsmen in the East tomake a certain n um ber o f objects for me, being paid by the day

while the work was going on. These men were so much

interested in and fond o f their work and appreciation o f it that

they could not be dissuaded from working at it by candlelight

at night, althoug h this obviously reduced the total o f money

they would be able to earn from me. I may add that my own

w ork is also my vocation, and that “h ours o f labor” mean

no thing to me; I should be very angry if asked to work only so

many hours per week. But this is the exception under modern

conditions, though it was once the rule. I believe it is only

when production is primarily for use and not primarily for

profit th at on the one hand the w orkm an is free and happy, and

on the oth er produces objects o f such quality as can rightly be

desired by the consumer. It is only because industrialism

reverses these con ditions, and no t because machines o f any kind

are bad in themselves, that people have become accustomed to

expect “art” only in museums, and nothing but utilityelsewhere.*

Very sincerely,

Stuart Chase graduated from H arvard in 1910 and w orked as an accountant

at the Federal Trade Commission before becoming a freelance writer. The

article in question was ‘What Makes the Worker Like to Work?’, Reader’s

Digest, Febru ary 1941. M r Ch ase was later associated w ith the art and

archeology department at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire,USA.* Machines must be distinguished from tools. The latter are unquestionably

legitim ate, bu t if the fo rm er arc no t ‘bad in them selves’ it m ust nevertheless

be recogn ized that from a traditional perspective so meth in g like an

‘occasion o f sin’ indu bitab ly attaches to them



To S T U A R T C H A S E

February 11, 1941

Dear Mr Chase:

Thanks for your letter. The problem you raise seems to meto be one of values, and closely bound up with the alternatives,

production for use or production for profit . It is significant that

“manufacture” has come to mean not the actual maker of

anything, bu t essentially a big salesman. I am n ot go ing to deny

the “benefits o f quantity p rodu ction” , but to make some

reservations.

I think it is our great mistake to tend to identify civilisationand standards o f living w ith quantity o f wan ts and their

satisfaction. Vast quantities o f things arc no w made, which are

ju st w hat Plato w ould have described as “ not such as free men

really nee d” . Some o f these things have only com e to seem to

be necessities because o f the excessive degree o f m en’s

separation from the soil on which he ultimately depends.

Others which provide us with amusement and “distraction” in

many cases seem to be necessities only for the very reason that

we are not deriving adequate pleasure (the traditional “pleasure

that perfects the operation”) from our work. Others are madeonly to sell. And in any case there is some natural antithesis

between quantity and quality .

N ow th e events o f the last th irty years have made us a little

less confident that our “progress” has been altogether in the

right direction; wc are not altogether unwilling to make

revaluations. The same problem comes up in our educational

program m es. If we are to have any standards by which to judge

means to living, must wc not somehow once more come to kind ofagreem ent about the purpose o f life and hence w hat we ought

to mean by “ standard o f living” , or in traditional terms, “ the

good life”?

Means arc not and must not be confused with ends: they arcmeans to ends. In any case, it seems obvious that the kind of

men we p roduce is more im po rtant than the quantity o f thingsthey can possess*; and that the kind o f men wc p roduce is very

closely bou nd up w ith the kind o f things they m ake, and thequality o f these things themselves, w hich they use and bywhich they cannot but be influenced.



Th e basic requirem ent, is, then, an establishment o f and

some agreement about real values. The result would be, not

necessarily an abolition o f all quantity p roduction , bu t certainly

a reduction in the am ount o f it. T his alone w ould som ew hat

simplify the problem, which turns fundamentally upon the

question, w hat are the things that ough t to be made or w hat arethe things that free men ou gh t to possess? (I am not, o f course,

referring to a m erely political freedom, which as we kno w does

not secure to the worker the opportunity to be happy in his

work; it has in fact often been the case, historically, that slaves

have been able to be happy at their work in a way that our

politically free “ wage-slaves” cannot be). I am far from

denying that som e things can be beautifully made by the use o f

machines, when these are essentially tools in the hands ofintelligent and responsible workmen; but would say that it

seems to me that it is not proper for free men (in the full sense

o f the words) either to make o r to use things w hich are no t bo th

beautiful and adapted to good use, pulcher et aptus; that only

those things that are both useful are really (ie, “formally right”)as Plato says “Wholesome”; and that it is from this point of

view, and considering men first and things second, that we

have to approach this problem.

I am sending you a recent pam phlet. If you are ever in

Boston, perhaps you will find time to drop in at the Museum

where I am daily except on Saturdays.

Very sincerely,

Stuart Chase, as above.

*In the modem industrialized world, West or East, no one remembers or

wishe s to rem em be r that ‘ . . .a m an ’s life does not consist in the abundanc eo f the th ings w hich he possesses’ (Lk xii, 15). Indeed, ‘in the fatness o f these

pursey tim es . . . ” , ava rice becomes th e counterfeit o f a social vir tu e.

The wording in the last sentence in the penultimate paragraph may seem

confusing, but it has been checked against the original.



T o ARTEMUS PACKARD

May 26, 1941

Dear Professor Packard:

First o f all, I w an t to say how com pletely I agree abou t the“ genius m y th” . Satan was the first to think of himself as a

genius. We all have a genius (immanent daimon), which we

(so-and-so) should obey, but as so-and-so cannot be. To

becom e it is theosis, but then w e are no longer “ ourselves” , but

nameless.

Probably we could reach some approximation to agreement

on other problems. I am wholly anti-totalitarian. But I could

hardly think o f dem ocracy, how eve r high its present value, asan ultimate ideal, as I crave to be governed by my superiors, not

by m y equals. I do not welcome increased leisure (for m yself or

for anyone else). By (political) liberty, I understand freedom to

heautou prattein. When at work wc should be doing what we

most delight in. C ulture throug h w ork (vocation) or not at all, if

we mean the real thing!

The man with the hoe is only disgusting because the farmer,

too, has become a proletarian. I do not quite agree that Plato is

inapplicable (I am talking about Plato because that is where thediscussion started— actually m y indoctrination w ith the Philoso-

phia Perennis is primarily Oriental, secondarily Mediaeval, and

thirdly classic) now.

I still think m ore will be done and b etter done, and w e shall

have better men, w hen each man follows a vocation. 1 canno t

regard w ork on a chain- belt as a vocation bu t rather as “ w hat is

unbeco m ing for a free m an ” . So long as we dem and such a high

material standard o f living as wc do, it seems to m e some m enm ust be “ warped by their menial tasks” , if it is to be provided.

So it seems all important to decide what is worth making, and

w hether we w ant m ore things, more than we w ant better men

(men for whom life is intelligible). I hope you may be inBoston some time.

Very sincerely,

Professor Artemas Packard is not identified, though apparently he was

connected with Dartmouth College, Hanover, N"w Hampshire, USA.




September 5, 1946

Sir:

Captain Ludovici and others have referred to the decline inthe birth rate as rep resenting a loss o f the sense o f responsibility

to society. M ay it not be that this loss of the sense o f

responsibility is bound up with and cannot be considered apart

from other and even more fundamental impoverishments? I

mean, in particular, that the decline in the birthrate may be

largely a function o r sy m ptom o f the loss o f the sense of

vocation, metier, ministerium.

For Plato and the Vedic tradition, all men are born indebt—to their ancestors, to whom they owe the existing

amenities of the environm ent into wh ich they arc born; and the

main reason for having children is that they may in their turn

assume the specific functions that were fulfilled by their

fathers before them. The vocation is an incumbency; and it is

pro verbia l th at everyone is in love w ith his ow n family “ trade”

(tread, walk, way). Bu t wh o no w takes, o r can take this kind of

pride in his “ ow n w ork” , or desires above all th ings to be what

his father was? For the vast majority of men are no longerresponsible artists, having a calling, but only cam their living

by labouring at joys to which no one but the industria l system,or m ore abstractly, “ economic determination” , has sum mo ned

them? If ever once again the concept o f vocational responsibility

can be restored— if ever the miner’s union, for example, com es

to regard it as their fir st responsibility to keep home fires

burnin g— then, when the stability o f society itself is thus

ensured, responsibility will also be felt again, to procreate inthat others may carry on our tasks.

AKC

T o T H E E D I T O R O F C O M M O N S E N S E

August 1943

Sir:

William Jordy, discussing prc-fabricated houses, says in your



July issue, “Whether the results be socially or esthetically

desirable is another question, but at least we are abandoning

nineteenth century handicraft methods for more efficient and

sensible modes o f pro du ction .” I w ould ask, ho w can m ethods

be described as efficient if the social desirability of the result is

uncertain, and how as sensible, if we are dou btful about theesthetic value o f the results? The philosopher, being the

practical man par excellence, has always assumed that the only

reason for making things is for man’s good use; but for the

industrialist, who for the present has the consumer by the

throat, the primary reason for making things is the profit that

can be made by selling them. He is perfectly willing to go

ahead, however doubtful the social and esthetic, ie, human

value o f the pro du ct may be, i f only he is persuaded that people

can be made to want the product; and he has many ways of

making people want what he can supply. The human value of

the product m ay be more doubtful; but wh at does that m atter if

at least old fashioned procedures can be abandoned? The

advertiser knows very well that a people believing blindly in

“progress” can always and easily be convinced that any change

would be for the better.

W hat all this means, o f course, is that the con sum er’s good is

“ another qu estion” . N othing m atters but the interests o f the“corporations” and “huge glass and steel firms” who arc eager

to sell their products, in this case, pre-fabricated houses. This

obvious consideration should have been more clearly stated,

and not merely hinted at.

AKC

PS: Xenephon, Memorabilia III.8.8: ‘tha t the same house is bo th beautiful and useful, was a lesson in the art o f buildin g houses

as they ou gh t to b e.’ Common Sense, published for a time at

U nion , N ew Jersey, bore the subtitle: the N ation’s A nti-

Communist Newspaper.



To T H E N E W E N G L I S H W E E K L Y , L O N D O N

Undated

Sir:

M r R eckitt’s discussion o f the “ Ivory Shelter” in you r issue

o f N ov 2 raises what can only be a prob lem in a functionallyunorgan ized and “ atom ic” society, in which there are no longer

professions or vocations, no lo nger metiers, bu t only jobs and

occupations, and where, therefore, the “artist” can be regarded

as a special kind o f man. In a traditiona l social order, every man

who makes or orders anything is an artist: the forging of

weapons is an art, war is an art, and painting and sculpture are

no m ore arts than either o f these. T here arises then no question

betw een man and artist as to w ho shall fight; the question arisesonly as betw een different kinds o f artist, all o f wh ich kinds may

be equally essential to “ good use” and, there fore, to the “ good

life” that we have in view when we think o f civilisation as a

“ good” . In an [traditionally] organized society it is every m an’s

first duty to practice his own vocation; which, in as much as

vocation corresponds to nature, is also his best means of

working out his own salvation; man’s first duty socially thus

coinciding w ith his first duty from the religious po int o f view.It is then, the duty only o f the professional soldier, or in

other w ords o f the mem bers o f the ruling (kshatrya, ritterlich)

class, to fight; it is neither for the priest, the trader, nor for the

“a rtist” (the maker o f anything “by art” ) to fight. If at the

present day it is— even for wom en and children— to fight(women over 50 have been denied U.S. citizenship because

they w ou ld n ot p rom ise to bear arms in defense o f their

country) this can only mean that the community is in extremis,

where mere existence and “bread alone” are at stake. The fact isthat those who aspire to “empire” (in the modern connotation

o f the term) cann ot also afford a culture, or even an agriculture:

we do not sufficiently realise that the “civilisation” that men are

supposed to be fighting for is already a museum piece. If at the present day we are not shocked by this last consequence o f

individualism and laissez faire, a consequence that violates thena ture o f every man w ho is no t a soldier born and bred, it is

because we are inured to membership in industr ia l societies thatare no t organ ic structures b ut atom ic aggregates o f servile units



that can be pu t to any task that ma y be required o f them by a

deified “ na tion ” : the individual, w ho w as no t “ free” before the

war, bu t already part of a “ system ” , is no t now “ free” to stand

aloof from it.

AKC

T o T H E N E W E N G LI S H W E E K LY , L O N D O N

13 March, 1941

Sir:

Mr Herbert Read “refuses to succeed as an artist at the

expense o f his m ora lity” (Jan 16, 1941, p 147). Bravo! This was

the basis o f Pla to’s famous “ censorship” ; and as Cicero said,

cum artifex, turn vir. I should have thought that it had been

demonstrated once for all, by Plato (not to mention other

traditional form s o f the philosophia perennis), that if we are to

have “things fit for free men” made by art (and certainly many

things n ow made for sale are unfit for the use o f free men), they

must be both “correct”, “true”, or “beautiful”, and also

“useful” or “convenient”, and are only then “wholesome”. Itwas said by William Morris, too, that we ought not to possess

anything not both beautiful and useful; and in fact all else is

either “brutality” or “luxury”. The artist is the judge of the

work’s truth, perfection or beauty, and being only concerned

w ith the good o f the w ork itself, will not norm ally (as the

“manufacturer” or salesman may) offer the consumer anything

but a true w ork o f art. The consumer, on the other hand,

requires the w ork for use, and is the jud ge o f its value for gooduse. A re we n ot all consum ers, and if so w hy sh rink from

putting the artist in his ow n place and from judging the w ork

by its value? By employing an artist we take it for granted that

the wo rk will be pulcher, and m ust decide for ourselves w hethe ror not it is et aptus.

AKC



A N O N Y M O U S

Date uncertain

Dr Ncibuhr is mistaken when he takes it for granted that

caste is a color-discrim ination analogous to the color-prejudices

w ith w hich we are familiar in Am erica. The late A. M. Hocart,a scholar and a nthrop olog ist o f w orldw ide experience (very

necessary in this case, just because caste is not an exclusively

Indian phen om eno n), devotes twelve pages (44-58) of his book ,

Les Castes to a destructive criticism o f the theo ry tha t

aristocracies are the end p rodu cts o f conquests, and that the

Indian word for “color” (varna) can be adduced in support of

this concept. Th e Indian w ord that most nearly corresponds to

the Portuguese casta is ja ti, “birth” or “lineage”. As Mr Hocart poin ts out, the four castes are connected w ith the four quarte rs

(and four ages), o f wh ich the “colours” arc red, white, yellow

and black; and as he says, on the conquest theory, we should

have to presum e successive invasions by peoples o f these four

colors, and that the last comers always became the Brahmans.

It is no t qu ite so easy as all tha t for a conquering race to becom e

the priests o f the conquered. We m ust always reme m ber that in

ancient India, where the now so much abused word “Aryan”

originated, the distinction o f Aryan from non -A ryan was a

cultura l and n ot a racial discrim ination. We can speak o f an

Aryan language, bu t not o f an Aryan people. The distinction

o f high er from low er castes in India is no t racial, but m ore o f

“ character” (in the theological sense o f the word).

Although, on the average, high castes arc fairer than low

castes, there are very dark Brahmans and very fair Sudras; in

Kashm ir, som e o f the lowest castes are quite blonde. I have

known Europeans who were liked in spite of what was calledtheir “unfortunate off-colou r” . As a m atter o f taste, the

preferred colour is “ golden” . And there cannot be said to be a

prejudice against a dark colour where this is the colour o f one o f

the ch ief forms o f deity, Vishnu, and o f his descendents Ramaand Krishna.

I think it is because the N egro problem that he know s isactually one of race and colour, that Dr Ncibuhr is too much

inclined to confuse social with racial differences. As M r Fisherhas already po inted out, the distinction o f M uham m adans*from Hindus is hardly at all a m atter o f ' race; Indian



M uham m adans are almost who lly o f Indian blood and that,

indeed, is one o f the principal reasons w hy such a fusion o f the

two cultures as actually took place was possible; the other

being, in th e w ords o f the M ughal Em peror Jahangir , that

“their Vedanta is the same as our Tassawwuj (Sufism)”.

A further point: what does Dr Neibuhr mean by “snobbishness?” and who are his snobs? A snob is “a person who does

not belong to the upper classes; one obviously without rank or

gen tility. . .one who vulgarly affects the manners or stations o f

those o f sup erio r rank, esp by a display o f w ealth” (W ebster). It

is then with the lower castes that he seems to be finding fault.

The corresponding vice in an upper class would be “arro

gance”. Englishmen in India arc often arrogant, and physical

or moral “half-castes” sometimes “snobbish”, but one couldhard ly preten d that either o f these vices are characteristic of the

Indian peoples themselves.

And finally w ith respect to the distinction o f vocational from

plu tocratic societies, I should like to quote from a Polish write r:

It matters not whether the present-day factory worker is, as

regards the intensity and dura tion o f his exertion, in a better

or worse condition than the savage hunter or the artisan of

the M iddle Ages. The point that does ma tter is that his mindhas no share in determ ining the aims o f his w ork and that his

body, as an instrum ent o f independent creative pow er, has

lost most o f its significance. H ence his mind, divorced from

creative activity, turns in the main to the problem of

satisfying the needs o f his primitive animal appetites; w hile

his body having lost, in his own eyes, well nigh all its

importanc e as an instrum ent o f skilled prod uction, interests

him alm ost exclusively as a source o f pleasure and discom fo rt” (F Snaniecki, cited in A. J. Krzesinski, Is Modern Culture

Doomed?). That is what the Indian holds against the modern

plu tocracies and w hy he docs not w ant to im itate them ,

except to the extent that he may be forced to do so inself-defence.

AKC

* Were Dr Coomaraswamy writing today, almost certainly he would usethe word Muslim (or one of the spelling variants) rather than ‘M uha m m adan ’. The latter, an adjectival form o f the name o f the Prop het o f Islam, was



adopted by W esterners on analogy w ith ‘Ch ristian’; but the role o f the two

Messengers differs sufficiently to render the supposed analogy null and void,

and this has become generally accepted in the years since Dr Coomaras-

wamy’s death. The religion is Islam, which in Arabic means submission, ie,

to A llah ; and one who submits is a Muslim .

Th e recipient o f this letter is no t identified.

Louis Fisher, w riter and pro m inent w estern follower o f M ahatma G andhi.

A. J. Krzesinski, Is Modem Culture Doomed ?, New York, 1942.

D r Rcinhold N eibu r was a prom inent ‘ne o-o rtho do x’ protestan t theologian.

T o T H E N A T I O N , N E W Y O RK

January 30, 1943

Dear Sirs;

D r N eibu hr, in his review o f Sh ridharni’s Warning to the West

in The Nation o fJanua ry 2, speaks o f the Indian caste system as

“ the m ost rigid form o f class snobbishness in history ” . One

could no t have a better illustration o f the fallacy o f claiming

that the form o f on e’s ow n go vern m ent” is best, no t only for

himself, b ut also for the rest o f m ankind” (Franz Boas, cited in

the same issue). In the first place, it may be observed that nosnobbishness can exist where there is no social ambition:

Indians do not, like Americans, have to keep up with the

Joneses. And let me add that the form o f his social ord er is the

last thing that could occur to an Indian to apologize for, when

he com pares it with the informality o f W estern proletarian

industrialisms. I say “Industrialisms” rather than “democra

cies” because in these so-called self-governing societies the

Indian [can see] nothing that can be compared with the really

dem ocratic character o f the internal self-governm ent o f his ow n

castes or guilds and his own village communities.

It has been very truly pointed out by A. M. Hocart, author

o f Les Castes (Paris, 1938), probably the best bo ok in the subjectavailable that “ hered itary service is quite incom patible w ith ourindustrialism, and that is why it is always painted in such dark

colors.” Mr Hocart also points out that we must not befrightened by the connotations o f the European w ords that are

used to translate Indian terms. The caste system, he says, is notone o f oppression, “ but, on the contrary, may be much lessoppressive than o ur industrial system .” ’The mem bers o f the



most menial castes are chargcd with certain functions; but there

is no one who can compel them to perform them, otherwise

than by the em ploym ent o f a proper etiquette, addressing themwith requests arc treating them with respect.

Traditiona l societies o f the Indian type are based on vocation.

The vocation is sacrcd, and one’s descendents in due course

take on e’s place in the fram ew ork o f socicty for the fulfilment

o f what is strictly speaking a m inistration (it was cxactly for

the same reason that Plato held that we owe it to society to

beget successors). If the Indian has no children, this can be

remedied by adoption; bu t if one’s children adop t anothe r

profession than their father’s, that is the end o f the “ family” as

such; its honour is no more, and that holds as much for the

highest as for the lowest.

AKC

Th is letter ends r athe r abru ptly, bu t it is all that is available to the editors and

we believe it makes the essential point clearly enough.

To D O N A L U I S A C O O M A R A S W A M Y

August 11, 1935

Darling:

. . . I did receive, value and answer your letter abou t the

Vidyapati experience: 1 remarked on you r having been able to

retain it after elimination o f the personal element. I do not

know about kudra as Krishna's ego. But Indra’s position in R V already—not all the time, but in many places—represents the

revolt o f the tem poral pow er (ksatra) against the spiritual pow er

(brahma), although the legitimacy of ksatra depends entirely onbrahma consecration (rajasiiya). The dual Indragni gives you the

2 operating in one—the primordial condition: Indra, to whomAgni entrusts the vajra, the true relationship when the functionsare separated. When Indra asserts his independence, beingcarricd away by pride (abhimana) the real deviation begins.

Historically, this is the Ksatra asserting itself, retaining aLuciferian grandeur, but the movement ultimately becomesSatanic. Historically, the ksatra revolt is indicated in the



Buddhist period and results in heterodoxy. What has taken

place in the West (and is taking place in the East also) is ju st theinevitable subsequent revolt o f the econom ic (vaisya) power

against the ksatra, and finally the revolt o f the sudras, resulting

no longer even heterodoxy, but a completely antitraditional

attitude and disorder. It is the last stage o f the Kali Yuga. These

stages move with accelerated rapidity towards the close. They

should be followed by “a new heaven and a new earth”, ie, a

restoration o f spirituality. The transition is always dark and

catastrophic. The present crisis is more acute and world wide

than any we know in history: what is to follow should be

therefore a very great revolution in character, a real Menschen-

erneurung. I have no dou bt that the identification o f Indra with

Lucifcr-Satan is sound. Satan in this sense is the Prince o f theW orld— no t to be confused w ith the Pow er o f Darkness that is

the ab intra (guhya) aspect o f the Light. T he “ back” o f God is

indeed “hell” for those who “fall”—as Satan falls, but as you

will see, it is not really Satan’s home, bu t a condition tha t he falls

into; Satan’s home is in heaven, as Lucifer, as you see in the

identifications o f Indra w ith the Sun and his frequent control o f

the Solar Wheel. . . .

To return to the futility o f certain ones— it is a part o f thegeneral delusion, the attempt to compromise; one must be

rigidly orthodox or else impure. My objection to most

Christians is not bigotry but that they compromise with

m odernism . I think consistently highly of Guenon. Speaking of

the desirability o f a return (for Europe) to Ch ristianity, he

remarks that “ if this could be, the modern world would

automatically disappear.” Also very good, that while from the

eternal p oin t o f view it is inevitable tha t all possibilities, even

evil ones, should be worked out, in time, eg, in and especially

as now at the end o f the Kali Yuga, the text applies “It must be

that offenses will come, but woe unto them through whomthey com e. . . . ”

Th e one thing lacking in the organisation o f life is rta. What

rta means is the metaphysical pattern, the divine art. Some day Ishall try to show how the whole domestic and marital patternin India follows a purely metaphysical plan, as it was in the

begin nin g (agre). Especially as regards pardah*, exogamy, etc.The husband is always Aryan, the mother non-Aryan, respectively Deva and Asura, pow ers o f Light and Darkness; in othe r



words, the maternal possibility, the power that enables things

to be (as distinguished from the power that makes them be) isalways a priori in the darkness, and o f the darkness, and “has

never seen the Sun nor felt the w ind ” , in other w ords, is behind

the curtain (o f the sky), that is to say Pardah.

Therefore Pardah, as that reflection o f the divine pattern, may

be reflected on earth. It is as usual nothing but man that makes

people rebel at such th ings, ju st “ I” .

As regards the lack of profo und persons in India also: in any

case there is still there a solid mass o f conservative peasants

whose mentality is almost unspoiled, and this is a great reserve

force. Also there are more o f the “o rtho do x” than one

sees— the be tter they are, the less visible. I think in time you

will recognize m ore such people. Anyhow, it is useless to spendtime considering the defects o f the “educa ted” , they are lost,

and that’s that; only the positive work is really worth while.

AKC

* M ore comm only purdah, though the Oxford English Dictionary gives pardah

as an alternative form.

Dona Lusia Coomaraswamy, AKC’s wife, who was studying in India atthis time. This letter is a com bination o f tw o from which personal ma tter has

been rem oved.

Purdah o r pardah simply means veil or curtain in Persian, Hindi and Urdu; it

refers to the custom am ong M uslims and higher caste Hindus o f veiling

women and setting aside areas or apartments for them. It is also reflected

am ong m ore traditionally minded wo m en o f the Subcon tinent in the practice

o f drawing a fold o f the sari o r dhupatta over the Face in the presence of

strange men. For an excellent W estern “ case stu dy ” o f the sociological

theo ry o f caste deterior ation along the lines described in this letter, the reader

is referred to Siena, C ity o f the Virgin, by Titus Burckhardt, OxfordUniversity Press, 1960.

To J O H N J. H O N I G M A N N

October 17, 1946

Dear Mr Honigmann:

I greatly appreciate your noticc of my Religious Basis . . . inPsychiatry. I should like to say, however, that you did no t quite



“ get” the concept o f freedom that I tried to explain. I would

admit that a man feels free to the extent that he is in harmony

with the culture in which he participates, and that the elite are

the m ost responsible bearers o f the accepted values. But this is

only a relative freedom, from which the really freeman only

escapes when he adopts the “extraordinary” means.In any case, it is the mem bers o f the “ elite” w ho have the

least freedom “to do what they like”, and that is why I said

Am ericans w ou ld choose (if a caste system w ere im posed upon

them) to be Sudras or “outcastes”.

As to ano ther point: there is no question o f wanting to

“ co nv ert” the West to Indian ways o f thinking as such; I have

often emphasized that. The question is, “what are the basic

premises o f the Western w orld” , that you speak of? I am notsure tha t these are the ideas of “ free ente rprise” , etc, etc, that

happen to be fashionable at the moment. I am not sure that

other ideas such as that o f “ju st price” are no t really m ore basic

even to Western society; and all I would hope for is a return to

w ha t I think o f as the really “ basic prem ises” o f Western

culture, m os t o f which seem to be igno red at the present day.

To that I w ou ld add that w ha t I think o f as the basic premises o f

the W est are no t so far from those o f the East; hence there could be a rapproachm ent w ithout anything in the nature o f “ a

conversion imposed.”

Very sincerely,

John J. H onigm ann had reviewed A K C’s The Religious Basis o f the Forms o f

Indian Society (published as a pamphlet by Orientalia, New York, 1946) in

Psychiatry, IX, 1946, p 285, from w hich the quo tation be low is taken:

What else distinguishes the essay is the fact that it represents a highly

sophisticated Indian interpreting the configurations o f his ow n society, a

notable experience for anthropologists who are accustomed to working

with non-literate groups and who have not yet shown much confidence

in analyzing the premises by which their own culture is shaped. . . . If we

understand Coomaraswamy correctly, freedom in his philosophy comes

w he n a perso n is freed o f responsibility and relieved by an elite o f the

necessity o f m akin g m oral choices. . . .



T o A . M . H O C A R T

Undated

Dear Mr. Hocart:

Very many thanks for your paper on Caste, with very mucho f which I am in agreement. O ne o f the best short discussions

o f caste I kn ow is the sho rt article by M ukhopad hyaya in the

Aryan Path, June 1933. It mig ht be po inted ou t that all castes are

united in divinis, eg, we may say that as Tvastr-Visvakarma (=

Christian Divine Architect whose procession is per artem), the

deity is Sudra, as Agni is Brahmana, as Indra is Ksatriya, etc.

Very sincerely,

A. M. Hoca rt, author o f Les Castes, Paris, 1938.

Incomplete manuscript letter, unsigned.

T o PROFESSOR WESTON LA BARRE

October 30, 1945Dear Professor La Barre:

While I agree with many points made in your August

Psychiatry article (notably the last sentence o f the second

paragraph in which respect, I th ink, Pearl Buck often offends) I

do no t th ink the first sentence o f your no te 63* can be

substantiated; cf, for example Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.14:

“T his is what m akes the Regnum (ruling caste) the Regnum, viz,

Justice (dharma . . ., Chinese /«); wherefore there is nothing that

surpasses Justice, and so a weak m an as regards one strongerthan h im self puts his trust in Justice, just as one m ight in the

K ing.” In the Oriental concept o f m onarchy the king, o f

course, is expected to be the em bodim ent ofju stice; hence, as inthis nex t text, it is taken fo r granted that to appeal to Justice isthe same thing as the appeal to Caesar. Moreover, as the

Arthasastra says, “ the who le o f the science o f gov ernm ent

depends upo n a victory over the powers o f perception andaction” (cf m y Spiritual A uthority and Temporal Power . . .,1942, p 36).



In view o f the fact tha t you are intending to analyse Indian

character in a future article, I am rather disturbe d by y ou r notes

26 and 29, w hich seem to show no know ledge o f Indiantheology or sociology other than might be expected from the

most prejudiced missionaries. In particular, “Juggernath”, ie,

Jagannath, “L ord o f the W orld” , is not a “m other” , but one o f

the names of Vishnu, as Solar Rex Mundi\ to whom no human

or other bloody sacrifices are ever made. Again, what you call

“punishment by caste” corresponds to our legal disbarment or

w ithdraw al o f license to practice in the case o f lawyers or

doctors who offend professional ethics. I do venture to hope

that before com m itting yo urse lf on the subject o f caste you will

at least have read w ha t has been said on the subject by such men

as Sir George Birdwood (in Industrial Arts in India, and Sva) andA. M. Hocart ( Les Castes)', as the latter remarks, pp 70, 237,

238:

N ous devons ne pas etre egares par les equivalents europeen

pour des m ots indiens. . . . nous savons que l’his to ire de ce

systemc n’cst pas l’histoirc d’une oppression absolue, mais

qu ’au con traire il peut etre beaucoup mo ins oppressif que

notre systeme industriel. . . . Le service hereditaire est tout a

fait incompatible avec l’industrialisme actuel et c’est pour-

quoi il est peint sous des coleurs aussi sombre.

It is, in fact, precisely from the axiology underlying caste

systems, ie, vocationally integrated social orders, that one can

best criticize th e im m orality o f industr ia l explo itation. I venture

to hope that you will also consult a few such works as Sister

N ivedita’s Web o f Indian L ife and Kali the Mother; Bhagavan

Das’ Science o f Social Organization; The Cultural Heritage o f India;and the late Professor Zimmer’s forthcoming book, before

go ing on to analyse a “ character” w ith which you seem to be so

little acquainted. I am sure you will pardon me for speaking so

frankly on a m atter o f such importance.

Very sincerely,

PS: O n the sub ject o f likeness and difference (East and West)

you m igh t care to look at m y chapter in The Asian Legacy (NewYork , 1945); and perhaps also m y Hinduism and Buddhism (NewYork, 1943).



* I t seems that Dr Coomaraswamy must have confused the numbering of

the La Barre foo tnote w ith one o f the notes in an article o f his ow n which

appeared in the same issue o f Psychiatry (August 1945). The La Barre article,

entitled “Some Observations on Character Structure in the Orient: the

Japanese” , did no t have so many footnotes, while the Coom arasw am y article

did. The latter, incidentally, entitled “Spiritual Paternity and the PuppetComplex”, is quite an important study which retains even today all the

extraordinary significance for anthropology that it had when originally

published m ore th an forty years ago. It has been republished a nu m ber o f

times (see Bibliography).

Professor Weston La Barre, American anthropologist and writer on these

and related subjects.

Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory o f Government,

American Oriental Scries, American Oriental Society, 1942.

Sir George Birdwood, The Industrial Arts o f India, and Sva.

Sister Nivedita (Margaret E. Noble), The Web of Indian Life and Kali the

Mother. The Cultural Heritage o f India, a very rich com pend ium o f articles

on all facets o f Indology, in four volume s, issued by the Ram akrishna

Mission, Calcutta.

A. M. Hocart, Les Castes, Paris, 1938.

Heinrich Zimmer, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civ ilization,

Princeton, 1946.

T o PAUL HANLEY FURFEY, SJ

August 2, 1935

Dear Professor Furfey:

I found your Forward to Sociology and read it with pleasure

and interest. It is abou t time to realise tha t science was m ade for

man, not man for science. I look forward to anything furtheryou may find in St Thomas on intuitive knowledge. However,

I think it is not—at least generally speaking—sufficient to rely

on such intu ition as one m ay on eself be capable of, merely, bu t

that w e have also the guidance o f Revelation— I refer o f courseto universal revelation and not exclusively to its formulation in

any one religion. Society can only be, let us say, a successinsofar as it conforms to the pattern in principio\ and thisdem ands at least a kno wledge o f the doctrine o f hierarchy. Andhow can one properly com prehend the true relation o f Ch urchand State, Spiritual and temporal power, without a realisationthat these are again in principio functions o f one perfect



consciousness, the eternal Avatar being both Priest and King

(which is also Thomist doctrine).

Very sincerely,

Paul Han ley Furfey, SJ, professor of sociology at Catholic U niversity o f

America, Washington, DC, USA.

T o PAUL HANLEY FURFEY, SJ

August 4, 1935

Dear Professor Furfey:I should like to add to my last note that while I have much

aggrcment with your sociology article, I feel you do not go far

enough. Th e prop er ordering o f society demands m ore than

purely hum an effort, and m ust be based on transcendenta l

truths . We have discussed the possibility o f arriving at

som ething o f this so rt by inspiration, bu t while the possibility

o f inspiration un do ub ted ly exists, is this not really the prophetic

power and more than we can look for from the fallible and profane socio logis t o f today? It is surely the business o f the

spiritual power to lay dow n the order o f society, as it is of the tem

pora l (governmenta l) to organize and prote ct the said order.

Th e spiritual po w er has two resources here (over and above the

m atter o f “ guessing righ t” to which you refer, and as to which

in this sense I am a little suspicious): these resources are (1) the

infallibility o f the Pope, and (2) transm itted doctrine, or

Revelation. F or example, the C hu rch m ust surely condem n thecapitalistic form, since it condemns usury. I do not indeed see

how any social order can approximate to perfection, once the

temporal power has revolted against the spiritual power.

Moreover, once this has taken place, the next and inevitable

step is a revolt o f the econom ic pow er against the tem poral or

executive p ow er pro per ly so called, and finally a revo lt o f the physically laboring pow er, o f th e prole taria t, against theeconomic power, resulting in an equalitarianism entirely

incom patible w ith the doc trine as to hierarchy (if there ishierarchy in Heaven, then to the extent that a K ingdo m o f Godcan be realised on earth, there must be hierarchy here also). In



sum , I do n o t see any real value in a sociology w hich leaves out

principles and is based only on facts or experim ent. O r in other

words, if we leave ou t God, what can we expcct? N o doub t

you are in a difficult position— nevertheless, it is the du ty o f the

Church to be uncompromising. I agree with your remarks

about selfishness—b ut it is no t enough for the sociologist to begood, he m ust also be wise (gentle as the dove and cunning, in the

etym ological sense, as the serpent). W hat becomes o f the

spiritual po wer, if she canno t or does no t speak with authority,

but takes part in discussion w ith profane teachers as if on equal

terms? It is not for the Church to argue, but to tell.

Very sincerely,

Paul Hanley Furfey, SJ, as above.

N o te that th is rem arkably perspicacio us le tter was w ritte n m ore th an fifty

years ago!

To PAUL HANELY FURFEY, SJ

N ovem ber 16, 1935

Dear Dr Furfey:

I wo nder i f perhaps w e m ight w rite a jo in t article on

“ spiritual au tho rity” : it could be in tw o parts, 1) Christian and

2) Hindu, or possibly in some way fused. Your part starting

w ith the idea o f a true sociology as “as in Heaven so on E arth ” ,

and the no tion o f Eternal Law; mine very similar, dealing w ith

social order as “regular” or “irregular” (just as an individual

man’s life may be) using Indian material. Only yesterday I wasw riting a note on the Indian custom o f releasing prisoners and

rem itting debts on the occasion o f the birth o f a royal heir,

which directly imitates what was done in the beginning when

the b irth o f G od ’s son and heir freed those that sat in darkness.

The spiritual soc iology is the doctrine o f a society tha t should be exemplary in the technical sense.

Very sincerely,

Paul Hanley Furfey, SJ, as above.



T o PAUL HANELY FURFEY, SJ

August 29, (year unavailable)

Dear Dr Furfey:

M ee’s bo ok may be useful, b ut I have no t seen it myself. AlsoBhagavan Das’, The Law s o f Manu in the Light o f Theosophy

(Theosophical Society, Adyar, Madras, 1910) gives a good

account (discounting the specifically theosophical element).

Also recommended, Sister Nivedita, The Web o f Indian Life,

Longm ans (she was a pupil o f Patrick Geddes).

Plato, Laws IV, 709: “ give me a tyran t governed city to form

our community from, let the tyrant be young, docile, brave,

temperate, and so far fortunate as to have at his side a true

thinker and law giver” , shows the proper relation o f the

temporal and spiritual power and corresponds to the Indian

scheme in which the king should be Ksatriya, his minister a

Brahman. (Ksatriya is the Kingly caste, Brahman the priestly;

ksatra the temporal, brahma the spiritual power—originally

united in the pricst-king as also in the Messiah.

Sincerely,

Paul H anley Furfey, S. J., as above.

T o T H E N A T I O N

May 29, 1945

Dear Sirs:

In your M ay 26 issue, p 604, M r Ho ok attributes to Plato the

doctrine that “expert knowledge alone gives the right to rule”.

This is misleading, sincc what Plato had in mind wassomething very different from what we mean when we speak

o f “ gov ernm ent by ex perts”. His doctrine is that only w isdomand the love of wisdom qualify for rule, and at the same time

impose upon those who are thus qualified a duty to participatein public life, for which they will have*no natural taste. In the Laws, Book III, he defines as ignorant those who are



unamenable to reason and are ruled by their likes and dislikes;and they are “ignorant”, “even though they be expert

calculators, and trained in all manner o f accomplishm ents” ; it is

to the wise who live reasonably and harmoniously, that the

governm ent should be entrusted, even if they arc illiterate and

unlearned w orkm en. His distinction o f the ignorant from theexpert is as between those who hate and those who love what

they jud ge to be good and fair. Protagoras speaks similarly,

322-3.

In the same issue, p 603, Miss Marshall quotes with approval

D r N om ad on the camel and the eye o f needle. O ne would like

to kn ow in what autho ritative version o f the Greek Gospels the

word was kamilos: n ot only is it kamelos in the O xford edition of

the text that was followed by the Revisers of the Au thorizedVersion, and in the O xford text o f the Four Gospels published

in 1932, but also in the Jam es S trong Exhaustive Concordance.

Jalalu’d din Rumi, who both knew camels and was familiar also

w ith the traditional meaning o f “ threading the eye o f the

needle”, writes: “The eye of the needle is not suitable for the

camel” ( M athnawi, 1.83). The camel has been, in fact, a

recognized sym bol o f the carnal as distinguished from the

spiritual self; and wc have the related figure in Matthew, of

“swallowing a camel.” While it is true that “rope” would also

have made good (and traditional) sense, it appears from Liddell

and Scott (who can cite only two references to the word

kamilos, neither o f them Biblical) that “ rope has been thoug ht

by som e a m ore likely figure than a camel” , and it seems to me

that M r Nom ad, too, is only voicing an opinion, and that he

has no right to laugh at the translators, who were not men of

the sort ' that make “boners”.

AKC

To S I D N E Y H O O K

Undated


I send you the copy o f a letter [above] sent to the Nation which I daresay they may not find room for. However, I am



sure yo u will adm it the justice o f m y criticism.

Very sincerely,

Sidney Hook, professor o f philosophy, N ew York U niversity, N ew Y ork,

N Y , USA.

T o S I D N E Y H O O K

June 6, 1945


M any thanks for you r letter. We clearly disagree. H ow ever, Iwould say that the whole matter is for Plato not so much a

m atter o f right to rule as of duty. To philosophers generally,

governmental activity is distasteful, and should be exercised

precisely by those who are not interested in power. Govern

m ent, as distingu ished from tyranny , is a m atter o f Justice, or

Proportionate Equality. In Protagoras, 322-3, it is pointed out

that while the special knowledges and vocations pertain to the

relatively few specialists in their fields, the sense ofjustice, etc,

is not pecu liar to the few, bu t com m on to all regardless o f their

vocation, and therefore that all may be consulted in civic

m atters. All, that is, w ho aren’t “ig no ran t” in the sense of the

Laws passage to which I previously referred. I think these

passages are absolu te ly relevant to the present discussion.

Philo follows Plato in saying that philosophers should be

kings, o r kings philosophers. Philo, o f course, maintains that

“democfacy”, as distinguished from “mob rule”, is the best

constitution. But neither Plato nor Philo is thinking of“philosophy” as a speciality in our academic sense, but of

som ething that is quite as much a way o f life as a w ay o f

knowing. In most traditional societies philosophy, in their

sense, is actually widely distributed and common to all classes.

O n the other hand, ou r form o f gov ernm ent here is not in fact ademocracy at all in Philo’s sense, but represents a balance of

pow er reached as betw een com peting in terests; and so

approaches the classical definition o f tyranny , viz, gov ernm en t by a rule r in his ow n in terest. To be disinterested is the primaryqualification. As the Indian books on government maintain,



“ Th e w hole o f this science has to do w ith the victory ove r the

pow ers o f sensation and action” , ie, w ith self-control as the

prim ary condition o f authority .


Sidney Hook, as above.

T o T H E N E W E N G L I S H W E E K L Y , L O N D O N

March 13, 1941

Sir:

You gave currency (Jan 23, p 154) to M r Ch am be rlain ’s

recent statem ent in Harper’s that “ personal autocracy” is typical

o f Asiatic states. I have spen t the greater part o f the last two

years on a study o f the Indian theo ry o f governm ent; the theo ry

is essentially the same as the Platonic and Chinese theories, and

is in fact the on ly theo ry o f gov ernm ent that could be set up on

the basis o f the philosophia perennis. I can say positively that the

Indian kingship, although divinely sanctioned (it would be truer

to say because divinely sanctioned), implied anything but a“ personal autocracy” . Th e last thing expected o f the Indian

king was to “do as he liked”; he had to do what was “correct”

and according to the “scicnce” o f governm ent. The R egnum is

the agent o f the Saccrdo tum , and it is the king ’s business to do

what the philosopher knows ought to be done; might, in other

words, is to be the servant o f right.

Th e traditional theory o f gov ernm ent is certainly no t one o f a

government by all the people, b ut it is a theo ry o f governm en tin accordance with justice, and fo r all the people. The distinc

tions between monarchy and tyranny are sharply drawn; them onarch governs by divine right and w ith the consent of the

people; the tyrant is asserting his ow n will and opin io ns, to

which the people are forcibly subjected. Wc need hardly say

that there is nothing royal about a totalitarian despotism; thetyrant, indeed, is generally a plebian himself.

AKC




N ovem ber 1946

Sir:

I fully agree with your reviewer, Paul Derrick ( N E W, Oct

10) that “between the idea of popular sovereignty and the idea

o f natural law, there can be no com prom ise” , and with the

views cited from Dr McCabe and Philip Murray. But I must

poin t out th at he is w rong in saying that “ the doctrine o f the

divine right o f majorities has much in com m on with the

doctrine o f the divine right o f kings, and w ith such ideas as that

o f the h istoric mission o f the German race.” In the first place

there is no such thing as a “ doc trine” o f the divine right o f

majorities, but only an opinion held by many that it is right and proper for a m ajo rity to im pose its will on a min ority; and this

view is entertained by many for whom the notion o f a divine

right has no meaning whatever. In the second place, the

doc trine o f a divine right o f kings is not, historically speaking, a

doc trine that kings, as such, arc divinely sanctioned to do what

they like. It is, strictly speaking, a doctrine o f the vicc-royalty

on beh alf o f the King o f kings. As Rumi says in so many

words: “ Kings arc the theatre for the manifestation o f G od ’skingship” ( M athnawi 6.3174); while the classical definition of a

tyrant is a “king governing in his own interests.” The king is

the m ediator o f the Natural Law and by all means subject to it

himself. As an Upanishad expresses it: “The Law (dharma) is

that by which the ruler is a ruler, and so there is nothing higher

than the Law. Hence a weak man can control a strong one by

the Law, as if by a kin g” (B U 1.4, 14). An anonymous fifteenthcentury English writer remarks that “the Law is the highest

inheritance o f the king by which he and all his subjects shall be

ruled. And if there were no Law, there would be no king and no

inheritance.” More recently G. Every, writing in Purpose

(April-Junc 1939) remarked that “an aristocracy functioning as

such m ust have a standard o f responsibility outside o f its ow nand its leader’s will.” As for the Germans: there is a sense inwhich every race and every individual has a “historic mission”,

or, in other words, divinely sanctioned rights and responsibili

ties.; where the Germ ans erred was in assuming tha t they had adivine sanction to play the tyrant, as defined above.



Furtherm ore, the traditional doctrine o f monarchy is inseparable from that o f vocation, w hich involves, as M r Derrick

knows, all men’s “right (and duty) to participate as responsible

agents in the wo rk o f the w orld ”—as “ co-w orkers” w ith God.

Every man in his calling participates “ in the m ystery o f the

vice-rcgcncy (khilafah, Caliphate) which was conferred on manalone”, as a “trust” (amanah). And finally, as Professor Buckler

has so often pointed out—see The Epiphany o f the Cross

(Cambridge, 1938)— the analogy o f the “kingd om o f God on

earth” cannot be understood unless the political theory on

which the analogy rests has first been understood. Whoever has

m isunderstood the political analogy o f earthly kingdom s and

their righteousness, cannot have grasped the meaning o f “ the

kingdom o f God and its righteousness”, a meaning “whichdepends fo r its revelation on the inner m eaning o f eastern

kingship”, as Buckler points out in his chapter on “The

Oriental Despot”. All these considerations rather support than

invalidate M r Derrick’s general position, and I think he may

find them acceptable.

AKC

F. W. Buc kler, identified on p 72 above.

To PROFESSOR FERNANDO NOBRE

October 31, 1946

My dear Professor Nobre:It was a very great pleasure to have your company on

Tuesday. I have found it very difficult to write any suitable“phrase” for your book; I append below what I have done.

What ch iefly interests me is that your endeavour has been todesign a workable social order ultimately based on the concepto f the L ex Aeterna, or U niversal Justice. O n the other hand, Iam no more than M. Guenon, free to comm it myself to any

kind o f political propaganda. M oreover, even the best patterned struc ture must depend for its successful operation on thegoodw ill o f its m embers.



As regards the photograph: I had not understood that you

wished to reproduce it. I could not agree to that. The only photograph that could suitably appear in your book w ould be

one o f yourself. Besides, I am very m uch inclined to accept the

traditional poin t o f view, that all portraiture is undesirable.

I am a mona rchist, for many o f the same reasons that

Professor No bre is a “ dem ophile” . Bu t mon archy is hardly a

live issue at the present day. To talitarianism— a caricature o f

monarchy—is anathema. Dissatisfaction with the actual

operation o f dem ocracy— in effect, free enterprise—is almost

universal except am ong those wh o profit by it. Hence, if any

new and better world can be devised, it will not be in any of

these patterns. Professor Nobre has made an interesting and

practical suggestion in his plan o f a “ Demophile G overnm en t” ; intended to p reserve the stability o f the traditional

orde rs based on the concept o f Natura l Law, and at the same

time, to avoid the kind o f gov ernm ent that rests on unstable

balances o f pow er reached by com peting in terests th at are by

no means those o f all the people.

AKC

Professor Fernando Nobre, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

T o THE EDITOR OF ASIA

Undated, but written during World War II

Sir:

M r L am ott’s discussion o f the Japanese prob lem in the

October issue of Asia is scarcely realistic. He sees that it is idle

to expect that the Japanese people will, o f thcmsleves,“repudiate the wicked militarists and go to liberal leadership”,

and also that nothing short o f a com munistic revolution “ will

ever be sufficient to displace the present deeply-rooted attachm ent to the thron e.” I w onder if he is no t on an altogether

w ron g track in wan ting to “ dispose o f ’ the “ Divine-Em perorideology o f Jap an ” , which seems to him so ridiculous. I amassum ing that Japan will ultimately suffer m ilitary defeat and



that that will mean, as he says, “ the collapse of all that the

makers o f Japan have toiled at building these many years.” But

is the m odem Japan, created in the image o f Europe, and sodistasteful to us, the creation o f the Divine Em peror? N ot at all:

it is the work o f the industrialists and militarists.

It will certainly not be good psychological propaganda toannounce that we are out to destroy the ultimate basis of

Japanese culture and, indeed, to offend their deepest religious

instincts. If there is great suffering in Japan, its people m igh t

well listen to those who sought to destroy, not the Emperor,

but the militarists and industrialists th rough w hom the suffering

came, and to whose pow er the Em peror is now subjected. T he

Divine E m peror ideology o f the East (for it is not only a

Japanese concept) having been uninterrupted in the history ofJapan , m igh t have given Japan a certain title to act as the leader

o f Asia in a m ovem ent designated by the slogan “ Asia for the

Asiatics”. It is the militarists and not the Emperor that

perverted that in to “ Asia fo r the Japanese” .

The Asiatic theory o f kingship stands for the subordination

o f the m ilitary to the sacerdotal pow er, m ight to right. It is in

every sense o f the w ord , philosophical and vernacular, an

idealistic theory . I need hard ly say that Western sociologists are profoundly ignorant o f Orie nta l theories o f governm ent, and

scarcely even conscious that a totalitarian state governed by a prole tarian individual exercising unlimited pow er is nothing but a pathetic caricature o f monarchy. The Em peror H irohito

and Adolph Hitler make strange allies, and sarcastic propaganda to that effect could hardly fail to meet with some favorable

response.

I w ou ld suggest that instead o f proposing to break dow n the

Divine E m peror ideology o f Japan, for which I cannot share

Mr Lamott’s contempt, we should propose to the defeated

Japanese a “ restoration o f the Em pero r to a place of real

pow er.” At the same time that such a proposal w ould enlist

the deepest sympathies o f the Japanese psyche, a restoration o f

the Emperor to power would automatically put the militaryand industrial factions in their place.

AKC



T o HELEN CHAPIN

Octobcr 21, 1945

Dear Helen Chapin:

O n games generally, cf m y “ Symbolism o f A rchery” in Ars Islamica, X, 1943.

In all ball games I think the ball is the Sun: there is a contest

for possession o f it, or to direct it on its way; Gods and Titans

com peting for the possession or direction o f the wo rld.

“ Severed head” , precisely because that is the genesis of the sun

(this last I think you might have understood in the article). As

to w ha t you said abou t castc, d on’t confuse caste with classes in

a would-be egalitarian culture. Just as one must not confuse

m ona rchy with totalitarianism; the old definition o f tyranny as

a “monarch ruling in his own interests”. All monarchy

presupposes viceroyalty on behalf o f a transcendent justice

(dharma, dikaiosone): and castc metier function, determined by

one’s nature, represents that “own” (sva in sva-dharma) share of

this vice-regal responsibility. Castc is the only system that provides for the dig nity o f all men, whatever their occupation

(the only way that [integrates] all men into a certain royality,

provid ed it is not im posed upon them merely by economicnecessity). There arc conditions below caste (Russia, America)

and above castc (God, sannyasi, bhikkhu)', b ut the social no rm is

one o f the natural hierarchy o f functions. “ W e” only resent the

idea because it is incompatiablc with capitalism (free for all, devil

take the hindm ost, law o f the sharks, etc) because our ideal is

not of “beautiful work” but only one of idleness (“leisure”,

Plato’s living in sports always), and bccausc we have no longer

any conception o f liberty as any thing but liberty o f choice. In acastc system this liberty (comparable to tha t o f children in a

family, who do not yet share their parent’s responsibilities) todo w ha t one likes— really, the state of subjection to one ’s likes

and dislikes—is least at the top. The proletarian ideal is one ofleveling all men dow n to this childish level. O f course, a herd , a

prole taria t such as ours . . . could not bear the sudden im posi

tion o f a sense o f functional responsibility— they w ould ridiculethe idea o f jud gin g w ork by “ is it worth doing?” instead o f“will it pay?” I ought not to have to tell you all this: who havelived in the East w here it has no t yet* become the fashion toregard all values as bunk.



This brings me to you r “ gu ru ” problem. When I go to India,

I shall hope to find one myself. At present all I have done is

what is called intellectual preparation. However, that is deja

quelque chose, and brings abou t a goo d deal o f “ liberation” .

What liberation I have thus attained—and however little it is, is

still eminently worth while—has come about mainly throughconstant reading o f all the traditional literature and learning to

think in those terms. It means, o f course, a metanoia, a thoroug h

change o f mind: insensibly, those things our w orld rejects

became the standard by which we judge it. T o undergo this

transformation demands a simultaneous crede ut intelligas and

intellige ut credas. So speaking qua “ gu ru” , I w ould say you have

to read the “ 100 best boo ks ” (I don’t mean the St Jo h n ’s

College list, a lthough some o f them arc on it), n ot “ thinkingfor yourself’, but understanding for yourself, and always

proposing to be w hat you understand ; for the popular view of

the philosopher as one who takes things, takes life, philosophi

cally is perfectly correct, and unless one proposes to live

philosophically, the study o f philosophy becomes no more than

a drawing-room accomplishment.

T o com e dow n to the book: for instance, all o f Plato, Philo,

Plotinus, Hermes, D ionysius, Eckhart, Boehm e; som e o f JohnScotus Erigcna, Nicholas o f Cusa, St Th om as Aquinas (eg, at

least the first volume of the Summa in translation), St Bernard;

The Cloud of Unknowing. Also some o f the American Indian

origin myths; all o f Irish m ythology; and the Mabinogion.

Folklore generally. From the East, all o f Rum i, A ttar and othe r

Sufi writings including Jami’s Lawaih; the Bhagavad Gita (in

various versions, until you know it almost by heart); the

Satapatha and the other Brahmanas—and you know what of

Chinese and Japanese yourself. When you have assimilated all

this and begin to act accordingly, you will have got som ew here

and will find that m uch o f the internal conflict— “ which shall

rule, the better or the worse, inner or outer man”—will have

subsided.

Very sincerely,

Helen Chapin, Bryn Mawr College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. AfterW orld W ar II, she was ‘Asiatic A rt and M onum ents Specialist’ for the US

D epa rtm ent o f the A rm y and had been a research analyst in Chinese andJapanese for the De partm ent o f Justicc. It was not D r Coo m arasw am y’s



posit io n th at such an exte nsiv e course o f s tu dy was necessa ry for all; b u t he

felt that those who by position or choice were scholars should be properly

and fully prepared.

T o W I L L I A M R O T H E N S T E I N

June 25, 1910

Dear Rothenstein:

Thank you for your letters and understanding words. I am

touche d by the real sym pathy between us. By the way, it seems

that you did not realise my wife is with me! If, as some havesuggested, I shou ld be accused o f or even im prisoned for

sedition on accoun t o f that book, I know that you and others

will do something to point out that such work does make for

real un ity and that I m ight be mo re useful out o f prison than in.

I fully enter into what you say. I want to serve not merely

India, but humanity, and to be as absolutely universal as

possib le— like the avalokitesvara. M y ow n life jus t now seems

tangled. I do trust this may never hurt the work.

Yours,

Ro thenstein, Sir William, critic, one time head o f the Royal College o f Art,

leading figure in art circlcs and friend o f C oom arasw am y.

To W I L L I A M R O T H E N S T E I N

Undated

Dear Rothenstein:

I received your boo k o f beautiful drawings a few days ago;

thank you very much first. I am delighted to have thesereproductions o f your w ork and mem ories o f Rabindranath.

I am still harassed about the permit to leave, have spentseveral hours at Scotland Yard—the difficulty is due to wordsin a speech I made at Cheltenham in 1907! It is a bitter irony



altogether. I fear I shall fail, but am to hear at 12:20 tomorrow.

T he y fear I shall jo in the California seditionists w ho are in

league with the Germans! Will let you know the result.

Yours,

William Rothenstein, as above.

‘Rabindranath’ is Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941), Indian poet and

philosopher w ho at one perio d enjo yed consid erable popula rity in Europe

and America, and who won the Nobel prize for literature in 1913. There

were a num ber o f talented brothers in the Tagore family, and Co om aras

w am y was on friendly terms w ith this circle. Later, howe ver, he outg rew the

rather vague humanism which characterized the “Bengali renaissance”, of

w hich the Tago res w ere the chief representatives.


February 6, 1916

Dear Rothenstein:

I have had a very unpleasant expcricncc in connection with

our trip to Amercia. I got a passport without difficulty in N ovem ber, and afte rwards made all arrangements— a m atter o f

no little expense and trouble, as you will imagine. Now at the

last moment, absolutely, I am informed (late on Saturday) that

I may not leave the country. No reason assigned, though I am

to see the Asst Co m m issioner o f the CID at Scotland Yard

tom orro w and m ay possibly be told. I w ond er if you have any

influence with the Home Office? There arc only 2 days to do

any thing in. I don ’t so much feel the m ere fact o f no t going,though that presents very great financial disadvantages but I

very m uch resent the ind ignity o f being treated this way at the

last moment. It seems to me extremely unjust. My wife is veryanxious not to go ju st n ow , for other reasons: bu t we had

decided to go, and had made all arrangements, so that I do not

like to be “done” in this way, and think you may possibly beable to intervene or advise.

I hope you received Rajput Painting safely. Enclosed noticeso f m y w ife’s recitals may interest you.




William Rothenstein, as above.A K C had cons iderable difficulties w ith the B ritish authorities because of his

views on Indian independence and, in fact, entered the United States as a

political re fu gee — de facto if not de jure — in 1917. See Introduction.

AKS’s wife, using the stage name “Ratan Devi”, sang and accompanied

her self on Ind ian instrum ents, giving recitals in Britain and Am erica.

Rajpu t Painting, Oxford University Press, 1916.

T o THE PEOP LE’S EDITOR, BOST ON TRAVELLER

Dcccmbcr 1943

Dear Sir:

In your issue of Dec 7, “ R am bler” (rambling!) suggests that

India could n ot have defended herself w itho ut B ritish help. As

to this, there are three things to be said: (1) could England have

defended he rself w itho ut Am erican help? (2) a totally disarmed

people cannot be asked to defend themselves, even when they

have been “declared to be at war” by their foreign rulers, who

in disarming them, have assumed the responsibility for their

defence, and (3) that after what took place in Malaya and

Burm a, Indians have no t felt too sure of En glan d’s capacity to

defend them. In actual fact, Indians are helping England to

defend herself.

N obody doubts that indiv idual Englishmen have devoted

their lives to India. Was it their intention, by this devotion, to

establish a claim to political rights? In other words, is the

un-asked devotion o f these few to be paid fo r by a whole people

at the price of years of political and economic subjection? As

one w ho , like Gandhi-ji, is fond o f Eng lishmen (on their nativeheath), I pro test tha t the very idea o f such a bargain w ou ld be

repulsive to any Englishman. Even Mr Churchill is too honest

for that, and frankly admits that England’s reasons for holding

India are economic (“if we lose India . . . two million breadwinners in this c ou ntry . . . wou ld be tram ping the stree ts”

broadcast on Jan 29, 1935).

Why should the Indians, whose average annual income is

abou t 18 dollars (Budget speech, C entral Legislature Assembly,April 1938) be asked to support two million English breadwinners? If Rambler does not like the Polish parallel, let me ask, why



A room in Norm an Chapel, C oom arasw amy ’s home at Broad Campton, Gloucestershire, about 1908



strip Italy an dja pa n o f their Empires, if the British E m pire m ay

not be liquidated?

To drag in religious questions is disgraceful and childish.

Since when have European power politics been governed by

“Christian” considerations? On the other hand, culture, politics and religion are indiv isible in India. W hat, if anyth ing,

does Rambler kn ow about Indian religion or social organization

from any but prejudiced sources?

Sri Ramakrishna once remarked that English-educated Indi

ans arc “profane”; the late Sister Nivcdita (distinguished English

pupil o f Patrick Geddcs, and author o f Th e Web o f Indian Life,

devoted her life to, and died in India) said that Christianity in

India “carries drunkeness in its wake.”

Yours truly,

The Boston Traveller, now defunct, was a daily newspaper. “Rambler’s”

letter is quoted below:

I thin k it is the height o f insolence for an Am erican recruit to tell British

veterans o f bom bs and shells that “ he was there to win for the m .” As for

com paring the freedom o f Poland and India, I think if the subject was

studied a little mo re and talked o f less, the freedo m o f India w ou ld beaccomplished more quickly. Poland was a Christian country, self-

governed and united. India has many different sects and castes, each

intolerant o f the other. Th eir very religion makes education an uphill jo b

and many British men and women have devoted their lives and ruined

their health trying to help them.

If the British did no t occupy India, w ho do you suppo se wo uld be in

control by now?

Sister Nivcdita, The Web o f Indian Life, London, 1904.

Sri Ram akrishna, greatest o f nineteenth century H indu saints, a Bengali

by bir th ; note d fo r his fre quent and prolo nged ecstasies, he att racte d a wid e

following and has been widely influential.

T o ARTHUR SIBLY

December 6, 1945

Dear Arthur Sibly;Apropos o f yo ur reference to India, in your last letter. I fully

understand that it is very difficult for you to realise that an



Englishman west o f Suez and the same man cast o f Suez arc

morally tw o different beings; this applies, o f course, no t

necessarily to actual physical position, but with reference to

that to which the mind is directed at a given time. Half

consciously, even Kipling understood this when he said thatthere are no ten com m andm ents East o f Suez. N o do ub t he

thou gh t he was speaking o f the “ lesser breeds w ithou t the

law ” ! but very little psychoanalysis would remind one that il

pittore pinge se stesso.

I am sending you tw o books, respectively by a Chinaman and

an Englishman, but only as a man that you can form a “just”

opinion (as an Englishman, your opinion will be “English”). Is

it too much to ask that you read these books only as a man,

forgetting that you arc an Englishman? For your humanity

transcends your nationality.

With kind regards,

A rthu r Sibly w as Principal o f Wycliffc College, S troud, Glostershire,

En gland, and a form er classmate of AKC at this same establishm ent which is

the “public” school at which AKC matriculated prior to entering the

U niversity o f London . A copy o f the previous letter to The Boston Traveller

was enclosed.

To ARTHUR SIBLY

Novem ber 14, 1931

My dear Arthur Sibly:

I can’t help writing you again about India, because your

poin t o f view expressed in the last Star (p 53) is so typicallyheartless and self-satisfied. Quite apart from the fact that in

India we always have hundreds o f men imprisoned w ithou t

charge or trial, and such men can be held for 5 years without

trial (your father’s history lessons taught me what to think ofsuch things as this!), I must mention that I have never met anyIndian (and you will realise that I know many who are your or

my equals or superiors, intellectually and morally) who believed in “ British justice” . Really, a fact like this ought tomake you think seriously. What do you think the English are? I



have no more anti-English feeling than Gandhi has, but it

seems equally ridiculous to suppose they are angels from

heaven, capable o f govern ing a whole coun try entirely alien in

civilisation, from a distance and w ith perfect justice, regardless

o f the fact that justice would often be against their ow n interest.

In fact, I have often said that one o f the strongest reasonsagainst England’s governing India is the profound moral injury

it does to England. Do you realise how you speak like a visitor

from Mars? Whereas in fact you are “the man in possession”. It

w ou ld be funny if it were not so tragic.

With kind regards,

Arthur Sibly, as above.The Star was the school journal.

T o ARTHUR SIBLY

January 12, 1932

Dear Arthur Sibly:

Thanks for your reply to my letter, which I know was rather

forcible in expression. In discussing jus tice I had reference (a) to

the general situation, including for exam ple the failure and even

obstruc tion o f justice that followed the A m ritsar m assacre,

[and] (b) to jus tice as rendered in courts in cases betw een

Indians and the government or European individuals. (No

Englishm an has ever been sentenced to death for the m urd er o f

an Indian, I believe. Lord C urzon lost his Viceroya lty on trying

to do justice in a case o f this kind.) I am ready to adm it that insome cases an English m agistrate jud gin g between two Indian

litigants ma y n ot only be perfectly jus t, bu t m ore jus t than an

Indian judge m igh t always be in these circumstances. B ut this is

on ly a particular case o f w ha t wou ld be generally true: for

exam ple, a Swiss judge m igh t deal better w ith a poach ing case

than could an English squire on the bench. Still this would be

no argu m ent for govern m ent o f England by Switzerland.

I notice that English papers are filled with propaganda to“Buy British”. The corresponding propaganda in India has been made a felony by one o f th e recent arbitrary ordinances.



This kind o f thing is part o f w hat I refer to as the injurious

effect o f the present situation on E nglish m orality. Still, I amsure it is painful to men like Lord Willingdon to be forced,

w hethe r by orders from England or by conviction of au ty, to

resort to m ethod s o f repression w hich can only be described as

lawless: which in other countries, or in an India without ideaslike those o f Gandhi, could only provo ke a civil war. It seems

to me that Englishmen, even die-hards, must feel a certain

sense o f shame in using force to coerce a disarmed people.

With kind regards,

Arthur Sibly, as above.

T o ARTHUR SIBLY

January 18, 1932

Dear Arthur Sibly:

I w ou ld add: a bod y o f nine has been condemned to 4 years

im prison m ent for picketing. O ne o f the recent ordinances perm its a police m agistrate to condem n to death in absentia a

man unrepresented by a lawyer and without appeal. Can you

wonder that The Nation here recently had an article entitled

“Has Britain Gone Mad?” I am not solely concerned about

India: I am appalled at the moral depths to which England can

descend, inasmuch as things are being done by Englishmen like

yourself, for example, normally o f high m oral principle andrespect for law.

Very sincerely,

Arthur Sibly, as above.



T o T H E N A T I O N , N E W Y O RK

January 29, 1924

Sir:

Lord Willingdon is reported to have said that “no self-respecting government could afford to ignore Gandhi’s chal

lenge.” No one expects the British government in India to

ignore the present situation, but there are different ways of

responding to it. So far, the response to civil disobedience,

which has remained amazingly non-v iolent in view o f the

intensity o f the feelings involved, has been the establishm ent o f

a “legal” reign o f terror. Life pensions have been announced as

available for informers. Political prisoners are given hard

labour or deported. A man can be indefinitely imprisoned

without charge preferred, or condemned to death in absentia on

the basis o f a police repor t alone; and while in Britain, the

slogan “Buy British” is everywhere proclaimed, in India

children have been condem ned to years o f imprisonm ent or to

the lash for peaceful picketing. These are not the acts of

self-respecting governm ent, but o f one driven by blind rage

and fear. One does not know how many English officials are

still living on ly as a consequence o f Indian reluctance to takelife; one does feel that the British arc hoping to break down this

patience so th at they may have an excuse to use their rifles and

bom bs on unarm ed crowds. English diehards have repeatedly

admitted that England cannot “afford” to lose India; at the

same time they have made it impossible that anything elseshould happen.

What, i f any thing , can be done here? We cannot expect the

American government to interfere in British “domesticaffairs”, however scandalous. But would it not be helpful to

publish and dis tr ibute here some o f the recent ordinances,

toge ther w ith a few exam ples o f ferocious penalties inflicted on

children, and then to prepare an open letter o f protest, such as

one cannot d ou bt that a few hundred o f the most distinguished

Americans would be glad to sign in their individual capacity?

AKC

The Nation, New York .



To T H E N E W A GE , L O N D O N

Octobcr 15, 1914

Sir:

The present co-operation of Indian with English forces onthe Euro pean battlefield is an unpreceden ted event. As no t even

a w ar can be productive o f unm ixedly evil results— such is the

fundamental goodw ill o f man— we m ay, perhaps, put the fact

o f this co-operation on the credit side. B ut let us, at the same

time, consider som e o f its larger implications.

I am no t one o f those w ho think that India owes a debt o f

gratitude to England. Where Englishmen have served or do

serve the interests of India to the best of their ability in their

lifework, they do no m ore than their simple duty, whether we

regard this as responsibility volun tarily assumed, or as that o f a

servant paid with Indian money. In the cold light o f reason, it is

after all from the latter standpoint that most Anglo-Indians

have to be jud ged . In many cases, perhaps in m ost cases, the

same work might have been done as well by Indians: and even

if less efficiently, none the less bette r done by Indians, since

efficiency is not the last word in human values. Passing over

elements o f evident injustice, such as the Arms and Press Acts,the Cotton Excise and Deportations without Trial, I see in the

ord inary operations o f G overnm ent few causes for gratitude: so

far as “Progress” is concerned, to have done less would have

been crim inal, to have done more would not have been

astonishing.

When we consider the so-called English Education that has

been “ given” to India— largely developed in the Macaulayan

spirit o f those w ho think that a single shelf o f a good Europeanlibrary is worth all the literature o f India, Arabia and

Persia— and now essentially a m atter o f vested interests for

English publishers, the closely preserved Imperial Education

Service, and Missionaries—when we remember the largely political purposes and bias o f all this education, its needless

secularisation, and that it has discontented the Indians with allthat was dearest and best in their home life, and [when we] perceive in what countless ways it has broken the th reads o f

traditional culture— then w e are apt to feel som ething less thangratitude. Compared with all this, the social ostracism of



Indians in India, o f which we hear much, is a small matter. N or

can we well forget that i f German culture is to be swept away,

we have something to lose that has done more than English

scholarship has done to make the culture o f the East familiar to

Europe.

But if I say that India has few causes to be grateful to theEnglish, that is no t to say she shou ld no t be friendly. In m ost o f

the deeper issues o f life India has m ore to give than to receive,

and her g row ing consciousness o f this fact is a m ore secure

bond than any considerations o f self-interest. Perhaps there are

no two races that more than the Indians and the English stand

in need o f each o the r’s com plimentary qualities; broadly

speaking, the English needing our long view, and we their

practical view o f life. Thus, there can never be too much goodfeeling between the English and the Indians, nor refutation too

often made o f K ipling’s dividing banalities. Yet, I marvel at the

generosity o f Princes w ho offer sums for the prosecution o f a

European war, o f wh ich sums several exceed the total amount

we have been laboriously collecting for many years for the

Benares Hindu University that is a necessity for our national

consciousness.

It is hoped by all idealists tha t one good resu lt o f the presen twar, if success is achieved by the Allies, will be a reorde ring o f

the map o f Europe on the basis o f Nationality. At this mom ent

even Imperial Britain is in love with Nationalism, and

autocratic Russia has pledged autonomy to Poland. Most

Eng lishmen w ou ld like to see Kiao-chan restored to China, and

would be glad for Persia to recover her full independence, alike

from Russian and English interference. What will England do

for India? Will she do as much as Russia has promised to

Poland?

The present Polish policy, according to a published mani

festo, is one o f neu trality, so far as this is in the pow er o f

individuals. The Poles cannot sympathize with Germany, or

Austria, or even Russia, bu t rather w ish that each o f the Pow ersmay be so weakened as to make possible ultimate guarantees

o f Polish independence. Some such view as this w ould be minefor India, and fo r the Pow ers o f Asia generally. Had India been

ready to create or to re-establish her own spiritual and politicalsovereignty in this m om ent o f European w eakness, everyidealist must have rejoiced. But India is still increasingly



dom inated by European ideals, and these often o f fifty years

ago rather than o f today. Her m ost advanced reformers— with

exception o f a few “ Extrem ists”, and Tolstoyans like Mr

Gandhi—are typical Early Victorians. The time has not yet

come, though perhaps its seeds have been sown, when the

Indian consciousness could so far recover its equipoise as torequire expression in term s o f imm ediate political self

dominion. One could wish it otherwise, but it is a fact beyond

denial that India has yet to go through the European experience

with Industrialism before she can become free in any sense

w orth the name; her ultimate freedom has to be wo n in mental

warfare, and not in rebellion. Having regard, then, to the

circumstances o f ou r day, and rem em bering that time and

desire arc equally needful for all fruitions, we can feel that the present Indian co-operatio n and its welcome acceptance may

have, and, indeed must have, great and good results, beyond

those o f the imm ediate conflicts. It is someth ing gained, that

East and West will fight together against the ideals of

militarism, though, perhaps, few o f the fighting Indians view

the matter in this light. At any rate, we can sympathize with the

English in their war for the Transvaal. It is something that the

Canadians (who have shown themselves so eager to excludeevery Indian immigrant from Canada) “should offer praise and

gratitude for the action o f India, wh ich places that g reat

com m unity in the post of duty and ho nour and will make it to

live in history” (Toronto Star): notwithstanding, it may

somewhat amuse us that this should be regarded as the

guarantee of our “place in history”—-just as Japan was first

considered civilized when she achieved military success against

the Russians!

For all these and k indred reasons neither the national idealist,

no r the hater o f w ar as war, need regret that in this war English

and Indians are fighting side by side. Only let the Indians—asdistinct from their own autocracies and from the English

bureaucracy— rem em ber the days to come. For the Germansare not the only, though they may be the most extreme,

militarists in Europe: and after the war is ended, there yetremains the unceasing, and, in the long run, more cruel war of

Industrialism. When humanity has solved that problem, andmade that peace—which can never.be till East and Westconsciously co-operate in social evolution, nor before the



religious aspect o f life is considered side by side with the

material— there may be peace indeed.

AKC

T o PHILIP MAIRET

March 6, 1946

Dear Pam:

Entre nous and no t for publication: In so many o f you r

editorials you say so many wise things that it shocks me to

what an extent you can at other times be confused. I’mreferring no w to yo ur remarks about India in the issue o f Feb 7.

Do you know, my wife (who has lived two years in India as a

student, lived as Indians live, spoke H indi and learned Sanskrit)

laughed out loud when she read it? My primary interest is not , as

you know, political, so I will dismiss that aspect by remarking

that som eone asked me recently if I did not think there would

be great disorder if the English quit, to which I replied: “ Little

doubt; it m igh t be alm ost as bad as it is n o w ” . As regards theEnglish “conscience”, that is simply pour rire to us; no Indian

today regards an Englishman’s word as even worth the paper it

may be written on. R ight or w rong , these are the facts. O n the

other hand, you admit another fact: that the Indians are

unanim ous in saying “ quit India” . If the Englishman remains,

it is an illustration o f the fact that outside E ngland , he is

denatured; at hom e, the Englishman is a gentleman, one o f the

m ost ch'arming in the world; east o f Suez, something m ore like

a bounder. Do gentlemen remain where they are not wanted,not trusted, and frankly disliked?

What you go on to say about Hinduism and Indian societymight have been written by any Baptist missionary. It is

precisely from the standpoint o f the moral principles that

underlie the forms o f Indian society that those o f us w ho are notyet Westernized and modernized, not yet mechanized orindustrialized, can and do criticize the imm orality o f m odem

Western societies, with their “free enterprise”, which we callthe “ law o f the sharks” . I have in the press a lecture on The

Religious Basis o f the Forms o f Indian Society which I gave this



year by request o f a Studen t’s Religious Association at

Michigan U nive rsity recently, and will send it on as soon as it is

available. Meanwhile, for an English and Christian estimate of

the castc system do see Sir George Birdwood, Sva, 1915, pp 83-88. You owe it to yourself to do this. I w ish, at the same

time, you could read Muehl’s article on the famine in the

January issue of Asia and the Americas: and two articles by two

other Americans, called “Colonial Report: First-hand Observa

tions”, in Harpers, M arch 1946. “ Q uit . . . India, Java,

A nnam ,— Asia” ; that is the only thing one can, i f one has any

humanity left, say to all Europeans. I’m only amazed that you

can take up the subject so superficially and quite evidently with

so little k now ledge o f the cultural situation, and in particular

and obviously so little (if any?) kno wledge o f “ H indu ism ” .Since you kno w ho w much I respect and agree with m uch o f

your work, I am sure you will feel you had rather I spoke

frankly as above, than not.

Very sincerely,

Philip M airet, editor o f the New English Weekly, Lon don, a personal friend of

AKC and who married the first Mrs Coomaraswamy.Sir George Birdwood, Sva, London, 1915.

T o T H E N E W E N G L I S H W E E K L Y L O N D O N

August 20, 1942

Sir:

From the stand po int o f the purposes for which the Allies are

supposed to be fighting, the gov ernm en t o f India by B ritain is

an anom aly. Indians have been asked to fight for a freedom thatdocs not include their own freedom. The Allies have not wonthe w hole-hearted co-operation o f even those Asiatics w ho are

fighting on their side; nor will they until they include in their

program w hat still remains o f a Japanese slogan, “ Asia for theAsiatics”, making it very clear that that includes India for theIndians. Apologists o f British rule have lately argued that the



Indians have been and w ould be far better off under British than

under Japanese rule. Indians agree. T ha t is to say, that o f two

evils, they prefer the lesser evil. But such a choice scarcely

makes for enthusiasm . The Allies can count far more on the fact

that the Indians arc whole-heartedly pro-Chinese than upontheir “loyalty” to England; so long as the Allies are true to

China, the Indians will be on their side for that reason alone,

but not because they are “ pro-B rit ish” ; they are prim arily

pro-Indian.

If the recent negotiations broke dow n, whatever the imm edi

ate or nominal reasons may have been, the ultimate reason is

that it was on ly too obvious tha t the British offers (even if a

British promise could have been trusted) did not proceed from

any change o f heart on the British part; no such offers wou ld

ever have been made if Britain had n ot needed India’s aid.

Actually, nothing can be offered effectively by England that

does no t im ply and confess a conviction o f past sins. The

British arc human beings and Gandhi still believes in “the

possib ility o f hum an beings making an upw ard g row th .” The

time for such an upw ard g row th is now . Short of that, the

struggle will go on until the inevitable conclusion follows:

inevitable, because whatever the outcom e o f the present war, itis clear that the days o f European exploitation o f Asia are over.

To free India from Britain is pre-requisite to saving India from

Japan; to ho ld on grim ly to the “ brightest jew el in the British

cro w n” may mean losing it—to Japan.

Bound up w ith the political problem , but ultimately far more

important, is that o f the “ cultural relations” to be established in aworld conditioned by Allied victory and organized on the basis

o f universal and co -operative self-determination. In that futureworld all men will of necessity and to an ever increasing extent

have to live togethe r. Th e m ere industrialisation o f Asia will

only set new rivalries in motion, and perhaps result in a newand m ore terrible war, economic if not m ilitary. M uch rather

m ust the nations be united in the endeavour to liberate m ankindfrom the evils of industrialism, from purely monetary valuations, and from the endeavour to live by bread alone, o f whichthe consequences are before our eyes.

In oth er w ords, if there is to be peace, the relations o fEuropeans with Asiatics must be humanised; and since theEuropeans arc the interlopers, that is primarily a problem for



them . Th e cultural relations, so-called, o f Europeans w ith

Asiatics have been until now almost exclusively commercial, or

only o f Europ ean masters w ith Asiatic servants. “ Educated”

Europeans in general and Americans in particular arc abysmally

and incredibly ign oran t o f Asiatic culture. T he time is com ingwhen it will not be held that a man is master of hum anistic

studies merely because he knows Greek; such a master will

have to be familiar also w ith the literature o f at least one o f the

three great classical languages o f Asia: A rabic, Sanskrit or

Chinese. Mutual understanding and respect can only be

founded in an agreement on principles going deep enough to

result in the recognition o f the inevitability o f great differences

in the m anner o f their application.

The greatest obstacle to such an agreement on principles are

(sic) to be found in what Rene Guenon has so aptly termed the

“ proselytising fu ry” o f Europeans (and Americans). Actually,

the belief that there is bu t a single type o f culture w or thy to be

so called, and the conviction that it is one’s duty to impose this

culture upon others for their ow n good, if not at the point o f

the bayonet, at least by a resort to all the resources o f prestigeand money power, is hardly less dangerous or destructive than

the belief in the existence o f a naturally superior race, to whichall others o ug ht to be subordinated for its own good and theirs.

By “ proselytising fu ry” neither I nor Guenon have in mind

by any means exclusively or even chiefly the activ ity o f

religious m issionaries, harm ful as these have often been. In this

connection, how ever, we must observe that a procedure based

upon the conviction that our own religion is the only true or

revealed religion, and not one amongst other religions based

upon a Truth in which all participate, not merely violates the princip le that truths can only be stated and know n in

accordance with the mode o f the knower, bu t can have results

quite as terrible as those tha t follow from the belief in a singlesuperior race or superior culture; every student o f the history o freligious persecutions knows this. The proselytising fury is far

from being a purely religious phenomena. We see it quite asclearly in the field o f “ education” , and in the often franklyexpressed wish and endeavour to impose a purely “scientific

humanism” upon the whole world, and in the distinctioncommonly made between the “advanced” or “progressive” peoples (ourselves) and the “ backward” races (o thers). All that



must be outgrown; or shall we never grow up, never learn to

mix w ith m en o f other races on equal terms, bu t always remain

cultural provincials? As things now stand, we cannot be too

grateful that millions o f “ illiterate” Indian peasants and wom en

who cannot read our newspapers and magazines but are as

familiar with their own great Epics as Americans arc with

movie stars and baseball heroes, are still practically untouched

by any m odern influence. O ur first duty to these innocents (in

the highest sense of the word) is not to teach them our way of

living (in view o f ou r present disillusionment, how could we

have the face to do that?) but simply to protect them from

industrial exploitation, whether by foreigners, or Indians.

Education can w ait until we have educated ourselves; diseduca-

tion is far worse than none, for a culture that has survived formillenia can be destroyed in a generation with the best

intentions. There arc probably not a dozen Englishmen

qualified to pronounce on any problem having to do with

humanistic studies in India.

I have already made this article too long. What I want to

emphasize is that the European, for his own and all man’s sake

in the future world, must not only cease to harm and exploit

the othe r peoples o f the world, bu t also give up the cherishedand flattering belief that he can do them good in any other way

than by being good himself; and that that is the first thing to be

unders tood w henever the question o f British rule in India is

discussed.

AKC

This co m m unication evoked the follow ing correspondence from A. S.Elw cll-Sutton in the Septem ber 3, 1942 issue of the New English Weekly.

Sir:

D r Ananda K C oo m ara sw am y’s article is so full o f question- begging sta tements th at it would occupy to o much o f yourspace to deal with them adequately. I would, however, like to

put the follo wing th ree questions to him:1) When he speaks o f the Indian ou tlook, culture, civilisa

tion, etc, does he refer to that o f the Caste-Hindus, or the



“Scheduled” Castes, or the Moslems, Sikhs, Christians (some

o f the latter dating from Apostolic times)?

2) Does he consider that the standard o f adm inistration and

justice in India before the British came were as high as those

since achieved?3) W hy is he so anxious to up ho ld the fallacy (as blatant as

that o f “racialism” ) o f some insurmountable barrier between

the outlook o f “E uropean ” and “ Asiatic” , which Christianity

and Islam (themselves largely “Asiatic” religions) set out to

overthrow many centuries ago?

A. S. Elwell-Sutton

AKC’s answer follows in the next letter.


N ovem ber 12, 1942

Sir:

W ith reference to M r E lwe ll-Sutton’s questions o f Septem ber 3rd: I need not say much about No. 3, as the Editor has

answered adequately on my behalf. I do oppose the typically

modern anti-traditional civilisation and culture, with its

impoverishment of reality (cf Iredell Jenkins in the Journal o f

Philosophy, Septem ber 24, 1942) and abstraction o f meaning

from life (cf Aldous Huxley, Ways and Means, p 270ff) to the

traditional and n orm al civilisations and cultures o f which

Indian can be cited as the—or a—type. On the other hand, mywritings are packed w ith references to the identities o f Indian,Platonic, C hristian and othe r like ways o f thinking ; it is very

rarely that I cite a doctrine (eg, that o f the “ Single Essence and

Two Natures)”, or duo sunt in homitie) from one source alone.Further, I would refer Mr Elwell-Sutton to the chapter,

“ A greem ent on P rinciples” in Rene G uen on’s East and West. As

to No 2, I should like to take this opportunity to endorse andemphasize M r H ero n’s dictum ( N ew English Weekly, September

10, 1942, p 171) that “ systems o f governm ent should beextensions o f the peoples concerned” , and to quo te Plato ’s wellknow n definition o f “justice ” as the condition in which “every



man can fulfil his own natural vocation”, a condition which ithas been the purpose and function o f the caste system to

provide. O n the other hand, education in India, so far as

Englishmen have controlled the expenditure o f Indian money

for educational purposes, has been consistently directed to the

form ation o f a class o f persons “ Indian in blood and colour, but

English in tastes, in opinion, in morals and in intellect” (Lord

Bentinck, see Cambridge History o f India, VI, p 111); and this

education, as Sir George Bird w oo d w rote in 1880, “has

brought discontent in to every family so far as its baneful

influences have reached”. Lord Bentinck even attempted “to

stop the printing of Arabic and Sanskrit books . . . and to

abolish the Muhammedan Madrassa . . . and the Calcutta

Sanskrit College” (ib). Neither can we pretend that theeconomic relations between England and India have ever yet

approached “justice” . In any case, the concept o f “justice”

covers far more than the merely impartial administration of

laws, especially when the said laws have not been made by

those to whom they arc applied, but by the foreign administra

tor himself, who combines in him self executive and judical

powers. It is, indeed, quite possible and even probable that a

well paid foreigner can be more impartial than any native in thetrial of cases in which his own interests are not concerned. Thus, if

the Chinese were rulers o f England, it would be quite likely

that a Chinese m agistrate w ould pronounce a more jus t

decision in a case between a poacher and a squire than would

the English magistrate be disposed to reach; yet we should not

regard that fact as an argum ent for the gov ernm ent o f England

by Chin amen. And what o f the cases, civil or criminal, in

which the interests of Englishmen and Chinese conflicted? Thesame w ould be likely to happen that has always happened w henit is a question o f an Englishman versus Indian. Everyone

kno w s into w hat terrible trouble Lord Cu rzon (who really tried

to be the “ just beast”) got him self by attem pting to enforce the

“ law” in the case of the murder o f a “native” by an Englishman. We may also recall that not many years ago it was possiblein Bengal for a man to be condemned to death without a propertrial or even being allowed to face his accusers, and I believe it

is still true, as it certainly was very recently that a man can bearrested and held incommunicado without preferred chargesfor so long as it seemed convenient. So much for “justice”.



Q ue stion N o 1 would require a long discussion and a

profound know ledge o f the cultures referred to. It is partly

answ ered, as in the case o f N o 3, by the consideration that the

differences between these cultures are rather accidental than

essential; the w eigh t o f the differences tends to disappear in

proportion to our understanding and in the absence o f any th ird

party in w hose in terest it is to emphasize them. For example,

Jahangir (in his Memoirs) could speak o f his H indu friend

Jadrup’s Vedanta as “the same as our tasawwuf ' (Sufism); and I

have know n mo re than one Rom an Catholic w ho saw and said

tha t there is no real op position or essential difference betw een .

Christianity and Hinduism, while, as Rene Guenon very truly

remarks: “Hindus may sometimes be seen encouraging Euro

peans to return to Catholicism ,, and even helping th em tounderstand it, without being in the least drawn to it on their

ow n a cco un t.” Those w ho kno w India best and can think in the

terms o f Indian thought, are m ore impressed by her cultural

unity than by her apparent diversity. There are unities more

essential and more important than any political unity; and these

are based on c om m on understandings o f the ultim ate ends o f

life rather than upon its immediate purposes, as to which there

can be an almost endless variety o f notions. N o doubt th e problem o f the minorities in India is not

without its difficulties; we understand that very similar

difficulties are faced by the American Negroes at the present

moment; and that even in Europe the minorities problems will

not be too easily solved even when the war is over. It may be

doubted whether they can be solved by any democratic

government (in which the controlling powers represent in

terested jgroups) or any ty ran ny (in A ristotle ’s definition,govern m ent in the interest o f the ruler), or by any other than a

ju s t governm ent, one in which (as in the Indian th eory o f

governm ent) Justice ( Dharm a) is the King o f kings. Th e present position o f Negroes in “democratic” Amcrica, and the capacities

o f En glishm en for feeling colour (ie, racial) prejudice do n ot

lead one to suppose that either o f these peoples w ould be verycapable o f justly balancing the interests o f different Indian

communities; and in any case, who has told them that to do so

is their business?

AKC



T o M O N S I E U R R O M A I N R O L L A N D

August 22, 1920

My dear M Romain Rolland:

It is by a curious coincidence that I had written to you only afew days before I received you r letter o f July 6, w ith y ou r

invitation to subscribe to the Declaration de I’Independence de

VEsprit. I accept with great appreciation this honor and signify

my adherence accordingly. I am indeed convinced that a real

unity m oves in the m inds o f men w ho are widely separated by

space and by artificial barriers, and that this unity persists

unc hanged behind the curtain o f a conflict that is m ore or less

unreal. By unreal, I mean arising from an illusion superim posed upon people w ho have no quarrel w ith one another.

It is sad tha t the formulae o f thou gh t should have been

prostitu te d in the service o f hatred. B ut to destroy the unreal, it

is needful, not that we should seek to punish others, only that

we ourselves recognize and live in accord with what is real.

Alas that at the present time the “Powers” have shown so

little self-respect, so little self-restraint, and so little sense of

reality. They have sought to build for themselves “bigger

barns” , not th inkin g that their life may be required o f them!

There is a Buddhist text that it would have been well to

rem em ber— “ Victory breeds hatred: because the conquered are

unhappy.”

And with regard to the still subject races—how is it that the

“Powers” forget that the greatest injury must be inflicted by

the tyrant upon himself?

Believe me, yours most cordially,

Romain Rolland, well known Frcnch author; his sister translated AKC’s

Dance o f Sh iva into French.

This letter, so replete with banalities, may serve to show how

Dr C oom arasw am y's thoug ht m atured to the rigorous standards of his later

years.



T o SECRETARY OF STATE JAMES F. BYRNES

November 11, 1945

Dear Sir:

It is becoming more and more evident that the AtlanticCharter is a dead letter so far as the American Government is

concerned . C on fronte d w ith the situation in Java, all you have

done is to order that the Dutch—who are using American

military eq uipm ent given to them for use against the Japanese,

to suppress the Javanese national m ove m ent— to paint ou t or

otherw ise rem ove or conceal the signs o f its American origin. Is

this no t a case o f the ostrich hiding its head in the sand? I

w ond er if you have asked y ourself wh ether such an underhand policy will pay in the long run. The Asiatic peoples are

perfectly able to recognize w ho are, or are not, their friends;

and a tim e will come when (to say nothing o f present

moralities) the friendship o f even such far-away peoples as the

Javanese m ay be o f value to the United States, whose

go ve rnm en t is supposed to believe in some kind o f cooperation

by all the peoples o f the world .

Yours very truly,

James Francis Byrnes, Secretary o f State (1945-47), G overnm ent o f the

United States.

A K C signed this letter in his capacity as Ho no rary C hairm an o f the N ational

Committee for India’s Freedom.

T o D R A N U P S I N G H

July 10, 1944

Dear Dr Anup Singh:

I look forw ard w ith pleasure to the appcarancc o f a

Sym posium to be entitled the “V oice of India” , to be publishedin the cause o f India’s freedom . We hear nowadays almost

exclusively o f India’s righ t to a political and econom ic freedomand (with the exception o f an infinitesimal num ber o f Indiantraitors w hose vested interests are bound up w ith the status quo)

we affirm this right unanimously and unconditionally.



There are, nevertheless, other and perhaps even more im

portant freedoms to be considered, which may be calledcollectively a cultural freedom, bearing in mind that in a

co un try such as India, w ith all its millenial and living traditions,

and w here it has never been attempted to live by “ bread alone” ,

no dividing line can be drawn between culture and religion.There are cultural and religious as well as political Imperial

isms; and if we arc to be free in any more real sense than that in

wh ich the “econom ically determ ined” W estern man o f today is

free, then our whole system o f education m ust be liberated not

only from direct or indirect control by any foreign govern

ment, and from the text-book racket, but also from the

“ proselytising fury ” o f those w ho identify civilisation w ith

democracy, and dem ocracy w ith industrialism and culture withscientific humanism—or, conversely, religion with Christian

ity.

This m eans that W estern friends o f Indian freedom m ust

recognize that ours, if it is to be real, will include a freedom to

differ from them in very many important issues. Our “voice”

that they can hear is largely the voice o f a generation o f men

already tutored willy-nilly by Europeans and moulded by the

characteristic forms o f W estern education and W estern m oral-ism; bu t there are other voices, those o f ou r true conservatives

and authentically Indian, which it is almost impossible for our

W estern friends to hear. To these friends, whose sense o f ju stice

and disinterested labours we gladly acknowledge, there must

be spoken this w ord o f friendly warning: that it is not always a

freedom to abolish the castc system o r to break dow n purdah, or

to establish a system o f universal com pulsory education—

quantitative rather than qualitative, or a liberty to choose our

representatives by count o f noses, that we want. We want also a

freedom no t to do any o f these things, especially if, like the

Pasha o f M arrakesh, “ we do no t wa nt the incredible American

way o f life”—w ith its exo rbitant percentage o f mental casual

ties. T he voice o f a free India will no t be an echo o f any o ther,however confident, but her own.

AKC

D r An up S ingh, Indian bo rn au thor, lecturer and political scientist resident in

US. This letter was published in The Voice o f India, a mon thly issued by the



N ational C om m itt ee fo r India ’s Freedom , W ashin gto n, D. C ., U .S .A ., o f

which Dr Singh was an official.

To T H E V O I C E O F I N D I A

N ovem ber 1946

Sirs:

To Pand it Jawaharlal N ehru I extend cordial greetings on his

bir thday, best wishes for his success in the conduct o f the

present Inte rim Governm ent, in w innin g the confidence and

sup port o f ou r M uslim coun trym en and friends, and in all his

endeavours to establish relations o f economic and culturalintercourse with other peoples. By many sacrifices and much

suffering, and by his persistent efforts in recent years to

“discover India” he has qualified himself for the responsibilities

that rest upon him.

AKC

The Voice o f India as above.

Th e following letter was sent to D r Coom arasw am y on July 4; 1944:

Dear Dr Coomaraswamy:

A com m ittee o f distingu ished citizens in India have made

plans to publish a 500-page volum e to com m em orate G andhi’s

75th birthday and to tender it to the Mahatma on Oct 2nd or

later. The committee have asked me to approach Gandhi’s

friends and admirers in America for contributions—preferably

essays in appreciation, bu t at least brie f messages. A ccord ingly ,I am hu m bly approaching you, kno w ing o f you r admirationfor the Indian leader. . . .

Sincerely, yours,

Krishnalal Shridharani



The following response was sent:

Mahatma Gandhi-ji, Namaste:

I am happy to have this op po rtun ity to express my feelings of

highest respect and admiration for the great leader who,

throughout his life, has consistently refused to dissociate politics from re ligion; and has never repudia ted the caste

system, but would only re-form, ie, correct its working.

I m en tion these tw o things because o f the fundamentally

Indian or rather universally traditional principles involved. The

concept o f govern m ent as a divinely delegated pow er, and that

o f a vocational status determ ined by one’s ow n nature are the

indispensable suppo rts o f any sacramental sociology o r dedi

cated life. T here can be no ju st o r stable governm ent devised oradm inistered by anyone w ho is not him self an obedient subject

ofjust ice (dharma, dikaiosune), or as we should express it, is not

a Dharmaraja. Th e concept o f “self-governm ent” (svaraj) is not

then prima rily, bu t contingently a m atter o f independence o f

foreign domination. In the Indian and traditional theory of

go vern m ent the essential quality o f royalty is one o f self-

control. Th e p rinciple holds goo d equally if the gov ernm ent is

by an aris tocracy or even by a bureaucracy. A ju st governm entis not a balance o f po w er established as between the representa

tives o f com peting , interests; the ruler must not govern in his

ow n interest, or in that of the poor or “ com m on m an” , but

impartially. You, Mahatma-ji, have seen that it is only by

means o f an interior discipline that India can free herself, or

keep her freedom from any external tyranny.

As for the caste system: justice and freedom manifested in the

social order can only mean that it is just that everyman should

be free to earn his daily bread o f following that vocation by

which his natural (natal) abilities imperiously summon him.

T here can be no justice in an industrial society, how ever

“ classless” , un der the “ law o f the sha rks” , or as it is called here,

“free enterprise”, which means “his hand against every man’s,

and every man’s hand against him”; nor freedom whereunem ploy m en t is a condition o f “ progress” , and m an’soccupations are therefore “economically determined”. If, as

Eric Gill poin ts ou t, the factory system is unC hristian “ becauseit deprives workm en o f responsibility for their w ork” , it is noless unHindu in as much as it denies to everyman the very



means th roug h wh ich he can best o f all develop his ow n

perfection— that o f a devotion to his own work. No one can be

called free who is not free to love his own work and to perfect

it. The m odern artisan, on the contrary, as Jean Giono says, has

been degraded by the machine; “ the possibility o f making

masterpieces has been lost to him. We have eradicated from hismind the need for quality and made him eager for quantity and

speed” . Whereas the caste system is inseparably bound up w ith

the concept o f quality, at once in the produce and the

production. It is from the sta ndpoint o f the castc system that

we jud ge “ the incredible A merican way o f life” , and repudiate

it, except to the unfortunate extent that it may be forced upon

us in self-defcnce.

It is proverbial in India that men are naturally inclined tolove, and even to overvalue their own hereditary professions,

whatever these may be; a lineage is, indeed, considered broken

if the family profession is abandoned. In any case, the

professions are sacred obligations and even, as A. M. Hocart

has called them , “ pries thoo ds” . As Jacob Boehm e, w ho was

him self a shoem aker, says (and let us not forget that caste is by

no means an exclusively Indian institution):

Who’er thou art, that to this work art bornA chosen w ork thou hast, h ow e’er the world m ay scorn.

If you ask an Indian who he is, he will reply’ I am a lover o f

G od ” , by his nam e o f Vishnu or K rishna or Siva or Kali, as the

case may be. N one o f us has any difficulty in understanding St

Paul’s recommendation “Let every man abide in the same

calling where in he was called. . . . For he that is called, being a

servant, is the Lord’s freeman”.

As regards the related question o f the untouchab ility o f thosewho arc without castc or have lost castc, it is one that we must

resolve for ourselves in our own way. Since those who havelost castc can be reinstated by rites o f purification, it might be

possible by means o f an analogous prayascitta, to “lift up” any

qualified outcaste, ie, anyone able and willing to accept thespiritual disciplines that caste demands. Swami Vivekananda’sdictum , “ If the outcastcs wo uld im prove their status, let them

learn Sanskrit”, is a pointer in this direction. Let us not forgetthat the Gods, to w ho m memb ers of the three higher castescorrespond, were “originally mortal”, and won their present



position solely by their adherence to the T ruth , that Satyagraha

o f wh ich you have personally demonstrated the pow er. A

related procedure might involve the decision that there are

kinds o f w ork and conditions o f w ork to which no one o f the

human species should be asked to submit; and in m aking such a

decision, one might at the same time contribute by example toa solution o f some o f the problems o f labour in the West, where

the chain belt workers, overseen by efficiency experts, can

hardly be distinguished from the mem bers o f a chain gang

except by the fact o f their daily escape. For the rest, and as

things are, I will only say that we might as well admit

Americans as admit outcastes indiscriminately to our sanc

tuaries. It is indeed by no m eans unlikely that it is a resen tment

o f ou r classification o f them as untouchables, couplcd with pangs o f conscience about th eir ow n treatm ent o f Negro

citizens, that has made Americans so sensitive to many aspects

o f ou r social problems tha t they do n ot understand.

I conclude, Mahatma-ji, by saying how gladly I associate

m yself w ith m y fellow cou ntrymen here in paying you h onor

upo n the occasion o f you r seventy-fifth birthday. All o f us wish

you many, and happier returns of the day.

AKC

The committee in question did not see fit to publish this ‘letter’. For AKC’s

other views o f Gandhi-ji, see also ‘M ahatm a’ in Mahatma Gandhi— Essays and

Reflections on His Life and Work, edited by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, London,

1939.

Prayascitta = expiation, atonement, amends, satisfaction, penance.

To S. DU RAI RAJA SINGAM

October 26, 1946

Dear Durai Raja Singam:

As to yours o f O ctobe r 17, there is obviously very m uch inGandhi-ji’s sayings about art that I can fully agree with, but I

don’t think any good purpose would be served by trying todraw parallels w ith th ings I have said. I have the highest respectfor Gandhi-ji, o f course, and also agree with him in all that he



(and Bharatan Kumarappa) have to say about industrialism on

the one hand and “Villagism” on the other. But all that

Gandhi-ji has to say about art is a pro du ct o f his individual

thinking; he docs’nt really know what he is talking about, and he '

often seems to hold the naive view that “ art” means ju st

pain ting, whereas art, from an Indian and all traditional pointso f view covers all making and ordering, and so embraces about

one ha lf o f all hu m an activity, the other h alf being represented

by conduct (urthi). On the other hand, all that I have to say

abou t art is not a m atter o f personal th ink ing at all; it is a matter

o f know ledge, based on sruti and smriti.

An exam ple o f G andhi-ji’s deviation, the result o f personal

feeling, is his attitude to the w earing o f jew elle ry (on which see

my article on “Ornament” in Figures o f Speech. . . ). Where heshould have distinguished between good (significant) and bad

(meaningless) jewellery, he simply wants everyone to stop

wear ing it! This is a part o f his propagandist asceticism; his

asceticism is right for him, and no one would defend Sanyas

against the world more than I would; but he is very wrong in

demanding not merely a certain austerity—but particular

sacrifices from everyone; that can only result in all the evils o f a

“premature Vairagya”; even Sri Krishna would not have allmen follow in his way ( Bhagavad Gita III, 23)! M uch o f all this

is due to Gandhi-ji’s intellectual background, which is still

fundamentally Victorian. So while I can agree with many

things that Gandhi-ji has to say about art, I disagree with the

general trend o f his position in this matter.

Gandhi-ji is a saint, not an intellectual giant; I am neither, but

I do say that those w hose au thority I rely on w hen I speak have

often been both.

By the way, I can’t find time to write to your son yet awhile;anyw ay, he ough t to write to m e first !!!

Very sincerely,

S. D urai Raja Singam , identified on p 25.

Although we have not undertaken *o define every foreign word and phrase

that appear in this collection, several that are used in this and the preceeding

letter are so fund am ental to an u nd erstanding o f the letters themselves and

especially to so m e degree o f unde rstanding o f Indian tho ug ht generally that

exception have been made. Thus, srwfi=revelation, the revealed word, thatwhich was heard in principio. Smriti derives from sruti, being that which



derives from reflection on the latter; tradition, that which is handed down.

Vairagya -r- turning away, renunciation; from viraga, dispassion. This is the

second requisite for an aspirant to gnosis ( jiiana), the first being viveka or

discrimination (between the Real and the unreal).

To M R K O D A N D O R A O

April 10, 1947

Dear Mr Kodando Rao:

It was a pleasure to meet you again and to hear you speak

yesterday. As you know, I also have constantly emphasized

that the great difference between the traditional Indian and them ode rn w estern outlook on life arc a m atter o f times much

more than that o f place. I would like to urge you to study som e

o f the m odern Western writers on these subjects, especially

Guenon, o f w ho m you will find some account in a little boo k

o f my ow n that I am sending you.

As Mr Toyn bee said, “ We (of the West) arc just beginning to

see some o f the effects o f our action on them (of the East), bu t

we have hardly begun to see the effects—which will certainly

be trem endous— o f their coming counteraction upon us.”

To ynbee speaks o f the West as the “ aggressors” and the East as

the “victims”. Historians, he says, a thousand years hencc, will

be “ chiefly in terested in the trem endous counter cffcct which,

by th at time, the victims will have produced in the life o f the

agresso r” , and thinks the real significance o f the com ing social

unification o f mankind will “ not be found in the field o f

technics and economics, and not in the field o f war and politics,

but in the field o f religio n.” You, perhaps, would prefer to sayin the field o f thoug ht or philosophy; at any rate, in that o f the

ultimate principles on which any civilisation is really based.

We Orientals, then, have at least as much responsibility for

the kind o f world that w c shall be in the future as have theWestern cultures that arc still predominant but at the same timedeclining. Few o f ou r students from India have had any chanceto realize the extent to which leaders of Western thought are

themselves aware o f this decline. Y ou will find some discussiono f it in my little book; b ut let me add that at Harvard, theProfessor o f Education very often refers to Western civilization



as an “organized barbarism”, and that the Professor of Sociology

in a letter I received yesterday refers to it as a “nightmare”. To a

large extent, Indian students are ju st barbarians too, jus t

com ing ov er here to learn our m ethod o f organization. Is it

really this barbarism and this nightmare that we want Indian

students to acquire and take back with them to India? Is it not,on the other hand, also their duty to bring som ething with them

when they come here? Som ething o f their own to contribute to

the solution o f the great problems o f the relation o f m an’s work

to his life, that faces the East and the West alike?

How can man live happily? This is a much more important

question than tha t o f how to raise their standard o f living— so-

called. We forget that men have hearts as well as minds and

bodies that want to be fed!There is something mean and cheap about the way we all

come here, to study. There is an old saying that whoever

would obtain the wealth o f the Indies must take the wealth o f

the Indies with him, to buy with. What do our already

anglicized boys w ho are so much ashamed o f their “ unedu

cated” wives and sisters bring with them? Do they bring

anything whatev er that Americans havc’nt got already? O f

course these Americans are not interested in you; you have

nothing to offer and only come to get what you can! Not two

per cent o f Indian students come here to study cultural

subjects—are only qualified to study p l u m b i n g ?

These boys re turn to India a queer m ixture o f East and W est,

strangers here and no long er at hom e there! H ow can they ever

expect to be happy men?

We arc glad to say that some Indian students at least are soon

disillusioned and long to go back to discover India, for they

have never know n their own home, the which they learn aboutfor the first time from Europeans.*

You raised the question o f hospitality: let me say that we

often, and w ith pleasure, entertain groups o f Indian students at

hom e. Th ey take possession of our kitchen, prepare their ow n

food; the shoes arc left at the door, they wash their hands, we

all eat on the floor, with our own fingers—just as one would inIndia. My wife and I arc intellectually more “orthodox” and

old-fashioned than m ost o f the boys w ho com e to us. Bu t wearc painfully Europeanized nevertheless. What is more, we donot expect that the boys will be free to invite us to cat with



them and their families in their homes, nor do we expect them

to treat us on terms o f social equality in India. H ow much less

have ordinary Americans and Europeans a right to expect sucha thing?

As a m atter o f fact, we respect more those Indians who will

no t cat with us, than those who will. We see no reason wh y we

should contaminate their homes and kitchens merely out of

politcncs.

As for the girls: I say that however much they know—a man

is still u n e d u c a t e d if he cannot appreciate and understand

and be happy with an Indian girl, if she is still Indian, how ever

little o f his kind o f inform ation she may have. Praise God i f the

Indian girl retains standards and concepts o f value about life and

conduct that European wom en have been robbed of. If m ost o fthem want to stay as they are, for God’s sake let them!

Take note o f w hat Sir George B irdwood w rote in 1880:

“ O ur (Western) education has destroyed their love o f their ow n

literature . . . the ir deligh t in their ow n arts and, w orst o f all,

their repose in their own traditional and national religion. It has

disgusted them with their own homes—their parents, their

sisters, their very wives. It brought discontent into every

family so far as its baneful influences have reached.”

With kind regards,

* ‘European’, as frequently used by Asians and Africans, refers to persons of

European ethnic background and is not limited to Frenchmen, Germans,

Spaniards, etc, and may often be applied to Americans.

Pand urangi K odan do Rao was an Indian academic, a lecturer in botany , w ho

became in volv ed in th e in dependence m ovem ent and was im pris oned for his

supp ort o f Gandhi. He w rote w idely on public affairs, and lectured in India,Canada, the USA and Australia. He was married to an American wife, and

was a moderate in politics.

Sir Ge orge Ch ristoph er M olesw orth Birdw ood , British civil servant, born in

India, w as also a profe ssor o f botan y; cam e to England wh ile still a young

man and w orke d for m any years in the India Office. He m aintained a lifelong

pro fe ssio nal in te rest in India.



Add ress given by D r C oom arasw am y at Philip Brooks House, Harvard

Un iversity, on the occasion o f the unfurling o f the flags of newly independen t

India (Hindustan) and Pakistan, 15 August 1947.

Th e Renaissance of Indian Culture

O ur problem is not so m uch one o f the rebirth o f an Indian

culture, as it is one o f preserving what remains o f it. This

culture is valid for us not so much because it is Indian as because

it is culture. At the same time its particular forms arc adapted to

a specifically Indian nature and inheritance, and they are

appropriate to us in the same way that a national costume is

app ropriate to those who have a right to wear it. We cut a sorry

figure in our foreign or hybrid clothes, and only invite the

ridicule o f foreign musicians by playing the harm oniu m .

Th e y oun ger generation o f go-getters that comes to A merica

to study, and that will largely shape the course o f Indian and

educational policies in the immediate future is, for the most

part, as ig norant o f Indian traditions and cultura l values as any

European m ight be, and som etimes even m ore so; and jus t

because o f this lack o f background cannot grasp the Americanand European problems that confront it.

Freedom is the opportunity to act in accordance with one’s

own nature. But our leaders arc already de-natured, quite as

much as Lord Macaulay could have wished them to be: “a class

o f persons Indian in blood and colour bu t English in tastes, in

opinions, in morals, and in intellect.” Because they have yet to

“discover” India, they have not realized that the modern world

is no longer an integrated culture, but an “organized barbarism” and a political pandemonium. They hav*e no more the

mo ral courage to “ be themselves”—w ithou t which they can be

o f little use to them selves or anyone else— than had their

predecessors upon w hom a so-called W estern education had

been m ore forcibly im posed in M issionary colleges or govern

ment controlled universities.

It will take many a long year yet for India to recover her

spontaneity. For the present, m ost o f our “ educated” m en are

ju s t as much as Americans dom in ated by the current catchw ords o f “ equality” , “ dem ocracy” , “ progress” , “ literacy” ,and so forth. In the past, and still today, Indians have earned



and deserved much o f the contempt o f the Europeans w hom

they have flattered so sincerely by an imitation o f all their habits

and ways o f thinking. We, too, arc on our way to becom e a

nation of Siidras, at the same time industrious and ignorant.

N otw ithstanding that “all the precepts o f philosophy refer to

life”, we have learnt from the modern world to despise thelover of wisdom, and to leap before we look.

O n the other side of the Indian picture are the great figures o f

such Indian sociologists as Mahatma Gandhi and Dr Bharatan

Kumarappa. Both are advocates o f forms o f hum an association

unfavorable to war, and both arc significant as much for the

rest of the world as for India, in this age o f violence. Unlike the

Utopias o f the m odern West, neither o f these men supposes

that the ills of the world can be cured by planning or economicmeans alone, w itho ut a change of heart. B oth are seeking to

restore form s o f social organization in which human values

shall predom inate over those o f “ success” evaluated in terms o fmoney.

Again, throughout the ages, India has been a land of

profound religious convic tions and o f equally generous reli

gious tolerance. Here at least, if nowhere else, it is still possible

for men to think o f their ow n faith as the natural friend and allyo f all others in a com m on cause. It has been said that in the

West, religion is fast becoming an archaic and impossible

refuge. But in India it still provides for both the hearts and

minds o f men, and gives them an inalienable dignity because of

this. The na tural conncction o f religion with sociology and

politics has never been broken. There is no such oppositio n o f

sacred to profane as is taken for granted in the modern West; in

our experience, culture and religion have been indivisible; and

that, in ou r inheritance, is what we can least o f all afford toabandon.

Indian women, at the present day and in so far as they have

not yet been “brought up to date”, are our best conservators ofIndian culture. And let us no t forget that in a coun try like India,any judgement of standards of culture in terms of literacy

would be ridiculous; literacy in the modern world ofmagazines and newspapers is no guarantee o f culture w hatever;

and it is far better not to know how to read than not to knowwhat to read.In the meantime, also, there is an immediate and desparate



need for the establishment of cultural, and not m erely

econ om ic and political contacts with the rest o f the world . N o

doubt, the West is very largely to be blamed for its own

cultural isolation, which amounts to a very real provincialism;

but the blame is also ours, for our students and otherrepresentatives abroad arc more often engineers, or physicists

or politicians than men o f culture—where they oug ht to have

been both at once, able to contribute someth ing more than their

fees to those from whom they came to learn the newest

techniques. When the culture that we propose to restore was

live, the learned men o f foreign countries came from far and

wide to study in India. The measure o f ou r culture is no t that of

ou r ability to learn new tricks, but that o f what we have to

give.

I have been asked: “ W hat is you r message to the new India o f

our dreams?” This is my answer: “Be yourself. Follow

M ahatma Gandhi, B haratan Kum arappa, D. V. Gundappa,

Abdul Kalam Azad, Abdul Gaffar Khan, and Sri Ramana

Maharshi. Coo perate w ith such men as the Earl o f Ports

mouth, George Bourne, Wilfred Wellock, Marco Pallis, Rene

Guenon, Jean Giono, Fernando Nobre. Do not consider the

inferior philosophers. “Be not deceived: evil communicationscorrupt good manners.”

AKC

Obviously this short address is not strictly a letter, but it repeats in a clear

and incisive manner points that AKC made in letters to his correspondents

and, particularly, to the New English Weekly; it is also an admirable

sum m ation o f his views aprop os the ‘sou l’ o f the newly indepen dent India,

and fo r these reasons it is included— no t to speak of its pertinence forourselves.

To MR S G O B I N D R A M J . W A T U M U L L

August 29, 1944

Dear Mrs Watumull:

Many thanks for your letter and prospectus. I have alwayshad most pleasant relations with the “Bombay merchants” of



India and Ceylon and always respected them as staunch

supporters and adherents o f a truly Indian ortho dox y.

As regards you r Foundation, I feel som e hesitation. I have, as

you say, contributed to the mutual understanding o f East and

West. But this is not at all an easy problem, and means

something more than learning to do business and “eat, drink

and be merry” together. Modem civilisation is fundamentally

opposed to all our deepest values. I am not all sure that even a

wordly advantage is to be gained by learning from America,

land o f the “ dust b ow l” , now when, as Jacks and W hyte say in

Th e Rape o f the Earth, “misapplied science has brought to the

world’s richest virgin lands a desolation compared with which

the ravages o f all the wars in history are negligible.” C f the Earl

of Portsmouth’s Alternatives to Death, and the many similar books th at have been lately published in England; and also, o f

course, Marco Pallis’ Peaks and Lamas, an outstanding work of

the contact o f cultures, and especially valuable for its discussion

of the problem of education.

O ur young men w h o ' come to Am erica know little or

noth ing o f their ow n civilisation; these young ignoramuses,

graduates as they may be o f Agricultural or Engineering

colleges, have noth ing o f their ow n to contribute to America.A true reciprocity is impossible under these conditions. What

we need is Professors o f Indian rathe r than o f Am erican

civilization. I note that your program considers only “agri

cultural and technical” education, to the exclusion o f those

fields on which can be established a real cultural exchange. Had

I not better wait and look forward to your visit to Boston this

Fall?

Very sincerely,

M r and M rs G. J. W atumu ll o f Ho nolulu, Hawaii, had established a

Foundation to promote, and a chair of, Indian Culture at the University of

Haw aii ‘in the interests o f better unde rstanding betw een the peoples o f the

U nited States and India’, and had asked AK C to becom e a m em ber o f the

Advisory Board.

Jacks, G. V. and Whyte, R. O. The Rape o f the Earth, London, 1939.

The Earl o f Portsmouth, Alternative to Death , London, 1943.

Marco Pallis, Peaks and Lamas, London. 1939.



To MR S G O B I N D R A M J . W A T U M U L L

January 3, 1944

Dear Mrs Watumull:

O f course, it is a w or thy object to wish to alleviate Indian poverty and disease. The difficulty lies in the fact that modern

civilisation has so m any difficulties and dangers o f its ow n, for

example such a high lunacy rate in America. One can do

irreparable psychological damage whilst trying to do physical

good. Th ere is ju st as much difference between the “ eno rm ous

ly wealthy” and the “pitifully poor” here as there is in India.

The only ways to remedy such things are partly political and

then by resto ring (if it were possible) the status o f the guildsand panchayats, and the jo in t family system. We have disrupted

the structure of Indian society, and then blame it for notfunctioning!* Does Western society function? What is “free

enterprise” but “his hand against every man, and every man’s

hand against him?”You speak o f the backg roun d o f Oriental learning, etc, that

we possess. It is little enough. But I do not sec how one can

hope to help others until one has thoroughly grasped and unless

one is in sym pa thy w ith their aspirations, their way o f life, their

whole “ideology”. Whoever would [render such help must]

first o f all become one [of them]. In China, the Jesuits are

required to have earned their living for two years by practising a

Chinese trade before they are allowed to teach. I believe the best

thing anyone can do for India is to go there to study.

I shall be meeting the Scientific Mission here, too; and am

reading a lecture for them and the MIT boys on “Science and

Religion” (the argument being that there is no possible conflict betw een them).


*AKC, in argument, did not always take into account the fact that India was

culturally decadent and internally divided or else the Europeans would never

have gained a foothold there. The same applies to the earlier and doubtless

provid ential advent o f th e M uslims in India.

M rs Gob indram J. W atumull, as above.M IT = Massachusetts Institute o f Techn ology, C am bridge, M assachusetts,USA.




May 11, (year not given)

Sir:

M r Duncan, reviewing C. F. Andrews’ The True India inyour issue of M arch 30, is perfectly right in asserting that on ly

Mr Andrew’s moralism leads him to deny the phallic symbol

ism of the litigant and the employm ent o f erotic symbolism in

Indian art and metaphysics. The lingam is unquestionably a

phallus; and there are sculptures and paintings o f which it may

be said th at th ey ought not, perhaps, to be seen by those who

are entirely igno rant o f their significance, and therefore capable

o f a shocking irreverence “ until they rerrch the stage in which,having discovered the essential truths, they become indifferent

to the mode in which they arc presented” (Sir John WoodrofFe,The Garland o f Letters, 1922, p 220).

What could be done in India could not have been done with

equal propriety in Europe, and might have been ill-adapted to

w hat Ju ng has called the “ brutal m orality suited to us as

recently civilised, barbaric Teutonic peoples . . . (for whom) it

was unavoidab le tha t the sphere o f instincts should be

thoro ugh ly repressed” (Wilhelm and Jung , Secret o f the Golden

Flower, p 125).

At the present time, it may be observed that although

Christian theo logy is rarely presented in terms o f an erotic

sym bolism perceptible to the eye, it has by no means neglected

the use o f a verbally erotic sym bolism, and that no distinction

can be draw n in principle between w ha t is com municated to the

eye and what to the ear. It holds for Christianity as for

Hinduism, that “all creation is feminine to God”, andtherefore, in the wo rds o fjo h n Don ne, “nor ever chaste unless

Thou ravish m e.” The language of the Song of Songs is as

technical as that of the Gita Govinda, or that o f the Fideli

d’Amore. Th e generation o f the Son o f God is by “ an act o f

fecundation latent in eternity” (Eckhart), a “vital operationfrom a conjoint principle” (St Thomas Aquinas); St Bonaventuaspeaks o f the Exem plary Reasons (Ideas) as conceived “ in the

vulva or w om b o f the Eternal W isdom” (in vulva aeternae sapientiae seu utero) — th at W isdom o f w hom Dante says that“ She exists in H im in true and perfect fashion as if eternally



wedded to Him”, and whom he addresses as “Virgin Mother,

dau gh ter o f thy Son ” . M r A ndrew s’ sentimentality is essential

ly the same as Miss M ay o’s and we could pray to be delivered

from ou r friends as well as from ou r enemies in this connec tion.

Both Miss Mayo and Mr Andrews should learn more of

Christi«inity before they presume either to malign or to

apologize for Hinduism.

AKC

C. F. Andrews, British educator with life long interest in Indian affairs;

associate o f Gand hi, and Vice President o f Rabindranath T ago re’s Santi-

niketan institution.

Katherine Mayo, crusading American author who liked to initiate ‘causes’; best know n for her Mother India which Indians viewed with indignation.

Sir Jo hn WoodrofFe, British jur ist prom inent on the Calcutta High C ou rt.

His avocation was the study o f the Tan tra, and he did m ore than any other

Anglophone orientalist to expound its underlying principles and signifi

cance. In the earlier part o f his w riting career, he published u nd er the pen

name Arthur Avalon.

Richard W ilhelm and C arl Gustav Jun g, The Secret of the Golden Flower,

London, 1932.

To ERIC GILL

May 23, 1939

Dear Eric:

. . . Ta lking o f “sex sym bolism ” , it is w onderful ho w

Coulton misunderstands and devalues the wonderful Mary

legend which he gives on P 509 o f his Five Centuries o f Religion. He misses entirely the trem end ous significance o f the sacrifice

o f on e’s eyes for the sake o f the vision. There is a Vedic parallel,

too, where Wisdom is said to reveal her very body to some.

Perhaps you can print this legend someday, and I could write a

few w ords o f introduction. O n the other hand, perhaps the

world does not deserve such things nowadays!

With love from Ananda,

Eric Gill, sec the Introduction.

Coulton, George G., Five Centuries of Religion, Vol I, Cambridge, England.




Sir:

Permit me to say that Mildred Worth Pinkham’s book onWomen in the Sacred Scriptures o f Hinduism, recently reviewed in

yo ur issue o f Septem ber 16th, cannot be very strong ly

recommended. I rather agree with a more learned reviewer in

the Journal o f the American Oriental Society (1941, p 195), who

says: “ Th ere are a great many quotations, som e o f them

interesting, but they neither prove nor indicate anything in

particular. They are not su itable for the use o f H in du wom en,

no r for scholarly reference, no r are they w elded by interpre ta

tive com m ent into any sort o f unity, nor is the “ status o f H indu

w om en tod ay ” discussed in relation to these snatches from the

scriptures. T he boo k is one o f sustained confusion from

beginning to end . . . . The quotations are all from English

tanslations and pro vide neither a com prehensive list o f refer

ences, nor sufficient context to be very helpful.”

T here is, o f course, an Indian theory, metaphysical, as to the

natural, and the refore just, relationship o f the sexes, interpreted

in terms o f sky and eaith, sacerdotium and regnum, mind and perception, and it is, indeed, in term s o f the Liebesgeschichte

Him mels and the relationships o f Sun and M oon , that w hat we

shou ld no w call the “ psychology o f sex” is set forth. All this

fundam ental material, in the light o f which alone can the special

applications be understood, is ignored. Neither is it realized

that the w hole p roblem is no t merely one o f external

relationships, bu t one o f the proper co -ordination o f the

masculine and feminine pow ers in the constitution o f everyone,whether man or woman, that is involved. Neither is it even

hinted that in our ultimate and very Self, these very powers of

essence of nature are One.

AKC

Mildred Worth Pinkham, Women in the Sacred Scriptures o f Hinduism,

Colum bia U niversity Press, N ew York, 1941. This unfortunate book began

as a Ph D thesis, and reflected only a part o f the said thesis, w hich m ay help

account for its inadequacies.



To GEORGE SARTON

My dear Sarton:

M any thanks for your note. “ Spiritual A uthority . . . ”m ight com e m ore into your field, no t only as having to do w ith

“political science” (sociology), but because it deals throughout

with the p rob lem o f conflict between the sexes, wh ich is the

same thing as the conflict between the inner and the ou ter man.

There is, in fact, a traditional psychology that is o f imm ense

practical value and that leads to solutions o f the very problems o f

disintegrated personality with which we are still concerned.

Kindest regards,

Very sincerely,

G eorge Sarton, professor of the history o f science, H arvard U niversity,


Spiritual Au thority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory o f Government,

Supplement to the Journal o f the American Oriental Society, XXII, 1942.


Undated

Sir:

A propos o f M r Porteus’ review o f Peach Path, I suggest he

read Evola’s “Uomo e Donna” in Reuolta contra il Mondo

Moderno. In this book as a whole, Evola mis-states thetraditional theory o f the marriage o f Ch urch and State. In thetraditional theory o f the marriage o f the Sacerdotium to the

Regm m , the former is masculine and the latter feminine.Hitler’s and Satan’s way is, therefore, feminine. The deviationo f the m ale, ie, clerical side is not so much by fault as bydefault.

AKC

Jacques Evola, Rivolta contro il Mondo Moderno, Milan, 1934. The chapter in



question was translated by Zlata Llamas (Dona Luisa) Coomaraswamy,

AKC’s wife, and published in the Visvabharati Quarterly, vol V, pt iv, 1940.

T o S. DURAI RAJA SINGAM

April 26, 1947

Dear M r Raja Singam:

Many thanks for your son’s letter and the interesting

photographs o f yourself and family.

As regards your “Selections” from my writings, please omit

page 12 (enclosed); page 9 requires some alternation; I have

never placed nationalism above religion. Better omit the paragraph I have struck out. Also page 11, om it w hat I have

struck out: I have never been “ aware o f the degrading position

of w om en in Cey lon soc iety” ! ! ! Such ideas wou ld seem quite

nonsense to me.

I expect you have received my book, A m I M y Brother’s

Keeper? I have no new photographs.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

S. Durai Raja Singam , Petaling Jaya, Malaysia (cf p 30). M r Singam was

collating a series of quo tations fro m A K C ’s published w orks to be included

in a book of Selections . . . . The section in question here was AK C’s

discussion of ‘tem po rary m arriag e’ in The Dance of Shiva, the chapter on

‘The Status o f Indian W om en’. The Selections . . . were published in a

limited edition by Mr Singam for private circulation.

Am I M y Brother’s Keeper ?, New York, 1947.

To T H E S H I E L D, L O N D O N

January 1911

Sirs:

I w rite these notes at the request o f a friend, b ut it m us t beunderstood that I have made no special study o f the matter,althou gh I do take a great interest in the status o f wom en bo th



in East and West. I am personally convinced that the State

Regulation of Vice is altogether degrading and objectionable.

In India very little interest is taken in the State Regulation of

Vice, because it is a purely European institution; it practically

affects only the British Arm y, and its victims, and m ost Indians

are probab ly unaw are o f the facts. M oreover, the contagiousdiseases in question are either o f European origin, or at least

have become much more prevalent since intercourse with

Europeans became easier.

There is probably no social culture in which the honour of

w om en is m ore jealously guarded than the H indu; at the same

time, no society is free from the prob lems o f prostitution, and

it is characteristic o f H induism that a solution very different

from the Western has been sought. This solution lies in therecognition o f the prostitute as a hum an being. The re is no

street solicitation in India, unless it may be in the large towns

wh ere the structure o f society has broken d ow n, and m odern

conditions prevail. In practice, the dancing girls attached to the

Hindu temples in Southern India, and the professional singers

and dancers generally in other parts o f India, are courtesans.

But they are also in the highest sense artists. They are

independen t, and sometimes' even wealthy. I do no t think they

are ever exp loited, as in the W hite Slave Traffic o f Europe. The

most important point to observe, however, is that they nowise

lack self-respect—they have a position in the world, and are

skilled in a refined classic art, the lyric sym bolism o f which is

essentially religious. The “ A nti-nautch” m ovem ent o f m odern

reformers I regard as fundamentally mistaken, as it merely

degrades the status o f the courtesan w ithou t in any w ay

touching the ro ot o f the problem .

There is also a very grea t difference between the Eastern andWestern attitude towards sexual intercourse. On the one hand

the ethic o f H indu ism, w ith its ideals o f renunciation, is even

severer than that o f Rom an Catholic Christianity: on the other,

we have to note that Hinduism embraces and recognizes andidealizes the whole o f life. Th us it is that sex relations can be

treated frankly and simply in religious and poetic literature. Inits highest fo rm , the sex-relation is a sacrament; and even m ore

secularly regarded, it is rather an art than a mere animalgratification. All this, and many other things, must beconsidered in estimating the status o f the Indian courtesan.



The most fundamental idea in Indian religious philosophy is

that o f unity. “T ha t art thou” : every living thing is an

incarnation o f the one Self. All living things are boun d toge ther

by this unity. Thus, in the m ost literal sense, “ In so much as ye

have done it un to these, ye have done it unto M e.” Further, “ In

as much as ye have done it unto Me, ye have done it to

yourselves— and ho w shall ye not pay the price?” For next to

this intution o f unity is the doctrine o f karma — the incvitablc-

ness of the consequences o f actions. As surely as any individual

or society degrades or enslaves any other, so surely that

degradation will react upon themselves. State Regulation is one

o f the many m odern attempts to escape the consequences o f

actions. But this is not possible: in one form or another the

price m ust be paid, and is paid. State Regula tion is an attem ptto protect men (and indirectly some o f those wo m en who

belong to the already economically protected class); it not only

docs not protect, but it degrades those women against whom

society has already offended economically and spiritually.

Some o f these wom en have been betrayed—that is to say, they

have given for love to those w ho have deceived them what it is

quite respectable to sell for a home and a legal guarantee.

Others have been driven by pure economic stress, the need for bread. Some have been coerced. In India conditions arc

somewhat different—courtesans arc generally the daughters of

courtesans. In Southern India some others arc o f those who arc

dedicated in infancy to a temple, as devadasis o r servants o f the

god. I cannot say whether all devadasis arc also courtesans—themajority certainly.

N o society can purify itself physically or spir itually by

further offending against such as these. What is needed is toraise the status o f w om en, to ho nour m otherhood in reality and

not in name merely; and to feel responsibility. A society which

by its conventions or its economic structu re forces certainwomen into this position has for its first duty to protect them,

not those who have offended against them. To fail in this dutycan but increase the evil.

N o society , as I have remarked, has ever been free from the problem o f p rosti tution. I th ink th at the evil has been least evil

where, as in India, the recognized standards o f life areexceedingly high; and where at the same time the courtesan is protected by her defined social or religious status and her own



w ho lives is the hum an counterpart o f the eternal mother. In

Christianity the eternal mother is the “divine nature by which

the Father begets” , the tempo ral mother M ary, from w ho m the

Son takes on “ hu m an ” nature. T hese arc also the two lotuses o f

the uppe r and nether waters, the lotus o f the nether watersrepresenting the g round o f actual existence, the deck o f the ship

o f life. Th e doctrine o f a temporal and eternal b irth o f Christ is

orthodox (Thomist).

On being “bound to the stake” ( yuba = vanaspati = tree =

cross) see also the case of Nrmadha (= Purusa medha, “human”

sacrifice) in Jaim in iya Brahmana, II, 17, 1. By the way, in

connection with the extraordinary consistency which we have

recognized in traditional scriptures: this consistency is really

that “infallibility” which in Christian tradition is attributed to

the Pope only, but as Guenon remarks should be the attribute

o f every initiate throug h w hom the doctrine is transm it

ted . . . .

. . . O bserve the likeness o f the idea of sacrifice in Vcdic and

Hebrew tradition. In the Zohar, “T he impu lse o f the sacrifice is

the m ainstay o f the w orlds and the blessing o f all worlds. “ By it

the “ lam p is kindled ab ove” (ie, the Sun is made to rise). Again

as to nabha as starting point—“When the world was created, itwas started from that spot which is the culmination and

perfection o f the w orld , the central poin t o f the universe, which

is identical w ith Z io n” , citing Psalms 2, 2: “ O ut o f Zion, the

perfection o f beauty , God hath sh ined fo rth .”

To go back to your question about food: Gandhi’s “the only

acceptable form in which God can dare appear to a people

famishing and idle (asanayita, auratal) is work and promise of

food as wages” is true in principio and metaphysically: those in potentia (“ ante natal hell”) arc precisely famishing and idle. T ha t

is of coursc karma katida stuff. From the jnana kanda point of

view, the last end being the same as the first beginning,“idleness” (properly understood, viz, action without action is

the p rinciple o f action, as in BG) is the goal, but in the.

meantime food is necessary to operation: to the final view is

illustrated in fasting as a metaphysical —not religious— rite, ie, in“initiation” of mrtyu, asandya, c f Br Up I, 1, 2 ............

Dona Luisa Coomaraswamy, AKC’s wife, was, at the time this letter was

written, in India studying Sanskrit.




September 15, 1910

Dear Rothenstein:

It was good to hear from you, August 28, and will be still

better to see you so soon. As I told M rs H. . . , I am engaging

tent accom m odation from 5.10 at Cam p, Exhibition, personal

ly for 2 men and 3 ladies subject to confirmation by Mrs

H. . . when she arrives in Bombay.

It has been a hot time but very interesting travelling about

the last 3 months. I have collected many good pictures and

stayed with many dear and beautiful Indians. There is nothing

like the peace and stillness o f the real ones. I can give you lettersto some, especially Benares and Calcutta. But I also strongly

recommend a visit to Lucknow to see dancing there. A boy of

15, pupil o f India’s mo st fam ous dancer, is so beautiful and so

static. These conventional gesture dances, symbolizing all

religion in a Radha-Krishna archon-language are the most

wond erful things in the w orld, all have the quality o f Hindi

poetry. This is so w onderfully trenchant: “ when we loved, the

edge o f the sw ord was too wide for us to lie on, bu t now a sixtyfoot bed is too narrow.” Another song says with exquisite

absurdity: “Had I known that love brings pain, I must have

procla im ed with beat o f drum that none should love.” H ow

many philosophers have proclaimed that all sorrow is wound

up with desire, and how futile save for the few that escape,

like electrons from an atom, these proclamations by beat of

drum.

I cannot make my home in England anymore for a time.

After a year in Europ e next year I shall live here m ost o f the

time for 10 years. My wife is going back earlier than we

expected for various reasons, m ostly connec ted with this, and I

shall let the chapel next year and she will build a little cottage by

the sea at S. . . [probably Staunton , but illegible], I don’t kno w

yet if she will be ou t here m uch w ith me o r not. We have got on

very well living in purely Indian fashion so far.I w on de r if you will go so far as Lahore— I expect not. You,

too, ought to be here for years. I have never felt the land somuch before. I feel the intense thinness o f Eng lish life incontrast. There is such a deep emotional and philosophical



religious background to all this. There is, or in the ideal life at

least, there is not any meaningless activity.

Learn all the Hindustani you can. It is really easy. Especially

pronounce all vowels as continental and learn to pronounce

consonants after. Forbes’ Hindustani Manual (Crosby Lock

wood, 3/6) is good.

I don’t think y ou ’ll get much out o f Monica Williams. The

Bhagavad Gita is the first thing. Then Laws o f Matiu, Tiruvacha-

kam, and such books. But this will not reach you in time, and

anyhow you will find it easier to read up the matter after you’ve

been here than now.When in Bombay, drive through the Marwari bazaar. There

is very little else to sec in the place, comparatively speaking.

You ough t to sec Agra for the architecture, b ut can very wellomit Delhi.

Yours,

William Rothenstein, see p. 326.

Monica Williams is not identified.

‘The Chapel’ refers to Norman Chapel, Broad Campden, Glostershire,

England, w here AK C had lived and where he ow ned W illiam M orris’

Kelmscott Press, now a National Monument.


Date uncertain

Dear Rothenstein:

Please post me the Himhar (?) print to Campden. I am afraidyou must have been disappointed last night. I had not heard

him sing before. However, the hymn have a little idea. Thefollowing is a translation:

U nkn ow able, abiding in the thou gh t o f Brahm ans, rare one,Veda-Essence, atom unknown to any, who art honey, whoart milk, who art a shining beam, Lord o f the devas,inseparably mingled in the dark Vishnu, in the four-headed

Brahma, in the fire, in the wind, in the sounding ocean, inthe mightly mountains, who are great and rare and precious,dwelling in Tiger-town (Chidambaram, a sacred town in



South India)—vain arc all the days when thy Name is not

spoken.

Is it not grand to know that men can sing this passionately? I

return to Campden Saturday, and shall not be up again for ten

days after that.


To William Rothenstein, as above.


October 10, 1910

Dear Rothenstein:

I shall probably ju st have time to see you in B om bay on 27th,

as I am passing through after a tour in Rajputana. You must

really go to Jaip ur to see thc people. Th e wh ole coun try is full o f

beauty and romance, so different from the British parts. I

should almost recommend a night or a few hours at Ajmere tosee the marble pavillions on the edge o f the lake. Shah Jahan

must have been a supreme artist—everything he had to do with

is marvellous, and his reign marks the zenith o f M ughal art.

I find the indegcnous element in this art even larger than I

surmised, and the Persian element very much smaller. People

have a mania for thinking that everything comes from

somewhere else than where you find it. I am beginning to see

that the best things arc always well rooted in the soil. I have got

hold o f a magn ificent lot o f old Rajput cartoons and tracings o f

m iniatures— I can’t tell you ho w beautiful some o f them are.

Most arc 18th century, and the best may have been earlier than

that; even so, one can only think o f Boticelli as giving an idea of

one or two. This Hindu or Rajput art is the descendant of

Ajanta, its rise and zenith and decline seems to cover at least 1500

years.. The 200 years o f secular M ughal ar t is bu t a breath beside

it.

Th is is a beautiful Rajput city on a lake. I have been over thePalace, pure white marble. No furniture at all in the Raja’sapartmen ts. H ow different the old idea o f luxury. We have no



conception now o f wh at luxury can be— we kno w only

comfort. It seems to me we have lost in nothing more than in

our idea of pleasure.

You will find me alone. My wife had to go home on certain

family affairs, and the question o f econom y also had to be

considered. I have been spending more than all my possessions

on pictures. I expect we shall make great changes. I feel I must

be out here more and also when in England more in London,

etc. So we are go ing to let the Chapel for 5 or 7 years and build

a cottage at Staunton by the sea near Barnstaple and have that

for a country house instead. It is a great wrench, but I thinkmust be for the present.

It will be good to see you at Allahabad. Y ou will have to help

me judge som e pictures, etc. I suppose you will come aboutJanuary 5-10 or thereabouts.

When in Bom bay the only thing o f interest is to drive

through the Marwari Bazaar. I will see you soon after arrivalhowever.

Yours,

William Rothenstein, as above.See note on page 371 as regards ‘the Chapel’.

AKC had been travelling in Rajputana (modern Rajasthan), amassing the

m agnificent collection o f Rajput paintings w hich first propelled him into

prom in ence in th e art w orld. H e was an offic ial at th e All-India Exhib it io n

held at Allahabad in 1910.


January 22, 1911

Dear Rothenstein:

As per your wire, expect you here 24th at midday. Shall sendservant to station to bring you here. We shall go to see MissFyzcc same afternoon as she is leaving next day.

Enclosed may help to explain the pictures here. I am very

sorry when I w rote the two b ig books I did not quite realise therelative importance o f the Rajput school. N ow I sec it is reallythe great thing and the other in spite o f its wonderful and



beautifu l qualities, lesser. I did not w ant to say this then, either

because it m ight seem (and unfortunately even now may seem)Hindu prejudice. H ow ever, I am quite sure o f it and the

conviction has grown quite slowly and surely with me.

Looking forw ard to seeing you. I have very m uch to talk o f and

am very sad.

Yours,


‘The tw o big books’ were presumably A K C ’s Indian Drawings, 1910 and a

secon d series issued un de r the same title in 1912. T he ‘othe r’ is presum ably

M ughal p ainting w hich, u ntil A K C ’s ‘discove ry’ o f Rajput paintings, was

considered the su m m it of Indian pictorial art.


December 29, 1914

Dear Rothenstein:

Thanks for your two notes. I quite agree that criticism andappreciation are not a permanent compensation for creation.

However, the Lord made critics as well as artists, I suppose:

and they feel boun d to get justice done for the w orks that have

touched them most. This necessity which they feel may be the

means o f creating beauty in their ow n wo rk.

The more austere Indian poetry which is at the same time

fully poetical would be found, I take it, in the Saiva and Sakta

hym ns. I w ou ld gladly w ork at these if I could find a suitablecollaborator. However, I think it is still very necessary to

present the typical Vaisnava w ork. Even the Manchester

Guardian declared last year that Ta gore was the first Indian poet

to love life and believe in physical beauty! It is a natural

transition for me from the Vaisnava paintings to the Vaisnava

literature, and I shall prob ably do m ore o f it. I have in hand avery big work on Rajput-Painting which it is almost settled will be published by C larendon Press. In this connection, if you

have any new im po rtant R ajput paintings which I could see, o r photos o f th em , I should be very pleased, as the very lastsubjects are ju st going in for reproduction now .



I w ish there was any chance o f having a good m useum in

India. If they w ou ld only ask me to undertake it— perhaps at

Delhi— I shou ld feel I had g ot one o r tw o things I really could

do well. I also regret there is no place to which I can present or

bequeath m y ow n collection. The other sort o f w ork I should

like wo uld be to be a Professor o f “ Indian” at a WesternUniversity—but that idea would seem absurdly fanciful to

most people.Meanwhile I have also undertaken a book on Buddha and

B udd hism for Harrap. I regret that some o f T agore ’s Buddh ist

pic tu res (which I th ink really very bad) will be used again in

this; however, it can’t be helped.


PS: Do you think Kabir is genuinely lyrical, or good only for

his ideas?

Rajpu t Painting (see Introduction), Clarendon Press, London, 1916. Repub

lished in 1975.

Buddha and the Gospel o f Buddhism, L ond on, 1916; there have been at least tw o

more recent editions. See Bibliography.Kabir was a 14/15th century bhakti poet; a num ber o f his poems were

translated by Rabindranath Tagore and published as One Hundred Poems of

Kabir, London, 1915.

T he T ago re referred to in the last paragraph o f the letter was Ab anindranath

Ta gore o f the Calcutta school and uncle of the better kno w n Rabindranath.


January 5, 1915

Dear Rothenstein:

I am very glad to have the Kabir translations. They seem to

me to be much m ore authentic than Rabindranath. Y ou know ,o f course, W estcott’s boo k on Kabir and the Kabir Panth. I don’t

think it is at all certain that Kabir is a Moslem name—there arcseveral Hindi poets named Kaviraj, Kabirai, etc.

I forgot to say Vishnu did not care for English housework



and I suppose felt homesick, so we had to send him home—much

to our regret, partly as we had o f course to pay his fare both

ways without having him long. With regard to Vidyapati, I

should like to add to w ha t I said before, tha t I think that sort o f

literature is of value to m ode rn E urope quite apart from the

mysticism—as an education in love: also to remind us thatMuhammad could have been perfectly sincere when he said

“Three things he had loved, Perfume, Women and Prayer, but

the last m ost!” Kabir is a prophet. But V idyapati is an artist and

seems to me to carry out the Kabir doc trine o f seeing the

physical and sp ir itual as one th ing.

I think 7/6 is a good price to charge for the Kabir volum e. By

the way, it is a pity that they don’t have a committee to elect

m em bers. I proposed several in the autum n, and by no t electingthem we have already lost one year’s subscription.

Yours sincerely,


T o W IL L I A M R O T H E NS TE I N . . . . . ln0/1March 14, 1924

My dear Rothenstein:

I was very pleased to hear from you. We have here the largest

series o f pho tograp hs o f Indian architecture and sculpture in the

w orld , I believe, bu t o f course these are only available for study

here. I have tho ug ht o f various large books on Indian art to be

done some day, but I am not ready yet—there is much ground

to be cleared. M eanw hile I will get prints m ade o f a dozen o r so

o f the photogra phs m ost likely to suit you, and send them on. Ishall have to ask for $85 each, but no doubt the publishers

will attend to this. No doubt, too, you will get such materialfrom the Archeological Survey negatives. Johnston and Hoff

man also have some good ones. Anyhow, you may expectsom e from me in a few weeks. Is there anything in the M useum

you are likely to need, I wonder? By the way, I am send ing you

my little new Introduction to Indian Art. If you review itsomewhere . . . so much the better.

I am fairly well settled here. I have been once to India Qapan,



Java, Cambodia) and expect to go again soon. I like America,

especially the open country, and go fishing in Maine every

summer. I have been riding and fishing in the wild West, too,

and like that still better.

I learnt o f Arunachalam ’s death the same day y ou r letter

came.I have taken up photography pretty thoroughly. In this

connection, I have come to know and greatly admire Alfred

Steiglitz and have been the means o f inco rporating 27 of his

photo graphs in our Print Departm ent. Yes, on the whole I have

the life I like best (of wha t one can reasonably expect) here.

Perhaps I would prefer an endowment enabling me to spend 10

years studying and photographing the Oriental Theatre! I have

allowed m yse lf to be divorced and have married a very beautiful and dis tinguished girl who am ongst oth er th ings is

familiar w ith Javanese dancing. M ost o f my book s are ou t o f

prin t: but I have still much to say— grow in g m ore and more

inclined to exact study rather than “appreciation”. I am deeply

interested in old H indi and w ork much at it, especially o f late at

the unpublished poems describing the Ragas and Raginis.

If som etim e w e get to London I should be glad to give a few

lectures including some in which the main part would be anexposition o f Javanese dance. By the way, I prepared a

translation o f Sety veld’s DeJavaaniche Daniskunst and believe he

has been in correspondence w ith the I. S. regarding publication

but have heard nothing definite.

Alice is in New York. Rohini in Philadelphia, Narada still in

England. P have heard o f and am glad o f Sim m ond ’s success—

well deserved indeed.

I do -not kn ow anything o f C odrington (unless he be

ex-Ceylon Civil Service) and hope he will become a serious“Indianist”. There is so much to be learnt still.

I m us t close— for in response to your enquiries I seem to have

written all about myself. With kindest regards to you andMrs Rothenstein.

Very sincerely,

William Rothenstein, as above.Setyveld, De Jevaaniche Daniskunst; neither the author or the title could befurther identified from the National Union Catalog.



Introduction to Indian Art, Madras, 1923.

The marriage referred to was to Stella Bloch, AKC’s third wife. Alice refers

to his second wife, and Rohini and Na rada to the children by that marriage.

N arada is deceased. Rohin i C oom ara is a profe ssional music ian and teaches

cello in Mexico.

Simmond is not identified.

Co drington , presum ably Kenneth de Burgh C odrington o f the Ceylon Civil

Service who later became an art historian.

To A R T N E W S . . . 1 fl „ nMay-August 1939

Dear Madam:

You have kindly asked wh ether 1 should care to deal with thequestions asked in your issue o f M arch-A pril 1939. I find it

very difficult to grasp their drift, and can only take them one by

one.

Geometry and algebra are abstract arts in that they do not

represent phenomena as such, but the forms on which

phenom ena are buil t (“ form s” in the sense that “ th e soul is the

form o f the b ody ” ). A religious art is necessarily abstract

because its thesis is “ the invisib le th in gs o f G od” which can berepresented in a likeness only by analogy, that is to say, by

means o f symbols. Sym bolism is the representation o f the

reality o f one o rder by the analogous reality o f another order.

Th ere are degrees o f abstraction: an anthrop om orphic sy m bol

ism is unsuited, as St Thom as Aquinas remarks, to “ those who

can think o f no thing nob ler than bo dies.” I f the artist uses

models, it is as the material and n ot the essence o f his art: i f heuses them for their ow n sake and no t m erely as words are used

to communicate a thesis, he is no longer an artist but only an

illustrator. In the latter case, the free contemplative act of

imagination having been omitted, only the servile operation

remains; the same holds good for the archaist and theacademician, or any mere im itator o f styles for their ow n sake.

A bstrac tion be longs to the very nature o f art: an abstract art is

“ w ro ng” on ly when an abstract style is imitated for the sake o f

effect. We m ust no t say, “ Go to now , let us w ork a bstrac tly” :

abstraction is necessitated by the artist’s theme, or not at all.I hardly know what can be meant by a “reaction to ideas of

the past century”. What has truth to do with “centuries”? The



only u prigh t and consistent theory o f art that I kn ow o f belongs

to no one m an, or time, or place, or form o f faith: bu t there are

times, and notably our own, which cover more than one “past

century”, when it has been forgotten.

Who has said that “art is only self-analytic”, or even

“analytic” in any sense? This is, perhaps, the modern view of

art. I cannot see a connection between “self-analytic” and

“ abs tract” art; this wo uld be to be at the same time a nom inalist

and a realist, egoist and “In the spirit”.

Th e artist “ making a study o f aesthetic law s” and the

psychologist “ thinkin g about thought” (the operations o f that

psyche o f wh ich C hrist has said, “ N o man can be m y disciple

but and if he hate it” !) are hardly comparable . Both are artists if

they write or speak well what they have to say. The artist,maker o f things by art, is no t supposed to think, bu t to know ; to

be in possession o f his art as the engineer is in possession o f his

science. Ars sine scientia nihil; “aesthetic laws” can only menthis scientia, with respect to which St Thomas Aqunas has

remarked that “Art has fixed ends and ascertained means of

operation.” Thinking has to do with opinions, rather than with

science. The artist entertains ideas: the psychologist forms

opinions.I agree that a com m unication o f “sacred truths throug h

visual interpretation” is most desirable, though it is by no

means on ly a question o f visual arts, bu t o f all those w hich

appeal to what St Thomas Aquinas calls “the most cognitive

senses”, ie, eye and ear. That it should be necessary to speak at

all o f the desirability o f “ com m unicating sacred truths th rou gh

ar t” is a confession o f departure from the order to the end, and

p ro o f th at we cannot com prom ise w ith the aesthetic view o fart— “ aesthetic” being the equivalent of “ materialistic” , in

asmuch as aisthesis means “sensation”, and matter is that whichcan be “ sensed” . All traditional art, from the Stone Age until

no w (wh en this can hardly be said o f any bu t folk arts and the

arts o f “ savages” ) is at the same time functional and significanto f the invisible things o f God; that we have divorced functionfrom meaning, discovering that man (as we conceive him) canafter all live by bread alone, is pro o f that our c onception o f man

is no longer that o f a whole o r holy m an, bu t o f a divided personali ty . It is not to be wondered that artists such as EricGill have been driven to put down the hammer and take up the



pen; for alth ough we are convinced that the visual arts haveonly aesthetic values, we have not yet fully surrendered to the

view that words are only charming sounds.

AKC

T o S. DURAI RAJA SINGAM

July 21, 1947

Dear Raja Singam:

I think you had better use the article on art as it is, with

correc tion o f spelling and punctuation in a few places. If youwish, you can also quote me as follows:

On the last page it is a pity that Sanjiva Dev uses the word

aestheticism because this word, like aesthete, has always a bad

meaning, which the words aesthetic, aesthetics, aesthetician do

not necessarily have. So it is not true that I consider

“Aestheticism to be the sine qua non in the daily life of man.”

What I say is what Ruskin said, that “Industry without art is

brutality” or, as St Thom as Aquinas expressed it, “ There can be no good uses w ithout a rt.” In his capacity as Creator, God is

the archetype o f the hum an artist as manufacturer; which is

w hat is m eant w hen art is called an “im itation o f nature in her

m anner o f operation” , ie, o f the Divine Nature. Bharatan

K um arappa’s understanding o f the place o f art in hum an

life— stated in his wise and splendid book , Capitalism, Socialism

or Villagism — is far deeper than Gandhi-ji’s, w ho is too ready to

give expression to his own feelings on a matter on which he

really knows almost nothing.

Very sincerely,

S. Durai Raja Singam, as on page 25.

Bharatan Kumarappa, Capitalism, Socialism or Villagism, Madras, 1946.

Sanjiva Dev, unidentified.




Sir:

Ap ropos o f M r Douglas N ew ton ’s article in you r issue o f N ovem ber 1st, I should like to poin t out that “ art” is like

“ G od” , precisely in this respect, that it cannot be seen; all that

we can see is things made by art, and hence properly called

artifacts, and these arc analogous to those effects, which are all

tha t we can see o f God. The art remains in the artist, regardless

o f the vicissitudes to wh ich his works are subject; and I protest

against the serious use o f the term “ art” by a writer w ho really

means “w orks o f art” .AKC


February 3, 1941

Sir:

In connection w ith M r V iva’s review o f Professor Colling-

wood’s Th e Principles o f A rt in your issue for January 21, kindly

allow me to point out that the formula “Art is expression” by

no means necessarily implies “ expression o f em otion” . In the

traditional aesthetic, art has to do with cognition, and is the

expression, n ot p rimarily o f em otion, bu t o f a thesis; no r can

we jud ge o f a wo rk o f art w ithou t first know ing wh at it was

that was to be expressed. From this po int o f view a well-made

table and an “ elegant equation” are really w orks o f art: a w ork

o f art in w hich o rnam ent exceeds the bounds o f responsibilityto its burden is called a sophistry; and the “ bea uty” o f the work

is the attractive aspect o f its meaning o r utility, and com m ensurate w ith the perfection o f the expression o f its purpose.

If w orks o f art are colored by emotion and in turn m oving, itis because they are brought into being not only per artem, butalso ex uoluntate. In other words, although on the one hand ars

sine scientia nihil, it is also true that mens sine desiderio non intelligit (a truth that many “objective” scholars would do well to taketo heart).



Mr Viva’s whole discussion takes for granted a proposition

(“ Art is the expression o f em otion ”) which very many o f those

who agree that art is expression could not accept; for these,

historically the grea t m ajority, art is the expression o f a thesis. I

conclude with Quintillain’s Docti rationem componendi intelligunt

etiam indocti voluptatem.

AKC

To A D E D E B E T H U N E

July 26, 1943

Dear Miss Bethune:

Many thanks. I would like to keep the article. I was for a

m om en t surprised by Maria as J am a Coeli (since Christ’s words

are, “ 1 am the do or” ): bu t at once remem bered that bo th Sun

and Moon arc the doors and no doubt it is in her lunar aspect

Maria is the door.*By the way I do not th ink love o f truth for tru th ’s sake and

beauty for beauty’s sake (top o f p 370 in the same issue o f Orate Fratres) is sound Christian doctrine—which is that it is beauty

which summons us to be good (and true)—and is therefore not

an end in itself; while truth is to be sought in as much as “the

truth shall make you free”. I cannot see that any manifested

value ought to be pursued for its own sake, but only as a

pointer to an end beyond itself.

Very sincerely,

* It w ould seem that here D r Coo m araswa m y was thinking primarily of the

symbo lism o f M ary in her role as huma n m other o f the incarnate Word. But

Marian symbolism is both much broader and deeper than this considered in

isolation; it involve s, eg, ‘the act of fecundation latent in etern ity’, a phrase

o f Eckha rt which A KC quoted from time to time and which places Marian

symbolism squarely in divinis — to w hich D ante alluded in his seemin gly

enigmatic address: “ Virgin M other, daughter of Th y Son .” The hum an role

o f M ary implies an archetypal Principle, w ithou t which it wo uld be

inconceivable— literally. D r Coo m arasw am y him self made these points inother contexts.

Adc De Bethune, Newport, Rhode Island, USA; artist and author.



I think also Glcizes, Vers une connaissance plastique: la form e et

Vhistoire.

I must say your own handwriting makes a handsome page!

Very sincerely,

PS: M y article referred to above m ay be said to explain “ lack of

express ion” in religious art, ie, lack o f expression o f hum an

emotions, which lack is not a “privation” but a serenity and

attitude o f the kind tha t are im plied in the phrase “ serene

highness”.

Ade De Bethunc, as above.

“T he T raditional C onception o f Ideal Portraiture” , Journal o f the Indian

Society o f Oriental Art , VII, 1939; also in Twice-a-Year, II—IV, 19 39 -40; also

in Why Exhibit Works of A rt ? London, 1943 (this was reprinted as Christian

and Oriental Philosophy o f Art, New York, 1956).

A Robertson, The Interpretation of Plainchant, Oxford, 1937.

Amede Gastoue, L ’art gregorien and L ’Eglise et la musique, Paris, 1936.

Cecil Gray, History o f Music, 1928 and 1935, New York.

Albert Gleizes, Vers une conscience plastique: la form e et Vhistoire.

T o GEORGE SARTON

March 12, 1946

Dear George Sarton:

Thanks for the article on “portraits”. I daresay you know that

Indian (incl. Cambodian, etc) “portrait” statues are not

intended to be “likenesses” . C f “ The Trad itional C oncep tiono f Ideal Po rtraiture ” in m y Why E xhib it Works o f Art?, 1943, Ch

VII . . . : c f Bona ven tura In Hexiamem, col 12 n q: melius videbo

me in Deo quam in me ipso.

AKC

W alt W hitm an, “ m y . . . looks . . . are no t me, m yse lf.”

George Sarton, page 13.

This was a handwritten postcard.



To A . P H IL I P M C M A H O N

N ovem ber 9, 1938

Dear Professor McMahon:

I take it for granted that you read my “Mediaeval Aesthetic”II in March A rt Bulletin. I have no views o f my ow n to

propound, but those which I have made my ow n include:

Art is that norm by which things arc made correctly (just as

prudence is that norm by which th ings are done correctly), and

after which they are called “artifacts” or “ works o f ar t” . There

can be an industry without art, but hardly absolutely. Art and

beauty arc not the same th in g logically. Beauty is the attractive

aspect o f perfection; perfection is the maker’s intention. The

w ork o f art is always occasional; beauty in any thing can only

be a beauty in kind. Beauty is objective and does not depend on

the spectator for its existence, but only for its recognition.

There is no distinction in principle between natural and

artificial, or physical and spiritual beauty. Beauty has nothing

to do with taste. Beauty is not the same thing as aptitude, but

cannot be apart from it; the converse docs not hold, unless we

mean by aptitude, a total prop riety. What is beautiful in a given

context may not appear to be so, ic, will be less attractive inanother.

In application to your second paragraph: art and beauty are

not the same thing, but should coincide in the artist, and must

coincide if he has envisaged the w ork to be done correctly. The

w ork o f art can hard ly ever be as beautiful as the art by w hich it

was made, the degree of approxim ation depending on the

receptivity o f the material and the ex tent o f the artist’s manual

skill. The w ork o f art is always as beautiful as it ever was, in itsoriginal relations: but this beauty may be imperceptible to a

spectator who cannot put back, let us say, the museum object,

into its orig inal context. If it is dam aged, it is less beautiful(though we may like it better) than before, in the same sense

that a one-legged man is by so much less a perfect man, by somuch less than what he “ought” to be.

Art and aesthetic arc totally different things. Art is(1) functional and (2) com municative. In all no rm al art these

two arc inseparable aspccts, though one may predominate. InSanskrit the one word artha denotes both value and meaning.The idea of a function w ithou t meaning or m eaning w ithout



value (typically m ode rn as it may be) is the sym ptom o f a

divided personality. In such works o f art as pics, the aesthetic

aspect may predominate; but for the whole or metaphysical

man is not exclusive even in such cases. Any w ork o f art may

produce sensations, pleasant or unpleasant, at different times

and for different people. These sensations, as such, are simplyreactions or passions, to be distinguished from life as an act.

(Aristotle, actis intellectus est vita, ie, “vital operation” as St

Thomas Aquinas interprets vita here). My own interest is

prim arily in the art, and only secondarily in the sensations it

may evoke. I cannot imagine what interest such sensations,

evoked in me by a wo rk o f art, o r anything else, can have for

other people. On the other hand, the intellectual pleasure

derived from und erstand ing a work o f art is (1) no t aims-ac tion and (2) shou ld be the same for all, and therefore o f

interest to all. I do n ot like the definition o f art with w hich you

conclude paragrap h 2 on p 7.

Professor Dicz just w rote me regarding m y “ Sym bolism o f

the Dome” ( IH Q , XIV, 1938) (o f which I send you a copy,

which please return): “ It is exactly the attitude tow ards art that

warms my heart.”

If this is any help, I shall be glad; if not, please provoke me tofurther comment.

Very sincerely,

A. Philip M cM ahon, Secretary o f the College Art Association, publishers of

the Art Bulletin and Parnassus.

“Symbol ism o f the D om e”, Indian Historical Quarterly, XIV, 1938.

Professor Diez is not identified.

A paragraph from Professor McMahon’s reply is given below in order toclarify the two following letters:

Th e pro blem before us as guides and interp reters o f such objects ( of art) is

to acknowledge that all the contemporary classification called art really

guarantees is patterns o f sensation produ ced by a technique connected

with drawing. Significance and value are discovered in such a work by a

m ind d irected to it. Its prope r meanings do no t flow from the principles

upon which the classification is established. These meanings have to be

ascertained and in only a relatively few such objects may we expect to

grasp them immediately and without a conscious effort.

AKC’s answer follows:



the heart” (ie, the art that corresponds to the expression “Iknow what I like”) arc condemned as “not leading to heaven”,

while according to the latter, art has fixed purposes and

ascertained means o f operation. N or would it be any exaggera

tion to say that the actus primus o f the Egyptian, Indian or

mediaeval artist implied an “accomplishment in mathematics

and a dialectic”; for Christian symbolism, as Male expresses it,

“ is a calculus” ; and even i f in some cases the work m an

perform ing the actus secundus reproduced the traditional forms

w itho ut a full com prehension o f their significance, this in no

way affects the nature o f the art but only divides it between two

“persons”, the one “free” and the other “servile”, in the

mediaeval sense.

N ow , as to “ creative im agination” ; what the m odern criticgenerally means by this phrase is an idealisation, essentially a

“creature image” or “phantasm”, but improved according to

the artis t’s private notion o f what things “ ought to be like” ; this

has nothing to do with “ideas”, and from the older point of

view is an entirely false concept o f “creative imagination” . This

expression would have meant originally, and certainly in the

M iddle Ages and in India, not a creation o f new forms, bu t the

in-ven tion (finding out, coming upon , discovery) o f the forms,ideas, or eternal reasons that arc creative in their own right and

by the mere fact o f their being. Such invention depends upon

internal vision, mediaeval contemplatio, Indian dhyana, certainly

not on observation or deliberate “improvement”, nor merely

an abstraction. Mediaeval and Indian theory regarded the artist

as creative in a very profound sense—in fact, as like God in so

far as he embodied ideas in material (“similitude is with respectto the form”), the main distinction being not as regards the

nature o f the actus primus, but in the human artist’s necessary

recourse to an actus secundus. According to this theory, “art in

its m ann er o f operation imitates nature; not, o f course ‘na ture ’in the sense of ‘environment’, natura naturata, but natura

naturans, Creatrix, Deus.” The so-called “creative imagination”o f the m odern critic is then a phrase that m erely refers to theartist’s representation o f som ething more conform able to his

taste than what is actually present in the env ironm ent; “ creative

ar t” is no t a mode o f understanding , but only an “escape” . A“ creative art” o f this kind by no means corresponds to thevision o f ideas or creative principles tha t is represented in the



ancient gods; which as Blake remarked, were ‘mathematical

diagrams”, or as they are called in India, yantras, that is

“ devices” , and intended to be used as supports o f a contem pla

tive act in w hich the “critic” , seeing the w ork o f art, the

accidental form , as starting po int, recovers the idea expressed in

it. Jud gem en t, from this point o f view, is defined in terms o fthe relation betw een the actual form o f the material work and

its essential form as it existed in the mind o f the artist, whose

ma nner o f operation w as per verbum in intellectu conceptum. Plato

is indeed “ actively hostile to what we now mean by art” . O n

the one hand, this view when set in a larger historical and

geographical perspective takes on a very “ dated ” and provincial

aspect, while Plato’s view appears to be that which humanity

for the most part has endorsed.

AKC

E dito r’s note: Th e follow ing scries of letters on the ‘Tru e P hilosophy o f A rt”

were occasioned by a review in the New English Weekly, London 11 July

1940, o f AK C ’s booklet. The Christian and Oriental, or True, Philosophy of

Art , published in 1939 at Newport, Rhode Island. See Bibliography.


Ocrober 3, 1940

Sir:

I appreciate M r Herbert Read’s discussion of my . . . True

Philosophy o f A rt (in yo ur issue of Ju ly 11). As to the “ bom b” , I

agree that I ought not to have said “it is only bad as a work of

art if it fails” , etc. T he statement is too elliptical. It seems to

igno re the basic thesis tha t in valid art, function and significancew ou ld be “ only logically but no t really” separable. I fully agree

that a bomb can be beautiful (a tin can filled with the necessaryingredients may be efficient, but it is not beautiful): this beautywill be an express ion o f the will to destroy , and like the beauty



o f any other w ork o f art, will be an invitation to use. 1 cannot

agree tha t the “ thesis” o f the bom b is purely ballistic: tha t is its

function, not its “thesis”. Its “thesis” pertains to the art and

philosophy o f warfare, and is ultim ate ly metaphysical; in this

respect we cannot distinguish the bomb from any other

weapon such as the sword or the arrow, which I have shown

elsewhere are the material analogues o f spiritual forces; the

knigh t no m ore fights w ith a mere sword than he lives by “bread

alone” . N or has the b om b’s efficiency any ethical quality: it is

made efficient, not by prudence, but by art; the ethical question

is w he the r or no t to make a bom b at all, and when this has been

decided the adequacy o f the bom b becomes the concern o f the

artist, whose only preoccupation is w ith the good o f the work

to be done, and not with any moral good.*As to “symbolism”, a word I by all means propose to retain

(“imagism” being not only “dated” but implying rather le

symbolisme qui cherche than le symbolisme qui sait), I totally

disagree that “ each artist must create his own sym bo ls.” Th at is

to make o f art, n ot a universal language, bu t a Babel. It is

precisely the individualism o f modern art that has inevitably

separated the patron (consumer) from the artist (producer); so

that whereas Plato called the consumer the judge o f art, we haveto em ploy a host o f professional judges to explain each artist

separately; the apprec iation (enjoyment) o f art then becomes an

affair o f little cliques, and “ industry is divorced from a rt. ”M r Read evidently thinks o f symbols as “ conventions” ; but

from the standpoint o f the philosophia perennis, o f which the

“T rue Philosophy o f A rt” is an inseparable part; the validity o f

symbols depends upon the “absolute presupposition” (to use

Professor Collingwoord’s phrase) of the existence of adequate

analogies on all levels o f reference and as between all degrees o freality. The symbol, then, is not a matter for choice, but for

recognition. That symbols lose their significance is not quite

true; the historical fact is that people may forget the meaning ofthe symbols they continue to employ as “art forms” or

“orders”. I am surprised and pleased to find that Mr Read

agrees with me that, in thus becoming “art forms”, thesymbols have lost their vitality. The Greek “Egg and Dart”

would be a good example. But [the fact] that symbolism has become a dead language fo r the majo rity (for whom “aestheticreactions” suffice) is no more reason why “those who have



been educated as th ey ough t” should not read them , than is the

fact that the signs o f higher m athematics are meaningless to

m ost o f us a reason for discarding them . Th e m athematical

signs are, indeed, conventional; but even so, it would be

ridiculous for every mathematician to distinguish him self by

the inven tion o f an entirely new set o f signs. In order to beoriginal it is not necessary to be novel, or even personal.

In conclusion, I venture to call attention to an article on

“ orn am en t” which appeared in the A rt Bulletin, Vol XXI, 1939;

in this article, I show ed that the wo rds m eaning “o rna m en t” or

“decoration” in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and English all meant

originally equipment. This basic fact is one that every stud ent o f

the histo ry o f art shou ld be requ ired to digest. I shou ld like also

to mention my article, De la mentalite prim itif in Etudes Traditionnelles, Vol 44, 1939. In this article, amongst other

things, I discussed the sym bolism o f safety pins. Th e Special

N um ber o f the same journal for A ugust-Septem ber, 1940, will

be devote d to the sym bolism o f gam es.

AKC

* O n occasion and in order to make a case, D r Coom arasw am y could isolateelements o f an argu m en t to the poin t of sophistry. It seems that this is one

such rare case. T he artist docs not w ork as an artificer only, as A KC him self

stated in a lecture (printed as Chap II in Christian and Oriental Philosophy of

A rt , see p 24):

An absolute distinction o f art from prudence is made for purposes o f

logical understanding; but while we make this distinction, we must not

forget the m an is a w hole man, and cannot be justified as such merely by

what he makes; the artist works ‘by art and willingly’. Even supposing

that he avoids artistic sin, it is still essential to him as man to have had a

right will, and so to have avoided moral sin.

Moreover, it is inadmissible to equate sword and bomb in the theory of

warfare. T he sw ord is a tool, the bom b a machine—an infernal machine. T he

sw ord can be and often is a thing o f great beauty; a bo m b excludes any

particip ation in th e div in e quality o f beauty by its es sentia lly negative and

indiscriminately destructive character. We must distinguish in any artifact

between w hat is es sential and w hat is acciden tal. N o r m ay w e forg et th at

m an, as artist, has as his parad igm G od the C reator ; and this implies a degree

o f nob ility in the w orks o f any genuine artist.

Bo th ‘O rna m en t’ and ‘Prim itive M entality’ were republished in Coomaras

wamy: Selected Papers, I, Bollingen Series, LXXXIX, Princeton, 1977; see

Bibliography.




Sir:

I am astonished to find M r Rom ney Green, w ith whose philosophy I am generally in cordial agreement, saying th at

“ art is mainly an affair o f instinct.” Socrates, on the oth er

hand, “ could no t give the name o f art to anything irration al.”

While for the whole Middle Ages, “art is an intellectual

virtu e.” A rt is that kind o f know ledge by which we kn ow how

to make whatever it has been decided should be made for a

given purpose, and without which there can be no good use.

W ere it merely or m ainly a m atter o f instinct, then art wo uld be m erely or main ly a function o f our anim al nature, rather

than o f hum an nature as such. W orks are traditionally supposed

to provide for the needs o f soul and body at one and the same

time; and that means that they arc to be at the same time usefuland intelligible, aptus et pulcher.

O f expressions that arc mainly instinctive one m igh t citc a

baby’s crying or a lam b’s gam bolin g. O f these, the form er is

no t “ m usic”, no r the latter “d ancing” . Dancing, if we ignore

such sensate cultures as our own, is a rational activity because

the gestures arc signs o f things, and w ha t is signified is

som ething ove r and above the pleasures o f the feelings (D e

Ordine, 34). M r Green h im self is willing to allow that a“significant” art must be significant o f som ething. B ut an

instinctive expression, how ever “ revealing” it may be (of the

exprc sso r’s ow n state o f mind), cannot be described as

“significant”. To signify is to intend a given meaning, and this

is an act o f the mind: while any unintended subm ission to the pulls o f in stin ct is no t an act, but a passion.

AKC


March 30, 1944

Sir:

In further reply to M r Ro m ney Green: the artist does not



work by “instinct”, as bees do or as lambs gambol, but per

verbum in intellectu conceptum. In other words, ars sine scientia

nihil. M r H ope ’s misunderstanding o f the wo rd “ instinct” is

private , and useless for the purposes o f com m unicating w ith

others.

What should be made is decided not by the artist but by thewhole man, o f w ho m the man as artist is only one aspect: the

whole man’s active life being governed by prudence as well as

art. W orks o f art are “ for good use” . Th e artist knows how to

make them ,, but the man knows what is needed.*

AKC

* See note on p 401.


Undated

Sir:

I cannot help feeling that M r R om ney Green ’s use o f thewords “instinct” and “intellect” is very dangerous and confus

ing because it reverses the traditional usage, in which instincts

are natu ral physical propensities o f the outer m an, and the

(pure) intellect is that o f the kno w ing inner man. By instinct

and intellect Mr Green means what others would call “intui

tion” (or “ inspiration”) and “mentality”. It is this mentality

that has disrupted ou r civilisation, for instead o f cooperating

w ith the intu ition, it has entered the service o f the instincts, as

Plato puts it. I think this will make Mr Green’s meaning clearto those who use the traditional terms more exactly.

I should also like to protest against his remarks on humansacrifice. For if there is any eternally true value, it is that o f

human sacrifice. What he means to say is that a particular ritualform o f hum an sacrifice is no longer conven ient. In ritual

hum an sacrifice the victim was always either actually, or in any

case theoretically, a willing victim. The w hole Christian edifice

rests upon the theo ry o f a hum an sacrifice, never to be atonedfor except by those who sacrifice themselves. On the otherhand, the outstanding crime o f m odem industrial cultures is



that they sacrifice men every day, not with any spiritual

intention, bu t only the sacrificer’s w orldly benefit. I canno t but

recall the story o f the cannibal who, hearing o f the great

slaughter that occurs in mo dern wars, asked if the bodies were

eaten, and being told that this was not done, exclaimed “then

for whatever reason are so many killed?”

AKC

To T H E N E W E N GL I S H W E E K L Y, L O N D O N

July 27, 1944

Sir:

I feel that there is not very much more to be said about art

and instinct. 1 am far from failing to recognize the perfection

that is achieved by instinctive operation, for example by bees,

w ho do better in their way than we often do in ours. T heir way

and ou r w ay shou ld be natural ways; and no t therefore the same

ways, for theirs is the nature o f bees, and ours tha t o f

humanity. Instincts are forces by which the bees are in a

manner compelled, and so with our own appetites and passions by which we are led to pursue im mediate ends, w hether for

good or evil. In hum an art ends are foreseen and means chosen;

the artist’s working is deliberate and, I repeat, with Plato, that

“one cannot give the name o f art to anything irrational.”

The whole matter has been admirably stated by Eric Gill,

who says:

T o p roduc e works o f art is natural to men, therefore wo rks

o f art are, in a sense, them selves natural objects. N ature, thenatural wo rld, we must suppose to be the product o f the fullydeliberate will o f God, therefore the natural w orld is itself a

w ork o f art. Bu t though , in this apparent confusion, the

definition o f nature remains obscure, the thing called art

emerges clearly. Art'is skill; and that is what it has always been and what it has always been said to be. But it is adeliberate skill; and a w ork o f art is the product o f vo luntary

acts directed tow ards making. Hence art is a virtue o f theintelligence— it is of the mind. De liberation and volition arcessential to the thing called Art. An involuntary act or an act



meaningless. I find it very much the reverse. For what are X

and —X? A ny or indefinitely all o f the opposite things o f wh ich

the world or any universe is necessarily made, or would not

have extension in time and space. As Cusa says, the wall of

Paradise itself is built o f these contraries; while the God within,

whom the mystics often call nihil or zero, is that in which allthese contraries really cancel out and are no longer contraries.

This does not mean that an indefinite num ber o f contraries

added up w ou ld make or fill the “na ug ht” H e is, or any naught;

it means that however many the contraries are, they are all

pote ntially alive in the plerom a which “ w hosoever findeth ,

findeth no-th ing and all things .” In other words, X —X = 0 is

not an impoverished or “abstract” but a pregnant statement.

For the same reasons in India the verbal designations o f themathematical or the metaphysical “naught” are also the

designations o f fullness that remains und iminished how ever

many may be the units that we abstract from It. It is these

singular “things”, in all their detail, that arc “abstracted from

It; not the Naught from them! To make them cancel out is to

return them to their source.

AKC


June 3, 1945

Sir:

A propos o f Imag ination, discussed by M r Williams in you r

issue o f M ay 10, I think it is too often overlooked that the w ord

itself is the equivalent o f Iconography. T o imagine is to fo rm an

image o f an idea, a thing in itself invisible; and this kind o f

“ im itation” is the proper w ork o f art, to be distinguished from

the studio practice o f m aking “ copies o f copies” . It presup poses, not observation, but contem pla tion. The em bodim ent

o f such concepts, fathered by Nous on Aisthesis in the actualmaterial o f sound or p igm ent, calls for know ledge and

precision, and that is where the Romantics so often fall short, by their exclusive reliance on feeling; it is true that mens sine

desiderio non intelligit, but also that sine intellectu non desiderat. He



who truly imagines docs not so much know what he likes as he

likes what he knows.

AKC

T o DR JOSE PH T . SHIPLEY

October 29, 1946

Dear Shipley:

The quotation is from Whitehead’s Religion in the M aking.

Herbert Read gives the context. Whitehead says:

In this way emotion waits upon ritual; and then ritual

repeated and elaborated for the sake o f its attendan t

emotions. Mankind became artists in ritual. It was a

tremendous discovery—how to excite emotions for their

own sake, apart from imperious biological necessity. But

emotions sensitize the organism. Thus the unintended effect

was pro duc ed o f sensitizing the hum an o rganism in a variety

o f ways diverse from w hat w ould have been produced by the

necessary w ork o f life. M ankind was started upon itsadventures o f curiosity and feeling.

This all seems to m e to be intended qu ite seriously, bu t to beas nearly complete nonsense as possible; thoroughly sen

timental.

It was thus, H erbert Read opines, that the arts came into their

own! I am sorry to have neglected La Driere. This is the first

year in my life that I haven’t done my duty by correspondents.

I simply haven’t been able t o ..........

With kindest regards from

AKC

D r Jos ep h T . Shipley, literatist and critic; see p 222.

Alfred N or th W hitehead, British-Am erican philosopher, very influential;

taug ht at H arvard U niversity in the Am erican phase of his career. As

mathematician, collaborated with Bertrand Russell on Principia Mathematica. H erb ert Read, critic, m useologist and teacher of art; had strong interest in

modern art. He was later knighted.



Jam es Craig La Driere; it was probably the academic of this name to w ho m

AKC referred; he taught comparative literature at Catholic University of

Am erica, W ashington, D. C . , USA .


March 13, 1941

Sir:

M r H erb ert Read “ refuses to succeed as an artist at the

expense o f his moral ity” (Jan 16, 1941, p 147). Bravo! This was

the basis o f Pla to’s famous “ censorship” ; and as Cicero said,

Cum artifex, turn vir. I should have thought that it had been

demonstrated once for all, by Plato (not to mention other

traditional forms o f the philosophia perenrtis), that if we are to

have “things fit for free men” made by art (and certainly many

things n ow made only for sale are unfit for the use of free men),

they must be both “correct”, “true” or “beautiful” and also

“useful” or “convenient” and arc only then “wholesome”. It

was said by William Morris, too, that we ought not to possess

anything not both beautiful and useful: and in fact all else iseither “b rutality” o r “ luxu ry” . Th e artist is the jud ge o f the

work’s truth, perfection or beauty, and being only concerned

with the goo d o f the w ork itself, will no t norm ally (as the

“manufacturer” or rather salesman may) offer the consumer

anything but a “ true” w ork o f art. The consumer, on the other

hand, requires the w ork for use, and is the jud ge o f its value for

good use. Arc wc no t all consum ers, and if so w hy shrink from

putt in g the artist in his ow n place, and from judging the w ork by its value? By employing an artist at all we take it for granted

that the work will be pulcher, and must dccidc for ourselveswhether or not it is aptus.

AKC



T o PROFESSOR BERNARD CHAPMAN HEYL

May 6, 1946

Dear Professor Heyl:

Apropos your N ew B E A R IN G S . . . , p 146, I should like to

say that I do no t judge a rt by its conten t, and have never said

that I did so. I made this very clear in my article on “ Intention”

in the American Bookman (no I) where I pointed out that a

morally reprehensible orator or writer might be a much better

orator or writer than some morally admirable man, or vice

versa as the case migh t be. I jud ge the w ork o f art as much by

whether the content is clearly expressed, ie, by the extent to

which conten t and shape are fused into a unity. W hat I jud ge bythe con tent is wh ether the w ork o f art is of any value for me,

physically or sp iritually— and if no t, then I have “no use for it” ,

even tho ugh I can recognize its “accom plishmen t” . If you

should ever reprint, I hope you will be kind enough to bring

your statement into line with my actual position.

As a C ura tor, it is my business to recognize works o f art that

are good o f their kind, whatever that may be; but as an

individual, there are some such that I would like to live with,others not. At the same time I think it very important for the

understanding o f ancient or exotic w orlds o f art not to presume

that their makers had aesthetic preoccupations such as are now

curren t, bu t to find out by various kinds o f research wh at they

were really up to; failing that, we fall into the pathetic fallacy.

Very sincerely,

Professor Bernard Ch apm an H eyl, au thor o f a book entitled New Bearings in

Aesthetics and Art Criticism: a Study in Semantics and Evaluation, New Haven,

1943. Also published in London the same year.

“Intention”, American Bookman, I.



T o PROFESSORS W. K. WIM SAI T AND M. C. BEARDSLEY

September 4, 1946

Dear Professors Wimsatt and Beardsley:

Many thanks for sending me your paper on Intention. I willonly say that I am only perfectly willing to agree that “the

poet’s aim (ie, in tention) m ust be judged at the m om ent o f the

creative act” and even that in a prolonged act, the intention and

the act move together; but while the contemporary intention

may differ from what he had planned a week earlier, it is still

most probable that his design a week or even much earlier, and

much longer before the act will be a good indication at least of

wha t the inten tion is likely to have been at the time o f action. Ifthe realisation o f intention at any p oint is adequate, the w ork is

so far artistically perfect.

I still see no artistic, but only moral, difference between the

successful murder and the successful poem.*

Very sincerely,

* This, too, is much too clliptical as it stands. Dr Coomaraswamy often usedthe wo rd art equivocally— at times in a vertical, p latonic and fully traditional

sense; at other times, he uses it in a horizontal sense meaning skill alone.

Aristotle, e.g., uses the word more in the latter sense and even then

distinguishes betw een artistic and m oral sin, for it suggests that beauty has

no thing to d o w ith virtue. Art, or prod uction by art, implies an intellectual

operation, a contemplative act—as AKC often asserted. Now intellect, as

distinct from reason, is concerned w ith pure truth; and as soon as one depa rts

from truth , o ne departs from intellect, w ith all this implies for art. N ot so

w ith reason w hich, like an algebraic formula, can be adapted to a lmost any

terms. Reason deals with relationships (as well as, indirectly, with truth),intellect w ith intrinsic natures and essences. T he intrinsic nature o f truth

cannot be separated from the kindred quality of beauty, w hich is the

splendo r o f the true. O ne can sin adroitly or m aladroitly, bu t me re finnesse

docs no t neutralize the evil— if any thing , it adds to it. S imilarly, a poem can

be th e p roduct o f li ttle m ore th an a facility w ith w ords. Beauty , a div in e

quality o r attribute, cannot characterize something evil, trivial or w ayw ard,

except in a wholly accidental sense. A murder cannot be a beautiful act if

words have any meaning.

Professor Monroe C. Beardsley and Professor Wilbun Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr.,

w ho exchanged correspondence with D r Coom araswamy on the notion of‘intention’ in literary criticism.



To ERIC GILL

June 1934

Dear Eric:

As to m y book, there is one error I regret, namely my use o fconsonantia, in which I made a mistake. Consonantia is with

reference to symmetry o f parts, that kind o f order in things which

Augustine regarded as, together with their unity, the most

evident trace o f God in the world. 1 hope to be able to correct

this in a later edition. I am working at more material from

Scholastic sources—Maritain’s book is really very insufficient

and Mediaeval aesthetic has yet to be demonstrated, starting

from the fundamental analogy between the divine artifices.This recognized analogy enables us to understand from

expositions o f “creation” and in connection w ith the magnificent doctrine o f exemplarism (which goes back to neo-

Platonic—not to say earlier sources) just what the mediaeval

authors understood by operation per artem. I hope that at the

same time that I collect this material to complete a long article

on Vedic exemplarism—and as I have often said before, there

can be no reason even from the most orthodox Christian pointo f view w hy the Christian philosopher should no t fortify his

positio n by use o f material draw n from pagan sources, which is

precisely w hat was done by the great doctors o f Chris tian

Europe long ago.

With regard to your other point, I think most likely the

secret o f a “balance between love and tho ug ht” centers, not in

not loving things, but in loving them not as they are in

themselves, but as they are more perfectly—bottoms

included—in God. Speculum aeternum mentes re videntium ducit in

cognitionem omnium creatorum, quod rectuis bi cognoscunt quam alili

(Augustine). God is understood to know things not by their

private essences, but by their forms (ideas), and it is preciselythese form s tha t we oug ht to try to see and to imitate in our art,

which is or ought to be an angelic communication.

N ow I w ant to see if you can help me as follows: find ayou ng man o f the proper education w ho w ants to earn a few

pounds to make a transla tion for me o f Aquinas’ Opusculum de pulchro et bono w hich is a part o f his com mentary on D ionysius’ De divinis nominibus; and perhaps also Aquinas’ Opusculum de



ente et essentia. My Latin I am polishing up, but it is still

laborious, and I w ou ld like a dra ug ht version at least o f the De

pulchro. I have in view the m aking o f furthe r articles on

Scholastic aesthetic and insist that the study o f mediaeval art in

our universities is mostly play until the fundamental positions

are considered.

With this request, I remain ever cordially,

Eric G ill, see p 82.

Jacques Maritain, m ost prom inent of the Neo -Th om ist philosophers and a

prolific w rite r; a convert to Cath oli cism alo ng w ith his wife, he was wid ely

respected throughout the Catholic world.

‘Vedic Exemplarism’, originally published in the Harvard Journal o f Asiatic

Studies, I, 1936; republished in Coomaraswamy: Selected Papers, II, Bollingen

Scries LXXXIX, Princeton, 1977.

To ERIC GILL

May 23, 1939

My dear Eric:

This is a sho rt no te in reply to yo urs o f M ay 5. I’ve been

away from the Museum for 3 weeks but expect to get back

soon th o ’ I shall have lost a month: I got a facial cram p, due to a

chill they say, and one consequence is a w atering o f the eyesthat prevents reading with any comfort. However, I expect to

be pretty near well by next week.

M airet did speak o f asking you to w rite on m y s tuff and Ishou ld have liked that. If Father Vann docs it, he should be lent

also the Zalm oxis article, the Vedanta article and Eckstein,

which I had no t sent to M airet. I’m glad you like the “ B iun ity” ;

I thought I had sent you one and will do so next week. It was

approved by Bowen who is a Professor at Catholic Universityhere. My lecture at this university, will be printed as a Stephens pam phle t at the same time as yours. Yes, as som eone has

remarked, Plato could not broadcast his stuff; but on the other

hand, could we have written it? It is a question whether thisabsorption and preoccupation with means is not pretty dangerous. T he South Sea Islanders did their carving w ith very simple



tools o f stone and shell; wh en they w ere given goo d steel tools

their craftsmanship went to pieces.

Th e chief new idea expressed in m y lecture to be printed, I

think is that merely functional art equates with “bread

alone. . . . , husks that the swine did eat”—a “good”, ofcourse, but an insufficient good for man.

Affectionately,

Eric Gill, as above.

Philip M airet, English friend o f AK C and editor of the N ew English Weekly,

London, to which AKC frequently contributed.

Father Gerald Vann , O P, see p 105.

T o MISS HILLA REBAY

August 29, 1947

Dear Miss Rebay:

M any thanks for yours o f August 16. It is rather a shame if

after 30 years o f Curato rship in the Museum o f Fine Arts (apartfrom previous experience) I have “no opportunity to see

creative art”!

N o one is m ore aware than I that “ the realities o f our

existence are non-objective”. This has always been the tradi

tional doctrine; and I have cited so much in my books (Why

Exhib it Works o f A r t ? and Figures o f Speech or Figures o f Thought

regarding its application to art that I shall only refer here to

Plato, Rep 510 D, E; Laws 931 A; Tim 51 E, 92; and the wellknown passage on mathematical beauty in Philebus, all to the

effect that w ha t true art “ im itates” is never itself a visible form.

Bu t this does no t m ean that the wo rk o f art was to be looked

upon merely as an aesthetic surface, provo cative o f feelings; it

had to satisfy both mind and body. Some of the m odernabstract works are, no doubt, “pleasing”; but that is not

enough for a wh ole man, who is some thing m ore than a merely“aesthetic” animal. As for your words “still catering only to

the senses”, that is ju st what the m odern emphasis on “ aestheticsurfaces” as ends in themselves implies; such catering is precisely w hat mediaeval art has never done* nor religious art



o f any school except in Hellenistic and modern times, when it

becomes sentimenta l, like the rest o f modern art. The w ord

“aesthetic” by definition has only to do with things perceptible

to the sense.

As for why Dr Marquette mentioned my name to you, the

enclosed may explain; it need not be returned, as it has already been set up, and will appear in my 70th bir thday Festschrift , A rt

and Thought, to be published by Luzac this year.

The reproductions you kindly sent me 1gave to our library,

where they will be available to all students.

Very sincerely,

* See, for example, Irish and Romanesque art generally; or reproductions in

the Wiesbaden M ss, illustrating St Hildeg arde ’s (12th century) visions. W hat

you would probably dislike in these works is that they have a meaning. In as

much as modern man is typically anti-intellectual, it is not surprising that

appreciations o f m od ern art such as those in the ‘Ho stess R ep orts’ can be

collected. I send you separately a reprint in which the two coloured

reproductions might please you were it not for the fact that they, too, are

‘about something’. (AKC’s note)

Miss Hilla Rebay, Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation.

Why Exh ibit Works of Art?, London, 1943. See Bibliography.

Figures o f Speech or Figures of Thought, London, 1946. See Bibliography. A rt and Thought, London, 1947; this was the Festschrift to which AKC

referred.

T o MR L. HARRISON

December 17, 1946

Dear Mr Harrison:

Many thanks for your very kind letter which I read with

pleasure. First let me say you will find some more material in

Figures o f Speech or Figures of Thought . . . and some on danceand music in The Mirror of Gesture . . . ; a chapter on music inm y Dance o f Shiva (o p); and on the representations o f (the ethosof) musical modes in my Rajput Painting (Oxford, 1914) or thisMuseum’s Catalog o f the Indian Collections, Vol V. M arco Pallis’Peaks and Lamas (Am ed at present o p) gives a very valuablediscussion o f the relation o f the arts to society as a whole ( in



Tib et, bu t typical for any traditional society); cf also the chap,

“Notes on Savage Art” in my Figures o f Speech . . .

I think the po int to be rem arked is that ju st as we have

isolated painting as something to be seen in Galleries, so we

have isolated music as something to be heard in Halls; whereas

it was in all traditional societies bound up with all the activitieso f life (as it still is in India). For this relation o f music, drama

and poetry to life as a whole, see in Beryl de Zoete and Walter

Spies, Dance Drama in Bali (a w ond erful book), Co lin McPh ee’s

A House in Bali. . and perhaps also m y “ Bugbea r o f Literacy”

in Asia M agazine for February 1944; also Astrov, The Winged

Serpent. . ., p 33 and passim. For India, also Fox Strangeways,

Music o f Hindustan, Oxford, 1914; and Danielou, Introduction to

the Study o f Musical Scales, London, 1943; Kurt Sachs, History o f Music, East and West. But these last you doubtless already

know. I believe the New York Public Library is rather

specialized in musical literature o f these kinds. It wo uld be

impossible for m e ju st no w to think o f w riting ab out music,

because o f all the other w ork I am involved in, but w hy don’t

you do it yourself, using som e o f the material to be found in all

sources?

For the principle o f vocation generally, I might perhaps have

also mentioned my Religious Basis o f the Forms o f Indian

Society. . . New York, 1946.

Let me k no w if this helps, and if you wish w rite again.

Very sincerely,

M r L. H arrison, The New York Herald Tribune.

Figures o f Speech or Figures o f Thought, AKC, London, 1946; see Bibliogra-

p h y .The Mirror of Gesture, AKC and Gopal Kristnayya Duggirala, Cambridge,

Massachusetts, 1917; see Bibliography.

Dance o f Shiva, AKC, numerous editions, see Bibliography.

Rajput Painting, AKC, Oxford, 1914; see Bibliography.

Marco Pallis, Peaks and Lamas, numerous editions; see Bibliography.

Beryl de Zoete and Walter Spies, Dance and Drama in Bali, London, 1938.

Colin McPhee, A House in Bali, New York, 1946.

Margot Lusia Thcrese (Kroger) Askrov, The Winged Serpent: an Anthology o f

American Indian Prose and Poetry, New York, 1946.

Alain Danieou, Introduction to the Study o f Musical Scales, London, 1943.Kurt (or Curt) Sachs: Dr Coomaraswamy was apparcHtly confused as to the

title referred to here, for Dr Sachs is not credited with such a book in the



prin cip al bibliographic so urc es. He was a G erm an-A m crican m usic olo gis t

wh o w rote and published a numb er o f books on the history o f music.

The Religious Basis o f the Forms o f Indian Society, AKC, New York, 1946; see

Biliography.

‘Th e Bug bear o f Literacy’, Asia Magazine, February 1944. This was also the

title essay in a collection published und er this title in L ondo n in 1949, an d in

the U nited States und er the title Am I M y Brother's Keeper ?, New York, 1947.

To MRS W. Q. SWART

March 15, 1933

Dear Madam:

Th ere exists o f course a vast literature on Indian art. We havehere wha t is on the whole the best collection o f Indian paintings

in the world*, and certainly the best general Indian collections

and working library in America. I think it would be essential

for you to spend a short time here before actually going to

India. In the meantime I would suggest your looking up my

article on “T he T eaching o f D raw ing in Cey lon” in the Ceylon

National Review for December 1906; Tagore, L ’Alpone, Paris,

1921; m y “ Introduction to the A rt o f Eastern Assi”, Open Court Magazine, March 1932; and articles on Indian art in the

'Encyclopaedia Britannica. Also such magazines as Rupam, nos

1-40, and the Journal o f Indian Art. Also, Hadaway, Illustrations

o f Metal Work in Brass and Copper. . . .

We have no modern Indian paintings here. They are

analogous to “Pre-Raphaelite” art in Europe; more significantas represen ting a revolution o f taste and ou tlook tha n as

everlasting w orks o f art, thou gh they have great charm andsensitiveness.

Yo u w ou ld also find m uch m aterial in m y Mediaeval Sinhalese

Art, 1908. For the rest I can only suggest you spend a few days

here. I should be glad to assist you.

Very sincerely,

*It is worth noting that Dr Coomaraswamy’s own collection, amassed

du ring the early years o f his career when he was in India, form ed the basis o foutstanding holdings o f the Boston M useum. When it became apparent that

no satisfactory arrangements could be made to house the Coomaraswamy



collection in India, A KC bro ug ht them ou t o f the cou ntry w ith him and

eventually to the United States.

Mrs W. Q. Swart, New York, N Y, was a student at Columbia University

School o f A rt and w as thinking o f going to India to teach art in a secondary

school.

William S. Hadaway, Illustrations o f Metal Work in Brass and Copper, Madras,

1913.

Mediaeval Sinhalese A rt was AKC’s first major book and was printed under

his personal supervision at Essex House Press, Norman Chapel, Broad

Campden, Gloucestershire, England between September 1907 and Decem

ber 1908. A second edit io n was published by Panth eon Books, N ew York ,

1956.

T o GEORGE SARTON

Date uncertain

Dear Sarton:

Th ere are three im po rtant pieces of Islamic glass in the

M useum o f Fine Arts. The lamp o f Karim al-Din, w ho retired

in 723 AH (= 1323); and published in Gaston Wiet, Musee

Arabe, le Caire Catalogue general . . . lampes et bouteilles en verre

emaille, M useum o f Fine Arts Bulletin, January 1928, and with arevised translation o f the inscriptions in the 1940 edition o f the

MFA Handbook. The glass globe was made for Saif al-din

A rghun al-‘A la’i, w ho died in 748 AH (= 1347-8). It has been

published by M ayer, Saracenic Heraldry, p 74; and also in MFA

Bulletin for August 1912 and in Eastern Art, Vol II, p 245. A

glass bottle bears no inscription.

There are over 300 im po rtan t pieces o f enamelled glass

known. Wiet in his catalogue (1929) has published 118 glassobjects and the majority o f them arc lamps, o f which 87 can be

dated by their inscriptions (see his Introduction). There arc 19

in the M etropolitan M useu m o f Art, a collection second only to

the Cairo Museum.

AKC

George Sarton, see page 13.



To ROBIN FIELD

Date uncertain

My dear Robin:

To have a background for European art before 1300 and away o f understanding what happend after that, I think one

should have read:

Plato, Republic , Gorgias, Cartylus, Symposium Plotinus,

McKenna’s 5 vol version

Hermes, at least Asclepius I in Scott’s Hermetica Dionysius,

translation published by SPCK

Svoboda, L ’Esthetique de Sain t Augustin

Augustine, Confessions and De Doctrina Christiana

St Th om as Aquinas, at least the first volum e o f the translationSumma Theologica

Meister Eckhart, 2 volumes translated by Pfeiffer [actually C de

B Evans], London, 1924 and 1931

Longinus, On the Sublime

Also, o f course, some o f Aristotle, though you get this

implicitly in St Thomas.Books about the subject, I suggest:

F. M. Lund, A d Quadratum, London, 1921

M. C. Ghyka, Le Nombre d’or, Gallimard, Paris, 1931

Albert Gleizes, Vers une conscience plastique, Paris

J. M. Bissen, L ’Exemplarisme divin selon Sain t Bonaventure,

Librairie Philosophique, Paris, 1929

Rene Guenon, “Mythcs, mysteres et symboles” in Etudes

Traditionnelles, Paris, Vol 40, 1935AKC , “ Th e Part o f Art in Indian Life” , in The Cultural Heritage

of India, vol III, 1937

“Mediaeval Aesthetic”, A rt Bulletin, New York, XVII

Spinden, in Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, October 1935

Baldwin, Mediaeval Rhetoric and Poetic

Buchier, L ’A rt chretien

AK C, “T he N ature o f Buddhist A rt” [this was A K C ’s

Introd uction to a collection o f Indian and Ceylonese wall pain tings by Benjamin Rowland, Jr, ag v]



You might read first, in the first group, Eckhart; and [first] inthe second group, Guenon, Spinden and Lund.

1 hope this will be o f some help. D rop in again.

Very sincerely,

Robin Field w as a m em ber o f the faculty o f fine arts at Harvard University,


We will no t fu rthe r identify m ost o f these tides, as sufficient inform ation is

provided fo r th e serious reader, except to note that P lo tinus’ Enneads are now

available in a one volume edition (same translation); there have been

additional translations o f Dionysius in w hole or in part; there have been

m ore recent editions an d/o r translations o f Eckhart, Le Nombre d’or, and

Walter Scott’s Hermetica (1985). “Mythes, mysteres et symboles” by Rene

Guenon appeared also as a chapter in his Apergus sur I’initiation (Paris, 1946,1975).

To D R K W A N G - W A N K IM

April 26, 1947

Dear Dr Kim:

It would take a very long letter to answer yours fully; it is a

pity we cannot meet. I th ink it is im portant to im press on

students that one can’t have a “single volume” that will tell

them all they need to know. However, for China I would

recommend E. R. Hughes, Chinese Philosophy in Classical Times

(Everym ans Library), and Rene Guenon, La Grande Triade (this

last being an exegesis o f the implications o f the character ^ ).

For India I would recommend Rene Guenon, Introduction to the

Stud y o f the H indu Doctrines (London, 1945), and my Hinduism

and Buddhism (New York, 1943); Zimmer’s M yths and Sym bols

in Indian Art and Civilization (1946, New York) and Nikhila-

nanda, The Gospel o f Sri Ramakrishna (1942, New York); and

(for Tibetan Buddh ism) Marco Pallis’ Peaks and Lamas (of

which there are four English editions and one US). All these I

shou ld call indispensable. For Islam, all the works o f R. A. N ic holson, especially Studies in Islamic Mysticism (Cambridge,

England, 1921), D iw an o f Shams-i-Tabriz (1898), and histranslation of the M athnawi o f Jalalu’d-d-D in Rum i (GibbM em orial Series); Frith jof Schuon, “ Ch ristianity and Islam” in



The Arab World (Vol I, N o 3, N ew York, 1946); Margaret

Smith, A l-G ha zza li (London, 1921); Gairdner, Al-Ghazzali’s

M ishkat al-Anwar (London, 1924); Fitzgerald, Salaman and Absal

and Bird Parliament (Boston, 1899, or in his Collected Works);

Demetra Vaka, Heremlik (Boston, 1911); and for the Q u ’ran,

the translation by Marmaduke Picthall. For Buddhism, you

might use F. L. Woodward, Some Sayings o f the Buddha (World

Classics). Hare, Woven Cadences (Pali Text Society).

For India I ought to have mentioned also, Temple, The Word

o f Lalla the Prophetess (1924) and Dara Shikuh’s M ajm ’l Bahrein

(Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1929): these especially for Islam

in relation to Hinduism.

O f m y ow n w ritings, also “Recollection, Indian and

Platonic”, (Journal o f the American Oriental Society, Supplement3, 1944); A m I my Brother’s Keeper ? (New York, 1947; material

on “one philosophy”); my chapter in The Asian Legacy (New

York, 1945); “On Being in One’s Right Mind” in Review o f

Religion, VII, 1942, also, Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power

in the Indian Theory o f Government [New Haven, 1942].

All such books and others, as you doubtless know, are most

easily obtained from Orientalia (47 West 47th St, N Y).

I regard the book o f N orth rup as fundamentally unsound,though good in some parts. His distinctions are artificial; the

so-called aesthetic approach (eg, in such expressions as “grasp

ing reality”) is a linguistic necessity, equally in E and W, and not

a characteristic o f either. N o r do I think that Georgia O ’Keefe

throws any light on the subject! The main point, however, [is]

that he does not realize that his “ differences” between E and W

have no thing to do w ith geography, bu t with time; they are the

same as the differences between the modern world and themediaeval and ancient worlds in the West itself.

This leads me to one last remark. Viz, that one cannot

effectively communicate Eastern religion and philosophy to

people here w ho haven’t already grasped som e religious andmetaphysical principles; in other words, to most Americans

(Christians so-called included). Hence you have a right todem and o f your students that as a condition o f admission to the

course they must have some acquaintance with Greek philoso

phy (especially Pythagorean, which is practically th e same asVedanta). All that means one should have studied the pre-Socratics, Plato, Philo, Plotinus, Dionysius, Bonaventura,



Aquinas, The Cloud of Unknowing, Nicholas o f Cusa, etc, etc,

before attem pting to understand the East. Y ou m ight as well tell

you r students this, as a counsel o f perfection.

Let me know how you get on with your course.

Very sincerely,

D r K w ang-W an Kim had been appointed to a teaching position at Simpson

College, Indianola, Iowa, USA, and had written to AKC requesting a single

book or a b ibli ography to be use d in a course on Philosophy and Religion.

T o J O H N O S M A N

June 25, 1947

Dear Mr Osman:

I most certainly apologize for having neglected to send any

kind o f bibliography . Even no w I cannot pretend to send you a

complete guide, but I will list some essential books for India,

and later ask you to let me know whether you mean also

Islamic and Persian material.T he basic epitom e o f Indian religion and philosophy is, o f

course, the Bhagavad Gita; there are many, but no perfect

translations; I prefer on the whole the one by Bhagavan Das

and Mrs [Annie] Bcsant. For the Upanishads, Hume, The

Thirteen Principal Upanishads (Oxford) has its uses, but it is notalways accurate, and the Introduction hardly acceptable from

the H indu po int o f view; I prefer the freer bu t m ore

understanding version by the Rev W. R. Teape, in his The

Secret Lore o f India. For the Brahmanas and Aranyakas, for

which I have the highest respect, the following are good:

Eggeling’s Satapatha Br (5 vols in SBE; Kieth, Rigveda

Brahmanas (Harvard Oriental Series, vol 25) and Aitareya

Aranyaka (Oxford) and Sankhayana Aranyaka (Royal Asiatic

Society, Oriental Translation Fund, RAS, London) and Oertel,

Jatm in iya Upanishad Brahmana (in Journal o f the A merican

Oriental Society, 16) and Caland, Pancavimsa Brahmana (Cal

cutta, 1931) are all pretty good. All these sources at least should be in your library as well as m y Hinduism and Buddhism

(Philosophical Library, N. Y., 1943).



For a general introduction to the East and its problems I

know nothing equal to Marco Pallis, Peaks and Lamas;

N ik hilananda’s Th e Gospel o f Sri Ramakrishna (B. Y., Vedanta

Centre) a classic, nearly in the same class as Zimmer, Der Weg

zum Selbst (Rascher Verlag, Zurich) dealing with the still living

Sri Ramana Maharsi.

For Indian sociology, Bhagavan Das, The Science of Social

Organization-, Bharatan Kumarappa, Capitalism, Socialism or

Villagism (Shakti Karyalayam, Madras), my Religious Basis o f

the Forms o f Indian Society (Orientalia, N. Y.) and A. M.

Hocart, Les Castes (Paris). For Buddhism, Dhammapada (Pali

Text Soc, “Minor Anthologies”, 1931), Hare, Woven Ca

dences. . . . Saddharma Pundarika (SBE Vol XVI), Suzuki, Essays

in Zen Buddhism (Luzac, London).Hinduism further: G. U. Pope, Tiruvacagam (Oxford, 1900);

R. C. Temple, Th e Word of Lalla (Cambridge, England 1924);

[Rabindranath] Tagore, On e Hundred Poems o f Kabir (N. B.:

Tagore’s own writings are not very important); [Arthur]

Avalon (= [Sir John] Woodroffe) Shakti and Shakta(and his

other w orks published by Luzac, London [and later by Ganesh,

Madras]. General: Th e Cultural Heritage o f India (3 vols) [now 4

volumes]; Legacy o f India and Legacy o f Islam (both Oxford).Drama, music, etc: Fox-Strangways, Music o f Hindustan

(Oxford); AKC and Duggirala, Mirror o f Gesture (Weyhe,

N .Y .); AKC, Chap 8 in Asian Legacy (John Day, N. Y.); Kieth,

Sanskrit Drama (Oxford); De Zoet and Spies, Dance Drama in

Bali (N. Y., very good)-, AKC, “Indian Dramatic Theory” (in

Dictionary o f World Literature); Danielou, Introduction to Indian

Scales (Royal India Society, London).

I would emphasize the difficulty for any student to understand Eastern cu lture unless he has a backgrou nd o f kno wledgeof the traditional philosophy and culture of Europe—prc-

Socratics, Plato, Philo, Hermes, Gospels, Plotinus, Dionysius,

Bonaventura, St Thomas, Eckhart, Ruysbroeck, Bochme.

Add the works o f Rene Guenon (see in m y A m I M y Brother’s

Keeper ?)Also o f great use w ould be P ro f B R ow land’s Outline and

Bibliographies o f Indian A rt (Harvard); very fine is Stella

Kramrich, The Hindu Temple (1946, Calcutta); on Yoga,Woods, Yoga System o f Patanjali (Harvard Oriental Series, Vol17); Danielou, Yoga: Method of Re-integration (University



intellectus vel spirits) that, just because it is disinterested, can

judge o f th e extent to which an appetite (instinct) should be

indulged, if the subject’s real good, and no t merely immediate

pleasure , is to be served.

So, then Hermes (Lib xii. 1.2 -4) points ou t that “ in the

irrational animals, mind co-operates with the natural-instinct proper to each kind; but in men, M ind w orks against the

natural-instincts. . . . So that those souls o f which M ind takes

com m and are illuminated by its light, and it works against their

presum ptio ns. . . . But those hum an souls which have not got

M ind to guide them are in the same case as the souls o f the

irrational animals; in which mind co-operates (with the

appetites), and gives free course to their desires; and such souls

are sw ept along by the rush o f appetite to the gratification o ftheir desires . . . and are insatiable in their craving.” From the

same po int o f view, for Plato, the man w ho is governed by his

impu lses is “subject to him se lf’, while he who governs them is

“his own master” (Laws, 645; Rep. 431, etc).

Th e instinctive appetites o f wild animals and o f men w hose

lives are lived naturally (ie, in accordance with human nature)

are usually healthy; one m ay say tha t natural selection has taken

the place o f M ind in setting a limit to the gratification o f theseappetites. B ut the appetites o f civilized men are no longer

reliable; the natural controls have been eliminated (by the

“co nquest o f N atu re” ); and the appetites, exacerbated by the

arts o f advertisement, am oun t to unlimited wants, to w hich

only the disinterested Mind can set reasonable bounds.

Mr Romney Green is only able to defend the instincts (1) by

forgetting that these are really appetites or wants and (2)

because he is really thin king o f those desires o f which his M in d

does, in fact, approve. Captain Ludovici, on the other hand, isentirely righ t in saying tha t our instincts must be regulated by a

high er principle. If w e are to trust ou r instincts, let us be sure

that they are no t ju st any instincts, but only those that are proper to M an, in th e highest sense o f the word.

I was m uch interested in M r N icho l’s review o f W aley’stranslation, M onkev. He is very right in saying that it ischaracteristic o f this kind o f literature to “ give the deepest

significance in the most economical everyday form”; that is, infact, one o f the essential values o f all adequate sym bolism.Where, however, he is mistaken is in calling such a work “a



mother, and call a “superstition” as it is indeed in the primary

sense o f the w ord and qua “tradition”, “that which has been

handed on.” Strzygowski wrote “He (ie, the undersigned) is

altogether right when he says, ‘The peasant may be unconscious and unaware, bu t that o f which he is unconscious and

unaware is in itself far superior to the empirical science andrealistic art of the ‘educated man’, whose real ignorance is

demonstrated by the fact that he studies and compares the data

o f folklore and ‘m ytholo gy ’ w ithou t any m ore than the most

ignorant peasant suspecting their real significance.’ ” (J ISOA

V, 59)

The truth is that the modern mind, hardened by its constant

consideration o f “ the Bible as literature” (I prefer St Augus

tine’s estimate, expressed in the words “O axe, hewing therock ”), could, if it wo uld make the necessary intellectual effort,

turn to our mythology and folk-lore and find there, for

exam ple in the heroic rescues o f maidens from dragons o r in

(what is the same thing) the disenchantm ent o f dragons by a

kiss (since our own sensitive souls are the dragon, from which

the Spirit is ou r Saviour), the w hole story o f the plan o f

redemption and its operation.

Although the above communication is not strictly a letter, but rather an

invited one page editorial in the N ew English Weekly, it is included because it

com plem ents the correspondence A KC had with this journal.

T o LORD RAGLAN

July 14, 1938

Dear Lord Raglan:

Very many thanks for your letter. Most likely you cannot

agree with my (traditional) point o f view according to whichthe ritual action is a mimesis, repitition and continuation of“what was done in the beginning” (explicit statements to thiseffect can be cited at least as far back as the Satapatha Brahmana,

about the 8th ccntury BC). We arc nevertheless in fullagreement that “the myth-tellcr is dealing with actions andsym bols already know n to h im .” It is these same actions that



arc equally imitated in ritual. 1do n ot accept a “m yth m akcr” in

the mo dern sense o f “a utho r” . The m yth is transmitted

deliberately, and thus “the actions arc already known to the

myth-tcllcr”, and the only question that can arise here is

“whether he understands his material”; by the time myth has

become romance, o r cuhcmcriscd, this becomes m ore andmore doubtful. How then was the Urmythos first known?

Contemplatively; the actus primus being always a contempla

tion, after which the artist embodies the vision in material

(colour, sound, gestures, etc).

My position is philosophically “realistic”. That which is

told, or rather referred to (the ultimate content being strictly

inexpressible, though it can be experienced), is a reality apart

from tim e, “ seen” or “ heard” contemplatively (or as if in adream) by the so-called “myth-makcr” (there is an old Indian

story o f a sage w ho failed to reach heaven ju st bccausc he

claimed autho rship in w hat h ad as a m atter o f fact been revealed

to him). This reality is expounded and outlined in the narrative

myth or ritual. It remains for the contemporary auditor to

becom e aw are o f it as a living experience, and not a m atter o f

literary art alone, again contemplatively. This all implies a

prim ordia l revela tion, or rather audition; which may be dated back , perhaps, to the Aurignacian.

Certainly, I do not believe that human sacrifice “originated

in the imagination o f some story -teller” , using all these w ords

in all their modern connotations. Traditionally, the creation of

the w orld, w hethe r tho ug ht o f as a past or as a continuous

event, is essentially a “human sacrifice”—the cosmic aspect of

D eity being the “ Un iversal M an” , and creation a subdivision o f

this unity . Th is division is at the same time a vo lun tary sacrifice

(“ dividing H imself, He fills these w or lds” ) and a passion (“ intohow many parts did they, the first sacrificers, or creators,

divide H im ?” ). It is strictly in im itation o f this subdivision that

the bread is broken in the Christian sacrifice.

The treatm en t o f the m yths as historical is always a quite late

and cuhcmcristic procedure. The veritable crucifixion, forexam ple, is a cosmic extension o f the Cross o f Light. Th ere has been a contin uous transmission, not only publically o f the

myth qua narrative, but also in its real significances. Thedistinction is constantly made in Indian ritual books betweenthose who merely participate in a rite, and those who



understand it; the former may receive temporal benefits, thelatter only spiritual.

These points o f view are probably quite unacceptable to you.

But if they interest you at all, I do suggest your look ing at Rene

Guenon, “Le Rite ct le Symbole”, and “Mysteres ct Symboles”

in Le Voile d ’Isis, 40, 1935; and Frith jof Schuon, “ D u Sacrifice”

in Etudes Traditiomelles (new name o f same magazine), April

1938.

Very sincerely,

PS: You say “the human body must come before the statue”; 1

am think ing (in Platonic fashion, if you like) o f the forma

humanitatis prior to either.

Lord Raglan; Fitzroy Richard Somerset, IV Baron Raglan, was educated to

be a profe ssional sold ie r an d did se rve as such but re signed his com m issio n

when his father died and he succeeded to the title. An anthropologist by

interest and com petence tho ugh no t by formal training, his best kno w n book

was The Hero (London, 1936), in which he argued (in a classical non sequitur)

that the great eponymous heroes never existed but were derived from ritual

and drama to provide solace to men by giving some meaning to life. Thereare certain wholly external similarities between these views put forward by

Lord Raglan and those o f D r Coo m araswam y who, on occasion, expressed

doubts whether Buddhism and Christianity, eg, were historically true, or

w hether Jesus Ch rist and the B uddha ever existed. Actually, AK C believed

that Jesus C hrist and the B uddha and the religions they founded are so

suprem ely tru e m etaphysically that the question o f their historicity is o f little

importance. We know, however, that AKC for a certainty held the doctrine

that any and ev ery possibility o f man ifestation necessarily involves an

historical eventuation at its proper “cosmic moment”—“that it might be

fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets”, to use the Biblical idiom. Allthis, along with the letter itself, should be quite enough to show that any

similarity between the views put forward by Lord Raglan and those held by

Dr Coomaraswamy was no more than accidental and purely external, and

that A KC was him self definitely “on the side of the angels” . Lord Raglan’s

book, how ever, had the undoubte d m eri t o f poin ting out th e elements th at

are com m on in the histories o f Solar Heroes. See the letters on m yth that

follow.



T o O. H. dc A. WIJESEKERA

Date uncertain

Dear Dr Wijcsckcra:

M any thanks for yours of N ovem ber 26. R egarding Buddhist Yakkha: I regard this term, where treated in conncction with

yakkhassa suddhi as = sappuriso and the atta hi attano natha, ie, as

what remains a reality when all that tie me so atta has been

eliminated.

Your p rogram for a book o f “ vitalism” is very interesting,

and covers a great deal of grou nd on w hich I have worked for

many years. I am only a little doubtful whether you have a clear

grasp o f the real nature of “ m yth ” . I wo uld hardly think o fmyths as “biological”, rather as metaphysical. We arc easily

misled by their terms, wh ich arc necessarily those o f experi

ence, employed analogically. For example, the whole problem

o f solar m yths cannot be treated intelligently unless we realize

the distinction o f “ the sun w hom all men see” from “ the Sun

whom few know with the mind” (AV), in Greek the

distinction o f Helios from Apollo. I am sending you a few papers

in which I have discussed the nature o f myths in conncction

w ith the study o f particular eases. I w ould add tha t whole

subject of pram pertains to a traditional psychology which is

anything but exclusively Indian; and also that duo sunt in homine

may be callcd one o f the m ost fundam ental axioms o f theuniversal and perennial philosophy wherever we find it, in

China, India, Grcccc or Mediaeval Europe. I do not and cannot

believe in an “evolutio n” o f metaphysics.

Very sincerely,

Dr O. H. de A. Wijesekera was lecturer in Sanskrit at the University of

Ceylon, Kandy.


June 17, 1941

Sir:

Apropo s o f M r Fcrrie’s letter on Religion, T heo logy and



M yth, in you r issue o f May 22, may I remark that a m yth is

either true or worthless? From the Christian or any other

traditional po int o f view, the proposition credo quia incredible is

ridiculous. “ The natu re o f faith . . . consists in know ledge

alone” (St Thomas Aquinas, Sum Theol II-II.47.13 ad 2). Crede

ut intelligas, intellige ut credas arc inseparable operations. Super

natural no more means unnatural that super-essential meansnon-essential.

I can and do believe in the myth far more profoundly than in

any historical event which may or may not have taken place. 1

do n ot disbelieve in what are called miracles; on the other hand,

m y “ faith” w ould remain the same even if it could be proved

that the events of the hero-tale never took place as related.

“ H isto ry” is the least convincing level o f truth, the myth andthe (genuine) fairy talc the most convincing. As Evola has put

it, “ the passage from a traditional m yth olog y to a ‘relig ion ’ is a

humanistic decadence.”

At the same time it must be remembered that even the myth

is a sym bol, a representation (“as in a glass darkly ”) o f the

reality that underlies all fact bu t never itself becom es a fact.

Hence the via negativa to be followed when the ascent from

low er to higher levels o f reference has been m ade by themythical via ajfirmativa. “ N oth ing true can be said o f G od ” ; it is

only in this sense that the myth, although truer than any fact, is

finally “not true” . T he m yth is the highest form o f truth that

can be grasped by an intellect thinking in terms o f subject and

object; only when this duality has been overcome, so that thereis no lon ger any distinction o f kno w ing from being, can there

be an im m ediate knowledge o f reality.

Jacqucs Evola, Rivolto Contro il Mondo Modemo, Milan, 1934; sec also later

editions


N ovem ber 20, 1941

Sir:

Those o f yo ur readers w ho have followed the discussion



on “ M yth ” in m y ow n and other recent correspondence will be

deeply interested in a book entitled Das Verlorene Paradies, by

Ed gar Daque , M unich , 1941, i f it is accessible. I have no t been

able to see this work yet, but it is reviewed as follows in the Fall

number of Philosophical Abstracts:

Man does not originate from the animal. He represents his

ow n and distinct archaic form o f organic nature. This hum an

archetype never developed otherwise than [by] branching

out in different human societies [ie, subspecies] which

potentially take Ipart in a supernatu ral sphere o f reality. The

archetype itse lf could never appear visibly in physical explicit

nature and still less could it develop from a lower stage to a

higher, because already in the ‘natu re o f the bey on d’, in theworld of ‘first prototypes’ it constitutes a spontaneous

totality. Th is form ation o f the beyo nd, this metaphysical

w or ld is the ‘paradise’. The knowledg e o f it is carried by the

m yth. The m yth is the deepest knowledge that m an has until

to-day. (P. L. Krieger)

Assum ing that by ‘m an’ the author m eans the forma humanitatis quae nunguam

peril, and not ‘this man’, this is in complete agreement with what I haveintend ed to sug gest. . . . O u r tro ub le is that, like Bo ethius, w e have

‘forgotten who we are.’


N ovem ber 5, 1942

Sir:

M r Ross N ichols asks how the M yth “ can at all acceptably be

conveyed outside o f a limited ring o f literary sym pathizers.”

Here the w ord “ literary” is significant; for our literary wo rld is,for the most part, coincident with what Professor Iredell

Jenkins has so well term ed the mo dern “ w orld o f impov erished

reality” . The M yth was once the treasured possession o f the

whole people, whether “illiterate” or literate, and this stillholds g ood in a large part of the East; in Europe, how ever,

where men have been “educated”, it survives only precariouslyin folk-lore and fairy-tale, and is a dead museum specimen inliterary circles, more concerned with human personalities and



self-expression than with Gods and Heroes. Living experience

o f m ythic tru th can be destroyed very quickly by public school

or college education.

Th e answ er to M r N icho l’s question lies, then, in our

“ aesthetics” and in ou r exaggerated valuation o f “ literature”alm ost w itho ut reference to its content; ju st as we pride

ourselves up on ou r indifference to the theme o f a painting, if

we can admire it for other reasons. In othe r word s, we are quite

willing to go w ithou t ou r dinner, if only we can be charm ed by

the sw eet m usic o f the d inner bell, ie, the aesthetic surfaces that

sum m on us to consider their theme. O ur hedonistic conception

o f “literatu re” has com e to serve us as a sort o f shell to defend

us from the truth o f “ scripture” , “lest we should hear, and

understand, and be converted.” Not until art is redeemed from

aesthetic interpretations, and it is once more realised that

“beauty has to do with cognition”, and only with emotion in

the sense that mens sine desiderio non intelligit , will the Myth

come to life again in the “literary” world.

AKC

To P R O F E S S O R W A R D

Undated

Dear Professor Ward:

Rumi, M athnawi, VI, 4578 (Gibb Memorial News Series IV

6, p 511) com pares the divine hero to “ a hu nd red men

concealed in a single man (as we should say, ‘a host inhimselF), a hundred bows and arrows concealed in a single

blowpipe”. The word is naivak . . ., for which I find in stcingass’

Persian Dictionary, amongst various meanings, “tube through

which an arrow is projected”. Rumi’s date is 1207-1273( M athnawi about 1260). For Indra’s “bolt” (vajra) we have two

old Indian accounts o f the mythological origin o f the arrow *,in one o f which, wh ich can hardly be later than 8th century b c ,

they are said to be the “ slivers w ithin it” (Indra’s bolt) that w ere

“ separated from it” and became arrows. C f Taittirva SamhitaVI.I.3.5.

AKC



* Interestingly, an early name for Christ was Chosen Arrow.

Professor Ward cannot be further identified.

‘The Blowpipe in Persia and India’, AKC American Anthropologist, N e w

Series, 45, 1943.

‘Th e S ymbolism o f A rchery’, AK C, Ars Islamica, X, 1943.

T o D A V I D W H I T E

October 15, 1946

Dear Mr White:

There must be a great deal more literature on Myth than I

kno w of. T he main thing is to kn ow the m yths o f the various

peoples, and to learn to recognize th eir sim ilarities. For this,

perhaps, Lord Raglan’s The Hero should be considered; and, of

course, folk-tales in general—why are there so many versions

o f the same story all over the world? So one comes to th ink o f

an Urmythos o f which all others are broken fragments; m yths

are the pattern that history exemplifies.

O f my own I suggest “ M ind and M yth” in the N ew English

Weekly o f Dec. 24, 1942 (vide supra)-, “Literary Symbolism” inthe Dictionary o f World Literature (also in Figures of Speech or

Figures of Thought (Luzac, London, 1946). But I do commend

J. A. Stewart, M yths o f Plato (Macmillan 1905); Fritz Marti,

“Religion, Philosophy and the College”, Review o f Religion,

VII, 1942, 41 f f (“ Men live by m yths . . . they are no m ere

poetic inventions”— m ost serious students o f m yth emphasizethat myths are not “inventions”); Wilbur Marshall Urban, The

Intelligible World, 1929; Plato, Theatetus 144 D; with Aristotle, Metaphysics 982 B; N. Berdyaev, Freedom and the Spirit, 1935;

E. Siecke, Drachenkampfe, Leipzig, 1907 (p 60: unglaublich, das

heute noch jemand sich einbilden kennte, weitverbreitete Mythen

Konnen ihre Entstehur der Erftndung eines einzelnen Dichters

verstanden (p 61) ein Grundirrtu, zu glauben, der mythische

Ausdruck sei allegorisch; p 49, die Sage ist von Gottermythen

ausgegangen. Herzfeld in M it th aus Iran 6, 1934, ridicules Fraser’s

interpretations o f m yths as “ mistaken explanations o f phenomena”; says D ie Geburt der Geschichte ist der Tod des Mythos\

lays down sequence, mythos = ursprungliche Gottersage,

Sage = heroische Stadium, legende = Stadium in which myth is



mixed w ith lives o f real men and so hofisch und pseudo-

historische — all like m y M yth, Epic, Romance; M. P. Nilsson,

Mycenean Origin o f Greek Mythology, 1932, “mythology can

never be converted into h istory ” . Read all the American Indian

Origin Myths also. Also N. K. Chadwick, Poetry and Prophecy.As for the “ history o f literature” , from B eow ulf to Forever

Amber (sequence: metaphysics, tragedy, sensation) consider

that in the last stage tragedy is impossible, nothing remains but

the lovely and the horrible; tragedy is only possible where there

is a conflict between what is and what ought to be, the Hero

conquers or loses according to whether he can be what he

ou gh t. Th e same in the history o f pictorial art, Ch ristian and

other; Picasso is not tragic, he only depicts the horrible. Fromthings universally true to our curiosity about personalities,

what a come-down—as Lodge used to say, “From the Stone

Age until now, quelle degringoladeV ’

I would rather count in Blake with the metaphysical poetsthan with the Romantics.

I am afraid this is a rather b rie f answ er, bu t all I can managenow.

Very sincerely,

PS: Also Karl von Spiese, “Marksteine der Volkskunst”

(Jahrbuch fu r Historische Volkskunde V, VI, Berlin, 1937); Jo hn

Layard, The Lady o f the Hare, 1945, and “T he Incest Tabo o and

the Virgin Archetype”, in Eranos Jahrbuch, XII, 1945.

David White, Friends University, Wichita, Kansas, USA; see letter p 155.

T o PROFESSOR RAYMOND S. STITES

January 25, 1937

Dear Professor Raymond S. Stites:

I am having a pho to o f the bronze sent to you.I can best explain my position about “genius” by saying thatWagner is typically a genius in my sense, but not Bach. I

believe this really covers the ground.



N o messiah is telling anyth ing new or personal, but

“fulfilling”. Not only Christ, but also Buddha emphasizes this

in their ow n w ords. I am not forgetting such expressions as “A

new law I give unto you”, but am referring to the whole

attitude. T he “ new law” is that o f the proceeding G od asdistinguished from the old Godhead, and in this sense every

gospel is new, and at the same time this “new” is always the

same “novelty”, not a personal one. 1use “genius”, then, in the

m odern sense o f a person ex traordinarily gifted in expression

o f a personal experience. Those o thers such as Christ, Dante,

Dionysius, etc, are rather “heroes” in the Greek sense.

I have no do ub t that by a further definition o f terms we

might reach a clear agreement.

Many thanks for your letter,

Very sincerely

PS: If for exam ple, to take an ext ravagan t case, if anyone

accused m e o f “ genius” , I should reply w ith Gleizes: Mon art,je

I’ai voulu un metier . . . ainsi, je pense de ne pas etre humainement

inutile.

Professor Raymond S. Stites, Yellow Springs, Ohio, USA.

Albert Gleizes, French cubist painter and writer on art and religious themes.


January 31, 1937Dear Professor Stites:

If you will get Etudes Traditionnelles for Dec 1938, you will

find an article by Guenon, “La Porte Etroite” in which the

theory o f the 7 rays o f the sun is stated w ith g reat exactitude

and simplicity.

AKC

Postcard to Professor StitesThe article in question was reproduced as chapter XLI in the posthumous



collection o f Rene G uen on’s studies on sym bolism, Symboles fondam etitaux de

la science sacree, Paris, 1962, reprinted 1982, and would be more accessible

there.


April 12, 1937

Dear Professor Stites:

I have not yet published on the Seven Rays o f the Sun, except

for a br ie f reference in a little book on The Symbolism o f the

Dome which is to be published by Harvard University Press

soon. I have given a lecture at Ann A rbor on “ Is A rt aSuperstition or a Way o f Life?” and shall send you it when

prin ted.

I do not by any means cite Bach as a genius—but as

something better, a master craftsman. Wagner is a genius using

the material for his own ends rather than for its own sake.

N o doubt, the end o f the road is beyond all art: bccause the

reality is not in any likeness nor in any way expressible. In the

meantime Plato (etc) does not require to look directly at theSun before one has acquired the eagle-eye, but much rather to

look directly at the shadows and through them at the Sun.

M aterialism and sentimentality imply a looking at the shadow s

for their ow n sake. T he love o f fine bodies is all right: b ut for

those “ w ho can think o f noth ing nob ler than bodies” (St

Thomas). One can decide to play with the kaleidoscopic pattern

o f things: o r to see this as a pattern e m bro idered on a

perm anent ground. The metaphysical whole or holy man

cannot make ou r kind o f distinction between w hat a thing is andwhat it means; all values are traditionally at the same time

substantial and transubstandal (the Eucharist preserves an

isolated survival o f this once universal po int o f view). T o speak

o f the picture tha t is no t in the colours does no t destroy the

colours bu t adds som ething to the definition o f w hat can be

experienced through the aesthetic surfaces. The whole mandoes not only feel (aesthetics) but also understands (cognition)

what is expressed and to which he is attracted by the colours. I’mdiscussing all this once more in a long introduction to theforthcom ing book by R owland, o f reproductions of Indian



frescocs— a discussion o f the “ N ature o f Buddh ist A rt” . Art is

not a luxury but a necessity.Siva is by no means the only “ guard ian” o f the arts. All are

referred to divine sources, in various ways.

Very sincerely,

Raymond S. Stites, Yellow Springs, Ohio, USA.

‘T he S ym bolism o f the D om e’ was actually published initially in the Indian

Historical Quarterly, Calcutta, XIV, 1938, and then in Coomaraswamy 1:

Selected Papers, Traditional Ar t and Symbolism. See Bibliography.

‘Is Art a S up erstitio n or a Way o f Life?’, American Review, New York, IX,

1937. T he six lectures men tioned w ere published by Jo hn Stevens Pa m

phle ts , N ew port, Rhode Island USA, 1937.

Xmas Day 1943

I do not have all o f Cusa ’s works. The words Mens sine

desiderio non intelligit, et sine intellectu non desiderat are from one

o f his sermons at Brixcn, my source being E. Vansteenberghe,

Autour de la docte ignorance, M unster, 1915, p 56. C f

Bonaventura, Non est perfecta cognitio sine dilectione, I Sent, d. 10,q. 1, q 2, fund 1 (see J-M Bissen, L ’Exemplarisme divin selon S t

Bonaventure, Paris, 1929, p 95). . . . In othe r words, I suppose,the will is involved in all real knowing; we cannot know

something in which we arc not inter-est-ed.

Cordially,

O nly this paragraph was available to the editors, w ith no indication of the

addressee. It is included because o f the imp ortanc e o f the citations and A K C ’s

conclusion, for in any traditional epistemology it is the whole man that

knows and not only the cerebral part.

To PROFESSOR H. H. ROWLE Y

May 10, 1945

Dear Professor H. H. Rowley:

Many thanks for sending me your “Submission in Suffer



ing”, which I have been reading with much interest. I think it

will conduce to clarification if we equate karma w ith ananke and

dharma with heimarmene, “ fortun e” and “ destiny” , respectively.

I am n o t sure that we ough t to separate the idea o f subm ission

in suffering from that o f subm ission in pleasure; these are

contraries by which we ought never to be dis-tracted (see Bhagavad Gita II. 14, 38, 57). O ur only reasonable attitude

towards the contraries that fortune (by the ineluctable opera

tion o f mediate causes) b rings up on us is one o f patience; on the

other hand, it is our part to cooperate with our destiny, if we arc

ever to reach our destination.

This patience under the slings of fortune is an apatheia in the

original high m eaning o f the w ord— a not-being subject-to-

patholo gical-sta tes or “ affections” ; the man who is overcom e by such bein g in fact pathetic. O n this patience, cf MarcusAurelius X. 28 “to the rational being [ie, obedient to the God

and Daimon within him, V. 10] only has it been granted of

freewill to yield to what befalls, whereas merely to yield is a

matter of necessity, anankaion, for all” ; c f Philo, LA III. 21

active and passive submission (com m only thou gh t o f as

“ Stoic” positions, bu t M arcus Aurelius and Philo are essentially

Platonists, and only accidentally “Stoic”).

Did I send you my “Recollection, Indian and Platonic”? If

not, I will do so.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Rowley, see page 75.

T o THE REV PROFESSOR H. H. ROWLEY D .D .

July 8, 1946

Dear Rowley:

I was much interested in your Unity o f O T , and fully agreethat “sacrifice must bear a two-way traffic or none.” The

position you argue against is closely paralleled in th at o f theOrientalists w ho greatly overemphasize the opposition o f ritualto gnosis in the Vedic tradition. I think this over-emphasis



arises from rationalistic m isunderstanding o f the use o f rites,

and the view o f same as “hocus-pocus” .Reverting to my last letter, I might suggest a glance at

Layard’s preface to his Stone, Men o f Malekula (1942) in which

he speaks o f “ the megalithic ritual . . . as essentially a mystery

in the sense in which the Church uses this word.” Layard ishim self bo th a first rate anthropologist bu t also pro foundly a

Christian (see his recent book, The Lady o f the Hare).

With Kindest regards,

H. H. Ro wley , sec p 75.

Jo hn Layard, see correspo ndenc e, pp 42 and 226 ff.

Hocus-pocus: A K C w as fully awa re that this was a corru ption , in mo re sensesthan one, o f wo rds from the most solemn part of the Roman Rite Mass

(according ot the Missal o f Pope St Pius V), com m only referred to as the

Tridentine Mass.

T o H . G . R A W L I N S O N

December 10, 1946

Dear Rawlinson:

By the way, ap ropos o f “ no sentience in N irvan a” , the

traditional doctrine is that there is no sentience after death, the

body alone being an instrum ent o f feeling— Brhadar Up 4.5.13,

Axiochus, Diogenes Laertius, x. 64, 124, also in OT: “the dead

know not anything.”

O f course I cannot at all agree with your view o f the Vcdic

sacrifice. In any case, the Buddha’s (in S 1.169) substitution ofinterna l sacrifice is only an echo o f the old teachings about the

A gn ihotra in $A X, SB X I.5.6.3, SB X.5.4.16; c f already in RV

VIII.70.3, na yajnair.

Very sincerely,

H. G. Raw linson , see p 39.

The reader is referred again to Whitall Perry’s remarks on pp v and vi

(cspcciall the latter) regarding AKC’s seeming blindness towards the posth um ous states which fo r m ost souls in te rvene between th e pre sent life

and final liberation. ‘N o sentience in Nir va na ’ is und ou bted ly and even



necessarily true, given that Nirvana is an eternal pleroma. But to say or to

imp ly th at this can be true o f all post-mortem states is to ignore Scripture and

Tradition, or to artificially oppose one teaching to another. One need only

consider the teachings on posthu m ous beatitude and suffering to be found in

all traditions; or, more specifically, Dante’s D ivine Comedy, which is full of

sentience up to the celestial pilgrim ’s final illumination. D r C oom arasw am y,o f course, kn ew all this; w e can only conclude that, for reasons best kno w n

to himself, he chose to ignore anything less than an absolutist perspective. It

is true, how eve r, that the Vedanta is ‘con na tural’ w ith a kind o f acosm ism.

To MRS PHILIP MAIRET

January 10, 1937

Dear Ethel Mary:

It was very good to hear from you again and to hear what you

are doing. Y our scheme o f weav ing history is very interesting.

But I also think you ought to go deeper, that is in the sense of

the “ Little Mysteries” and the initiation o f craftsmen (no t that

this can be restored artificially, but that it is an important part

o f “h istory ”— the “ secret histo ry” o f the Middle Ages, which

is so much more relevant that the dated facts). . . . Behind allw eaving lies the web o f image-bearing cosmic light, the solar

spider’s web.

As to the essays, I will on ly say I will see if any thing comes

up to write for you—I am so deeply immersed in other work

tha t I do no t like to be taken o ff to w rite anyth ing else, th o’ I

have to do it sometimes (I am giving 2 broadcasts on the use ofart this month).

As to the “new expression” to which we are tending.Yes— because this is the end o f the Kali Yuga, and every death

m ust be followed by a resurrection, o f which the early signs

may be already perceptible. But this only takes place when the

seed has died. There is no life in this present civilization, and no

hope for it. For all its apparent progress it already smells toheaven o f death. Hope, or rathe r certain expectation, is forwhat may be 500 years hence. What do we care about time?3000 BC is ju st as real and present to m e as now . In the

“ m eanwhile” , the most valuable thing is to preserve, as if in anark, the always known truth, and to carry it over the flood.

I agree that probably the whole world will become communist



before the daw n.* But this revolt o f the prole ta ria t, this

dem ocracy , is the last stage o f rcm otion from likeness to the

K ingd om o f God, where all things are in due hierarchy and

“ order” proceeds no t from below, but from above. H istory: (1)

Suprem acy o f the spiritual autho rity (Brahman ism, for exam

ple) and union o f spir itual and royal pow er (priest kings o f

ancient civilizations); (2) revo lt o f the royal po w er (ksatriyas,

Junkers, the “R eform ation” ); (3) revolt o f the econom ic pow er

(bourgeoisie, industrialism); (4) revolt o f the proletarian pow er

(democracy, communism)—a descending scale.

In the m ids t o f this, at all levels, it remains possible for the

individual to work out his own salvation, and that is his first

duty.

I would like once more to recommend to you (1) Eckhart (2)wo rks o f Rene Guenon, eg, to begin with La Crise du monde

moderne; also the magazine Etudes Traditionnelles (where I also

now often publish).

I have been occupied all winter and not yet printed, what

may be little books (1) on Deification—Indian and St Bernard

(2) on reincarnation and transmigration, two very different

things, completely misinterpreted. Reincarnation is rebirth in

one’s children here and now. Transmigration is a temporalfashion o f speaking o f the om nipresence o f the spirit, which as

it were migrates from body to another. As to deification, the

whole theme has been confused by an attachment to the

“ im m ortality o f the soul” . All esoteric Christian doctrine

teaches, on the con trary, that the soul must pu t itse lf to death. The

greatest sorrow o f man should be— that he is. “Deification” is a

m atter o f the transference o f consciousness from the soul to the

spirit; and thus on ly, in the w ord s o f St Paul, can we becom e“one spirit” with the Spirit. To reach this point the whole idea

o f the created soul over against a creating God m ust be

outgrown—as Eckhart expresses it, it is God’s will that we

should become w hat H e as G od . . . is not—this is the breaking through (John, “I am the door')-, as in Indian tradition, passing through the Sun, no t merely basking in the light o f the

Sun, b ut to becom e a ray o f the Sun—w hich brings us back to

weaving, since the “ rays” are the wrap o f the Universe.

Best love from,Ananda



*I f this opinion seems excessive (and it does not necessarily refer to the

‘official’ part o f the U SSR ), c om pare it with sim ilar views ind epend ently

arrived at and expressed in The Tares and the Good Grain, by Tage Lindbom.

Lindbom, a Swede, was for many years an official in that country’s marxist

social dem ocra tic party, and he came to reject m arxism fo r wh at he perceived

to be its groundlessness and inner contradictions.

Ethel M ary was the first M rs Ananda Coom arasw am y, and she later married

Philip Mairet who had a long association with AKC; and the couple

remained on am icable term s w ith him until the end o f his life. M airet edited

the New English Weekly.

To R A MA P. C O O M A R A S W A M Y

1944

My dear Rama:

The following is in response to your question about images:

it says in Exodus xx, 4: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any

graven image, or any likeness o f anything that is in heaven

above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters

under the earth”,

BECAUSE God instructed Moses with definite directions,as in Exodus xxv, 9: “According to all that I (God) show thee,after the pattern o f the tabernacle, and the patterns o f all the

instrum ents thereof, even so shall ye make it. ” Th en God lists

the things that are proper to H IS T A B E R N A C L E : you know

by now th at this world that we live in is in imitation o f that world

that God lives in; n ow then God gives specific patterns the which

Moses received and brought to his people, for the things that

are proper for man to have and use. Anyth in g other than those

specified by God are forbidden as subhuman, at least as unworthy of

men who worship God and take His and only His directions astheir means of living.

Chapters 25 through 31 give the most wonderful descriptiono f what is suitable for God ’s followers to do and have. At one poin t Moses wonders who and how these th ings shall be made,and in Chapters 31-32, it says:

Sec, 1 have called by nam e Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son ofH ur, o f the tribe o fJudah: (3) And I have filled him with theSpirit o f God, in wisdom and in understanding, and inknowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, (4) to devise



cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,

(5) and in cutting o f stones, to set them , and in carving

timber, to w ork in all manner o f w orkm ansh ip. (6) and I,

behold , I have given w ith him Aholiab, the son o f

Ahisamach, o f the tribe o f Dan: and in the hearts o f all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have

commanded thee:

N ow God has provid ed for His tabernacle on earth (our

world) all that is proper fo r man to have, and the way to make

these things, as He declared in Exodus xxxi-xxxii: by those

who are “wise hearted ” , and filled with H IS “wisdom and skill”.

A nd only that which is made by these “wise-hearted, and

filled with HIS wisdom and skill” can be rightly called art. Youought to know this, you who have often heard this discussed.

N O W AS T O W H Y ONE SHALL OR SHALL NO T W OR SHIP AN

i m a g e : A ll works o f art are images o f something; images arc

reminders, representations and signs. It all depends on

w he ther a man on seeing an im age o f God is such a man as can

be reminded by it o f God, or is he such a man as to be able only to see

the image (or clay) and not what it is supposed to remind him of? It

would indeed be dangerous to allow such a man to have animag e o f God, for he w ou ld mistake the stone, paint-

p ig m cnt, the w ood, w hatsoever the im age is made o f for his

God. (T ha t’s rightly called the wo rship o f an image, or

graven image.)

But there are those w ho use the image as a reminder, and only

when they are in the presence o f the real thing no longer need the

reminder.

There is the m atter o f imp ortance; rightly used, images, like

every other thing on earth, have their value, but to use the

image in place o f the real thing , as if it were the real thing , is

wrong and forbidden, e x a m p l e : When you travel by motor car,

you see route numbers on the way, these arc symbols or

images; you reach your destination, you do not take up all the

signs along the way (other people likewise use them ), o r do you

take up the boat or the bridge when you have crossed to the

other side of the river? You use these things when you need

them , likewise images; bu t it wou ld be silly to say they are nouse while you are still crossing overl

In India, it is the cus tom to desecrate all the clay images o f the



household on Thursdays, and on Fridays you go to the bazaar

and buy fresh clay images which are taken to the Ganges and

there consecrated and made holy; these are then used in the

average home for less than a week, and once more the same

cerem ony, o f discarding and acquiring new images, is enacted;

this is a w ond erful m ethod o f keeping people from gettingattached to the clay in the clay-image, but to use it as a reminder or

sign o f the divinity it represents.

Sankaracharya was a very great scholar in India and he too

used images in the way above mentioned. Once he felt

embarassed, he thought it was childish; however, this is what

he concluded: “ God, be pleased to forgive me for worshipping

You in this Tem ple throu gh this Image, I, wh o know You have

no special abode here, but are everywhere, and that you haveno special form, for You are not this image nor are You

anything.”

This does no t mean tha t he intended to change his ma nne r of

worship, but it is an explanation that he understood that the

image was fo r him only a 'sign post.

All the religions o f the world except the Jews and M oham

medans m ake use o f Icons, or images, o r symbols.

Th e Jew s and the M oham m edans forbade it because they feltthat the real thing should not be represented lest on the “ Day o f

Judgem en t” w hen G od calls all the dead to rise, these things

will fail to come to life. A nd they are very strong on God being

the only and the very creator, and all the things that men make

shall not imitate the things that God made, but shall distinctly

look like something else, ie, that the symbol shall look like a

m athematical sym bol o r sign, so that the mistake o f the

imitation for the real thing should not have the slightest chance

for existing. This is the way they wish to avoid error. But for

those who wish to risk the true use, and purpose to take great care not

to make the wrong use o f images, fo r them also it is right that they shall

have the freedom to do what is right, and should they fa il , it is at their

own peril. And they shall, o f course, take the consequences,

should they m ake the erro r o f thinking that the clay is other

than a sign post for the mind to use on its way to concentrationor contemplatio or Yoga.

All the religions (as I started to sjy) have perm itted the use oficons or symbols, made in stone, plaster, paint, wood, words(which are praises o f the Lord) o r in any othe r m aterials



whatever, with the definite restrictions, that those things shall

be made according to the pattern showed thee and by those who

are “wise-hearted” and filled with the “wisdom and skill” that

God graces man with.

For religions o the r than the C hristian this expression is used:

“ Imitation o f the Eternal Idea” , in other wo rds, exactly w hatthe Christains say. W hen you read Plato, I hope in the original,

you will meet every Christian idea (including the above), but

cut m ore sharply and stated more poignantly. For the Greeks of

Plato’s time were a people who could stand for and who could

love Christ for His ferocity, but we want to make Him meek

and mild, a smooth and handsome youth; in other words, we

wish to m ake Ch rist according to ou r idea o f w hat He ought to

be; it is so m uch easier than to try to come up to H im , and youknow we like short cuts, even to heaven. But I need hardly add

that although there are short cuts to Heaven, these cannot be discovered

by a people who adore as their “Culture-Heroes” the makers of

refrigeration boxes and labor saving devices, as well as man killing

implements . . . .

Rama P. Coomaraswamy, Ananda Coomaraswamy’s son (by Dona Luisa

Co om arasw am y) w ho was 14 years old at the time. It is this, o f course,

w hich explains the atypical tone o f this letter. A no ther unusual p oin t is the

use o f the term M oharnm adan, as this is incorrect and a usage that AK C

objected to, the correct term being Muslim .

To R A MA P. C O O M A R A S W A M Y

. June 24, 1947

My dear Rama:

I am afraid my long lette r abou t caste, etc, cannot 'have

reached you. T o perform srdddha, or have it performed for one

by a Brahm an, does not make one a Brahman. O ur family is

Vcllala; this is no t a well know n caste name in N orth India, bu t

any Tamil you may run across will know it. We do wear the

yajiiopavita\ I have received upanayana from a Brahman in the

Punjab, and shall resume wearing the thread when we come toIndia. I suggested that you should accept the offer to give youupanayana in Bengal, bu t if you did not do so, there will be



other opportunities, and meantime you can always live like a

Hindu, and according to Brahman standards and ways . . . .

Our people are Vellalas, originally from Tanjore, but long

settled in N. Ceylon (Jaffna) and then also in Colombo. They

are Saivas\ they are given upanayana and wear the thread. We

cremate the dead and take the ashes to Benares. We keep up a

hereditary connection w ith Pandas at Allahabad. O u r people are

usually vegetarians, and employ Brahman cooks. I once

perform ed by fath er’s sraddha, bu t otherwise this has been done

m y othe r m em bers o f the family in Ceylon.

With best love,

Rama P. Coomaraswamy, as above; at this time he was travelling in India

and the Tibetan borderlands with Marco Pallis.

Yajtiopavita is the sacred thread w hich all the ‘twice b o m ’, ie, the three

uppercastes, am ong the Hindus begin wearing wh en they come o f age. Th e

rite that confers this is called upanayana.

Sraddha is a service for the dead.

T o R A M A P . C O O M A R A S W A M Y

June 25, 1947

My dear Rama:

In two recent letters, I think I mentioned numdah as material

for kurtas; I should have said pattu (patoo), as numdah is a felt

used only for rugs. There are many nice handmade woolen

materials obtainable in Punjab.Also, I think I wrote sraddha; I should have said sraddha. The

former means “faith”, the latter denotes the rite. One should be

careful to be accurate not only in translation, but also in

transliteration; to use oo for w, and so forth is slipshod.

Regarding suddha, “pure” (foods, etc, see in BG ch xviii). Our

inner and outer lives are bound up together, so that physical andspiritual purity are intimately related. Ritual purity is a discipline,

something to be done and understood. Do not think o f it as a

mechanical formality. In Iceland, “no one turned his faceunwashed to Holyfell”, and this fastidious instinct towards sacredthings can be found all over the world. It may be possible, but it is



not likely, to be fastidious inwardly only. Those who are crudeoutwardly are likely to be crude inwardly. All “means” (Skr =upaya, rites, imagery, etc) are indispensable supports, until one has

reached the “end o f the road”, which is still a long, long way off

for those are most apt to believe they can do without them!

Love,

Father

Rama P. Coomaraswamy, as above.

T o D O N A L U I S A C O O M A R A S W A M Y

N ovem ber 23, 1935

Darling:

It certainly was a relief to hear from you after 20 days! I am

looking forw ard to hearing m ore about Gurukul. As to magic,

one must remember that though prevalent, it is by no means

encouraged for Wayfarers, b ut is a “hindran ce” . I am just

halfway through correcting proof (mainly checking somehu nd red o f references) in “ Angel and Tita n” wh ich is at last to

ajjpear, taking 47 pp o f JA O S. As to D r Ross, he made no

proper arrangem ents for paym ent, and I have to prove the

debt. (I have statements from Mr Hawes, Edgar Parker, and

M r Ho lmes, etc) and in any case the estate will take some time

to settle; I shall be glad when it is done—this month I couldn’t

have paid Holmes but for $50 received from College Art

Association for the Introd uction I recently sent you (I hope y ou

like it, I think it quite right fo r its purpose). Aaron w as here last

night, we had a great talk. At the close, discussing circles, he

said “a circle has no ends”; on the contrary I said, “its ends

coincide”; he saw the point but finds it hard to think in that

fashion. I hope several long letters sent a week or two backreach you (addressed to Raj pur). Did I m ention that M anu’s

daughter is called “Rib” in X, 82, 23 [presumably the referenceis to the Rig Veda]? By the way, Aaron’s reply was “That’s

what my father would have said”—I mean about the circles.They both (Warners) ask to be remembered. We are beginningto have light snow. I imagine it’s quite pleasantly cool at



Hardwar. Also it must be a really Hindu place, with pilgrims

com ing and going. I may w rite a jo in t article w ith P ro f Furfey,o f Catholic U niv, W ashington, on enclosed lines. I spent $150

this month, and as I said am hoping that you can save all above

$100 against Spring and Summer. I think as I said last time, you

should p robably stay there till end o f April and then go toFrance for a m on th o r two. I think your dream o f climb ing the

pravat was good ; a variant of the ladder symbo lism, and

analogous to the “upstream” [pratikiila, pratisota, etc) journey;

uphill, countercurrent. When it gets cold up there you will be

able to get nice pattu to make up. 1shouldn’t w orry about what

you can read in the RV; the important thing is to get command

o f the vocabulary and style, we can do the rest here. It comes

infinitely easier to me n ow than a year ago, and by con trast theUpanisads and BG are no effort at all; bu t o f course “ classical”

Skr, which most people know better, would be harder for us.

By the way, Nala-Damayanti = Manas and Vac, etc. As you

know, there is only one story to be told. She holding her

svyamvara, “own choice” is the patim icchanti stri of RV and

Brahmanas.

1 w rote tw o days ago “ Death is imm ortal, Life m or tal” ,

today found SB X, 5,2,3: “Death is the Person in the Sun, andthe Light that shines is what is alive; therefore, Death does not

die, for he is within, therefore he is not seen, for he is within

what is alive.” NB: the best translation of amrta is not

immortal, but simply living as contrasted with dying. The

devas are alive, man is so to speak “dead and alive”, mortal,

corruptible. Amrta rarely means “immortal” (Bloomfield, I

m ust say, already recognized this, but m any have forgo tten it).

Buddhist Mara = Mrtya = Gandharva = Kamadeva = Eros;

hermeneutically Am or has been in terpreted as a-mors. Love-and-

Death unifies; Life divides.

W ith Tho m as, “ the state o f glory is not under the Sun” , cf

SB X, 5,1,5: “ W hatsoever is on this side o f the Sun, all that is possessed by D eath” . It is th rough the Sun th at one escapes;“ no man com eth to the (Dragon-) Father save through M e.”

26th

Your second letter from Gurukula today. Not awfullyenthusiastic. It is difficult about Ram. I don’t see how we can



possib ly sacrifice our time and w ork to the extent it would

involve here. I was at a good school, Wycliffe College, in the

country in England, now a public school and in many respects

improved, probable cost about $750 a year. But then it would

be perfectly ordin ary, it w ould take him so long to outgrow itall, like it has taken me 40 years to go back to Latin for

example. It is a terrible thing any way to think o f anyone going

through an education, it seems interminable. I think he would

have m ore at the Guruku l. A fter all it has Dayananda’s tradition

behin d it, and he was a very great man, and a very g reat Vedic

scholar. Aurob indo Ghose ,* o f Pondicherry, is also a great

man; I have some o f his books here, and you may have com e

across some there. Great men have developed, and will stilldevelop under Indian conditions, however slipshod etc.

As to adoption , if impossible in India, th at’s that, perhaps we

can arrange it here. I daresay Aaron could wrangle it for us. I

have ju st com pleted a w eek’s real tapas and sramana, on 47 pp o f

“Angel and Titan”, checking several hundred references; quite

exhausting, you could have helped if you had been here! The

paper is so lo ng and detailed as to be alm ost unreadable. It’s

almost a book about RV, but you will enjoy it anyway.Helen Joh nso n I have not m et, b ut is a good scholar ofja inaSkr, translating Hemacandra’s Trisastisaldkapurusacaritra. As to

fighting in RV, it is all “w ithin you ” , o f course. There are

several passages in RV emphasizing that the whole business is

maya and lila, that Indra never had and never will have any

enemy, and moreover, making it clear that all the tools and

weapons they speak o f are ndmani, ie, “ideas”. But RV as it

stands (like Bh Gita) is a book for Ksatriyas and therefore

exoteric and karmakanda essentially, with only here and there jnanakanda indications; it takes for granted all that is in the

Upanisads, which represent the contemporary esoteric part, bu t published later, and there fore showin g some linguistic

difference. In any case there is an absolute consistency in the

orthodox teaching throughout, nothing new after RV, butsom e expansion and so to speak underlining o f certain

meanings. One has to take the whole and see its consistency;

there is no one word or statement that can be omitted, each(even i f only said once) is essential; like the visual image seen indhyana w hich fills the whole field and consists o f parts allequally inevitable.



Bh Gita is o f course the same battle; all these battles are

exoterically external, esoterically within you; and true bothways, for they are really external for those who see externally.

If you really understand RV, Upanisads are unnecessary. Th e

great mistake most people make is to begin with the Ups and

Buddh ism; if one began w ith RV (as one was supposed to do in

India) there would be no latter “mystery”, but all the later

doctrine wou ld be “o f course” . The Ups are magnificent, bu t

all their tejas is Vedic, not a great new discovery. No more

new, and perhaps even less new, than Eckhart, As for the

stupo r o f those you meet, w ho are asayamanah, susupanah,

abridhyah, jiryya miirah, what they need is to be awakened

(budh), to be made punar yuvanam, punar sutah, “quick” (amrtah)

who are now “dead” (martyah). NB: amrta in RV is generally“ alive”, rarely “ im m or tal” , if indeed ever; and being mortal

does not refer to the fact that one dies after full term o f life, but

to the nature o f ou r “ life” , which is a m atter o f constant deaths,

day after day.

Dearest love from,

Ananda

Dona Luisa Coomaraswamy, AKC’s wife, was in India studying Sanskrit

when this letter was written.

To W A L T E R S H E W R I N G

August 6, 1947

My dear Walter Shewring:

. . . I’m sorry to hear that like m yself you are slowed up. N o

do ub t these later days have drained us all o f strength, in spite o f

ourselves and o f such detachm ent as we m ay have acquired.

Only this week I received a very tragic letter from a man who I

had tho ug ht o f as a pow erful healer o f others—and now seekshealing for himself.

I think you know we— my wife and I— plan to retire to

comparative solitude somewhere in N India not later than theend o f 1948. . . .

N o doubt the whole world is “ in for” a long period o f



suffering fo r its sins, and w e are all involved, som e more, some

less, in the earning o f such retribution— which w ould be true

enough even from a secular point of view. . . .

Sincerely,

Walter Shewring, identified on page 23.



FAREWEL ADDRESS

It seems fitting to co nclude this selection from the correspon denc e o f D r

Ananda K. Coomaraswamy with this farewell spcech read at a dinner

arranged by som e o f his close friends and held at the H arvard C lub in Bo ston

on August 22, 1947.

I am m ore than honoured— somew hat, indeed, overcome— by

your kindness in being here tonight, by the messages that have

been read, and by the presenta tion o f the Festschrift edited by

Bharatha Iyer. I shou ld like to recall the names o f four m enw ho m ight have been present had they been living: D r D enham

W. Ross, D r Jo hn Lodge, D r Lucien Scherman, and Professor

James H . W oods, to all o f w ho m I am indebted. T he form ation

o f the Indian collections in the M useum o f Fine Arts was alm ost

w holly due to the initiative o f D r Denham Ross; D r Lodge,

who wrote little, will be remembered for his work in Boston

and Washington and also, perhaps, for his aphorism, “From

the Stone Age until now, quelle degringolade”. I still hope tocomplete a work on Reincarnation with which Dr Scherman

charged me not long before his death; and Professor Woods

was one o f those teachers who can never be replaced.

M ore than ha lf o f m y active life has been spent in Boston. I

want to express my gratitude in the first place to the Directors

and Trustees o f the M useum o f Fine Arts, w ho have always left

me entirely free to carry on research not only in the field of

Indian art, bu t at the same time in the w ider field o f the whole

traditional theory o f art and the relation o f man to his w ork,

and in the fields o f com parative religion and metaphysics to

which the problem s o f iconograph y naturally lead. I am

grateful also to the American Oriental Society whose editors,

however much they differed from me “by temperament and

training” , as Professor Norm an Brow n once said, have always

felt that I had “a right to be heard”, and have allowed me to beheard. And all this despite the fact that such studies as I have

made necessarily lead me back to the enunciation o f relativelyunp opular sociological doctrines. For, as a student o f hum anmanufactures, aware that all making is per artem, I could not bu t



see that, as Ruskin said, “ industry w ithout art is bruta lity” , and

that men can never be really happy unless they bear an

individual responsibility not only for what they do taut for the

kind and quality o f what they make. I could not fail to see that

such happiness is forever denied to the majority under theconditions o f m aking that are imposed upon them by w hat is

euphemistically called “free enterprise”, that is to say, under

the conditions o f production for profit rather than for use; and

no less denied in those totalitarian forms o f society in w hich the

folk is ju s t as much as in a capitalist regim e reduced to the level

o f a proletariat. Looking at the works o f art that are considered

w orthy o f preservation in our m useums, and w hat were once

com m on objects o f the marketplace, I could no t bu t realize thata society can only be considered truly civilized when it is

possible for every man to earn his living by the very w ork he

would rather be doing than anything else in the world—a

con dition that has only been attained in social orders integrated

on the basis of vocation, svadharma.

At the same time I should like to emphasize that I have never

buil t up a philosophy o f m y ow n or wished to establish a new