Overview Of Guenonism
The Philosophy of "Itching Ears"
"4But... false brethren... who came in privately to spy our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude."—Gal. 2 (Douai-Rheims)
"10Give a heretic one warning, then a second, and after that avoid his company; 11his is a perverse nature, thou mayest be sure, and his fault has been admitted on his own confession."—Tit. 3. (Ronald Knox)
©Lúcio Mascarenhas, November 14, 2004.
[Copyright Terms & Conditions].
I have already written three articles, as yet, on the subject of the Guenonist heresy, and of Ananda Coomaraswamy, William H. Kennedy and Rama Coomaraswamy, its proponents and adherents:
- Ananda Coomaraswamy: Prophet of Neo-Pagan Triumphalism
- The Slime Is Churning!
- Perennialism & The Coomaraswamies
Now, I will close this matter by presenting an overview of this Guenonist heresy.
To do that, I will first of all, present the facts, and then draw the obvious conclusions from them.
As I write this, three more and new valuable texts have come to my notice. I had drawn the attention of Mrs. Benns and H.H. the Pope to this issue, when both of them wrote me stating that they had encountered a long time ago, a book which set out a connection between Aleister Crowley, the founder of modern Satanism, and Ananda Coomaraswamy. Without proof, I could not and would not repeat those allegations, but now I do have the proofs!
These three new reference texts are:
- Alistair Crowley and Ananda Coomaraswamy
- Oxford University Press: Traditionalism
- Oxford University Press: Perennialism
"1Know also this, that in the last days shall come dangerous times. 2Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, 3Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, 4Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasure more than of God: 5Having an appearance indeed of godliness but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid."—2 Tim. 3
The Meat Of Guenonism
"3For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: 4And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."—2 Tim. 4
"1Prophet or dreamer may arise, of thy own race, and foretell some signal event 2which aferwards comes about; even so he must not persuade thee to follow the worship of alien gods, untried till now. 3Do not listen to such words from prophet or dreamer; it means that the Lord thy God is putting thee to the proof, to see whether he has the love of thy whole heart and thy whole soul or not. 4Follow and fear the Lord your God, obey no commands, listen to no voice but his; serve him and be true to him. 5The punishment of such a prophet or dreamer shall be death; he has counselled rebellion against the Lord God, who delivered your race from its slavery in Egypt; he would tempt thee away from the path the Lord thy God has marked out for thee; rid thy company of such plague as this. 6Suffer none to whisper that counsel in thy ears, brother nor son nor daughter, nor the wife thou dost cherish in thy bosom, nor the friend thou lovest as thy own self. Whoever bids thee follow the worship of alien gods, unknown to thee and to thy fathers, 7gods of any other nation in the wide world, 8near or far, do not consent, do not listen. Have no glance of pity for them, throw no merciful cloak over their guilt; 9put them to death without parley. The hand of every Israelite must be lifted against them, but thine first of all. 10One who would so tempt thee away from the worship of the Lord thy God, that rescued thee from slavery in Egypt, must die by stoning; 11so that all Israel may be apprised of it, and take warning, and none dare to do the like thenceforward."—Deut. 13 (Ronald Knox).
"2It may be that, in one of the cities the Lord thy God gives thee, men and women of thy race will be found so defiant, so false to his covenant, 3that they will forsake him, and enslave themselves to the worship of other gods, the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, in contempt of my commandment. 4If this news is brought to thee, make careful enquiry into what thou hast heard; and if it proves that the report was true, and the foul deed was done among thy fellow-Israelites, 5away with such recreant men or women to the city gate; there let them be killed by stoning."—Deut. 17 (Ronald Knox).
First of all, I think that it is necessary to establish a major correction in nomenclature. Guenon
et al called the heresy that they invented and propagated, "Perennialism". However, this is a false name, a part of the whole lie that constitutes this heresy. I will, therefore, no longer refer to this heresy by the name of "Perennialism", but by the name of the Guenonist heresy.
Mark Sedgwick, who sets out to be the Chronicler of the Guenonist heresy, says that:
Gu�non is perhaps best described as an influential commentator on modernity.
This critique of modernity, for which Guenon is being given the credit, is a fraud on the intelligence of men, in that there is postulated a Common Origin and Unity of all major religions of the world, including, incredibly, Christianity (sic!). It is obvious to any honest man that this is a pure fabrication, without any historical basis whatsoever.
Guenonism is not an ideology in the strict sense of the word. It is, rather, an excuse for
intellectual chicanery. It is designed as a false ideology, or a simulation of an ideology, in order to cater to the base needs of persons with certain base tendencies, as part of a larger program to wean them off from the remnants of Christian ideas in their minds and world-views.
Certainly, it is true that a similar idea has been postulated by Hinduism, but that was a kind of pretension that it intends in order to ambush and destroy those it considers its enemies, historically, Buddhism, but later also Christianity, Islam, etc. But, taken as a whole, there is no historic evidence for the universality of such a belief, quite on the contrary, and certainly, Christianity fundamentally excludes any such idea!
As a matter of fact, Guenon offers no real intellectual critique of modernity, and his influence is constituted in a reputation created and fostered for him as obviously an instrument — and nothing more than an instrument — for a higher end.
Therefore, Guenonism can be best described as being the philosophical equivalent of the
Piltdown Man, a hoax perpetuated by Evolutionists who were desperate to fabricate evidence for their false ideology.
Guenonism, is therefore, as phony a contrivance as the Piltdown Man. That is, this heresy, unlike most other heresies, does not even pretend to any authentic intellectual basis. It just "is"!
Lacking in an intellectual underpinning, Guenonism is best described, in the words of Arnold Lunn, as belonging to that phenomenon as "
FIFism" — "I have a funny inner feeling!" This "funny inner feeling" is the true ideological underpinning, if it can be called that, of Guenonism!
Taking the argument further, Guenonism can be also further described as constituting a Nihilism, a Nihilism that pretends to rejects progress, and makes a cult of this rejection. Therefore, Guenonism can also be described as a kind of Philistinism — a kind of pagan Know-Nothingism!
Catholicism / the Catholic Resistance is not, as against the pretensions of Guenonism, about
laudatore tempore acti, se puero — a blind adulation and program to restore unconditionally the
status quo ante. We recognize that there were failings in past times, and we do not seek to restore these. We seek to restore the Magisterial and Judicial character of the Church, as being in a vital and vibrant Union with the restored
Confessional State!
Guenonism is predicated on the malicious allegation that the Christian Gospel is, like all other religions and their "revelations", the work of man and not of God. Guenonism alleges that God is one, and that it is merely men who divide religions. That falsifies the Christian Gospel.
Indeed, St. Paul tells us:
"That is why we give thanks to God unceasingly that, when we delivered the divine message to you, you recognized it for what it is, God's message, not man's; it is God, after all, who manifests his power in you that have learned to believe." —1 Thess. 2:13.
Frithjof Schuon
"6For of these sort are they who creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: 7Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth."—2 Tim. 3
Frithjof Schuon is the third of the three co-founders of the Guenonist heresy, and the youngest — he died in 1998. He seems to have been a very interesting man.
A study of the available literature on Frithjof Schuon quickly shows that he meets the definition of the perfidious seducer as defined by St. Paul the Apostle in his epistle to St. Timothy: 3 Tim. 6,7, as quoted above!
It is interesting, therefore, that Rama Coomaraswamy identifies himself as a follower of Frithjof Schuon. Rama Coomaraswamy had delivered a lecture in honour of Frithjof Schuon,
The Desacralization of Hinduism for Western Consumption, wherein he had highlighted the problems with the sex-mania of Mr. Rajneesh aka "Osho".
We learn that Frithjof Schuon began to dabble in Native American paganisms, and initiated pagan assemblies called "Primordial Gatherings", etc.
Sedgwick tell us:
Ultimately, near the end of his life, Schuon's spirituality drifted into that of the American Indians. He was adopted into the Lakota tribe and took part in "Primordial Gatherings" and Pow Wows.
He also developed an interest in nakedness following his 1965 vision of the Virgin. Both he and the Virgin appear naked in certain "Tantric icons".... In Primordial Gatherings women wore a sort of American-Indianized bikini or loin-cloths.... He "married" Barbara Perry, the wife of one of Gu�non's followers, Whithall Perry, in what Schuon termed a "vertical" marriage" while she was still married to her husband in a "horizontal marriage."
William H. Kennedy, another adherent and proponent of the heresy of Guenonism, in his
martyrology of Frithjof Schuon, provides us with further information on Frithjof Schuon's immodesty and fornications:
http://www.geocities.com/whksoul/schuon_case_news_file.htm.
This demonstrates beyond the least iota of doubt what Schuon's spirituality and morality consisted of.... Indeed, as Christians, we are not surprised:
We would be very surprised if spiritual fornication did not lead inevitably to physical fornication!
Yet it is a notorious fact that Frithjof Schuon was the Guenonist Osho... though the title of Guenonist Rasputin, would be more appropriate. Schuon indulged in sex orgies and, what is worse, portrayed Our Lady, the Mother of God, in a series of paintings where "she" progressively sheds her clothes, to finally appear utterly naked:
http://www.frithjof-schuon.com/virgo2.htm What can be more blasphemous than this? How is it that this is not worse than the villainies of Osho Rajneesh or of Alma Lopez?
Yet, despite that Frithjof Schuon practised and taught as much blasphemies, if not more, than "Osho Rajneesh", whom Rama Coomaraswamy apparently derogates, nevertheless, Rama Coomaraswamy eulogizes Frithjof Schuon and looks up to him as an exemplar!
Another interesting page is this (
http://www.frithjof-schuon.com/newageB-engl.htm), where Frithjof Schuon simulates attacking the "New Age Movement". This is merely an exercise in hypocrisy, as Frithjof Schuon himself propagated the "New Age Movement." Indeed, Guenonism is the prime vehicle of Neo-paganism, of the New Age Movement!
Mark Sedgwick, informs us that:
Eventually Schuon and Guenon came to a parting of ways... Schuon went further than Gu�non... holding that Christian initiation retained 'virtual' validity, and needed only to be somehow 'activated.' Gu�non held that Christian baptism had ceased to have any esoteric value at the end of the Middle Ages. Schuon held that it was impossible for the Christian baptism to lose all validity, since this would be a betrayal by the Holy Ghost.
Frithjof Schuon defending Christianity... now this is a picture to be seen! Assuredly, we Christians are deeply touched... by this, Frithjof Schuon's
dubious, unwanted, unsought-for and meaningless "defense" of Christianity—and its continuing validity — not that we are aware that it has ceased to be valid!
It is rather amazing that Rama Coomaraswamy and William Kennedy, who portray themselves as Christians, did not find the dialogue between Guenon and Schuon (concerning the continuing validity or invalidity of Christian initiation) insulting, and therefore take up the defence of Catholicism against them. They did not feel insulted precisely because they are not Christians but Guenonists, and for Guenonists, this would only have been a minor internal disagreement....
Frithjof Schuon has kindly bestowed upon us a bauble in the form of condescending to denounce the "New Age Movement" (which too he embodies) and "upholding" the continuing validity of Christianity, even as he insists that we jettison the real treasure of our Christian faith—the substance of our Christianity—
for his potfull of neo-pagan sewage! We are mightily beholden, I believe, to Mr. Frithjof Schuon for this condescension.
We must further ask: Are we to be mightily beholden to Rama Coomaraswamy and his disciples also?
I suppose that it is expected of us Christians, that in gratitude for these baubles and condescension,
we should forsake the Living God, and fall down with awe, and worshipping this vile creature, Frithjof Schuon, Rama Coomaraswamy's
glorious deity, cry out:
"It is a god that speaks, and not a man!
"It is a god that speaks, and not a man!
"It is a god that speaks, and not a man!"
Rama Coomaraswamy
Sedgwick tell us:
Gu�non is also the great exponent of Tradition in a second sense, in the sense of the need to adhere to one of the great orthodox religious traditions which embody 'perennial' Truth.
This explains how Rama Coomaraswamy can continue to be a Guenonist, and yet appear to embrace Catholicism, which absolutely excludes this vile heresy of Guenonism!
Guenon himself simulated an adoption of the heresy of Mohammedanism, as do many other of his disciples (Titus Burckhardt, Frithjof Schuon, Palavicini, etc.), Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
We see from the articles of Rama Coomaraswamy himself, that he eulogizes, looks up to, adulates and seeks to emulate Frithjof Schuon. As a matter of fact, at least one of his articles was delivered in honor of Frithjof Schuon.
E.g.: The 1
st. footnote in his article
The Desacralization of Hinduism for Western Consumption, states that it was
"Originally given as a talk before the Department of Religion at the State University of South Carolina, and published in the Sophia in honor of Fritjhof Schuon."
We see that Rama Coomaraswamy sits on
The Board of Trustees of the
"Foundation for Traditional Studies". This "Foundation" is apparently the Supreme Governing Body of the Guenonist heresy, if not in all the world, then certainly at least in Anglophone North America.
We see that Rama Coomaraswamy is recorded as a
Contributor, not only with the "Foundation" but also with the several Guenonist websites, such as Patricia Reynaud's "Religio Perennis".
The insincerity and hypocrisy of Guenonism, as represented by Rama Coomaraswamy, is highly demonstrated by the case of the Reynauds and of the "Neo-Catharism" that they represent. The Catholic Church saw the Cathars as a great danger to the faith, and encouraged the use of force to extinguish this heresy. Today, some seek to revive this evil heresy... among whom are some colleagues of Rama Coomaraswamy in the Guenonist heresy, Patricia & Philippe Reynaud. It is amazing that Rama Coomaraswamy and William Kennedy have not found reason to take occasion with these, and it proves exactly where these two truly stands!
Then, we must take what Rama Coomaraswamy himself said:
And so it is that it is possible for a Catholic to hold to the position usually described as "perennial or universal philosophy." The only requirement is that he hold to it as a Catholic who accepts all the teachings of the Church as encompassed in the traditional Magisterium, and this for the simple reason that if one steps outside the Magisterium and entertains one's own personal opinion as being "true," one contradicts all that the Sanatana Dharma holds sacred. (Emphases added)
It is vital to dissect and interpret this curious passage.
"Sanatana Dharma" is the official name Hinduism gives itself. It means "Eternal Religion". It is meant to pretend that Hinduism is the world's oldest and certainly also India's oldest religion — an obviously false claim, given that Hinduism was introduced into India by the Aryan invaders, and that the Religion called
Bon is the oldest surviving Indian religion, older even than Hinduism!
But, as a Guenonist, to Rama Coomaraswamy, "Sanatana Dharma" has also a secondary meaning, which does not contradict the first one. And that is: "Sanatana Dharma" is but another name that Guenonism uses for itself, using the variant names:
Eternal Religion or
Sanatana Dharma,
Perennial Religion or
Religio Perennis,
Perennial Tradition,
Perennial Philosophy,
Universal Philosophy,
Eternal Wisdom,
World Wisdom,
Perennial Wisdom or
Sophia Perennis,
Primordial Tradition,
Scientia Sacra, etc., etc.
It is thus obvious that Rama Coomaraswamy wants to be a Hindu-Guenonist and a Catholic at the same time, although a Catholic only according to "all that the Sanatana Dharma holds sacred"! I cannot see how this impossible unity between Hindu paganism and Christianity can be achieved.... Evidently he wants to have his cake and eat it too!
It is evident that Rama Coomaraswamy takes his "Catholicism" only in accordance with "all that the Sanatana Dharma holds sacred". Therefore, it is obvious that he had never ceased to be Hindu, or to have become Catholic; only that he had made unto himself a
caricature of Catholicism which he wears over his Hinduism-cum-Guenonism!
It seems to have escaped Rama Coomaraswamy that Catholicism, and
"all that the Sanatana Dharma holds sacred" are mutually exclusive and incompatible! No true Christian can be ignorant of this fact, since the Bible, the Word of God,
spends an inordinate amount of time in drumming this fact into our thick skulls! Yet, that someone who pretends to be a Christian also pretends to be ignorant of this basic theme that the Bible repeats
ad nauseam only demonstrates the lying agenda of that person!
Analyzing �Philosophia Perennis And The Sensus Catholicus�
- Motto: "The wise man will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be occupied in the prophets...� - Ecclesiastes 39: 1-5.
I have two questions: Why did Rama Coomaraswamy place this quote here, and what interpretation does he wish to impute it?
It is evident that Rama Coomaraswamy intends to use this text to support, or legitimise the Guenonist heresy. That is, he intends to give it a �universal� or global interpretation - �all the ancients� and �the prophets� must mean all ancients and �prophets�, whether of the Christic Tradition, or of the Apostate, Pagan traditions indiscriminately. But this interpretation is patently false!
A similar text is to be found in the New Testament, where St. Peter advises that �All scriptures are good�; this is evidently not to be taken in the un-Christian sense of all and any �scriptures�, but as being restricted only to the scriptures of the Christic Tradition.
Is this to be taken in the sense, as apparently imputed by Rama Coomaraswamy here, of an absolutely universal acceptance of �all the ancients�, and of all the �prophets�?
Evidently, not, for the Mosaic Dispensation, like the Christian Dispensation which fulfils it, strictly restricts legitimacy to those prophets and fathers who have adhered uncompromisingly to the God of Israel....
- �This Sophia perennis holds that certain metaphysical truths, and hence access to a knowledge of the divine, have always been available throughout history and are to be found within the framework of every valid religious tradition.�
Evidently a premise that flagrantly contradicts Divine Revelation, which insistently reiterates that the God of Israel is the only true God there is, and that all other religions are false!
- �First of all it should be clear that such a concept in no way contradicts the principle Extra eclesia nulla salus�
Certainly, it does NOT contradict the principle �Extra Eclessia Nulla Salus�. It does NOT contradict EENS for the simple and obvious reason that it contradicts an even higher truth: The First Commandment: I alone am the Lord your God! This principle, of the First Commandment, is reiterated in the New Testament, in the words of St. Peter the Apostle: "There is no other name under the heavens by which men can be saved, save that of Christ Jesus."
- �If salvation is possible outside of the formal structure of the Church, as must have been the case at least before the coming of Christ�.�
I believe that salvation was never possible outside the formal structure of the Church, excepting the operation of membership by desire, whether before or after the coming of Christ. For with Moses was established a formal Church that was to last upto the coming of the Messias, who took it up and transformed it into what is now called the Christian Church, and outside this Mosaic Church one could not obtain salvation any more than one can obtain it outside the Christian Church.
- �The early Church fathers� either declared that Christianity had the fullness of the Truth and that therefore there was no need to look elsewhere, or they held that all truth, no matter where it was found, belonged to the integrity of the Faith, and was therefore to be accepted, absorbed, and embraced. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, quoting St. Ambrose, �all truth, no matter where it is found, has the Holy Spirit for its author.�
I do not believe that any Christian authority ever put things as Rama Coomaraswamy has done here: �all truth, no matter where it was found, belonged to the integrity of the Faith, and was therefore to be accepted, absorbed, and embraced.� Again, such a policy has no warrant in Divine Revelation, and constitutes a radical departure from it. Again, certainly, it does not stand on the authority of what St. Thomas of Aquinas or St. Ambrose of Milan taught, as quoted by Rama Coomaraswamy above.
- �St. Jerome all but adopted the Buddha�s life story and Christianized it as we have in the hagiographical account of St. Josephat.�
Even if we grant that this is true, it has no value and no authority for us as Christians. It�s only value would be to demonstrate that St. Jerome made a rather insignificant mistake, but that too is itself insignificant, for Catholicism never taught that the Saints did not err in their teachings as private Christians!
Therefore, it is both meaningless and mischievous to quote this alleged incident!
How Far Has The Rot Gone?
Rama Coomaraswamy tells us:
"I was also professor of Ecclesiastical History at the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield Connecticut for a period of five years." —Rama Coomaraswamy, on the homepage of his Website.
I have been told that Coomaraswamy taught in this seminary, which was operated by Marcel Lefebvre's
Sacerdotal Society of St. Pius the 10th. (SSPX) until the crisis precipated by the refusal of some priests to say Masses
una cum John-Paul II, for which they were expelled by Marcel Lefebvre. I have been told that Coomaraswamy played a critical role in introducing and guiding these priests into Sedevacantist ideas, so that this crisis could be either blamed on him or credited to him, depending on one's standpoint. These priests have now split up into at least three parties, and some of the priests now "free-lance". Three of these priests are now "bishops vagantes", leading their own parties: Clarence Kelly with the Society of St. Pius the 5
th, Daniel Dolan who is with Pivarunas as a Sedevacantist, and Donald Sanborn who is with McKenna as a Guerardist (Sedeprivationist / Cassiciacum Thesis). Despite the fact that the principals (Dr. Heller and the European Sedevacantists vs. McKenna, Ricossa and Stuyver, etc.) of these last two parties (Sedevacantism & Guerardism) are at loggerheads, each accusing the other of being heretical (
And Guerardism is heresy!), these last two (Dolan & Sanborn) cooperate with each other, maintain a joint seminary, and ordain priests for each other's persuasions.
My point in raising these facts is: How far did Rama Coomaraswamy succeed in infusing his undoubtedly heretical Guenonist ideas to these priests? How many of these priests are now secret Guenonists? Only time will tell. These men will bear watching.
One can safely presume that Rama had taken the opportunity not only to indoctrinate into his Sedevacantist ideas, but even more his deeper and greater ideas — that of the continuing validity, legitimacy — and, obviously, superiority — of the "Sanatana Dharma" and of the heresy of Guenonism!
Considering the fact that the 12 trusted him enough on the issue of "Non-Una-Cum", we can next safely presume that they trusted him enough to even imbibe his heresies on Hinduism and Guenonism!
Indeed, I ask: Is not the "Ecumenism" of Dolan and Sanborn evidence of this Guenonism? Who but those who believe that these differences (Sedevacantism vs. Guerardism) are relative and not important would cooperate in the manner of Dolan & Sanborn?
It is only 6 years since Frithjof Schuon died, yet Coomaraswamy has very evidently
always been a Guenonist. And he has been involved with the "Traditionalist Movement" for much longer than these past six years!
I had an acquaintance, a Rajasthani Brahmin, Ajay Sharma, who had been a student of Prof. Resurrection de Sousa at Dr. Antonio da Silva's School in West Dadar, and part of the SSPX and "Catholics For The Preservation Of The Faith" (C.P.F.) circles in Bombay in the nineties.
Ajay was baptized in the SSPX and took the name "Mario"; he lives at present in Scotland, with the Lefebvrist Dominicans.
Ajay and I used to have long arguments over the issue of innovation, (I argued that innovations were sometimes legitimate, and that a Lay Election of the Pope, even as an innovation, was legitimate) and Ajay would always seek to clinch the argument by telling me that Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy was totally opposed to any innovation whatsoever, as being totally excluded by Christianity.
Yet, Dr. Coomaraswamy, a married man, whose wife is living, wrote me that a Traditionalist bishop (I believe Lopez-Gaston and his disciple-bishops — Urbina-Aznar & Merrill Adamson) had "dispensed" him from the requirement of being celibate, and had both ordained him, and also "conferred" on him the title of Monsignor, which I believe only the Pope has the right to do. When I objected to this ordination, Coomaraswamy told me that I could accept his ordination if I wanted to, or ignore it if I did not want to.
The problems over Coomaraswamy are particularly severe. His mother was the "4th wife" of his father, and both were non-Catholics (He was a Protestant who became, in 1907, a Hindu; she a Jewess). The problems are obvious. I believe that no responsible bishop should have ordained him. Worse, Rama Coomaraswamy, who had taught many Lefebvre seminarians, including the present Bishops Kelly, Dolan, Sanborn, Frs. Cekada, etc., at the Lefebvrist seminary in New England, should himself have known enough not to accept ordination!
What is evident is that the man who was portrayed as the "Champion" against innovation — as being absolutely against any kind of innovation — has been innovating again and again and again and again... a very curious discovery!
He has been innovating by attempting a fusion between his native Hinduism ("Sanatana Dharma") and the Catholic Faith — one cannot get more "innovative" than this!
Not only has he been marrying Christianity, in obviously an inferior position, to his Hinduism, but he also marries his Christianity to the Guenonist heresy — once more in an inferior position!
He has innovated by being "dispensed" (I doubt that Lopez-Gaston and his two disciple-bishops, Urbina-Aznar and Merrill Adamson, have the intellectual ability to think out these issues and rather believe that they put blind faith in Rama) from his canonical impediments of birth and marriage, a "recent convert", etc., in order to be "ordained", and further to have "conferred" upon him the "title" of "Monsignor".
Indeed, there is good reason to begin to look with grave doubt upon Lopez-Gaston and C
o. as being themselves compromised — being possibly disciples of Rama and of the Guenonist heresy, and of being Freemasons!
Is Rama a Freemason? We can safely identify the program of Guenonism as being one established, set out, fostered and cultivated, by Freemasonry for its obvious ends.
Next, as I have demonstrated above, Rama never really ceased to be Hindu!
Next, one notices that despite claiming to have become Catholic, Rama has not rejected and denounced the Guenonist heresy of his father, but, on the contrary, he lovingly fosters and progresses it — witness the fact that the articles of Ananda are copyrighted Rama and provided "courtesy of Rama".
Moreover, Rama Coomaraswamy sits on
The Board of Trustees of the
"Foundation for Traditional Studies", and is also a
Contributor to the Foundation's journal, the
Sophia — showing the level of his involvement and the level of trust and honor he enjoys in what can be best described as being the Supreme Governing body of Guenonism, if not in the world, then atleast in Anglophonic North America. [Even the
links page links to Rama Coomaraswamy!]
Therefore, we can safely conclude that Rama Coomaraswamy
is a Freemason, since to be a Guenonist, one would need to be a Freemason. Again, there is no real contradiction between Masonry and Guenonism!
In the end, I feel only sadness for Rama Coomaraswamy — he cheats himself of the true treasure that is to be had only in Christ Jesus, and if he dies a Guenonist, he will not be saved! It is sad to see a man throw his soul in the trashbin!!
"19Rejection lies in this, that when the light came into the world, men preferred darkness to light; preferred it, because their doings were evil. 20Anyone who acts shamefully hates the light, will not come into the light, for fear that his doings will be found out. 21Whereas the man whose life is true comes to the light, so that his deeds may be seen for what they are, deeds done in God."—John 2
A Primer of the Guenonist Heresy
Tabulating mainly the links posted by Ms. Carrie Tomko on this issue:
Lúcio Mascarenhas
©Lúcio Mascarenhas.
[Copyright Terms & Conditions].