glossary of terms used by frithjof schuon - Sophia Perennis

attempts always shows itself – apart from intrinsic errors – in the belittling and falsifying
spirit which is so characteristic of the modern world; in fact it requires a prodigious lack
of spiritual sensibility and of sense of proportion to take any contemporary thinking, even
the best possible, for one of the great providential “crystallizations” of the philosophia
perennis. [SW, Orthodoxy and Intellectuality]
Orthodoxy (Hindu): Objections will no doubts be made that Hindu spirituality does not
know orthodoxy, since opinions and systems contradict one another in Hinduism even
more than in any other traditional wisdom; rightly or wrongly, according to the
individual, it will be claimed that the “great thinkers” of India are beyond forms and so
are free from all “narrow dogmatism.”* It is true that Hindu orthodoxy is sometimes
more difficult to grasp from outside than that of a monotheist tradition; this is because
Hinduism is founded more directly on the metaphysical essence, so that the form can be
treated more freely; also, dogma – or what corresponds to it – assumes forms more varied
than in Western religions, which amounts to saying, not that Hinduism is not quite
orthodox, but that its orthodoxy has a wider scope in respect of forms, which is all that is
in question here.^
The wide range of forms belonging to Hinduism may be bewildering to some minds, but
could never mean that Hinduism sanctions error, as is in fact done by modern philosophy,
where “genius” and “culture” count as much as or more than truth, and where the very
idea of truth is even called into question by some people. The formal “fluidity” proper to
Hinduism in no way prevents error from being always recognizable, whether by the aid
of scriptural criteria, or in the light of metaphysical truth, which immediately unmasks
absurdity, even when heterodoxy is founded on a sacred text, this of course through
falsifying its meaning.
(* Westernized heretics – pseudo-intellectual molluscs if ever there were any – are placed
on the same level as the most venerable authorities of the Vedic tradition; the “breadth of
mind” boasted by the moderns profits nothing except error and unintelligence.
^ Hinduism, despite its extreme conceptual “elasticity,” does not swallow everything, for
otherwise Jainism and Buddhism would have become additional darshanas [orthodox
perspectives] instead of being excluded from specifically Hindu orthodoxy; on the other
hand, the very breadth of this orthodoxy allows it to recognize a posteriori – but “on the
margin” and without any innovation – the celestial character both of the Buddha and of
his message.) [SW, Orthodoxy and Intellectuality]
Orthodoxy (intrinsic): The first question to be asked concerning any doctrine or
tradition is that of its intrinsic orthodoxy; that is to say one must know whether that
tradition is consonant, not necessarily with another given traditionally orthodox
perspective, but simply with Truth. [LS, Orthodoxy and Originality of Buddhism]
Orthodoxy (Moslem): Whatever may be the divergences between the Moslem
denominations, the metaphysics of Unity and of Union dominates the entire horizon of
thought, Shiite as well as Sunni; when all is said and done, the Moslem is orthodox to the
extent that he identifies himself with the fundamental thesis of Islam and takes upon
himself all its consequences. [CI, Images of Islam]
104