glossary of terms used by frithjof schuon - Sophia Perennis

logicians, whereas the Semites – if they have not become idolaters and magicians – are a
priori mystics and moralists; each of the two mentalities or capacities repeating itself
within the framework of the other, in conformity with the Taoist symbol of the yin-yang.
Or again, the Aryans are objectivists, for good or ill, while the Semites are subjectivists;
deviated objectivism gives rise to rationalism and scientism, whereas abusive
subjectivism engenders all the illogicalities and all the pious absurdities of which
sentimental fideism – over-zealous and conventional – is capable. It is the difference
between intellectualism and voluntarism; the first tends to reduce the volitive element to
the intelligence or to integrate it therein, and the second on the contrary tends to
subordinate the intellectual element to the will; this is said without forgetting the
fluctuations necessarily comprised in the concrete reality of things. It is sometimes
necessary to express oneself in a schematic manner for the sake of clarity if one is to
express oneself at all. [SVQ, The Exo-Esoteric Symbiosis]
The Aryan, insofar as he is observer and philosopher, has a tendency to describe things as
they are, while the Semite, who is a moralist, readily presents them as they ought to be
according to his pious sentiment; he transcends them by sublimizing them before having
had time to extract from them the arguments comprised in their nature. This tendency
obviously does not prevent him from being a philosopher when he wants to be, but we
are speaking here of the most immediate and most general predispositions. [SVQ,
Paradoxes of an Esoterism]
It is perhaps not too hazardous to say that the Aryan spirit tends a priori to unveil the
truth, in conformity with the realism – sacred or profane – that is proper to it, while the
Semitic spirit – whose realism is more moral than intellectual – tends towards the veiling
of the Divine Majesty and of its secrets that are too dazzling or too intoxicating; as is
shown, precisely, by the innumerable enigmas of the monotheistic Scriptures – in contrast
with the Upanishads – and as is indicated by the allusive and elliptical nature of the
corresponding exegesis. [SVQ, The Exo-Esoteric Symbiosis]
Sentiment: Sentiment, if it is rightly inspired, is an adequation: it is to love what is
lovable, detest what is detestable, admire what is admirable, disdain what is contemptible,
fear what is fearful and trust what is trustworthy; the positive quintessence of sentiment
being love, which is a divine dimension. From this priority it follows that to detest is not
properly speaking to create an aversion, it is rather to withdraw love, which exists before
hate, as lovable things exist before detestable things, ontologically speaking; whereas to
love is not to withdraw a preexisting hatred – inexistent in fact – it is to remain in the
original attitude: in the love that, according to Dante, “moves the sun and the other stars.”
[RHC, Pillars of Wisdom]
Sentiment, envisaged in all its aspects, operates on the one hand a sort of vital
discrimination between what is noble, lovable and useful and what is not so and on the
other, an assimilation of what is worthy of being assimilated and thereby realized; in
other words love is dependent on the worth of the object. If love takes precedence over
hatred to the point that there is no common measure between them, this is because
absolute Reality is absolutely lovable; love is substance, hatred is accident, except in the
case of creatures that are perverse. [EPW, The Nature and Role of Sentiment]
Sentiment in itself is not sentimentalism; it is not an abuse unless it falsifies a truth; in
itself, it is the faculty of loving what is objectively lovable: the true, the holy, the
131