glossary of terms used by frithjof schuon - Sophia Perennis

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. There are two kinds of
hatred, one legitimate and one illegitimate: the first derives from a love that is the victim
of an injustice, such as the love of God crying for vengeance, and this is the very
foundation of all holy anger; the second kind is unjust hatred, or hatred that is not limited
inwardly by the underlying love which is its raison d’etre and which justifies it; this
second hatred appears as an end in itself, it is subjective and not objective, it seeks to
destroy rather than to redress.
Both the Koran and the Bible accept that there is a Divine Anger; and thus also a human
“holy anger” and a “holy war”; man can “hate in God”, according to an Islamic
expression. Indeed, objective privation permits or demands a privative reaction on the
part of the subject, and the main thing is to know whether in a particular case our pity for
a given human substance should prevail over our horror for the accident that makes the
individual hateful. For it is true that from a certain point of view, one must hate the sin
and not the sinner; but this point of view is relative, and does not prevent one from being
sometimes forced, as a matter of proportion, to despise the sinner to the extent that he
identifies himself with his sin. We once heard it said that whoever is incapable of
contempt is likewise incapable of veneration; this is perfectly true, on condition that the
evaluation is correct and that the contempt does not exceed the limits of its sufficient
reason, subjectively as well as objectively. Just contempt is both a weapon and a means
of protection; there is also such a thing as indifference, certainly, but this is an eremitical
attitude that is not necessarily practicable or good in human society, for it runs the risk of
being wrongly interpreted. Moreover, and this is important, a just contempt is necessarily
combined with a measure of indifference, otherwise one would lack detachment and also
that fund of generosity without which anger cannot be holy. Seeing an evil must not
cause us to forget its contingency; a fragment may or must trouble us, but we must not
lose sight of the fact that it is a fragment and not totality; awareness of totality, which is
innocent and divine, in principle takes priority over everything else. We say “in
principle”, for contingencies retain all their rights; this amounts to saying that serene
anger is a possibility, and even a necessity, because in hating an evil, we do not cease to
love God. [EPW, The Nature and Role of Sentiment]
Heresy (extrinsic/ intrinsic): It is once again appropriate . . . to define the difference
between a heresy which is extrinsic, hence relative to a given orthodoxy, and another that
is intrinsic, hence false in itself as also with respect to all orthodoxy or to Truth as such.
To simplify the matter, we may limit ourselves to noting that the first type of heresy
manifests a spiritual archetype – in a limited manner, no doubt, but nonetheless
efficacious – whereas the second is merely human work and in consequence based solely
on its own productions;* and this decides the entire question. To claim that a “pious”
spiritist is assured of salvation is meaningless, for in total heresies there is no element that
can guarantee posthumous beatitude, even though – apart from all question of belief – a
man can always be saved for reasons which escape us; but he is certainly not saved by his
heresy.
57