Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Coomaraswamy
SELE C T E D LET T ER S OF
Ananda K. Coomaraswamy
Edited by
A l v in M o o r e , J r .
and
ILLUSTRATIONS
1. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy
at 52 years
frontispiece
facing page
32
108
208
258
328
362
440
FOREWORD
N. P erry
PREFACE
A CKNOW LEDGEM EN TS
In the late half o f the nineteenth century and the early twentieth
century scholars from all parts o f the world were drawn 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 communication by juxtaposing diverse traditions.
They were the pathfinders: they drew attention to the unity and
wholeness o f life behind manifestation and process. Cutting
across sectarian concerns, religious dogma and conventional
notions o f the spiritual East and materialist West, o f monothe
ism and polytheism, they were responsible for laying the
foundations o f a new approach to Indian and Asian art. Their
work is o f contem porary relevance and validity for the East and
the West. Restless and unsatisfied with fragmentation, there is a
search for roots and comprehension, perception and experience
IN T R O D U C T IO N
scientist had w orked in the land o f his birth, making the first
mineralogical survey o f the island. His competence as a scientist
is indicated by the fact that he identified a previously unknown
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 Coomaraswamy is
still 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 am ong the Tam il and Sinhalese* villages, especially the
latter, and to observe rural life and the practice o f the local
crafts; and notably, to observe the blighting effect of the
European presence on indigenous culture and values. One
o f his early concerns was a campaign to encourage the use
o f traditional dress in preference to European clothing, in
which many Asians particularly women often looked so
awkward.
M oving between England and Ceylon as he frequently did,
Coom araswam y had num erous opportunities for travel in
India. He did so in 1901, again in 1906, and more extensively in
1910-1911. Already in Ceylon he had been active in social
reform and educational m ovem ents, and he figured prominent
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 com ing to view as cultural macrocosm to
Ceylons microcosm. In India his interests shifted towards
Indian nationalism and its written expressions, and then
towards 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. In
fact, early on, he gained an international reputation on the basis
o f work begun in this inception o f his professional life. Later,
he offered his superior collection o f Indian miniatures to the
country if a national m useum could be built to house them; but
when funds were not forthcom ing for this purpose, he brought
* The Sinhalese, generally Hinayana Buddhists, are the m ajority in the
population o f Ceylon (Sri Lanka). T he encrgctic and enterprising Tamils,
generally H indu, arc Dravidians from adjacent South India and are the
largest m inority group in the island nation, w here they have been settled for
many centuries.
* At the time Coom araswam y was travelling and collccting in Rajasthan and
in the Punjab, the latter was a much larger entity than it is today, for it has
undergone several divisions. It then consisted o f the areas that are now
included in the Punjab province o f Pakistan, Indian or East Punjab, and the
Indian states o f Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.
THE LETTERS
To STANLEY NOTT
Dear M r N ott:
. . . 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 with antitraditional concepts and cultures;
and that is unquestionably a clash o f spiritual and ideological
with material or sensate points o f view. Shall we or shall we not
delimit sacred and profane departments 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 contemporary trust in
Progress is a veritable fideism as naive as is to be found in any
past historical context.
Very sincerely,
M r Stanley N ott, Harpenden, Herts, England, was in correspondence with
Dr Coom arasw am y about a new edition o f The Dance of Shiva which Faber
and Faber, London, was considering.
Peaks and Lamas, see Bibliography.
To RICHARD ETINGHAUSEN
August 16, 1942
Dear Richard:
Very many thanks for your kind words. I am glad o f the last
sentence in the first paragraph. As you realize, I have never
tried to have a style but only to state things effectivelyso
that I was very pleased, too, once when Eric Gill wrote to me:
our everyday actions rest on faith. We have faith that the sun
will rise tom orrow (any serious scientist will tell you that we
do not know it will), we act accordingly, and when tom orrow
comes, 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 arc
agreed in regarding as mans final aim. Traherne also callcd it
51/p^human virtue for which all should strive. If you dont want
it, that is all right, but you cannot call it unattainable unless you
have practised what those who claim to have attained it taught;
just as you cant know that 2H + O = H 2O until you have
made the experiment (until then you believe your teacher). If
you dont want it, so be it; but this very not wanting excludes
you from any sympathetic understanding of the greater part o f
the worlds 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 self vide Jung and Hadley and others of 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 of this be
lief in ones own individuality or personality (our great pos
sessions). I may still be selfish ; but that only represents
a failure to live up to what I know, viz, that my personality is
nothing but a causally determined 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 individualitya Self around which
the inflated Ego revolves, much as the earth revolves around the
Sun (his own words). Nowadays, nothing is taught o f Selfknowledge, but only o f Ego-kno wledge; and for Jung, the inflat
ed Ego was the root cause o f the late war. I cite him so much
only because the collcgc man has so much faith in him.*
The isolation I spoke o f makes o f modern man what Plato
calls a playboy, interested in fine colors and sounds , but
ignorant o f beauty . O ne might say that acsthcticism (literal
ly, sentimentality, being at the mercy o f ones feelings as
recommended by Bentham) is a subjection which Plato defined
as ignorance and this is the disease o f which the current
crisis is a sym ptom ; the disease equally o f contemporary
Christianity and o f contem porary skepticism (between which
there is not much difference). All this works out in U topian-
To SIDNEY HOOK
January 17, 1946
Dear Professor Hook:
M any thanks for your kind reply. You will realize, I hope,
that w hat I sent you was the copy o f a private letter, and that I
would have w ritten in a som ewhat different tone for
publication.
My main point was that the mystics (or, I would prefer to
say, metaphysicians) insist upon the necessity o f moral
means if the amoral end is to be reached; hence theirs is a
practical way, though a contemplative end. I agree with them
(and you) that the end is logically indescribable, other than by
negations, o f which a-m oral is but one.
To put it in another way, the end is not a value amongst
others, but that on which all values depend. If we have not the
concept o f an end beyond values (+ or ) we are in great
danger o f making our own relative values into absolutes.
As for H induism and Buddhism, Plato and St Thom as
Aquinas, you see differences where I see essentially sameness,
with differences mainly o f local color. However, for this
sameness I w ould go to Eckhart and such works as The Cloud of
Unknowing, Boehm e or Peter Sterry or Ficino rather than to
St Thom as (whose Summa belongs rather to the exoteric aspect
o f Christianity). I have done a good deal to illustrate what I call
essential sameness by correlation of cited contexts, in print,
and I have vastly m ore material collected, eg, my Recollec
tion, Indian and Platonic , or Spiritual Paternity and the
Puppet C om plex .
Very sincerely,
Sidney H ook, Professor o f Philosophy, N ew Y ork University.
The Cloud o f Unknowing, see bibliography.
Jacob B oehm e, see bibliography.
Peter Sterry, Platonist and Puritan, by Vivian de Sola Pinto; see bibliography.
The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino, by Paul O Kristcller; see bibliography.
Spiritual Paternity and the Puppcrt Com plex , AKC, in Psychiatry,
VIII, 1945.
To MRS C. MORGAN
January 11, 1946
Dear Mrs Morgan:
Right now 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 moral question which Hook not only
approaches as a moralist, but apparently in utter ignorance of
the traditional distinction of the moral means and the amoral
(not immoral!) end, that o f the active from the contemplative
life. The normal 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 not
what 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 oneself) depends on ignor
ance, and hence it is only truth that can set you free; there can
be no salvation by works o f merit, but only by gnosis; but for
gnosis, mastery o f self is a prerequisite.
The point is that one cannot reach the end of the road without
going straight, and while wc are on the way, we are not
there. The end o f the road, or as it is often spoken of, home,
means that there is no more tramping to be done: therefore the
words walking straight or deviating cease to have any
meaning for or application to one who has arrived and is at
home. Wc are told to perfect, even as . . ., and as you will
rccognize, in whatever is pcrfcctcd there is no more perfecting
to be done. W hether or not perfection is attainable on earth we
need not ask; it represents, in any case, the ideal , and even
St Augustine refused to deny the possibility.
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 not-bcing, 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 self-consistent 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 meaning of 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
Pharisaism of any kind: his own life and thought are ample proof of that. On
the other hand, among the laymen who wrote to AKC, many were
lawyers, men trained in disciplined thinking, respect for evidence and in
some measure of discrimination and discernment.
* Although the copy of this letter available to the editors ends rather
abruptly, wc think it well worth inclusion because of its contcnt.
To
To ALBERT SCHWEITZER
February 7, 1946
Dear D r Schwcitzcr:
Although I have due respect for your fine work in Africa, I
have lately come across your 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 where Arjuna is told to fulfil his duty
as a soldier, w ithout citing the passage in which others are
likewise told to fulfil their vocations as means better than any
other o f fulfilling the commandment Be ye perfect. . . .
This makes quite ridiculous your second paragraph on page
41. I am afraid that most 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 second-hand knowledge derived from the writings
o f scholars who have been for the most part rationalists,
unacquainted with religious experience and unfamiliar with the
language o f theology. I recommend you spend as much time
searching the Scriptures of Brahmanism and Buddhism, in the
original languages, as you may have spent on the Scriptures of
Christianity in their original languages, before you say any
thing more about other religions.
Very truly yours,
Albert Schwcitzcr, German theologian, musicologist and medical mission-
T o GEORGE SARTON
O ctober 7, 1943
D ear Sarton:
Thanks for Schweitzer, Ill return it very soon. 1 have read
m ost o f it and it seems to me a strange mixture o f much doing
good and m uch m uddled thinking. I dont think he grasps the
weltanschaung o f the ancient (European) world at all; and as for
the East, on page 178, line 1 concern himself solely and line
18 after living part o f his life in the normal way and founding a
fam ily arc inconsistent.
I received the invitation to w rite for the festschrift, but am
asked for som ething non-tcchnical and after reading the
book, I too feel that the little symbological paper I had in mind
w ouldnt interest Schweitzer him self at all. Im seeing if I cant
put together a little note on the intrinsic significance o f the
w ord civilization.
Schw eitzers analysis o f colonisation and its effects is good
(and tragic), but he feels helpless* in the face o f world trade
and has no fight in him . He rem inds me a little o f Kierkegaard,
w ith his groaning and grunting; and with all his defense of
affirm ation is not nearly as positive a person as, say, Eric
Gill, for w hose last collection o f cassys I am writing an
introduction.
With kindest regards,
* A nd yet he despises resignation! O n the whole, one o f the most exotcric
m en im aginable. T here arc m any sides o f Africa that he seems never to have
seen at all; there is no sign that he ever go t into m ore than physical contact
w ith the people. C ontrast St G eorge Barbe Baker in Africa Drums.
G eorge Sarton, Professor o f the H istory o f Scicncc, Harvard University, and
editor o f Isis.
A lbert Schweitzcr, Christianity and the Religions of the World; see bibliography.
T o MR MASCALL
Nobember 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 truth must be exclusive of error.
With that reservation, it can as much as Hinduism or Islam
claim to be final and conclusive.
Exclusive, as I said, presumes the existence o f error; but it
remains to be shown that the other religions are in error,
whether about m ans last end or the nature of deity. I venture
that your knowledge o f these other religions is not profund:
knowledge o f them cannot be that if it is not based on texts in
the 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 even
Chinese. I hardly ever deal with any specific doctrine (eg, that
o f the one essence and the two natures, or that o f the light of
lights, or I will draw all men unto me) with reference to one
tradition only, but cite from many sources. I doubt if there is
any point o f essential doctrine that could not be defended as
well from Indian as from Christian sources.
I presume that we are liberty, and even bound to use reason in
defense o f any true doctrine. It will be evident, however, that if
we are to discuss the possibility o f error in either one or both of
two given religions, it will be contrary to reason to assume that
one o f them can be made the standard o f judgem ent for both.
That would be to make an a priori judgem ent, and not an
investigation at all. A standard must be, by hypothesis,
superior to both the parties whose qualifications are under
consideration. One comes nearest to possession o f such a
standard in the body o f those doctrines that have been most
universally taught by the divine men of all times and peoples.
Anything for example, that is true for Plato (whom Eckhart
To SIGNOR GALVAO
Novem 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 num ber I received was
that o f May 1940. The last letter I received from him was
written in June and did not reach me until October!
I have no news o f M. Schuon. M. Preau had my ms (on the
Symbolism of Archery), intended for the 1940 Special No on
the Symbolism o f Games , but I have heard nothing from
him since the occupation, and do not know if the publication of
E T can be continued. Yes, the participation o f civilians in
warfare is quite anti-traditional: it must be shocking to a true
soldier, for whom war is a vocation.
I send you one o f my publications here. With cordial
agreement,
Very sincerely,
Signor Galvao is a Brazilian correspondent o f Guenon and AKC.
To SIGNOR GALVAO
October 10, 1941
My dear Signor Galvao:
I am happy to hear from you. Quand vous ecrivez: Un
To
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 of
the four:). I should say that Christ is thought of 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 of Christian, Indian and other
doctrines not to think that Indian metaphysics is a key to
Christian mysticism. You would surely, with St Thomas
Dear Sir;
I think the old law would be the foundation and the new law the
keystone o f the structure itself. O f course, foundation, con
necting stauros, and capital would all be adamantine, in Eastern
as in Christian symbolism.
AKC
This latter note was in the form o f a postcard, and both it and that
immediately before relate to the communication that precedes them.
To
BERNARD KELLY
the same time every artist is also a man, and as such has social
responsibilities like any consumers. 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 with
the attitude one has towards things; if one can act without
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
ones own (so in St Pauls conception of liberty, as disting
uished from being under the law).
N ow as to Fate. Fate corresponds to causality and is not the
same 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, but now-sight) of the operation of
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 un-fortunate, one who has
not the share or lot in life that is his due.
I can hardly speak too highly of 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 Tibetan doctrinc. One of the best introductions is
the novel by the Lama Yongden called Mipam (publ. John Lane,
1938). Some o f the systematic books include Evans-Wcntz,
Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrine and The Tibetan Book o f the Dead
(both publ. by Oxford); Bacot and Woolf, Three Tibetan
Mystery 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,
* . . . Christ livcth in m e. Galatians ii, 20.
Bernard Kelly was a Catholic layman who lived in Windsor, England, with
TO
WALTER SHEWRING
March 4, 1936
Dear Walter Shewring:
Very many thanks for your kind letter. I am more than
appreciative of your corrections. I can only say that I am
conscious of 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 5th-13th century a d that East
and West arc really of 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
worldtells 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 of 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 of perfection
ism which leads some scholars to publish nothing, because
they know that nothing can be perfect. I dont respect this. Nor
do I care for any aspersions that may reflect upon me
To WALTER SHEWRING
February 27, 1938
My dear Walter Shewring:
A very large num ber of Hindus, very many million
certainly, daily repeat from memory a part, or in some cases,
even the whole of the Bhagavad Gita. This recitation is a
chanting, and no one who has not heard Sanskrit poetry thus
recited, as well as understanding it, can really judge of it as
poetry. To me the language is both noble and profound. The
style is quite simple and w ithout ornament, like that o f the best
o f the Epic, and o f the Upanishads; it is not yet the ornamented
classic style o f the dramas. O n the whole I think the
judgem ents o f the professional scholars are to be discounted,
for many reasons. Personally, I should think a good compari
son, poetically, would be with the best o f the medieval Latin
hymns.
The trouble with almost all Sanskritists is that all they know
is the language. For the rest, they are inhibited in all sorts of
ways. Their attitude to Dionysius or Eckhart would be the
same as to the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads: they would say
very interesting, and sometimes quite exalted in tone, but on
the whole irrational. I do not sec how anyone who cannot
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 of 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
psycho-physical 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?
To
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 modem practice
of publishing details about the lives and personalities of well
known men is nothing but a vulgar catering to illegitimate
curiousity. So I could not think of spending my time, which is
very much occupied with more important tasks, in hunting up
such matter, most of 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 of 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 w ho had written to
AKC for information in order to'w rite a biography, and w ho later published
in Malaysia a num 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 rather appalled by your suggestion o f my writing a book
o f the nature o f a critique o f Occidentalism for Indian readers.
It isnt my primary function (dharma) to write readable books
or articles; this is just where my function differs from
Guenons. All my willing writing is addressed to the professors
and specialists, those who have undermined our 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 Iconography o f Saggitarius, on which I have been
engaged for over a year, with many interruptions, seems to me
more im portant than any direct additions to the literature of
indictm ent .
When I go to India, it will be to drop writing, except perhaps
translation (of Upanishads, etc); my object in retiring being
to verify what I already know .
AKC
M arco Pallis, London, England, author o f 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 Buddhism and Tibetan culture o f this century.
Rene Guenon, Cairo, Egypt, author o f many 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 nfortunately, Early Iconography o f Saggitarius was still incomplete at the
time o f D r Coom arasw am ys death in 1947.
To HERMAN GOETZ
June 15, 1939
Dear D r Goetz:
There is one other point in your article that I might remark
upon. You connect my change of interest from art history to
TO PORTER SARGENT
To
GEORGE SARTON
To
HERMAN GOETZ
reading it, and agree in the main, though perhaps not with
every word. I think credit is due to D r Kramrisch also for her
work on Deccan painting, in which she emphasizes the Gujarati
elements. Secondly, for your letter of 16th O ctober,-w hich
only just arrived! As to this letter: I think you still somewhat
misunderstand my position. I fully agree that the Kali Yuga is a
necessary phase o f the whole cycle, and I should no more 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 w ithout ups and downs, past and future, as to ask for a
world w ithout good and evil). O n the other hand, I feel under
no obligation to acquiesce in or to praise what 1 judge to be evil,
or an evil time. Whatever the conditions, the individual has to
work out his own salvation; and cannot abandon judgem 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 worst, but I need not be a part of it, however much I must
be in it; I will only be a part of the better future you think of,
and o f which there are some signs, as there must be even now if
it is ever to become.
O ne of our very best men here recently remarked that this
American world is not a civilization, but an organized
barbarism I can agree; but what is more distressing is that of
all the hundreds o f Indian students who are now coming here,
the great majority are nothing but disorganized barbarians,
what you might call cultural illiterates. This produces a very
strange 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 an
interest, therefore, in the state of education in India. I cant
help feeling sorry for Nehru, who discovered India so late;
and at Jinnah, who is not a Moslem in any but a political
sense. I regret the spread in India o f the class distinctions that
arc so characteristic o f the Western democracies . I would like
to see the caste system intensified, especially so as regards the
Brahmins, who should be demoted if they dont fill the bill;
should be made Vaisyas if they go in for money-making, and
Sudras when they become engineers. This docs not mean that I
dont think anyone should make money or engines, but that
those who do should rank accordingly; in which respect my
position is as much Platonic as Indian.
Dent, 1942.
MATTHEW V l l i : 3 1
j a c o s ie h m e n ,
V H 36 -8
F . W. B U CK LER
H . J . MASSINCUAM
Ogowe region"
A L B E R T SCHW EITZER
Progress'
in the decline o f true learning before the mere accumulation of facts and the
In material things there has been progress ; there has been progress in
man had waited long enough and that it was impossible to expect God to
"Th e idea of Progress arose in the eighteenth century from the belief that
forms"
only as a fool, who puts on strange clothing and takes to himself animal
himself thereby fine and important, and is thereby in the sight of God
servant in this world; the devil does his work through him . . . He thinks
so do also the devils in hell. . . He who sees a proud man sees . . . the devils
show and luxury, in foolish strange attire and behaviour, and ape the fool;
"A s the tyrant delights when he can torment men, and spend their sweat in
To MR J. T. TALGERI
August 29, 1946
Dear M r Talgeri:
In reply to your letter, just received:
All men live by faith, until they have reached an immediate
knowledge o f reality in which they at first believed. W hat is
love? as Rumi says: Thou shalt know when thou becomest
M e.
A priori, faith in a given dogma will depend upon the
credibility o f the witness. Whenever, and that is normally
always, the same truths have been enunciated by the great
teachers o f the world at many times and in many places, there is
ground for supposing that ones task is rather to understand and
verify what has been said than to question it; and that is just as
when a professor o f chemistry informs us that 2H + O =
H 2O, we take this on faith until we have understood and
verified the proposition. To the extent that truths are verified in
personal experience, faith is replaced by certainty; in this sense,
for example, the Buddhist Arahant is no longer a man o f faith.
So I believe in the words o f the Vcdas, Buddha, Socrates,
Ramakrishna, M uhammed, Christ and many others, and in the
timeless reality to which or to whom according to the
phraseology appropriate in each casethese bear witness. I do
not believe that I am this man so-and-so, but that I am that Man
in this man, and that He is O ne and the same in all the
tem porary vehicles that He inhabits and quickens here in His
transcendence of. them all.
Very sincerely,
Mr Talgeri is not further identified.
To HELEN CHAPIN
October 29, 1945
To PROFESSOR J. H. MUIRHEAD
August 29, 1935
Dear Professor Muirhead:
I am a good deal relieved by your very kind letter of August
14, for although I spent much time and thought on this articlc, I
still felt dissatisfied with it. What I wanted to bring out was the
metaphysical character o f Indian doctrinc, that it is not a
philosophy in the same sense in which this word can be used in
the plural; and that the metaphysics o f the universal and
unanimous tradition, or philosophia perennis, is the infallible
standard by which not only religions, but still more philo
sophies and sciences m ust be corrected (correction du
savoir-penser) and interpreted.
N ow as to the abbreviation: it would be my wish in any case
to om it p 8, line 13 up to p 10, line 3 inclusive, and the
corresponding footnotes (ie, om it all discussion o f the Holy
Family, which I would prefer to take up again elsewhere, not as
I have done here neglecting the doctrinc o f the Eternal Birth
and divine nature by which the Father begats, which
nature is in fact the M agna M ater, the mother o f eternity).
For the rest I am entirely at your disposal, and rely on you to
make such further excisions as you think best, w ithout sending
me the Ms, but only the proof in due course.
I may add that all my recent w ork has tended to show the Rig
Vcdic (therefore also of course, Upanishad and Brahmana) and
neo-Platonic traditions arc o f an identical import; w orking this
out mainly in connection with ontology and aesthetics, and de
divitiis nominibus. I am contributing an articlc on Vcdic
Excmplarism to the James Haughton Woods Memorial Volume to
be published at Harvard University shortly. I have indeed one
Catholic friend who admits that he can no longer see any
difference between Christianity and Hinduism. I myself find
nothing unacceptable in any Catholic doctrinc, save that o f an
exclusive truth, which last is not, I believe, a matter o f faith (ie,
Catholicism assumes its own truth but does not deny truths
elsewhere merely because they occur elsewhere, although in
practice the individual Catholic docs tend to do this). I am not
at all interested in tracing possible influences o f one teaching
on another, for example whether or not Jesus or Plotinus may
or may not have visited India; the roots o f the great tradition
are very much older than either Christianity or the Vedas as we
have them, although from the standpoint o f content both may
be called eternal. I hope this may help to make my position
clearer, and may be o f help to you in editing my Ms. I owe you
To PROFESSOR H. G. RAWLINSON
no date given
M y dear Rawlinson:
It is a m atter oflittle interest to me whether Gautama or Jesus
lived historically.* Gautama him self says Those who see
me in the body or hear me in words, do not see or hear
Me. . . . He who sees the dhamma sees M e. I do think it
necessary to have as a background a knowledge of metaphysics.
For a European this means an acquaintance with and verifica
tion o f the Gospels (at least John), Gnostic and Hermetic
literature, Plotinus, Dionysius, Eckhart, Dante. It is o f no use
to read these simply as literature; if one is not going to get
something out o f all this, why read at all? If I were not getting
solid food out o f scholarship, I would drop it tom orrow and
spend my days fishing and gardening.
Yours sincerely,
* The apparently inordinate character o f this rem ark can be seen in better
perspective if it is weighed against other AKC statements. For example,
com m enting in passing on the Gospel formula . . . that it m ight 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 which has been ordained by
Heaven, which is to say that possibilities o f manifestation m ust be
existentiated in their proper cosmic m om ent. For D r Coom arasw am y, the
metaphysical was so overwhelm ingly real that, by comparison, historical
facts seemed o f little importance. This perspective, obviously, is the very
antithesis o f the popular attitude that sees history as confirming everything.
To MR WESLEY E. NEEDHAM
March 14, 1945
Dear M r Needham:
Many thanks. Im afraid I feel that Theosophy is for the most
part a pseudo- or distorted philosophia perennis. The same
applies to m any brotherhood m ovem ents. C f Rene
Guenons Le Theosophisme: historie dune pseudo-religion (Didier
et Richard, Paris, 1921).* O n Guenon, see my articlc in Isis,
XXXIV, 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 GEORGE SARTON
August 13, 1939
My dear Sarton:
Herewith the review o f Radhakrishnans book. You will see
that it is, on the whole, a criticism, and perhaps you will not
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 ent . . . Ill lend you m y Ramakrishna if necessary, but look:
this is one o f the m ost im portant books in the field of religion
published in the USA in this century, and why not insist on the
library getting it?
AKC
George Sarton, as above.
The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, translated by Swami Nikilananda, The
Ramakrishna Vivckananda Center, N ew York, USA.
To JOHN LAYARD
August 11, 1947
Dear D r Layard:
There is nothing better than the Vedantabut I know o f no
Sri Ramana Maharshi living in Europe. I do not trust your
young Vedantists, nor any of the missionary Swamis; though
there may be exceptions, most o f them are far from solid. I
would not hastily let anyone o f them have the chance. . . . N ot
even Vivckananda, were he still alive. Were Ramakrishna
him self available, that would be another matter.
Sincerely,
D r John Layard, Jungian analyst and cultural anthropologist, author o f
several works, including The Stone Men of Malakula, London, 1942.
To GRAHAM CAREY
April 5, 1943
Dear Carey:
I read your paper once over and think it good. It is necessary
but courageous to tackle the whole problem of superstitions
but difficult because each superstition presents a problem to our
understanding. 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 and
ought not necessarily to have a bad meaning at all. Even in the
Hear. . .
Practically the whole o f our cultural inheritance assumes and
originally took shape for the sake o f a body o f beliefs now
classified as superstition. Superstition, taken in its etymological
significance, as the designation o f whatever stands over
(superstet) from a form er age is an admirable word, partly
synonym ous w ith tradition; wc have added to this essential
meaning, how ever, another and accidental connotation, that o f
mistaken belief . W hatever we, with our knowledge o f
empirical facts, still do in the same way that primitive man did,
wc do not call a superstition, but a rational procedure, and wc
credit our prim itive ancestors accordingly with the beginning
o f scicncc; a second class o f things that wc still do, rather by
habit than deliberately, the laying o f foundation stones, for
example, wc do not call superstitions, only because it docs not
occur to us to do so. Whatever on the other hand we do not do
and think o f as irrational, particularly in the field o f rites, but
still see done by peasants or savages, or indeed by Roman
Catholics, H indus or Shamanists, wc call superstitions, mean
ing so far by w e those o f us whose education has been
scientific, and for w hom whatever cannot be experimentally
verified and made use o f to predict events is not knowledge.
To ALFRED O. MENDEL
August 29, 1946
Dear D r 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 environments 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 Why
Exhibit Works o f Art?, pp 86-88:
une note repondant a un critique avait rcproche a lautcur de
prcconiscr le retour a un etat dcs choscs passes, cclui du
moycn age, alors quil sagissait cn realite dun rctour
premiers principcs, comme si ces principes pouvait dependre
dunc question d epoquc, et comme si leur vcrite netait 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
of the Journal o f Aesthetics and Art Criticism. If it is so misused
very often (pejoratively) it is because under present conditions
of education, the educated are acquainted with tradition
only in its past aspects, if at all, and not with the living
tradition .
You may be right about slants in writing. I attach
importance to continuity (tendency to write successive words
without lifting the pen), and think this corresponds to the
faculty of reading sentences as a whole, rather than word by
word. This is often very conspicuous in Sanskrit, where the
crasis often results in the presentation of whole sentences in the
form o f one solid block.
Very sincerely,
Alfred O Mendal was a professor o f psychology at Sarah Lawrcnce
College, Bronxville, N ew York, USA, and an authority on graphology. He
was the author o f Personality in Handwriting, N ew York, 1947.
T o KURT F. LEIDECKER
N ovem ber 16, 1941
Dear D r Lcidcckcr:
The least im portant thing about Guenon is his personality or
biography. I endose an articlc by Maclvcr, which please return
To MR J. C. ABREU
October 7, 1946
Dear M r Abrcu:
In reply to your inquiry, I am in fundamental agreement
with M Rene Guenon; this might not exclude some divergence
on minor matters. His books arc in the process of translation;
four have already been published by Luzac (London). I
To
m . ren g u n o n
To
ren g u n o n
To GEORGE SARTON
April 29, 1947
My dear Sarton:
Many thanks for your letter. Guenons controversial
volumes are no doubt 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 work, I send you these
two only. His others, expository works, eg, L Homme et son
To MR S. C. LEE
March 20, 1947
Dear M r Lee:
I reply to yours o f March 8, and send you below the message
which would be the gist o f what I should have to say were I to
be present at your International Festival, for the success of
which you have my best wishes.
If men arc to live at peace with one another, they must learn
to understand and to think with one another. The primary
obstacle to such an understanding is, to quote Prof Burtt,
the complacent assumption that all tenable solutions o f all
real problems can or will be found in the Western tradition.
This smug and pharaisaic complacency is one of the causes o f
war . . . the cause that philosophers arc primarily responsi
ble to remove.
The most dangerous form of this complacency is to be found
in the conviction that Christianity is not only true, but the
only true religion; for this leads to repeated attempts to
impose upon other peoples a Christian civilization, socalled. It was o f this civilization that Thomas Traherne
remarked that verily, there is no savage nation under the sun
that is more absurdly barbarous than the Christian w orld.
The opinion persists, howeverit was recently enunciated
by no less an authority than the Professor o f Divinity in the
University o f Edinburgh that we Westerners owe (it to)
the peoples o f these missionary lands to destroy their
cultures and replace them with our own. And why? Because
these arc essentially religious, but not Christian cultures! For
so long as this point o f view governs the attitudes of the
Western people who call themselves progressive towards
others whom they call backwardeveryone will rccognizc at
M airet with an editorial comm ittcc consisting o f Mrs Jessie R Oragc (sole
proprietor), Maurice B Reckitt, Pamela Travers, T. S. Eliot, Rowland
Kenney and W. T. Symons. AKC wrote frequently to this journal
throughout the last eight years o f his life.
Sir,
M r Durrell, in your issue for January 24, 1940, p 209, thinks
in Lao Tzu (and by implication in Chuang Tzu) there is
pled.
AKC
Chuang T zu , translated by H erbert Giles, London, 1889.
Rene Guenon, La Crise du monde moderne; English version, The Crisis of the
Modern World, London, 1942. See Bibliography.
M arco Pallis, Peaks and Lamas, various editions; sec Bibliography.
To STEPHEN HOBHOUSE
July 15, 1945
Dear M r Hobhouse:
Many thanks for your letter o f June 4. I certainly hope you
will be able to publish an American edition of William Law; I
think it would be widely read, especially by those who know
something o f John Woolman and his like, and that it would
have a good sale.
Regarding the second paragraph on p 309, I think that in the
note 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
would rather save their souls alive than have all these
things modern plumbing included added to them. I think
it would be true to say that the majority of colored peoples still
despise the white man and his works and would rather than
anything else in the world, be rid of him.
AKC
To THE NEW ENGLISH WEEKLY
March 16, 1944
Sir,
I should like to call your readers attention to the words
of the Pasha of Marrakech (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 way of life. Wc want the world o f the Koran. . . . At
the bottom o f Americas attitude is the assumption that 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 of the
whole Asiatic world. We (Europeans) are only conscious o f this
profound and well-advised 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 what they can get out o f us. At the same time, it
must not be overlooked that amongst those Orientals who have
lived, and studied longest in the West arc to be found some of
those who are least o f all inclined to accept what the Western
world now means by'progress, and who feel (to quote Powys
Evans from your issue of December 23rd) that if the wrong
road is taken, the greater the progress down it, the worse the
result, and the sooner there is a reaction, the better. Speaking
for these and for the inarticulate majority that has not been
infected by the delusion of progress , I would say that we
Those who say let us push ahead; everything will come right
in 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 right road again. . . . The first set of fighters includes both
the capitalists and the communists. . . . The Catholic Church
has taken up her position in the opposite camp, hostile to those
fatalists*. . . . 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 intensity of
disintegration, veiled as progress? What is there, in fact, in your
progress, which you can possibly have the courage to offer to
the rest o f the world, and even to wish to force upon it?
Very sincerely,
* O bviously, much has transpired since these remarks were written. The
Church has embraced so many aspects o f the modern world that she is no
longer herself. And the institution save for a rem nant here and there to
which even non-Catholics 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 o f salvation.
M r 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 he
attem pted to distinguish the w ork o f missionaries from the devastating
effects o f western economic expansion.
To MR SIDNEY L. GULICK
July 21, 1943
Dear M r Gulick:
Many thanks for your letter of June 27. You ask why I stay in
the United States if I hold these views. 1 remain here because
my work lies here. One can make oneself at home anywhere;
one can live ones own life; it is not compulsory to own a radio
or to read the magazines.
I have emphasized before that I am not contrasting West and
East as such, but modern anti-traditional, essentially irreligious
cultures with others. This point of view is one that is shared by
many Americans, who have spent all their lives here. 1 have
lived more than 25 years in Europe and as long in America and
so it is rather ironical to hope that I may yet see more and more
To MR SIDNEY L. GULICK
No day or m onth given, but the year was 1943
Dear Mr. Gulick:
Many thanks for your letter o f August 25. It is quite true
that, like Christianity, Buddhism stresses that it is mans first
duty to w ork out his own salvation, and that the social
applications o f his religion are more obvious in Hinduism.
Nevertheless, consider such a dictum as the Buddhas most
famous royal advocate, Asoka, [who] himself publically
repented o f his conquests and recorded this [repudiation] in his
lithic Edicts. You say Buddhism repudiates the self. This is a
vague statement, if we do not specify which o f our two selves
(duo sunt in homine, Aquinas, etc), the outer or the inner man, is
repudiated. The Buddha certainly never repudiated selfs
To F. W. BUCKLER
Date uncertain
Dear Professor Buckler:
Ive been reading your letter to Gulick and feel that I ought to
say that while 1 was talking primarily about the proselytising
fury of the West, I would say the same regarding Christians as
such. I think in fact that a proselytising fury implies a state of
mind that would be disgraceful in anyone. Christians as such
should produce a Christian civilization and make that their
witness .
You would wish to change a religion w ithout 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
of a profane from the sacrcd hardly exists. Hinduism penetrates
everything: 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 music and literature and every way o f life. The
missionary is quite right, from his point of view, in opposing
and ignoring all these elements o f the Indian culture he must
do so, if he is not to be defeated by the whole situation. Add to
this, o f course, that it is impossible for him not to be of his own
kind, and therefore impossible for him not to carry with him
the infection of modern life. The only large scale effect of
missionary activity in Asia, in other words, is not to convert,
but to secularize. You must resign yourself to the alternative: to
convert, you must destroy the culture, or if you do not destroy
the culture, then you cannot convert.
Sincerely,
Professor F. W. Buckler, departm ent o f church history, Graduate-School o f
ANONYMOUS
Date uncertain
Dear M:
I would agree with you that even the highest cultural
values considered as the rich mans great possessions may
be sacrificed when it becomes a matter o f W orth that transcends
all values. What I revolt at is the destruction o f values that
results when one aspect o f this W orth is set up as its only true
aspect. 1 dont think anyone can altogether ignore the position
of very many deeply religious persons who would hold with,
for example, Jung who says to flatter oneself that Christianity
is the only truth, the white Christ the only redeemer, is
insanity. I would take this last word quite literally, or possibly
substitute for it the w ord paranoia.
You mention Africa. I myself do not know (do you know, or
only suppose?) whether the African spiritual basis o f life is
equally good with that of Hinduism 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, not the equal o f the
average Australian aboriginal, or the average Eskimo we are
very definitely their inferiors (and has expressed this view to
me even more strongly in correspondence)and in this
connection, the criterion by their fruits . . . might well
apply. Professor N orthrop (in The Meeting o f East and West, p
22), remarks that
It takes ideals and religion to enter into the imaginations and
emotions of all and lay waste their very souls. N ot until
mans cherished beliefs are captured can his culture be
destroyed. This evil aspect of our own highest moral ideas
and religious values has been overlooked; in our blindness to
ideals and values other than our own we see only the new
effects which our own provincial goods create and not the
equally high value of the old culture which their coming has
destroyed. Only a merging of civilizations which proceeds
from the knowledge and appreciation- of the diverse ideals
and values o f all parties to the undertaking, can escape evils
so terrible and extreme as those wrought by the Christian
religion in Mexico.
*It should be noted that in the view o f the orthodox, entry into Hinduism is
only via birth into one o f the traditional castes. AKC elsewhere posits the
one theoretical exception that o f the mteccha (barbarian or non-Hindu) who
becomes a santiyasin, an utter renunciant.
To WALTER SHEWRING
Date uncertain
Dear Walter Shewring:
The following is by way of answer to other matters raised in
your letter. 1 have not used Senart very much, but should call
his translation good, though as in translating Plato, I hold that
no one whose mentality is nominalist can really know the
content o f realistic texts. I like Teapes 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 w ord for word analysis) published by the
Theosophical Society. I dont need to tell you that the greatest
scholars often betray their texts; for example, in the Laws of
Mann 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 thought of translating the Gita, and
many other texts, but that is a very great task, for which
perhaps Im hardly ready, and anyhow, I havent so far been
able to avoid the work o f the exegesis o f special problems. I
was very pleased that you could approve o f the Knots; I have
thought o f that article as representative of what I am trying to
do; yet it is only a little part of what should be a whole book on
Atman, or even on the Sutratman alone.
About tolerance : I did not expect, of course, your full
agreement. I would like to write a volume of Extrinsic and
probable proofs of the truth o f Christianity. I regard the
notion of a conversion from one form of belief to another as
analagous to change from one monastic order to another;
generally speaking, undesirable, but not forbidden, and
appropriate in individual cases (eg, Marco Pallis*). Hinduism,
like Judaism, is a non-proselytising religion. The Jew will say,
Life (of which the sourcc lies beyond the aforesaid contraries, in
the divine darkness), Indian, Persian, Sumarian, Greek, Norse
and the whole concept o f the Eucharist and transubstantian
connected therewith. 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 of the ideal
world, that o f the world Picture or speculum aeternum. I
understand 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 ithout some virtue. Huxley, however, is rather
sentimental, and cannot accept that darker side o f God which
Behmen, perhaps, understood better than most.
I have lately been reading with great interest Scholems Major
Trends in Jewish Mysticism where certain Hebrew-Indian para
llels are very striking, eg, Abulafias Yoga, the concept o f M i
( What?) equivalent to the Sanskrit Kha (What?) as an
essential name o f God; the concept of transmigration (qilul =
Ar, tanasuh) all transmigrations are in the last resort only the
migrations o f the one soul whose exile atones for its fall; that
every art o f man should be directed to the restoration o f all the
scattered lights (cf Bodhisattva concept); in the beginning ,
our in principio, arche, regarded as a point and identified with
the Fons vitae.
Regarding Erics letters, if you have in mind some 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.
With kindest regards,
*W ho bccamc Buddhist following upon his contacts with and deep
penetration o f the M ahayana in its Tibetan form.
Walter Shewring, identified on p 23.
The reference in the first paragraph is to translations o f the Upanishads;
W. M. Teape, The Secret Lore of India, Cambridge, England, 1932.
'Svayamatrnna: Janua Coeli', in Zalmoxis, II, Paris, 1939.
Symplegades, in Studies and Essays in the History of Science in Homage to
George Sarton on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by M. F. Ashley
M ontagu, N ew York, 1947.
Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Jerusalem, 1941.
Letters of Eric Gill, edited by Walter Shewring, N ew York, 1948.
4Klta and Other Words Denoting Zero in Connection with the Metaphysics
of Space, AKC, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, VII,
1934.
To ERIC GILL
June 14, 1934
My dear Gill:
I am very grateful to you for your kind letter, and delighted
by your appreciation. After all, there is nothing o f my ow n in
the book except the w ork o f putting things together, so there is
no reason w hy I should not myself think it im portant as regards
its matter. I have definitely come to a point at which I realise
that ones own opinions or views so far as they are peculiar or
rebellious arc merely accidents o f ones individuality and are
not properly to be regarded as a basis for comprehension or as a
guide to conduct. I am from my point of view entirely at one
with you in the matter o f religion, ie, as regards essentials, the
only im portant divergence being that for me the one great
tradition (or revelation) has had many developments, none o f
which can claim absolute perfection o f (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, Sigurd, Hercules, Horus, etc. O n
the whole I can go further in by means o f the Indian Tradition
than any other, but it can hardly be doubted that m y natural
growth, had 1 been entirely a product o f Europe and know n no
other 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 that only yesterday I had a
few words with one o f the Harvard professors in the Fine Arts
Department there and he said he was constantly citing these
very words in his lectures. Such things, and the review in the
Times, show 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 your new book very much and I am very sure that it
will, as all your writings do, very wisely express from the
practical point o f view, the matter. You will understand o f
To CONRAD PEPLER, OP
January 27, 1947
Dear D r Pcplcr:
I dont know if you would 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 contemporary ways o f thinking would
have facilitated the acceptation of Fr Carey-Elwes equation in
peoples minds.
Very sinccrcly,
Note on The Son o f M an
1 think Fr Carey-Elwes is perfectly right in equating The
Son o f M an (or perhaps better, of the M an) with the Son
o f G od . I am writing now only to point out that while this
can be deduced as Fr Carey-Elwes docs from Old and New
Testament texts, the possibility of this meaning 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 of the Wholes, the Fore-Source, and the
Primal-unknowable O ne 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, is
termed M an. Epiphanous (Panar. 31, 5) similarly speaks of
the Father of Truth as having been called by the mystical
name o f m an . C f also Hermetica I. 12 where the Father of
all gave birth to the Man, like unto H im self. . . bearing the
image o f his Father, and as was like to be, God delighted in
the Man, -whose form was His (Gods ow n; bearing in mind
the traditional view according to which in all generations the
father him self is reborn in the son. It will be seen that these
statements imply that there must have been also in the Father
a Manlike nature.
Father Conrad Pcplcr, O P, was editor o f The Life of the Spirit.
utter a prayer for you, but only in the simplest and most
informal manner, while your prayer for me may be more
correct, so to speak.
Very sinccrcly,
To FATHER COLUMBA CAREY-ELWES, OSB
June 14, 1947
Dear Carey-Elwes:
Many thanks for your letter. I have asked Shcwring to lend
you . . . M y Brothers Keeper. As-for jum ping out o f ones skin
(or as Americans say, out of ones pajamas) 1 am afraid the
East, though still far less extrovertedless turned inside
outthan the West, is doing its best to jum p, too. This 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 o f such orders as yours, nevertheless I find even Jesuits
infccted by disorder and urging India to progress by secular
means only ic, yielding to Utopianism, (Laus Deo!).
I recommend very high Bharatan Kumarappas 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. O n the other hand, how many so callcd re
forms are deforms !
Another very fine book, o f a different kind, is H. Zim m ers
Der Weg sum Selbst (Rascher Verlag, Zurich) about Sri Ramana
Maharshiprobably the greatest living Indian teacher, and
[proponent of] the great question . . . Who am I?
With kindest regards,
Sri Ramana Maharshi, previously identified; his collcctcd works have
appeared in both English and French versions.
and my God arc one and the same God w hom , as Philo said,
all peoples acknowledge.
With all best wishes,
Very sinccrcly,
PS: Did I ever tell you that I know two brothers, Europeans,
both men o f prayer, one a Trappist monk, the other a leading
Moslem, and neither has any wish to convert the other?
To BERNARD KELLY
November 26, 1945
Dear Bernard Kelly:
Regarding Extra Ecclesiam . . . , 1 have before me a letter
from the Secretary o f the Archbishop of Boston (R C), in
which he says that his formula is of course, one o f the most
knotty problems in all theology.
Also in an article on the subjcct b yj. 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
formally or to the soul o f the Church, which is the invisible
and spiritual society composed exclusively of those who have
the virtue o f charity. N o such society, however, 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 who is
saved, is necessarily one who is, or who intends to become a
member of the Roman Catholic C hurch. This seems to me
contrary to the commandment Judge not . I believe the
Christian has no right to ask whether anyone is or is not in a
state o f grace. (St Joans answer to the question was, If not, I
pray God that I may be, and if I am, I pray God keep me so).
There is also the expression baptism of the Spirit which, I
understand docs not necessarily apply only to members o f the
Church who, as such, have rcccived also the baptism with
Water. Arc there specific limitations attached to the notion of
baptism by the Spirit? O n the face of it, one would presume
To WALTER SHEWRING
March 30, 1936
To BERNARD KELLY
November 14, 1946
Dear Bernard Kelly:
Just a line to say, when you review Figures of Thought, by all
means correct my error about Transubstantiation. I dont need
to tell you that I dont 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 truth (and not an
unim portant 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 of its sense
in our apprehensionor, if 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 Exhibit. . . . I shouldnt
mind if you do.
Im grateful for your review of Religious Basis. . also,
G rigsons o f Figures. . . in Spectator, October 25.
I suppose you got either from me or otherwise, Al-Ghazalis
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 Hinduism in translation and
com ment by scholars! For example, Gairdner is very wary of
Bernard Kelly, W indsor, England. Sec pp 20-1; Kelly was reviewing A KCs
Figures of Speech or Figures of Thought? (London, 1946) and had some
disagreement about AK Cs discussion of Transubstantiation. Both this book
and A K C s Why Exhibit Works of Art? (London, 1943) bore the following
notice: N o rights reserved. Quotations o f reasonable length may be made
w ithout w ritten permission. The Religious Basis of the Forms of Indian Society;
Indian Culture and English Influence; East and West (all by AKC), N ew York,
1946.
Mishkat al-Anwar (The Niche for Lights), al- Ghazzali; translated by W .H .T.
Gairdner, Royal Asiatic Society M onographs, Vol XIX, London, 1924;
Pakistani edition 1973.
The Life of the Spirit, a review o f spirituality published by the Dominicans of
England, Oxford.
Pantheism, Indian and N eo-Platonic , AKC, Journal of Indian History, Vol
XVI, 1937; French translation in Etudes Traditionnelles, XLIII, Paris, 1938.
To BERNARD KELLY
December 29, 1946
Dear Bernard Kelly:
About the Eucharist as a type of a transubstantiation that
ought to be realised in secular life: Eckhart (Evans I, 408,
Pfeiffer 593), Were anyone as well prepared for outer food as
for the Sacrament, he would receive God (therein) as much as
in the Sacrament (itself). This is just what 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! rather than John or Jacob or
Ulrich; and if this befalls out of time, then I am transformed
into G od.
About extra ecclesiam nulla salus: the Papal Bull Unigenitus
against Jansenism amongst other things declared that the
proposition Grace is not given outside the Church is untrue.
Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 1929, says the Church
is the normal institute of grace, but the Grace o f Christ is not
hindered from visiting particular men without the mediation of
the Church; and those who arc thus visited by his Grace in this
immediate way belong to the invisible Church (this is what I
mean when I sometimes talk of the reunion of the Churches
in the widest sense).
This material in the last two paragraphs above is taken from
To BERNARD KELLY
January 8, 1947
My dear D r Stoudt:
I am greatly indebted to you for sending. . ., through the
publishers, your. . . version o f Jacob Boehmes The Way to
Christ. It is a very fine piece o f translation, and I shall find an
opportunity to review it, perhaps for the Review o f Religion if
the publishers have not sent them a review copy, or if not, if
you ask them to do so.
I would like to have seen fuller notes, for instance in
connection with the Spark , p 246 (cf note 31 in the JA O S
article I am sending you, though there is much more material
AKC
To THE NEW ENGLISH WEEKLY, LONDON
January 8, 1946
Sir,
I am afraid that Gens thoroughly misunderstands my
position. In fact, I agree with him in almost everything. I never
maintained and I do not hold that Comparative Religion, or
even ones own, can be taught as other sciences are taught . I
said that Comparative Religion must be taught with at least as
much regard for the truth as teachers of science usually have,
and objectively in this sense, that the scriptures of the other re-
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 Catholic o f considerable standing, though not 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
how hard it would be to say what doctrines (Matters o f faith, as
distinguished from matters o f detail) arc not com mon to
Christianity and Hinduism (as well as other traditions, the
Islamic for example). As to reincarnation, the doctrine has been
profoundly misinterpreted, alike by scholars, Thcosophists,
and neo-Buddhists. O n the other hand, the doctrine about
what is under and what beyond the Sun is expounded in almost
identical terms in both traditions.
I often find m yself in the position o f a defender of Catholic
truth, and willingly enough; all the doctrines usually regarded
as difficult seem to me to both intelligible and to be represented
in Hinduism. On the other hand, though individual Protestants
may be truly religious, I cannot seriously equate Protestantism
with Christianity, and regard the Reformation as a Reforma
tion.
It is very easy to discover apparent contradictions between
Christianity and Hinduism, but it requires a very thorough
knowledge o f both and perhaps a faith in both, to discover
The Indian Doctrine of Mans Last End, raising objections both on her
part and on the part of her (Protestant) friend about the correlation of
Hindu and Christian positions. The enclosed cxtract, mentioned in the first
paragraph, was from a letter by Eric Gill concerning the same article, and is
repeated 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 him
rather high and dry, as it leaves out (necessarily, from the point of view of
metaphysics) all the personal loving contact which he has with Christ as
man, brother, lover, bridegroom, friend. . . . I don't think there is anything
at all wrong with what you have written: I think it is all just true, but it is
written at a level removed from that of the ordinary consciousncss and. . .
Two Passages is Dantes Paradiso', Speculum XI (1936), 327-328.
Mediaeval Acsthctic. I. Dionysius the Psucdo-Areopagite and Ulrich
Engelberti of Strassburg, Art Bulletin, XVII (1935), Pt 1, 31-47.
In later years, Dr Coomaraswamy changcd his views on the orthodoxy of
Buddhism, and would no longer have referred to it as Protestant.
To PROFESSOR J. WACH
August 23, 1947
Dear Professor Wach:
1 read your paper in the July Journal of Religion with much
interest. For me, of course, theology is a science common to
all religions, and not the private property of any. In view of
Aquinas as cited in the enclosed, p 60, it would seem to me
virtually impossible for any Roman Catholic to maintain that
no non-Christian scripture can have been inspired. Indeed,
from the point of view of those who are opposed to all religion,
nothing could well be more laughable than for anyone to claim
that his religion alone has been revealed . I hold with Blake
that there is no natural religion (which parallels your
citations from Newman and Soderblom). I am sending a copy
o f your paper to a R. C. friend of mine in England who is
To
satyah).
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
Blakes 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 one science, whatever the local coloring it takes
on. In this connection I am sending you a copy of 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 of
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.
To HELEN CHAPIN
Dcccmber 22, 1945
Dear Helen:
. . . I think you (like Aldous Huxley) arc much too much
afraid o f what you call sugar; and on the other hand, 1
suspcct some tracc o f sugar in your love o f nature . O f
coursc, wc all love nature; but we dont have to go so far as
to exclaim that only God can make a tree , as if he was not
just as interested in making fleas. Blake was afraid that
W ordsworth was fond o f nature; and as Eckhart says, to find
nature (ie, natura naturans) as she is herself, all her forms must be
shattered.
I sec no sugar in Ramakrishna! Bhakti in the Bhagavad Gita is
scrvice (in the sense of giving to anyone what is their due,
service as a servant) or attendance, rather than love
literally. Platonic love is not the love of others for
themselves, but o f what in them is divine, and as this is
identical with what in us is divine, is just as much self-love (ie,
love o f Self) as love o f others; the notion o f I and that of
others is (as in Buddhism) equally delusive, and what we
need is not altruism but Self-love in the Aristotelian and in
the Scholastic sense.
Very sincerely,
Helen Chapin, Bryn M aw r College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; see
table o f contents for other letters.
Ramakrishna refers to the major nineteenth century Indian saint, and to the
account o f his life and teaching, Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, N ew York.
Bhakti, usually translated as love or devotion (to God). For a classical Indian
exposition o f bhakti, see Narada Bhakti Sutras, translated by Swami
Tyagisanada, Madras, India, 1972.
To LIGHT, LONDON
May 21, 1942
Sir,
Apropos o f the article on Reincarnation by Mrs Rhys
Davids and the leading article O f Rebirth in your issue o f
January 8, 1942, and with special reference to the remark In
India it is a cardinal point o f Hindu D ogm a, may I say that
while there is in India a doctrinc of Transmigration (in the sense
of passage from states o f being to other states o f being),
Reincarnation (in the sense of the return of individuals to
incarnation on earth) is not a Hindu doctrinc. The Hindu
doctrinc is, in the words o f Sankaracarya that There is no
other transmigrant (samsarin) but the Lord. That this is the
teaching of the Upanishads and older texts could be amply
supported by many citations, and follows directly from the
position that our powers arc merely the names o f his acts,
who is the only seer, hearer, thinker, etc, in us , and from the
view, com mon to Hinduism and Buddhism that it is the
greatest o f all delusions to consider I am the doer. In
succcssive births and deaths it is Brahma, not I, that comes
and goes; goes when wc give up the ghost and as this spirit
returns to God who gave it. This is also the teaching o f
Christ, who says that if we would follow him wc must hate our
souls, and that no man has ascended into heaven save he who
came dow n from heaven, even the Son o f Man, which is
heaven.
The transmigrating Lord occupies, indeed, bodies o f which
the character is casually and fatally determined, but he never
becomes anyone , and it follows that no one who is still
anyone 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 realisation
that I live, yet not I, but Christ (or Brahma, or by whatever
other name wc speak of God) in m e.
Surely, before we discuss Reincarnation wc ought to be
sure that a doctrinc o f Reincarnation has been maintained by
anyone but the Thcosophists.
AKC
To RUTH CAMPBELL
January 6, 1938
Dear Miss Campbell:
Many thanks for your kind letter and the careful attention you
have given my article. I should like to say first that your office
dogs missed the point as regards transmigration . What I
said 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, not (ram-migration) and of transmigration on
the other. I had thought I made it very clear that transmigration
has nothing to do with time or place, but takes place entirely
within you , and is from the periphery to the centre of being.
I believe this is made so clear in the article that only a re-reading
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
interrupt the sequence o f ideas; and that on the other hand it is
very necessary to in some way set aside our notions of
philosophy before we can begin to grasp the philosophia
perennis, the theme of which is rather pneumatological than
psychological, and gnostic rather than epistemological.
I might add that a limitation by Christianity would not
stand in the way of understanding, if this Christianity were a
real knowledge (of Christianity as understood by Dionysius,
Bonaventura, Thomas and Witelo, as well as Eckhart). My
experiences o f Christians is that it is very rare to meet
w ith one w ho has any real conception o f what 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 Kappa
quarterly), New York, USA.
The Vedanta and the Western Tradition, The American Scholar, VIII, 1939.
A nonymous
Date uncertain
Sir:
Apropos of 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 of Rene Guenon that all
apparent references to reincarnation of the individual on this
earth arc to be understood metaphorically. This was also the
view of Hierocles, stated in his Commentary on the Golden Verses
of Pythagoras, V.53. Passages can be cited also from Christian
and Islamic authors which appear to enunciate a doctrine of
reincarnation, yet cannot and do not really do so.
An adequate treatment of 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 of reincarnation.
Then that from the same point of 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 of existence
whatever; in the words of 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 of the two selves, mortal or immortal,
that all traditions, whether Greek, Christian or Oriental assume
to coexist in us, we are referring. Most of the Indian texts
that seem to speak of a reincarnation are cither descriptive of
this present life, or any kind o f living, or rather of the Life that
is common to all things, and passes on from one to another
for the souls not perishing resting, o f course, upon the fact that
it survives each o f these changes o f garment, and if so, why not
the last o f them?). And Eckhart (Pfieffer, p 530) Aught is
suspended from the divine essence; its progression is matter,
wherein the soul puts on new forms and puts off her old ones.
The change from one into the other is her death, and the ones
she dons she lives in . In H um es . . . Upanishads, he often
assumes that the subject is this man when it is really M an ,
and hence he thinks that we reincarnate, when really, as Sankara
says, There is, in truth, no other transmigrant than the Lord.
Very sincerely,
William Ernest Hocking was professor o f philosophy at Harvard University.
To WESLEY E. NEEDHAM
May 20, 1945
Deat M r Needham:
Many thanks for letting me 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 not be ceremonious. I made myself a copy, as the
transliteration will help with other Nepal texts.
I am afraid I distrust Theosophy as a whole, though in fact, I
had a high regard for Mrs Besant personally. The notion o f a
personal physical rebirth is not orthodox Brahmanism or
original Buddhism, since there is no psychic constant I that
could be reborn. I treat o f this briefly in my One and Only
Transm igrant (JA O S Suppl 3, 1944, p 28), though a fuller
treatment is needed. All scholars are agreed that a doctrine o f
individual physical rebirth is not Vedic, and this fact alone
should give one pause. I agree that some have been led to
Eastern thought through meeting with Theosophy, but the
best o f these have realized that they must go to the sources
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 particular
unreal , I dont think we need have much trouble. I was
equating reality with being. So I mean what St Augustine
means when he says of created things that Te comparata nec
pulchra, nec bona, nec sunt. Such being as they have, such reality
therefore, is by participation, not of themselves. Exis
To BERNARD KELLY
April 9, 1947
Dear Bernard Kelly:
. . . As regards soul , surely it will depend on which o f the
senses in which the w ord is used whether or not it be anathema
to deny its immortality. One cannot overlook that the W ord of
God extends to the sundering o f soul from Spirit (Heb
IV, 12). N ow , it is God who only hath im m ortality (I Tim
VI, 16). Can, therefore, anything but the Spirit o f God (that)
dwellcth in you (I C or III, 16) be immortal? This Spirit is the
Psychopomp; surely there is no hope o f immortality for the
soul as such, but 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
im m ortality with the saying no one hath ascended into
heaven, save he which came down from heaven, even the Son
o f (the) Man which is in heaven . So, while there is a sense in
which one can speak o f m ans immortal soul , I think that in
view o f the fact that men arc most unconscious o f the
ambiguity of the w ord psyche and still more unaware o f the
pejorative implications o f the w ord psychikos, and the fact that
in these days men are only too ready to be lovers o f their own
selves (II Tim 111, 2), it is much safer to think and speak of
our souls as mortal, and to think only of the ghost 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 in
Christ . The Spirit is not even hypothetically destructible.
I am so glad to know that after your 18 m onths grind you
are now really enjoying its fruits. It is, indeed, absolutely
indispensable to learn to think in Sanskrit to some extent, ie, to
be able to use certain terms directly, without putting them onto
English equivalents, no one o f which can communicate their
full content; and as soon as one can do this (however many
aids one still needs in continuous reading) one begins at once
to see a great deal that had otherwise been overlooked.
I have been losing time lately by a cold that saps ones
energy; and besides that is seems impossible to cope with half
the things I ought to be doing.
Kindest regards,
Bernard Kelly, W indsor, England, identified p. 20.
Date uncertain
Sir:
In the July issue of JP, p 371, Karl Schmidt referring to the
expression master of 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, is
quiforts est\ St Thomas Aquinas, Sum Theol II-II.26.4, in homitte
duo 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 we 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 , conscien
ce , 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 AKCs manu
script 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 immortal in the same
way that God is immortal, but only in a certain way
(secundum quemdam modum, St Augustine, Ep 166, 21-31).
Quomodo ? in one way only, viz, by continuing to become;
since thus it can always leave behind it a new and other nature
to replace the old Plato, Symposium, 207D). It is incorrect to
speak o f the soul indiscriminately as im m ortal, just 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 him self.
With respect to the word soul (psyche, anima, Heb nefes)
translated sometimes by life (Luke XIV, 26, and hate not
his own life also; John XII, 25: Hatcth his own life in the
w orld). 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 word
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 must
always consider the context; in general the Gospels are not at all
enthusiastic about the kind of soul that the psychologist is
concerned about, and Jungs man in search of a soul 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 jivan-mukti
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 mind-ways that perfection can be obtained; it means
that these can be discarded now. That art thou was never said
To
phrase that for Philo and the Sufus often paraphrases spirit)
[and] is the proper object o f Self-love, as in St Thomas
Aquinas, Sum Theol II-II.26.4: a man out o f charity, ought to
love him self more than he loves any other person . . . more
than his neighbour.
This tradition o f true Self-love (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.
That you ignore the traditional meanings of the terms animus and
anima seems to me to take all the sense out of your deprecation
o f wissenschaftliche distinctions on p 16, and seems to me to
show that such distinctions cannot be ignored w ithout resultant
confusion, such as one sees in Claudel, in whose parable animas
SECRET LOVE CAN ONLY BE THE WORLD1.
donna.
May 2, 1947
Dear Father D Arcy:
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 anima
the soul-image as envisioned by men and animus the
soul-image 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 well-known meanings, according to whichman
consisting of body, soul and spirit anima is 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 of leaving the reader to wonder
whether or not you were awareas 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 of 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 mans 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
To
To
BERNARD KELLY
April 9, 1947
Dear Bernard Kelly:
Ijust obtained a copy of D Arcys 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 of 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 of the
terms animus and anima, for which William o f St Thierrys
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 of the manly and the spiritual; and this mens vel
spiritus is precisely the imago Dei in us. Obviously then, the
animus is the Soul of the soul, the proper object of true Self
love as in St Thomas Aquinas, Sum Theol II-II.26.4: a man,
out of 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 B U IV.5, for which there is a very close
parallel in Lysis 219D220B. 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, of
course uses the terms in a special way, not incorrect in itself,
but at the same time not in accordance with the traditional
meanings. D Arcy seems quite unaware of all this, and this
makes nonsense o f his deprecation of "wissenschaftliche distinc
tions, p 16). In other words, he is not transmitting dogma, but
merely thinking sloppily.
Turning to our own affairs, as regards the Trinity: Eckhart
calls this an arrangement of God, and indeed I can only think
o f it as one o f many possible formulations o f relations in
God. M oreover, the doctrinc is strictly speaking smriti rather
than sruti. Also, I cannot quite see how the Unity of the Three
docs not, in a sense, make a fourth , ie, a One as logically
transcending the Trinity with reference to which St Thomas
him self says Wc cannot say the only God, because deity is
com mon to several . I think the closest comparisons must be
based on M U IV.4,5 (Agni, Vayu, Aditya as forms o f Brahma
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 lower degree o f revelation, from reflection on the sruti; am ong
such texts arc the Epics and usually the Bhagavad Gita. Analogous rankings in
Christianity would be the Gospels (sruti) and the Pauline Epistles (smriti).
To BERNARD KELLY
August 6, 1947
Dear Bernard Kelly:
Yours ofjuly 16:1 have had in mind to write on the Use and
Abuse o f the terms anima and animus, but 1) I must not
undertake any new tasks, but conserve energy to finish ones
begun (doctors orders!), and 2) I think you could do it better. I
think it would be useful to do this, rather than write a critique
To BERNARD KELLY
August 19, 1947
Dear Bernard Kelly:
I am so happy to hear that you will take up the anima-animus
job.
Calands Pancavimsa Brahmana is Bibliotheca Indica no 255,
Asiatic Society of 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 of its smaller size.
Re Golden Flower, it is Wilhelms part to which I referred;
Jungs is properly dealt with in a Preau, La Fleur dor et le
Taoisme sans Tao, Paris, circa 1932 (based on the German
edition o f Wilhelm and Jung, 1929), esp p 49:
. . . que cct auteur (Jung) parle a plusiers reprises du Soi (das
Sclbst) quil oppose au moi (das ich), ne peut faire impression
sur personne. Aussi longtcmps quil na pas dit que ce Soi
est un tcrminaison de lEsprit primordial, quil est dordre
universcl et identiquc au Grand U n , il na rein dit; et il
reste expose a lobjection que ce quil y a de vcritablement
intercssant dans la pcnsec orientalc du Taoisme, de celle sans
laquelle lidec du Rctour devient inintelligible.
In The Secret . . . itself, Jung on p 117 repeats his misuse o f the
term animus, remarking (without giving any source) mulier non
habet animan sed animum. I wonder if he even knows 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 Stuttgart Eckhart, the Lateinische Werke I, 1-160
(chiefly Expositio Libri Genesis; III, 1-240 (Expositio S Ev sec
Joannem)-, IV- 1-240 (Sermones); and V, 1-128 (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 two in us are respectively the substantial and
the actual forma of the soul, forma corresponding to eidos in
Phaedo 79, A & B, Timaeus 90 A. I feel quite proud to have you
ask me for a Thom istic reference! viz, Sum Theol II-II.26.4:
rest o f the context, which deals with mans 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 hom e (though we arc apt to
interpret this aphorism cynically!). Some o f the older references
for self-love = love of Self as distinguished from self, are:
Hermes Lib 4.6.B (cf Scott, Hermetica 2.145), Aristotle, Nich
Ethics 9.8 (cf Mag Mor II.xi,xiii,xiv). O n true Self-love, B U 4.5
(cf also 2.4) like Plato, Lysis 219D-220B!; Platonic love as
for Ficino (see Kristeller, pp 279-287), B U 1.4.8; cf Augustine
cited 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 f
Context 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, where
there are two opposite impulses in a man at the same time about
the 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 Met V .3.8-9 (1005B) the most
certain o f all principles, that it is impossible for the same
property at once belong and not to belong to the same thing in
the 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 N ew
Testament about the indwelling Spirit (eg, I Cor 3, 16: to
pneuma tou theou oikei en hurnin is said of the immanent Daimon
To BERNARD KELLY
September 8, 1947
Dear Bernard Kelly:
Notably in Heb 4, 12, St Paul distinguishes the tw o in us .
So often St Augustine distinguishes what is mortal and mutable
in us from what is immutable and immortal, the latter Intellect;
for St Thom as Aquinas it is similarly the intellectual virtues
that survive. But also (with Plato, etc) one can speak of the
whole soul or o f its parts; our business is one of integration,
to restore the unity auto kath' eauton. I agree it is the same to say
animus is anima considered according to her spiritual nature, as
to say that animus is the spiritual part o f the soul. It is in so far
as 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 whom he receives reports of the
sensible world and when she is purified, his fitting bride. In
the Sum Theol 1.45.6, guod dominandogubernet at vurlicetguae sunt
creata. . . . it is really the Spirit that quicken every life.
I dont think you should think o f Guenons initiatory
succession as even possibly diabolical; dont forget how serious
he is, and how he him self distinguishes true from counter
initiation. Baptism, qua new birth was certainly originally an
initiation, though now rather more like a consecration only.*
Obviously no great urgency about Art and Thought, Vol II,
since even Vol I is still in press. Bharatan Iyers address is:
Office o f the Accountant General, Rangoon, Burma. It would
certainly please me to have your anima-animus as your
contribution, but I hardly suppose a second volume could
appear before the end of 1948, which seems far off.
I will write to Iyer soon, and commend your article to him; I
am just completing a piece on Athena and Hcphaistos as
cooperators in the Greek concept of creative art, but divorced
in industrial production.
Affectionately,
PS: I note: Jacques Maritain, A N ew Approach to God, says in
the inner stimulation o f culture, it is through Christian
H e is.
To
say do many others. I say all this without any reference to other
than Christian points of view; although, of course, the Thom ist
duo sunt in homine and the doctrine o f true Self-love are
com mon to Christianity, Plato, Aristotle, and also to Hindu
ism and Buddhism.
I think the attitude o f the University of Bombay 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
point o f view, as one valid Way amongst others, leading to
one goal.
As for conversion : there are rare souls who can give
themselves to God more easily in one (new to them) Tradition,
than in another (in which they were reared). I know, for
instance, of a Tibetan who is a real Christian, and o f Christians
who have become true Moslems; indeed, the Moslems say o f
such that sometimes they go farther (on the Way) than even
we do. But such changes o f mode are very exceptional needs.
I know o f a Trappist monk in Belgium whose brother is an
outstanding European Moslem; neither wishes to convert
the other, and both are highly respectful of the N orth American
Indian religion, nor do either o f them wish to change it. Both
are men o f prayer, and both of the highest intelligence and
devotion.
With best wishes for your journey,
M other Agnes C. Ducey, as above.
To MR R. HOPE
April 8, 1946
Dear M r Hope:
O ur disagreement is largely about terms. I would not regard
thinking, if this means contemplation , a moral act ;
morality for Aquinas et al, pertains to the active life, not the
contemplative life. If thinking is reasoning , then it would
be an activity with moral implications.
That there is infinity in everything, I^agree; but this does not
mean that the thing itself can be described as infinite. The sands
To
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 Levy-Bruhl too much for granted, and wonder if you
have considered the other point of view stated in Oliver Leroys
La Raison primitif, Paris . . . 1927; W. Schmidts 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).
To DR FRITZ MARTI
October 6, 1946
Dear D r 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 would say that the
various religions are mere contingent disguises of a pure
philosophical truth. N ot exactly that: I would say are
contingent adaptations o f a pure metaphysical truth (primarily
experiential, ie, revealed). I think this follows almost inevitably
from the axiom the mode o f knowledge follows the mode of
the nature of the knowcr. (I certainly would not use the word
mere). For me una veritas in variis signis varie resplendetad
To RICHARD GREGG
January 29, 1940
My dear Richard:
I have been reading some more of 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 meaning
would be mere noise: a merely decorative and in
significant art, a dead superfluity. That people have begun to
think o f poetry as a matter o f sound only is sufficiently
symptomatic (of the cave dwellers purely animal satisfaction
with the shadows on his wall). In our view, the Divine Liturgy
is explained as like the fusion of sound with meaning (in a
word, the Indian thinks o f words as sounds, written signs
Cordially,
Ruth Nanda Anshcn was editor of the Scicncc and Culture series published by
Harper Brothers. She wished to use the sentence discussed here as a motto.
Synthesis = An Augustine Synthesis, Erich Przywara; see Bibliography.
(fr 5) refers to the fragment in H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, see
Bibliography.
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 Ive 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.
To MR R. F. C. HULL
Date uncertain
Dear M r 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 of opinion, convention, pragmatic, empirical; the
other of 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 Thibauts words,
You can make what arbitrary statement you please . M ore
literal, but less intelligible to a reader would be You can say
what you like, but its 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 whole controversy is stupid, because
both arc agreed on the distinction of relative from real truth.
Neither is it the Buddhist position that vijnana is any more real
than any other of the five skandhas that constitute the life of the
empirical Ego that is not my S elf. But vijnana may stand for
the four components o f conscious existence, so that sa-vijnana
kaya = soul and body, soul being the same as empirical
Ego . You ask if the Buddhist argument (4) is meant to be
fallacious; I think you might call it a straw man
In (9), the son of a barren m other is a stock expression for
anything w ithout potentiality o f existence.
The argum ent 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
To MR PAUL GRIFFITH
July 11, 1944
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your inquiry. I appreciate the importance of
public opinion and wish 1 could cooperate with you in this
most timely undertaking because India is the most misrepre
sented country in the world, and it is about time Americas
intelligence on the subject was no longer insulted.
A book like the Bhagavad Gita would be particularly difficult
to illustrate. A metaphysical treatise hardly 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 Sri
Krishna; such illustrations arc of the type reproduced by L. D.
Barnetts 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 of
publication. A considerable part of 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 o f the Bhagavad
Gita.
To illustrate the Bhagavad Gita and its whole background
would be possible, but an immense undertaking, and would
am ount to an illustration o f Indian culture generally, including
the m ythology. I am afraid my feeling is that it is an almost
impracticable scheme to propose one illustrated magazine article
on 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 why 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
To F. S. C. NORTHROP
November 6, 1944
Dear Professor N orthrop:
I read with the deepest interest your brilliant paper in the
Hawaii Symposium. I entirely agree with you in this main
premise that Oriental philosophies start from an immediate
apprehension o f reality, and in their extension arc not proce
dures by abstraction, but statements about the reality in terms
o f analogy, for the sake of understanding and communication. I
am not at all sure, however, whether it is safe to use the word
aesthetic univocally for what is directly apprehended by the
sense organs, and what is immediately apprehended when the
direction o f vision is (as for Plato and the Upanishads)
inverted , so that it regards not the seen , but the seer . O f
course, wc do use a corresponding term, saks'at (eye to eye) in
the Upanishads, but there is a clearly understood hierachy o f
that which has been believed semper, el ubique et ab omnibus that which has
been believed always, everywhere and by everyone.
To F. S. C. NORTHROP
Date uncertain
Dear Professor N orthrop:
Many thanks for your kind letter. My criticism rests upon
the fact that you speak o f the most profound and mature
insights 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 West
unless one makes it clear what West one is thinking ofwhat I
assert is the identity of the most profound and mature
insights , which were an essential part of Christianity once, but
arc ignored or even denied by the exoteric Christianity of
today, which virtually overlooks the Godhead altogether and
considers 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 other words also, finite and infinite; assuredly,
as for the Greeks, the infinite is from the point of view o f finite
beings, evil .
As I see it, neither civilization has anything to learn from the
other. How often I respond to Western inquirers by saying
Why seek wisdom in India? You have it all in the tradition of
your own which you have only forgotten. The value of the
Eastern tradition for you is not that of a difference, but that it
can remind you of what you have forgotten.
N ow the East can differ from the West in its point of view, in
that the one can be Traditional and the other anti-traditional,
and here a mutual understanding is impossible. However, I
myself am so perpetually accustomed to thinking simul
taneously it terms of Eastern and Western tradition as to be able
to say that my perception o f their identity is immediate.
Why consider the inferior philosophers?, as Plato says; and
that is why I can say that the most profound and mature
insights o f East and West arc the same, while if wc arc
thinking only of the modern West, I fully agree as to their
F. S. C. N orthrop, as above.
Erwin R. G oodenough, professor o f the history o f religion, Yale Universi
ty, N ew Haven, Connecticut, USA.
To F. S. C. NORTHROP
June 5, 1946
Dear Prof Northrop:
I am delighted to receive your book and offer my congratula
tions; 1 have 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
time o f the Western deviation from the common norms,
beginning in the 14th century. I am a little surprised 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 beginning
o 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.
Hypothesis is the product o f thinking, reasoning; but theory is
just that which is seen, and for Plato, Aristotle 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 falsi est\ To propose to test theory by fact is simply
pragmatism.
Your recognition of the positive reality o f the experience
of Nirvana is admirable. However, it would not be correct to
identify Nirvana with the aesthetic continuum , ic, Ether; in
Buddhism, it is explicit that Nirvana lies beyond the experience
o f the sole reality o f the infinitely etherial realm, and beyond
the distinction of experience from in-experience. Necessarily
so, because in Nirvana there is no process while the
experience o f the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum is still,
as such, something that takes place, and an event; the
bhavagga, summit level o f becoming, is still in the field of
To
F. S. C. NORTHROP
To F. S. C. NORTHROP
July 25, 1946
Dear Northrop:
Your letter is o f great interest, and at the least I think that we
may overcome at least such disagreements as are based on the
particular terms employed.
You cite again the Roman Catholic attitude. Does their
belief (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 might
have got from India, if the same kind of contacts had then been
available. Some o f my R.C. friends in England (one of whom
calls Sri Ramakrishna an alter Christus) are most seriously
considering, in view of the present contact, what ought to be
the future attitude o f R.C. Christianity to Oriental studies .
So that I dont think my argument for real difference can be
based on the hitherto R.C. position.
I wonder 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 your sentences thus: Whatever one has
misunderstanding between peoples . . . (it is always assumed
that there is) an underlying difference in their philosophy and
their religion?
I read Jones review in the N . Y. Times Lit Sup* with inter
est. I think he hardly gets the meaning of your aesthetic
continuum . But I must not go on now. Needless to say, there
is very much in your book that I greatly admire and fully agree
with, and our discussion of points o f disagreement in no way
diminishes that.
Very sincerely,
^Presumably the New York Times Book review, the Literary Supplement being
a weekly section o f the Times o f London.
F. S. C. N orthrop, as above.
To F. S. C. NORTHROP
July 28, 1946
Dear N orthrop:
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, know ing , etc, with reference to the
ultimate reality, as regards the actual phrase disinterested
aesthetic contemplation (taken, of course, from current
Western usage) I have nearly always put it in quotes, and more
than once said that as it stands it represents an antinomy,
disinterested and aesthetic being really incompatibles.
After all, as the primary application of language is to temporal
things , one is obliged, as all expositors have recognized, to
use empirical analogies.
Christian Logos and Father correspond to Mitravarunau or
parapara Brahman the two natures predicated by both West
and East. The Father is the Godhead . Eckharts free as the
Godhead in its non-existence is Nirvana, the unborn,
unmade, unbecome, incomposite, which if it were not, there
would be no way o f escape from the born, made, composite. I
do not see in what sense you can say that the Father transcends
Nirvana unless you mean simply that the Christian regards it
for some reason as a preferable concept. One must not
overlook the Fathers impassibility .
Again, Logos = sabda Brahman, Father = asabda Brah
man (sabada = sound, utterance: asabda = silent, unuttered.
Very sincerely,
F. S. C. N orthrop, as above.
To MR HUSZAR
August 8, 1947
Dear M r Huszar:
I read your paper with pleasure and am very glad you are
To WALLACE BROCKWAY
July 29, 1946
Dear M r Brockway:
In reply to yours of July 15, received today; I feel compelled
to say what I have often said before, that I am Tuly apallcd by
the provincialism which can [be seen] at St Johns College and
in your series o f Great Books ; it is an aspect of the extremely
isolationist tendencies o f American education in practice at the
present day, despite all the lip-service to the One W orld idea.
I consider that for the kind o f education we are considering,
that to be cosmopolitan in the best sense o f the word it is
indispensable for the European to be acquainted with not only
the great books in spoken Western languages, and Latin and
Greek; but also with the great books o f the whole East; or if we
speak o f language (as distinct from the books to be known in
To GRETCHEN WARREN
August 8, 1946
Dear Grctchcn:
I have been looking at Collingwoods Idea of Nature, pp. 19-27,
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
would be left if all movement were to stop is obviously so
because m otion and existence are only two names of 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
nothing , ie, no one of those things that exist and all of
which are perishable composites.
Men feel that what cannot be put in terms o f time is
meaningless . . . [but] the notion o f a static immutable 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 extremely swift, so as to comprise beginning
and end at one stroke (W. H. Sheldon in Modern Schoolman,
XXI, 133). Plus la vie du moi sidentifie avec la vie du noti-moi (le
Soi), plus on t>it intensement (Abdul Hadi).
Past and future are to thee a veil from God . . . cast fire on
both (Rumi, Mathnawi, I, 2201-2). God: ubi futurum et
praeteritum coincidunt cum praesenti (Nicholas o f Cusa, De vis Dei,
C.x), as also in Buddhism, o f the Arahant, Freedman,
Immortal, for him there is neither past nor future (S. 1.141).
W hoever finds the N ow o f Eternity (containing. xo
time-lapse at all) finds nothing and all thingsall at once,
not in a succession. Present vision o f all that ever has been or
shall be in the endless succession o f past and future aeons can
hardly be thought o f as an em pty life, though it be void 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
To ALDOUS HUXLEY
August 10, 1944
Dear M r Huxley:
Yours of August 4 reached me just after I had sent off to you
my 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 of the philosophia
perennis) because o f its self authenticating intelligibility and
because it explains more things than are explained elsewhere. I
quite agree that as a rule (to which there are individual
exceptions) it is undesirable to exchange one religion for
another. Bhakti is a general proposition, not to be connected
exclusively with Christ or Krishna. The point is sine desiderio
mens non intelligit. This applies to an understanding of reality
by whatever name we call It . Granted that jnana, 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 worshipped . Which o f the
three must predominate is a question o f individual talent. All
arc 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, however blind; one who
loves G od really, loves Him in His darkness and His light.
I cant agree that art is mysterious; it is no more
mysterious than anything else. Art is a kind o f knowledge
about how things, which it has been decided are desiderate, can
be made. It is mainly modern aesthetics that has throw n a veil
o f m ystery over art, just as modern sentimentality has
made a fool o f prudence (so to speak), by treating it not as a
You did not let me know whether Marco Pallis book reached
you. My wife adds: your distrustful words about bhakti would be
understandable if you were a Roman Catholic, faced with the
pale and ovcrswect Catholicism o f these times. Indeed, the
R C Church is imitating the Protestant churches o f the modern
world, and is not itself* Even Thom ism is only halfway back,
so to speak, to Meister Eckhart, and The Cloud o f 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
longer a question o f Christ or Krishna, but of a Principle that
assumes every name by which His worshippers address Him.
We so much admire Grey Eminence that we cannot but regret
the times when your feelings (taste) intervene. If I have learnt
anything, it is never to think (will) for myself. In all these
things my only will is to understand.
* If this was true in 1944, it is a fortiori true today, after the more than sixty
year debacle that has followed.
Aldous Huxley, popular novelist whose fashionableness peaked between the
tw o W orld Wars. Later in his career he turned to non-fiction and w rote Grey
Eminence, The Perennial Philosophy, etc.
To ALDOUS HUXLEY
September 28, 1944
Dear M r Huxley:
I should like to begin by making it very clear that I fully
agree with you that Charity (maitri, not karuna, however) is
indispensable 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 im m anent point of view, and with the
distinction o f God from Godhead, in nature but not in essence.
What I do not agree with is your apparent assumption that
practitioners o f human sacrifice arc necessarily uncharitable .
I am aware that that would be a Buddhist point of view. That it
would 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 Moslems to make all killing o f animals for
food a sacrificial rite (the same for the Jews), this is not
necessary for Christians. In the same way, I would not at all
agree that the w arriors dharma is necessarily uncharitable or,
for that matter, the hunters; these ways would be uncharitable
if followed by a Brahman, but not if followed by a Ksatriya. It is
all a matter 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 our
reckless disregard o f the value of human life (I am referring to
the industrial system in which things arc more highly valued
than the men who produce them) and our willingness to
vivisect animals to save our own skins, as we imagine. I should
say 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 right ; all
coercion repels me, but who am I to pass judgem ent upon those
who must use force, and are only at fault if they do so
To ALDOUS HUXLEY
August 29, 1944
Dear M r Huxley:
My adherence to the Traditional Philosophy is because it
explains more in every field o f thought 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 is
translated into the modes of the knowers.
Let us take it for granted that good or rather, correct
conduct is essential to Wayfaring; and also that evil is a
non-entity as our word naught-y, German untat, and
Sanskrit 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 sentimental. But Wayfaring- is
one thing, and the Goal another. The Buddha and Meister
Eckhart (among others) are in absolute agreement that the Goal
is beyond good and evil; cf Dhammapada 412 (he is a monk,
indeed, who has abandoned good and evil); and cf Dante, Purg
18.67-69, those who in their reasoning went to the founda
tions beheld this interior freedom, therefore they left moralita to
To
GERALD VANN, OP
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 o f 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 of beyond good
and evil should be so closely and exclusively connected with
Ncitzschc in our minds! Captain Ludovicis opponent hardly
seems to realize that he is, in effect, defending a doctrine of
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. It
consists of 423 verses, forms part of the Sutta-pitaka, and dates from well
before the beginning of the Christian era. Many translations are available.
To
HELEN CHAPIN
Sir,
. . . I think M r Massingham (in your issue Sept. 24, p. 187)
does not quite sec that this is a world o f contrasts, and that there
could not be any other kind o f world. Hence a duality and
opposition o f good and evil in the world ( under the sun) is
inevitable. To realize this does not make one a dualist . A
radical correction o f corrupt primary and secondary instincts
by intellect is, if I understand it rightly, just what Plato means
when he speaks o f rectifying the modes of thought 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 knower to the to-be-know n in its primordial nature,
and having come to be in this likeness, we may attain at last to
that lifes best that has been appointed by the Gods to man for
this time being and hereafter (Timmaeus 90 D, cf 47 C), and in
many other contexts in which he speaks of self-rule as the
governm ent o f the worse 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 many terms o f which the meaning has
been lessened and degraded for us. In the traditional 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 Platos Logos! All
tradition assumes a duality of m ind , which is both human
and divine; correction is o f the former by the latter, and it is to
this rectification that the word metanoia, which we render by
rcpcntence , but which is really change o f m ind , refers. I
assert that this is the true traditional line .
AKC
sense o f the word). And if in the said period aesthetic has been
idealistic this seems to me to represent a sentimentality,
parallel to that o f the Pollyanna religious which dispose of
matter 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
differencesee Das Gupta, Hist of Indian Philosophy. I, 318 and
sarupya in epistemology as sameness (ibid, 154). It seems to me
that these tw o 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 with much that is there said. Still, the only way in which I
have complete faith is that o f the regeneration or perfecting of
the individual.
Yours sincerely,
Professor M eyer Schapiro, Colum bia University, N ew York, N ew York,
USA.
To MISS JENKS
November 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; im-mortality; apathetic, ie, not pathetic; im-passible; in-effable all of which
are positive concepts, and unlike the denials o f value implied by
such other expressions as un-stable, un-worthy, un-clean,
where it is a matter o f real privation : one must not be
deceived by the merely grammatical likeness o f the terms). O n
the general subject o f significant negation see Wilbur Urban,
The Intelligible World (N Y, 1929, pp 452-53). If God is
ineffable, in-finite, these denials that anything ultimately true
can be said o f Him, and o f spatial /imitation, are not derogatory!
Hence there has always been recognized in Christian exegesis,
as well as elsewhere, the necessity for the two viae, of
claim exclusive truth for ones own religion (which one has
usually inherited willy-nilly, 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, of 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 of your coming over; if so, I hope
you will manage to spend a week with us.
Yes, I think the ideas of personality and void can be
reconciledsomewhat 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 Pauls I live, yet not I, but
Christ in me, 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 Eckharts 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
To MR F. A. CUTTAT
April 8, 1943
My dear M. Cuttat:
It was a pleasure to receive your very kind letter, and I am
happy to know that my papers reached, and interested, you.
As to tamas: I am glad that we are agreed that prakriti cannot
be equated with rajas. For the rest, I think you are right in
saying that the gunas must be analogically represented in diuinis,
and that by inversion tamas would be the highest. It should be,
in fact, the Divine Darkness of Dionysius, and the object of
the contemplatio in caligine. We have an exact parallel in
non-being , which is evil as that which has not yet come
Ma s s a c h u s e t t s
. Vi_____
i
J- t
X j~
VvJUv>*4aJ%-v v*! feuftit.
I WuvJCi
W>- IV/ Ir . (jlTUL^JUj V^JP'O
^ cL u L ru
I'VLwrtAfcMM
cu^to
1 . |wyA/-lA_
iajt>^.
I 'Vv'* ^ - I ^ v lU v s
i\M U ^ t- l
-~A- >1
'^vxrVjus. *|
t~i
a -w w
H U*^
|~wJ 'rt*Ali^
v*| l m
gy/ i
c la J
^ M t -
>~W tvU jL t u _
^ . y ^v U . < **rb 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^
G U , - L
V~*wi>^
SCLw^>^
ANONYMOUS
D ate uncertain
D ear M:
All religions arc agreed that the goal lies beyond logical
th o u g h t, beyond good and evil, beyond consciousness, and all
pairs o f contraries. T he W ay is another m atter; on the W ay one
m ust use means; notably m eans o f th o u g h t and discrim ination,
valuation, etc. In other w ords, use the ordinary instrum ents o f
tho u g h t, ie, sym bols, verbal or visual. T he alternative w ould
be n o t to speak o f G od at all, but only o f w hat wc call facts or
sensations. T he nam es o f G od vary according to the aspect or
activity considered, eg, C reator, Father, Light.
All religions assum e one essence and tw o natures, o f w hich
there is the Suprem e Identity, w ith o u t com position. T he
natures are personal and im personal, im m ortal and m ortal,
infinite and finite, justice and love, royal and sacerdotal,
transcendent and im m anent, etc.
T o E.R. G O O D E N O U G H
D ate uncertain
D ear Professor G oodenough:
. . . I think that we have to be very careful n o t to forget that
the sym bol o f any im m aterial thing is necessarily in itself
T o GRAH AM CAREY
N o v em b er 25, 1943
D ear G raham :
W hat the secular m ind does is to assert that w c (sym bolists)
are reading m eaning into things that originally had none: o u r
assertion is that they arc reading o u t the m eanings. T he p ro o f
o f o u r contention lies in the perfection, consistency and universality
o f the pattern in w hich these m eanings arc united.
Alw ays m ost cordially,
G rah am C arey , identified on p 43.
T his w as a h a n d w ritten postcard.
T o ROBERT ULICH
July 10, 1942
D ear Professor Ulich:
I am delighted to have your book it is curious that I have
ju s t been reading Jaegers Paideia w hich states the aristocratic
cultural ideal. I suppose I am nearest to w hat you w ould call a
Sym bolist (p 311) and certainly agree that this position is in no
w ay incom patible w ith radical scientific thinking, th ough it
surprises m e that you call this attitude w idespread in our
tim es since I should have supposed that to think in sym bols
had gradually becom e the rarest accom plishm ent. I do not
think 1 have ever felt the conflict o f reason and belief, and in a
w ay I cannot understand w hat such a conflict could mean, since
it seems to m e that all facts are projections o f timeless form s on
a tim e-space surface. So too . . . miracles . . . arc things that
can be done even today by those w ho k n o w how , and therefore
present no intrinsic problem ; on the other hand, the question
w hether such and such a m iracle was actually perform ed on a
given occasion seems to m e u n im p o rtan t com pared w ith the
transparent meanings o f miracles (this takes us back to sy m b o l
ism).
If ever you m ake a second edition, I hope you will take
account o f the O rien t and the prim acy o f pure m etaphysics as
em phasized by G uenon.
O n e further rem ark about sym bolism . I was delighted
recently to find o u t that A ristotle points o u t that mimesis
naturally involves methexis.
I should have seen this for myself. It is so obvious w hen
pointed out. A pity L cvy-B ruhl w ith his exaggerated notions
about the illogical character o f m ystic participation had not
realized it; he m ight have w ritten less.
Sym bolism presupposes real analogies on different levels o f
reference. H ence also sym bols and their references arc
inseparable the sym bols arc the langugc o f revelation, n o t a
language to be constructed at will in the sense o f let this be
understood to refer to this (that m ay be signification, but not
sym bolism ). T he sym bol is n o t so m uch o f X , as it is X in a
likeness ie, in another nature. I w ould say that sym bols are
technical language o f the philosophia perennis. Sym bols (eg,
light) are used in essentially the same w ay at all tim es and all
ov er the w orld: hence this is a language o f common understanding.
Le symbolisme qui cherche is always individual and therefore o f
little use for purposes o f com m unication: 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 sym bolism that the form s o f traditional art
acquire meaning for us. Shape and content o f a sym bol are
inseparable (cf p 95).
I am afraid m y booklet is hard reading. I was very m uch
pleased by y o u r appreciation therefore. I have recently com
pleted articles on Recollection, Indian and Platonic and T he
O n ly T ran sm ig ran t (inseparable them es; for it is only a
tim eless om niprcscncc that can m ake the idea o f om niscience
intelligible).
W ith very kind regards,
Y ours sinccrely,
PS: p 283 H o w often I have also said that freedom to starve
is n o t freedom ! I find K icrkcgaad alm ost repulsive alw ays
w hining. So also Paul Claudel and Rainer M . Rilke m ean
noth in g to me!
PS: Y our book suggests m any things. O bviously and above
all, education for w hat, to w ard w hat: I cannot think o f any final
goal o r summ um bonum that does n o t include absolute freedom
and p o w er to be as and when wc w ill, to k n o w all that can be
k n o w n and also the unknow able. T h at is only conceivable by
an identification o f o u r being n o t w ith this outer m an so and so,
b u t w ith the im m anent deity, the inner m an (daimon ). N o
psychology, then, seems so m uch to elucidate o u r inner
conflict, actual lim itation and desired liberty, as the Platonic
and Indian conccption o f a U niversal Self that is o u r real Self,
living side by side w ith the em pirical Ego w hich is really a
process rather than an identity. Education m ust be tw ofold, on
the one hand to enable the ou ter m an to do the tasks for w hich
he is naturally fitted, and second to enable us to recognize in the
inner m an o u r real Self, and in the outer m an no m ore than a
valuable tool adapted to contingent ends. In this sense I
understand gnothi seauton and its O riental equivalents as the true
direction o f higher education. If w c also understand the
traditional sym bolism s, all the activities o f the o u ter m an can be
T o GRAHAM CAREY
July 29, 1944
D ear G raham :
T o GR AH AM CAREY
D ecem ber 8, 1943
D ear G raham C arey:
Ive been expecting to hear from you about N ew p o rt, as Id
like to com e if its n o t too arduous.
T o CARL SCHUSTER
D ecem ber 9, 1931
D ear D r Schuster:
B oth y our papers interest me greatly. Y ou are doing
invaluable and necessary w o rk in recognizing the universal
sym bolic m otifs scattered so abundantly th ro u g h Chinese
peasant art. O n chess in its cosm ic aspect, c f references given
by O tto Rank in A rt and Artist. B ut is not yo u r gam e rather
race gam e than chess proper? For sim ilar gam es in C eylon, cf
Parker, Ancient Ceylon. Shoulder flames are, I am sure, to be
distinguished from polycephalic representations, inasm uch as
the flames do n o t im ply other persons o f the person
represented. O n tejas, see Vogel, H et Sanskrit W oord tejas ,
M ed Kon A ka d Wetenschapen, Afd Lettarkund, 1930; c f m y
Early Indian Iconography, I: Indra in Eastern A rt. Shoulder
flames are represented in various divine and royal effigies on
K usan coins, see Boston M useum Catalog o f Indian Coins, G reek
and Indo-Scythian, eg, pi xxviii, 26. T he shoulder flames o f a
B uddha occur typically in connection w ith the double
m iracle (a solar m anifestation) in w hich there are m anifested
stream s o f w ater from the feet and flames from the shoulders,
c f W eldschm 'idt in O z N F, VI, p 4, etc, and Foucher, L A rt
greco-bouddhique. For further data on shoulder flames I am
sending you o u r M useum Bulletin for A ugust 1927, see pp 53,
54. B ut I really d o n t think the problem is closely related to
y o u r present enquiry; and it is ju s t as im portant to exclude w hat
is irrelevant to a specific problem as to include w hat is relevant.
O n the Sunbird in Indian sym bolism , it w ould be easy to
w rite a book. H entze has m ade sound rem arks on the Sunbird
in C hinese art; see m y N o te on the A svam edha , Archiv
Oriental ni, VII, o f w hich I send you a reprint, see p 316, note 1.
T he eagle, phoenix, garuda, hamsa, o r by w hatever nam e we
use, is tw o headed in the sam e sense as any other Janus type. I
presum e the Sunbird m ay also be represented as the beareracross (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 o f the Janus
types) represent the persons o f the D eity (we have representa
tions o f the C hristian T rin ity o f this type). O n sunbirds and
other solar m otifs, c f also Roes, Greek Geometric A rt, its
Symbolism and Origin (O xford).
I am sorry I cannot do m ore in a letter. I hope you will be
here again som e day.
W ith very kind regards,
Y ours sincerely,
PS: Sunbirds hovering above the T ree o f Life are o f course
abundant in A ssyrian art.
C arl S chuster, C am b rid g e, M assachusetts, U SA .
O tto R ank. A rt and Artist.
E arly Indian Ico n o g rap h y , I; In d ra, Eastern A rt, I, Philadelphia, 1928.
L 'A r t greco-bouddhique, Foucher.
A N o te on th e Asvamedha' , Archiv Orientalni, VII, Prague, 1936.
Ancient Ceylon, H . P arker, L ondon, 1909.
T o JOSEPH SHIPLEY
July 12, 1945
D ear Shipley:
V ery m any thanks for yo u r fascinating volum e; as you
k n o w , I am deeply interested in w ord-m eanings; and it
frequently happens that the m eaning I need to use is obsolete
o r rare rather than the current sense.
I feel m ost o f the pieces are too short. A good piece m ight
have been done, s v, wit, on the distinction betw een gnoscere
T o J O H N LAYARD
N o v em b er 26, 1945
Dear John Layard:
T he basic idea is sim ilar to M eistcr E ckharts he w ho sees
m e sees m y child ie, the real m e is not the visible m an, b u t
his child, ie, C hrist b ro u g h t to birth in the soul. So to, Rum i,
T he body, like a m other, is big w ith the spirit-child ,
M athnaw i i.3 5 . 11 . T he idea is form ulated also as part o f the
sym bolism o f archery; the draw n b ow is pregnant w ith the
arrow -child; identify y ourself w ith the arrow [and] let fly (muc ,
the ro o t in moksa), stFaight to the m ark, w hich is G od.
Jo h n Layard, identified on p 42
T h is w as a postcard, w ith o u t salutation and unsigned.
T o J O H N LAYARD
N o v em b er 24, 1945
D ear Jo h n Layard:
V ery m any thanks for yo u r letter and the reprints, o f w hich
the Incest T a b o o and the P oltergeist articles particularly
interested m e. Y our letter raises so m any points that I wish,
indeed, w e could m eet; b u t it is som e thirty years since I was in
England and I hardly expect ever to be there again; our plan is
to retire to the H im alayas som e four years hence. Y ou ask
about people o f m y kind in England: I w ould suggest M arco
Pallis (13 F ulw ood Park, Liverpool), author o f Peaks and Lamas,
w hich you m ay have read. Rene G uenon is in C airo; b u t I think
his last book, La Regne de la quantite, w ould interest you.
R egarding m y o w n w ritings, I w ould like to trouble you to let
m e k n o w w h at I have sent you already and especially w hether
you received Spiritual P atern ity (Psychiatry, 1945). W hat o f
m ine is available in print can best be found at Luzac in London;
they publish m y W hy E xhibit Works o f A r t ? and will be issuing a
com panion volum e alm ost im m ediately, Figures o f Speech or
Figures o f Thought ?, and I think you m ight find both o f these
useful, especially the latter. Y ou probably do k n o w N . K.
,C haw icks Poetry and Prophecy, and also Paul Radin, Primitive
M an as Philosopher; the m ention o f these tw o books rem inds m e
to say that w here I am a little inclined to differ from you is that I
very m uch d o u b t that the raison d etre o f taboos, etc, was
u n k n o w n to the conscious m inds o f the earliest cultures ; it
m uch rather seems to me that these m eanings have been
forgotten since, by degrees; this will apply also to archetypal
sym bols generally. In o th er w ords, I do n o t believe in the
validity o f the application o f the notion o f evolution to the ideas
o f m etaphysics.
I fully agree to yo u r com m ents re S e lf (the Socratic daimon,
Logos; H eracleitus Common Reason, etc). H ow ever, the dis
tinction o f Self from self, le soi from le moi, is n o t m ine; it has
long been necessitated by the exact equivalence o f such
expression as atamanotma ( the A tm an o f the A tm a n ), to such
as P h ilo s a spirit guide, m unificent, to lead us th ro u g h lifes
m ysteries (Menander, fr 549K F. G. A llisons translation).
T he realisation that duo sunt in homine is alm ost universal and
T o J O H N LAYARD
N ovem ber 26, 1945
Dear D r Layard:
I have taken the greatest pleasure in your Eranos paper.
U nderstanding, candor, and couragc arc all in it.
T he basic idea is sim ilar to M eister E ckharts H e w ho sees
m e sees m y child , ie, the real m e is not the visible m an, but
his child, ie, C h rist b ro u g h t to birth in the soul. So too, Rum i,
T h e body, like the m other, is big w ith the spirit-child
(M athnaw i 13.511). T he idea is form ulated also as a part o f the
sym bolism o f archery; the draw n b ow is pregnant w ith the
arrow -child; identify yourself w ith the arrow , let fly, straight
to the m ark, w hich is God.
Y ou doubtless k n o w the Y am a-Y am i hym n o f the Rg-Veda,
but possibly not the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana 1.53ff (see in
J A O S X V I, 1894, 131ff) w here the w ooing is b ro u g h t to a
happy ending, the sun-child is born.
O u r w o rd concept is also n o tew o rth y ; the thing conceived is
quite literally the offspring o f a coition o f (Skr) manas and vac.
A part from this fathering, Vac only babbles .
P 273: M oieties . . . M ale and Fem ale : involves the
distinction o f gender from sex, w hich scholars so little
understand; the m oieties are o f different genders, b u t n o t
sexually differentiated. G ender has to do w ith function, sex
w ith characterisation, w ith specific physical organs. M oreover,
every m an and w o m an is bisexual; and w hen it is said that in
heaven there are only m asculine virgins , it means that
salvation is only for the virile, n o t for the effem inate; n o t that
w om en as such are excluded.
Y our Ishtar corresponds to Vcdic Usas ( D aw n ); Sri
(Fortune, Regnum ); Vac (for w h o m the G ods and T itans arc
ever fighting), all o f w h o m arc notably free w o m en w ho will
follow w hatever hero really w in s them .
D o you k n o w the poem M ary and the Blind C le rk (for
w hich sec C o u lto n , Five Centuries o f Religion, I, 509). H o w
painfully C o u lto n , from the m oralistic point o f view, m is
understands it; as if one m ig h t n o t gladly surrender o n es
physical vision for that sight (cf R u m is His [G ods] eye for
m ine, w hat an exchange! ).
T o J O H N LAYARD
A ugust 11, 1947
M y dear D r Layard:
I m u st say that y o u r letter bo th surprised and saddened me,
in fact it b ro u g h t tears to m y eyes. Yours is a personal instance
o f the state o f the w hole m odern w orld o f im poverished reality.
I find m y o w n w ay slow ly, but always surely; surely,
because it has been charted, and all one has to do is follow up
the tracks o f those w ho have reached the end o f the road. By
the W ay , I m ean o f course that o f self-denial and o f
Self-realisation denial prim arily in the ontological sense rather
than in the m oral sense, w hich last can only be safely supported
w hen it has been realised that it cannot be said o f the E go that it
is, b u t only that it becom e; w hich is the teaching n o t only o f
themselves
T o FATHER H. C. E. ZACHARIAS
A ugust 12, 1935
D ear Father Zacharias:
V ery m any thanks for your kind letter and rem iniscence. I
am entitled to assum e that you depreciate the constant use o f
Coomaraswamy: Selected
T o H. C. E. ZAC HARIAS
A ugust 18, 1935
D ear Father Zacharias:
T he following continues m y previous letter. It w ould not, you
see, occur to us to have to defend the H indu doctrine against an
assum ption o f pantheism , any m ore than it w ould naturally
occur to a C hristian to have to defend C hristianity against a
charge o f polytheism . N evertheless, the defence can be m ade in
cither case. In addition to the previously cited passages I com e
across the follow ing, w hich th ro w light on w hat was under
stood to be m eant 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, w here
aksarat, from him that does n o t flow , from the non
proceeding leaves no m eaning possible for srjate ghrnate b u t
that o f seems to w ith d ra w , (ghrnate is o f coursc literally
dessicates , one m ight say that as fontal, the deity is here
envisaged as Parjanya, as inflow ing or indraw ing, as Susna).
T h ere is again B haskaras exposition o f m athem atical infinity as
comparable to that o f deity in that it is neither increased n o r
dim inished by w hatever is added to o r taken from it,
impassissima verba : ju s t as in the U n m o v ed Infinite (anante
cyute) there is no m odification (vikarah) w hen hosts o f beings
are em anated o r w ith d ra w n (syal laya-srsti-kale nante cyute
bhutaganesu yadvat). A fter all, w hat w e w ant to get at is w hat
H indus understand by srj, and here it is as always in such cases
largely a m atter o f crede ut intelligas follow ed by intellige ut
credas. Philology is n o t enough, the w o rd m ust live in you. As
an outsider, you naturally claim a right o f free exam ination ,
as do Protestants w ith regard to the teachings o f the C hurch,
yet h ow ever learned they m ay be, they m ay have missed the
essential. Y ou have a right to free exam ination , o r at any rate
assum e the right; so I do n o t ask you to agree w ith me. B ut I do
ask you to ask youself faithfully the prelim inary question,
w h eth er you w ould be disappointed if you becam e convinced
T o H. C. E. ZACHARIAS
O cto b er 1, 1935
D ear D r Zacharias:
V ery m any thanks for yo u r letter. I am very glad to sec that
w e have grounds for agreem ent on m any m atters. T he
tradition o f a prim ordial revelation received by A dam (our
M anu ) especially constitutes a point o f departure from w hich
can be discussed the relative positions o f the now separately
m aintained traditions. I do n o t agree that the Vcdic tradition
embodies a large am ount o f irrelevant matter, but rather that it
preserves m ore o f the prim ordial doctrine than is to be found
elsewhere, th o u g h I w ould agree that the w hole o f the
prim ordial doctrine underlies and is im plicit in every branch.
T o RIC HA RD GREGG
O cto b er 12, 1946
D ear Richard:
Y our questions need a book for the answers! H ow ever; the
universe em braces an indefinite series o f states o f being (cf
G u en o n s Etats de Ietre; the expert yogi can visit and return
from any o f these at will. H ow ever, they are all strictly
speaking states o f becom ing , ie, o f experience and o f
m utability in tim e; liberation is from tim e and all that tim e
implies. T h e Brahmaloka itself is a series o f states. Early
B uddhism em phasizes that liberation is from bo th w orlds, ie,
the w o rld in w hich one is and the future w orld, w hatever it
m ay be for anyone. H ence the B uddha is called teacher o f
G ods and m e n ; he is the teacher o f B rahm as and show s them
the w ay to final escape . A B uddha is n o t a Brahm a; he has
already occupied that high position in tim e past; n o w he is
brahma-bhuta, becom e B rahm a , a very different m atter. T he
E go, w hether ours o r that o f any God, is a postulate, n o t an
essence; a pragm atic postulate, for no one can say o f anything
m utable that it is. B ody and soul alike are for the B uddhist (and
for St A ugustine) equally m utable; St A ugustine is th oroughly
B uddhist and V edantic w hen he says Reason (ratio = logos) is
im m ortal, and I am defined as som ething bo th rational and
m ortal at the sam e tim e. . . . If I am Reason (tat tvam asi), then
that by w hich I am called m ortal is n o t m ine (De Ordine
. ), virtually the com m on B uddhist form ula, T h at is n o t
I, that is n o t myself, that is n o t m in e. Liberation follows w hen
w e can detach o u r consciousness o f being from identification
w ith the notion 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.
V edanta and B uddhism bo th allow o f a karma-mukti\ libera
tion m ay take place here and now , or at death, o r after death
from the position in som e other state o f being that corresponds
to the stage in the process o f becom ing w hat w e are, that has
actually been reached. This life is determ inative only in this
sense, that w h at w e are w hen we are at the point o f death, that
w e still are im m ediately afterw ards; as B oehm e says, the soul
goes n ow here after death w here it is not already. B ut in that
new condition further g ro w th can be m ade.*
11 50
T o PROFESSOR KU RT V O N FRITZ
N o v em b er 7, 1945
M any thanks for y our response. R egarding its second
paragraph, the sense o f num erous presences is perhaps m ore
em phatic in Greece, b u t certainly n o t absent in India (eg,
th u n d er as the voice o f the Gods). I think it w ould be true in
India to say that the notion o f union is w ith the im personal, and
that o f association w ith the personal aspect o f diety b u t these
tw o aspects m erge into one another, as being the tw o natures o f
a single essence.
AKC
P o stcard to th e above.
T o DR J. N. FA RQUHAR
February 1, 1928
D ear D r Farquhar:
I am o f course in general agreem ent w ith y our view
expressed on the origin o f im age w orship in the last J R A S,
except as regards the statement that a m onotheist cannot be an
id o lato r . O n the purely sym bolic value o f im ages (ie,
non-fetishistic), there is an interesting passage in Divyavadana,
C hap LX X V II, w here M ara im personates B uddha and U p agupta w orships the form thus produced, explaining that he is
n o t w orshipping M ara but the teacher w ho has departed ju st
as people venerating earthen im ages o f gods do n o t revere the
clay, but the im m ortal ones represented by th e m .
M y views w ere actually based n o t on the tradition, b u t on
the art itself and the literature. You will find a great deal o f
m aterial bearing on the subject in the tw o papers o f m ine about
to appear: O rig in o f the B uddha Im age , A rt Bulletin, vol IX,
pt iv, 1927; Yaksas , Smithsonian Miscellaneous Publications,
L X X X , no 6, W ashington, D. C ., 1928.
Also sec in C harpentier, J, U ber den B egriff und die
E tym ologie von Puja, in Festgabe Hermann Jacobi, B onn, 1926;
and in Louis de La Vallee-Poussin, . . . Indo-Europeens et
Indo-Iraniens: IInde jusque vers 300 av J - C , Paris, 1924,
pp 314ff.
V ery sincerely,
PS: M y tw o papers will be sent to the R. A. S. Library.
J. N . F arquhar, M anchester, E ngland, w as a w ell k n o w n w riter on Indian art
and culture.
R. A. S. = Royal Asiatic Society: J. R. A. S. = Journal o f this sam e Society.
For the tw o papers by A K C m en tio n ed in the letter, see B ibliography.
T o PROFESSOR B. FARRINGTON
O cto b er 8, 1945
D ear Professor Farrington:
M any thanks for w riting in reply to m y note. W hat I m eant
was, that to explain physis in term s o f techniques has been the
universal procedure. A nd in reply to the further objection, I
m eant to suggest that w hat m ight have been described as
physical [in] pre-Socratic th o u g h t is really theological
th o u g h t, since the natu re they w ere trying to explain was n o t
o u r natura naturata b u t natura naturans, creatrix universalis, Deus,
and that to do this is to im ply that nature herself operates per
artem et ex voluntate, ie, that she is a P erson .
AN O N Y M O U S
Uncertain date
Sir;
It is stated th a t naturalists m aintain that reliable
know ledge is publically verifiable. This position M r Sheldon
very properly opposes; it is in fact, unintelligible. T he proper
form o f such a statem ent w ould be: reliable know ledge is
repeatedly verifiable. This is A ristotles proposition that
know ledge (episteme) is o f that w hich is always o r usually so,
never o f exceptions (M et VI, 2.12 & 1, 813); and a particularly
interesting application can be m ade to the problem o f the
historicity o f an incarnation o r descent (avatarana)\ for
exam ple, the historicity o f Jesus will be autom atically excluded
from the dom ain o f reliable know ledge and intelligibility if it is
no t also assum ed that there have been other such descents.
T he supernaturalist maintains not only that the reality o f the
T o GEORGE SARTON
N o v em b er 3, 1944
M y dear Sarton:
I am hoping that yo u r tolerance m ay extend to an acceptance
o f the enclosed continuation o f m y earlier article. Personally, I
cannot b u t think that to k n o w precisely w h at ideas o f an
evolution w ere held prior to the form ulation o f m odern ideas o f
m utation, and are by som e still held side by side w ith these
m odern ideas, pertains to the history o f know ledge: and that if
the scientist and m etaphysician could learn to think once m ore
in one anothers dialects, this w ould not only have a trem endous
h um an value, b u t w ould avoid a great deal o f the w asted
m otion that n o w goes on.
W ith kindest regards,
T o GEORGE SARTON
June 21, 1943
M y dear Sarton:
M any thanks for your answ ers . I can agree w ith nearly
everything. T he m isfortune is that while science deals w ith
facts and n o t w ith values, there has been a tendency to think o f
these m easurable facts as the only realities hcncc the necessity
expressed in yo u r last sentence.
W here 1 m ost radically agree is as to cogito ergo sum w hich 1
have long regarded as an expression o f the bottom level o f
E uropean intelligence. T h o u g h t is som ething that w c m ay
direct, not w hat w c are. I do not credit Dcscartcs w ith a
distinction betw een the tw o egos im plied (1) in cogito and the
other in sum if one did credit him w ith that, then one could
acccpt the statem ent in the sense that the phenom enon or
m anifestation (thinking) m ust im ply an underlying reality. In
any case, the m ost essential ego (in sum) is the one that no
longer thinks, but perfectly contem plates the tru th . T hinking
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 m ere techne. These
propositions arc implied in the Scholastic operates per intellectum et
in volunate.
K indest regards,
G eorge Sarton, professor o f the history o f science, H arv ard U niversity.
T o GRORGE SARTON
M arch 11, 1942
D ear D r Sarton:
I am sending you A tm ayaja , parts o f w hich m ay interest
you. I was told o f your lccture this m orning and apropos o f the
reference to Plato, w hen you said that the scientists faith in
k now ledge as a panacea was an inheritance from Plato. Is not
this overlooking that w hat our scientist m eans by k n ow ledge
and w hat Plato m eant by k n ow ledge are tw o very different
things? C f Alcibiades 1.130 E & F; Protagoras 357 E, 356 C;
Phaedrus T i l E.
Best regards,
G eorge Sarton, professor o f the h isto ry o f science, H arv ard U n iversity.
Atmayajna: Self-sacrifice, Harvard Journal o f Asiatic Studies, VI, 1942.
T o GEORGE SARTON
U ndated
PS: Sim ilarly in India, eg: T he w orld is guarded by
k n ow ledge . B ut the w ord here (Aitareya Aranyaka 11.6) is
prajna = pronoia = providence = B rahm a, not the em pirical
k n o w led g e w hich the scientist makes a panacea.
G eo rg e Sarton, as above.
T o GEORGE SARTON
O cto b er 29, 1942
M iliton M ayer on the illiteracy o f scientists in Common Sense
for N o v em b er m ig h t interest you. It was som ew hat the same
point, the illiteracy o f the anthropologists, that I m eant to bring
o u t in the Psychiatry article (current issue).
A postcard to G eorge Sarton, as identified above.
T o HENRI FRANKFORT
April 16, 1947
Dear Frankfort:
From tim e to tim e I have been looking at your Intellectual
Adventure . . . I d o n t m uch like the heading E m ancipation o f
T h o u g h t from M y th ; it seems to me to im ply a sort o f
prem ature iconoclasm w hich m ost o f us are n o t yet at all ready
for. An iconoclasm not yet extended to the very notion o f se lf
as an entity is very incom plete. For the Sufis, to say I is
polytheism . Few are em ancipated even from history.
P 367: arc you n o t overlooking that the H ebrew m eans I
becom c w hat I becom e , w hile I am that I am is a Greek
interpretation?
P 380: H craclcitus, fr 19 : gnome, here = gnome in Euripides,
Helen 1015 (for w hich, as in all the material you are discussing,
there are rem arkable Indian parallels).
P 382: H craclcitus never denied being. O ne m ust n o t over
look that in panta rei, panta is in the plural. Being is not one o f
m any, but inconnum erable. O ne m ust n o t confuse his Fire
w ith its m easures (cf m y M easures o f Fire in O Instituto,
100, C oim bra, 1942; and R itter and Prellcr, H ist Phil G k, 40,
note a: Zeus, D ike, to Phon, Logos: varia nomina, res non
diversa . . . pyraeizoon, unde manat omnis motus, omnis vita, omnis
intellectus). H craclcitus never said that all being was b u t a
becom ing (p 384); he w ould have said this only o f existence,
not o f being.
P 385: T he thing that can be thought. . . . ; here Parm e
nides is speaking o f noein, not o f gnome as used by Hcraclcitus
and Euripides (w ho expressly distinguishes nous as m ortal from
gnome as im m ortal). Gnome need not be o f anything. W ith
Euripides, Helen 1014-6; cf B U IV.3.30 (in H um e, p 138 at t p).
Finally, the Pythagorean doctrine, identical w ith Vedanta, is
best o f all, I think, enunciated in Apollonius Ep 58 (to
Valerius). As in. B uddhism , the reincarnation o f the indi
vidual soul is a doctrine only for laym en and beginners.
V ery sinccrely,
H enri F rankfort, D orset, E ngland.
T o J. E. LODGE
N o v em b er 7, 1932
M y dear Lodge:
M any thanks for your letter. We do n o t find Indian texts
saying that the w orld is maya, b u t that the w orld is
moha-kalila. In the sam e w ay I was trying to distinguish m agic
as m eans from the w o rk o f m agic as production. I was not
intending to b ring in the identity o f spectator and perform er,
b u t m eant to retain their rational n o t real distinction.
B ut even so, does n o t (or did not) the spectator think o f the
magician as m aking use o f magic? A nd w hen the spectator does
call the trick m agic , is n o t this always a conscious or
unconscious ellipse for w o rk o f m agic ?
Very sincerely,
PS: So I should n o t like to render maya as illusion it is by
maya that moha is produced. Moha is illusion, subject to
em pirical observation.
J. E. L odge, C u ra to ry o f the F reer G allery, S m ithsonian Institution,
W ashington, D . C ., U SA .
T o E. F. C. HULL
A ugust 20, 1946
D ear M r Hull:
Y ours o f A ugust 12: in the first place, I agree in general w ith
the tendency o f yo u r rem arks on translation. Secondly, for the
B uddhist material, I recom m end that you get the help o f M iss
I. B. H orner, Secretary o f the Pali T ex t Society (30 D aw son
Place, L ondon W2), w ith w h o m as a m atter o f fact I am already
T o R. F. C. HULL
A ugust 30, 1946
D ear M r Hull:
I have yours o f the 24th. 1 m eant to say that I w ould do the
few picccs from the Bhagavad Gita also, so please send list o f
these. It is still m y intention to do the U panishad picccs before
C hristm as, but I have no free tim e before m id-O ctober.
Teape. is obtainable from Blackwell, O x fo rd , and also, I
think, from H effcr, C am bridge, but try Blackwell first (7/6
w ith the Supplem ent). Teape is unquestionably literary. I d o n t
agree that Yeats is so consistently.
As regards the tw o Rgveda hym ns: I have a learned friend
here w h o is m aking the RV his life w ork, and is th oroughly
com petent both from the linguistic and the literary point o f
view. If you will w rite to him directly (D r M urray Fowler, c/o
P ro f B. R ow land, 154 B rattle St, C am bridge, M assachusetts,
U SA) m erely explaining that they are for a translation o f
M ischs book and that you are w riting at m y suggestion, I am
sure he could do them for you w ithin a m onth.
R. F. C . H ull, as above.
T o R. F. C. HULL
A ugust 30, 1946
D ear M r Hull:
I was tem pted to do a specim en for you from K U . In citing
from the U panishads, I find I hardly ever m ake an identical
version; in any case, I w o rk directly from the text, choosing
w ords very carefully and bearing in m ind the m any parallel
passages. I have tried to translate for those w ho will n o t have
the background o f com parative know ledge. B ut it m ust be
realized that to get the full content o f a text a C o m m en tary is
often really needed. For exam ple, in K U 15, the Jaw s o f
d eath are one form o f the Sym plegades, Janua Coeli; in IV. 1,
the inverted version (for w hich Plato has num erous parallels)
corresponds to the instaring o f W estern mystics; in III.9 ff, o f
course, there is nothing unique in the use o f the chariot
sym bolism , m ore fam iliar in Platonic contexts and always a
form ula becom es the m ore com prehensible the m ore one
becom es aw are o f its universality. B ut I suppose that M isch
points all this out, at least in the present contexts it is his affair
to have done so.
I d o n t expect to do m ore until, as I said, m id-O ctober; the
difficulties arc n o t in the Sanskrit, but in finding the right
w ords w ith w hich to carry over as m uch as possible o f the
m eaning w ith o u t obscurity. In III. 13, I used oblate , bccausc
the original verb th ro u g h o u t (sam) is literally to sacrifice ,
give the quietus , and this is lost for all but philologists; if one
speaks o f the peaceful S e lf, w here dedicated or im m o
lated w ould be nearer, the Self o f the s e lf or selfless S e lf is
m eant. N evertheless, I think oblate is too recondite for
present purposes, so I w ould render K U IV. 13:
S tillin g in th e m in d all s p c c c h , th e k n o w le d g e .
s h o u ld still th e m in d its e lf in th e g n o s tic s e lf (th e re a so n )
T h e G n o s tic is th e G re a t, a n d th e G re a t s e lf is th e
S e lf at p ea ce.
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
B e y o n d w h o m th e re is n a u g h t w h a te v e r : th a t is th e g o a l-p o s t,
th a t th e e n d o f th e tra c k .
T h e lig h t o f th e S p irit b y all th in g s h id d e n is n o t
a p p a r e n t.
Y e t it is se e n b y th e s h a rp a n d s u b tle e y e o f re a s o n ,
b y s u b tle se ers,
O b la t in g s p e e c h in th e m in d , th e k n o w le d g a b le m a n s h o u ld
th e n o b la te th e m in d in th e g n o s tic s e lf (th e re a s o n ),
T h e g n o s tic in th e G re a t, a n d th e G re a t S e lf in th e O b la te
Self.
S ta n d u p ! A w a k e ! W in y e w o r t h s , a n d u n d e r s ta n d th e m
T h e s h a rp e n e d e d g e o f a r a z o r, h a r d to o v e rp a s s , a d iffic u lt
p a th w o r d o f th e p o e ts , th is.
S o u n d le s s , u n to u c h a b le , u n s h a p e n , u n c h a n g in g , y es, a n d
ta s te le s s , e te rn a l, sc e n tle ss to o ,
W i th o u t b e g in n in g o r e n d , b e y o n d th e G re a t, im m o v a b le
w h e r e o n in te n t, o n e e v a d e s th e ja w s o f d e a th .
Katha . . . IV . 1, 2:
(1) T h e S e lf -s u b s is te n t p ie rc e d th e o rific e s o u tw a r d s , th e re fo r e
it is th a t o n e lo o k s f o r th , n o t at th e S e lf w ith in :
Y e t th e C o n t e m p l a tiv e , s e e k in g th e U n d y in g , w ith in v e rte d
v is io n , s a w H im self.
(2) C h i ld r e n a re th e y th a t f o llo w a fte r e x te rn a l lo v e s , th e y w a lk
in to th e w id e s p re a d s n a re o f d e a th ;
B u t th e C o n t e m p l a tiv e s , k n o w in g th e U n d y in g , lo o k n o t fo r
t h im m o v a b le a m o n g s t th in g s m o b ile h ere .
Katha . . . V .8 - 1 2 :
(8) H e w h o w a k e s in th e m th a t sle e p , th e P e rs o n w h o fa s h io n s
m a n if o ld lo v e s ,
H e in d e e d is th e B r ig h t O n e , th a t is B ra h m a , ca llcd th e
U n d y in g ;
O n w h o m th e w o rld s d e p e n d ; that n o o n e s o e v e r tr a n s c e n d s
T h is v e rily , is T h a t.
(9) A s it_ is o n e F ire th a t in d w e lls th e w o r ld , a n d a s s u m e s th e
s e m b la n c e o f e v e ry a p p e a ra n c e ,
S o th e I n n e r S e lf o f all b e in g s a s s u m e s th e s e m b la n c e
o f e v e r y a p p e a ra n c e , a n d is y e t a p a rt f ro m all.
(10) A t it is th e o n e G a le th a t in d w e lls th e w o r ld , a n d a s s u m e s
th e s e m b la n c e o f e v e ry a p p e a ra n c e ,
S o th e o n e I n n e r S e lf o f all b e in g s a s s u m e s th e s e m b la n c e
o f e v e r y a p p e a ra n c e , a n d is y e t a p a rt f ro m all.
(11) A s th e S u n , th e w h o le w o r l d s e y e , is u n s ta in e d b y th e
o u t w a r d fa u lts o f w h a t h e sees,
S o th e I n n e r S e lf o f all b e in g s is u n s ta in e d b y th e ills
o f th e w o r l d , b e in g a p a rt f ro m th e m .
(12) T h e I n n e r S e lf o f all b e in g s , w h o m a k e s h is o n e f o r m to b e
m any,
T h o s e w h o p e rc e iv e H im w ith in th e m , th e se , th e C o n t e m p l a tiv e s , t h e ir s a n d n o n e o t h e r s is e v e r la s tin g fe lic ity .
K a th a . . .
V I.
12, 13:
(12) N e it h e r b y w o r d s n o r b y th e m in d , n o r b y v is io n ca n H e
be know n;
H o w c a n H e b e k n o w n b u t b y s a y in g th a t H E IS ?
(13) H e c a n in d e e d b e k n o w n b y th e th o u g h t H E IS , a n d b y th e
t r u t h o f b o th h is n a tu re s ;
F o r w h o m H e is k n o w n b y th e t h o u g h t H E IS , th e n H is
tr u e n a t u r e p r e s e n ts itself.
T o R. F. C. HULL
Septem ber 26, 1946
D ear M r Hull:
B rahm a and B rahm an are both legitim ate, but I prefer the
nom inative form , Brahm a: the im p o rtan t distinction is from
the m asculine Brahm a.
For G reek, C o rn fo rd is, o f course, all right; Jo w e tt is
perfectly acceptable, b u t has a slightly V ictorian flavour. In
general I use the Loeb Library versions, w hich are not always
perfect, b u t good on the w hole. I also use the Loeb Library
version o f A ristotle. T he title o f j. B u rn ets book is Early Greek
Philosophy. In the case o f any difficulty it should be easy to get
the advice o f som e G reek scholar in England.
In general, Sutras arc texts; Karkias rather o f the nature o f
com m entaries, in verse.
I shall be glad to read the B rahm an-A tm an passages you refer
to. T h e only translation o f Vacaspati M isras Sam khya-TattvaKaum udi I k n o w o f is that by G anganatha Jha, B om bay
T o R. F. C. HULL
O cto b er 18, 1946
D ear M r H ull:
In the first place, I am sending you m y RV X .90.1 w hich
m ay give you som e help on the general psychological
background.
2) Y our passage, This is perfect . . . (Yeats p 159): the
reference is to B U 5.1. T he w o rd he renders by perfect is
piirnam, w hich m eans plerom a , or as H um e has it, fulness ;
perfect m ay be true, b u t it is n o t the m eaning o f the text.
R oot in piirnam is pr, fill , sam e root as in plerom a .
3) I shall m ake som e necessary spelling corrections on the
Ms; notably, Y ajnavalkya for Yadnavalkya th roughout.
4) As regards your main question, I shall append m y
proposed translation o f B U IV. 1.2. N o t beyond o u r k en in
the original is literally aparoksa, n o t o u t o f sight , eye to eye
ie, face to face , coram\ c f in m y RV paper, note 12, esp Taitt
Up 1.12, w here pratyaksam = sdksat {pratyaksam , literally,
against the eye hence eye to eye ). Such im m ediate vision
applies in the first place to the perception o f ordinary objects
and contrasts w ith paroksam, out o f sig h t (the w ord aksa,
eye , being present in all three w ords), w hich last applies to
all that has to do w ith the (invisible) Gods, w ho arc said to be
T o MISS I. B. HORN ER
14 M ay 1947
D ear M iss H orner:
Brahma-khetta, c f Buddha-khetta, Vism 414; also, Vism 220
punna-khetta=brahma-khetta. In Stt 524 T think brahmakhetta=brahma-loka as distinct from Indra-loka, and perhaps
w e should understand B rahm a. T h e khetta-jina is one w h o is
To
MISS I. B. HORNER
Date uncertain
T o MISS I. B. HORNER
June 24, 1946
D ear M iss H orner:
Appamada: lit, absence o f infatuation, intoxication (mad),
pride, etc, im plies diligence, no doubt, but diligence is hardly a
translation, is it? Y ours o f June 21. Im glad we agree on several
points. I think w e had better keep ariyan w o rth y w ould be
good in itself, but w ould not convey w hat is needed. R egarding
samaya and asamaya , Im very sure that yo u r unstable and
stable arc good in them selves (w hether o r n o t in every
context): this w ould fit in very well w ith khana, w here alone
true thiti can be found khana, strictly speaking is that in w hich
a thing is in-stant, eg, as arahat paramgato thale titthati.
AKC,
Miss I. B. H o rn er, as above.
T o MISS I. B. HORN ER
July 2, 1946
D ear M iss H orner:
I have yours o f 9th and 20th and an undated one w ith
H ouseholders . Im in such a position, too, that I can hardly
find another m inute to give! A nyhow , final decisions on
renderings m ust be yours: it is good that we are agreed on
T o MISS I. B. HORN ER
July 26, 1946
D ear M iss H orner:
For nibbanam and the verb, I w ould n o t object to quen
ching (as in Vism 306, o f the fire o f anger); this w ould
correlate well w ith cooling for sitibhava. In fact, parinibbuto
sitibhuto as quenched and coolcd seems pretty good.
AKC
M iss I. B. H o rn e r, as above.
T o GEORGE SARTON
N o v em b er 9, 1944
D ear Sarton:
I enclose som e A ddenda for G radation and E volution II .
As to the critique o f N o rth ru p s article, I found it better, and
even necessary, to rew rite the letter in the form o f a review in
w hich I also briefly allude to the oth er parts o f the book in
w hich his essay appears. Ill send this to you soon, and then you
can pass it on.
C ordially,
T o GEORGE SARTON
N ovem ber 4, (year uncertain)
M y dear Sarton:
A propos o f o u r discussion o f spoken languages. C f Keith in
Aitareya Aranyaka, O x fo rd , 1909, p 196, no 19. Sanskrit can
only have been a vernacular very long ago (say before 800
B C). Later, the educated classes used a P rakrit for every day
purposes, th ough still understanding Sanskrit, w hich was
partially understood even by peasants (as now ). Sanskrit is still
sufficiently w idely k now n that som e European scholars travell
ing in India could use it as a lingua franca. I take it m odern Greek
is nearer to ancient G reek than H indi is to Sanskrit.
AKC
G eorge Sarton, professor o f the h isto ry o f science, H arv ard U n iv ersity ,
C am b rid g e, M assachusetts, U SA .
T o MRS C. M O R GA N
Date uncertain
D ear M rs M organ:
W hen you first spoke o f stages I th o u g h t you had in m ind
the 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. W ade, Thomas Traherne (Princeton,
1944), c f pp 52, 53 and 62, 64.
A t the university . . . I saw that there w ere things in this
w o rld o f w hich I had never dream ed; glorious secrets and
glorious persons past im agination. . . . N evertheless, som e
things w ere defective, too. There was never a tu to r that did
professly teach Felicity, th ough that be the m istress o f all
o ther sciences. N o r did any o f us study these things b u t as
aliens, w hich w e o u ght to have studied as o u r o w n
enjoym ents. We studied to inform our know ledge, but knew
n o t for w hat end we so studied. A nd for lack o f aim ing at a
certain end w e erred in the m anner.
Later T raherne realized that:
O u tw ard things . . . lay so well, m ethought, that they
could n o t be m ended: b u t I m ust be m ended to enjoy
them .
W ade adds:
T h at m ending, that purification o f the will, constitutes the
spiritual history o f the next ten years.
In that g ro w th a large part o f the means was certainly Plato,
Plotinus, H erm es. Searching the Scriptures is a liberating
procedure; one learns to think, n o t for o n e se lf, b u t correctly,
w hich is better.
For the K undalini, about w hich you enquired: c f Avalon,
The Serpent Power, Luzac, 1919.
F urther for stages the follow ing m ight be useful: Jo h n
C ordelier, T he Spiral Way, Meditations upon the Fifteen Mysteries
o f the Soul's Ascent (W atkins, London, 1922) and perhaps
D ietrich von H ilderbrand, Liturgy and Personality (Longm ans
Green, N Y, 1943).
T o MURRAY FOWLER
M arch 4, 1944
D ear M urray:
I read y our review w ith pleasure. I can only prom ise to think
about the lo v e and ethic problem . O ne w ould have to start
from the question, w hat is the true object o f love? O ne could
show that the U panishads, A ristotle and Aquinas agree that it is
o u r S e lf (if w c k now w hich s e lf ); and that the same is
im plicit in Inasm uch as ye have done it unto these, ye have
done it un to M e . A ltruism , the love o f others as such is as
m uch as the hatred o f oth ers a delusion. Even if we subm it to
this delusion o f oth ers , o u r love for them should be founded
in o u r love o f the O ne.
As for ethics , one w ould 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 o f liberty from law. I think I m ade it clear
th at a com plete socicty m ust recognize that the fin a l end o f
the individual is one o f deliverance from his obligations;
although an end that can only be approached by a fulfilm ent o f
them . C f E dgerton in JA O S 62.152, recognizing the ordinary
T o GEORGE SARTON
February 6, 1945
D ear Sarton:
I did n o t k n o w o f D attas change o f life (w hich is one w ay o f
referring to that kind o f retirem ent). T he w o rd Saha m ust have
been either sadhu o r sannyasin (the form er literally hitting the
m a rk , the latter giving u p , ie, surrendering all duties and
rights). T his represents the 4th stage or the norm al Indian
schem a o f life (and also corresponds to Platos concept o f m an s
latter days, Rep 498, C, D . . .). Sannyasin is pretty near to
w hat E ckhart calls a truly po o r m an . O n th e ghats at Benares
you will find am ongst others, university graduates and
cx-m illionaires, n ow truly po o r m en ow ning nothing. By
the w ay, too, there arc 4 A m erican sadhus in India; m y wife
knew one o f them and he was a good friend o f o u r b o y s. . . .
As a rule, the funeral rites arc perform ed for a m an w ho
becom es a sannyasin\ he becom es in fact w hat R um i calls a
dead m an w alk in g ; c f Angelus Silcsius, stirb ehe du stirbst. We
ourselves, in fact, in a few years m ore, plan to return to India to
approxim ate, as far as it is practicable for us, to this ideal. In
India, one does n o t look forw ard to an old age o f econom ic
independence b u t to one o f independence o f econom ics. T here
are m any hum b u g s in India, b u t as one sadhu said to m y wife, as
long as there arc even 2 real sadhus in 100, so long there will be
an India.
D id I com m end to you M . B ecks Science in E ducation in
Modern Schoolman, Jan 1945?
T o GEORGE SARTON
O cto b er 14, 1938
D ear Sarton:
M any thanks for your interesting leaflets. I only rather
dem u r to the idea o f individual conscience , since I cannot but
regard the conscience (the w ord o f course originally m eant
consciousness , an awareness) as im personal in the sense
that the active intellect is for som e Schoolm en im personal
and that Synteresis is im personal and the Vedic Inner
C o n tro lle r , the Platonic and neo-Platonic hegemon, viz, the
Spirit o f G od w ithin you.
F urther, I believe good will can only be [universalized]*
insofar as the good will is m ade to rest on strictly intellectual
(m etaphysical) sanctions, so conduct is regulated by know ledge
rather than by opinion-feeling. A consent o f East and W est can
only proceed from this highest g round and m ust first o f all (as
G uenon says) therefore be the w o rk o f an elite.
Very sincerely,
* T h e w o rd universalized is supplied because o f the illegibility o f the text,
b u t it co m p lem en ts and does n o t contradict the co ntext o f the letter.
G eorge Sarton, professor o f the history o f science, H arvard U niversity,
C am b rid g e, M assachusetts, U SA .
T o GEORGE SARTON
July 13, 1947
D ear Sarton:
Y our birthday book is full o f interest. B uffons tout ce qui peut
etre, est is very good philosophy. Leakes paragraph 3 on page
264 is quite ridiculous n o t only as if anyone ever did anything
w ith o u t a view to som e result to be secured or avoided, b u t also
he does n o t realise that the w hole business o f doing un to others
rests upon the question Who am /?, and Who are you? A nd again
he know s n o th in g o f the contexts (people are so glib in citing
Indian term s and ideas secondhand!), or o f such contexts as the
B uddhas W hoever w ould nurse me, let him nurse the
sick . . .
Q u ite another point: I find it o f the highest interest that
D ante (in D e Monarchia) uses G od and N atu re w ith a singular
verb as if the expression w ere a gram m atical dual denoting a
mixta persona ( n o t that the one is tw o, b u t that the tw o are
o n e , as H erm es says). T his is a survival o f the oldest
m eanings. . ., those o f the early G reek physicists , and one
that can be continuously traced thereafter, side by side w ith the
other m eaning (that o f natura naturata).
K indest regards,
G e o rg e S a rto n , as o n p. 274.
T o MEYER SCHAPIRO
M ay 2, 1932
D ear Professor Schapiro:
O n rereading yo u r letter it occurs to m e to add one thing to
m ine. You speak o f the values o f contem plation being detached
from those o f daily use. T o m y m ind, speculation about a kind
o f tru th conccivcd to exist in vacuo is nothing b u t curiosity ;
m oreover, it goes for me that the ultim ate tru th is precisely and
by definition that w hich cannot be know n. H ow ever, so far as
the best sort o f relative tru th goes, and apart from m y ow n
To
T R EE S
(A BRITISH JO U R N A L )
1945 date n o t specified further
T o MR H. G. D. FINLAYSON
July 14, 1944
D ear M r Finlayson:
M any thanks for your letter and enclosures. So far as I can
tell from this rather b rie f m aterial, I am fully in agreem ent w ith
you on the p rovident m inim um o f decency . R egarding I
A M , a good deal depends on all that w e understand by this.
B ut by yo u r equation o f the individual spiritual life w ith the
cultivation o f o u r better s e lf , I presum e w e see together. In
m y article Sir G aw ain . . . in Speculum (Jan 1944), I pointed
o u t that the true argum ent is n o t Cogito ergo sum, but Cogito ergo
Est. H ow ever, I d o n t see m y w ay at present to w rite anything
specifically on the m in im u m .
R egarding cosm ic stricture , I think Przyluski, La Participa
tion m ig h t interest you. O n the other hand, also G iono, Letters
aux paysans.
V ery sincerely,
H . G. D . Finlayson, as above.
Sir G aw ain and the G reen K night: Indra and N am u c i , Speculum, X IX ,
1944.
J. P rzyluski, La Participation.
Jean Giona, Lettre aux paysans.
T o MR H. G. D. FINLAYSON
D ate uncertain, b u t presum ably autum n 1944
D ear M r Finlayson:
M any thanks for yours o f A ugust 22 (m y 67th birthday). I
certainly do n o t see anything in your m in im u m as defined in
y o u r S tatem ent o f account . W hat you call the charitable
poise seems to m e m uch m ore actual in other religions than in
C hristianity, w ith its Extra ecclesium nulla salus; although, o f
course, this form ula is n o t to be taken literally, C hristian
theology recognizing a baptism o f the spirit as well as the
baptism o f w ater . I d o n t think you need be afraid o f any
spread o f interest in C om parative Religion, b u t only o f a
w ro n g approach to the subject. T he fact o f the universal
enunciation o f the fundam ental doctrines, often in alm ost the
sam e idiom s, is actually very im pressive; this universality
deriving from the Perennial Philosophy on which all religions
ultim ately rest. I think the recent paper on T he O n ly
T ra n sm ig ra n t w ould interest you as it deals w ith the divine
im m anance as the only real basis o f agreem ent
V ery sincerely,
H. G. D . Finlayson, as above.
O n the O n e and O n ly T ra n sm ig ra n t , Journal o f the American Oriental
Society, LX IV , S upplem ent 3, 1944.
T o H. G. D. FINLAYSON
N o v em b er 2, 1944
D ear M r Finlayson:
I think you w ould be interested in P ro f F. W. B ucklers
T o H. G. D. FINLAYSON
D ecem ber 22, 1944
D ear M r Finlayson:
C o m m o n duty: in the first place I w ould say that the original
reference o f the expression Homo communis was to the Son o f
M an im m an en t in every m an, and it is only in this sense that I
like to use the expression com m on m an ; the egalitarian and
dem ocratic sense being only that o f a m an so c o m m o n that
he can be said to com e in carloads. By the sam e token, the
question o f the better s e lf and o f true self love as
com m ended by A ristotle, Aquinas, and in the U panishads see
the the JA O S Supplem ent 3 (w hich I sent you), page 41, note
82. All traditional sources arc in agreem ent that the prim e
necessity is to k n o w T h y s e lf, ic, w hich o f the tw o that
dw ell together in us is o u r real Self, that Self for the sake o f
w hich alone all things are loveable. I am in fullest agreem ent
about the necessity o f recognizing a com m on basis o f under
standing, but sec no basis for such a com m on understanding
other than that o f the philosophia perennis, w hich was the linqua
Very sincerely,
H. G. D . Finlayson, as above.
O n the O n e and O n ly T ra n sm ig ra n t, see previous letter.
T o HO RA CE M. KALLEN
D ecem ber 7, 1943
D ear P ro f Kallcn:
I w rite to thank you for sending m e the Jefferson paper.
T here is very m uch in his notions about art w ith w hich I
heartily agree, especially as sum m arised in the beginning o f
your section VI.
O n the other hand, naturally, I do n o t agree w ith your
interpretation and estim ate o f feudal, ie, vocational, societies,
for I hold w ith those w ho believe that the need for a
restoration o f the cthics o f vocation has becom e the central
problem o f society . I will only go into this for a m o m en t in
conncction w ith art. In the vocational societies it is n o t only
held that to heautou prattein kata phusin is o f the very essence o f
justice (dikaiosune , rendered in the N ew T estam ent by rig h t
eousness ) b u t o u r conception o f fine o r useless art, and o f
connoisscurship as a luxury arc unknow n; all art is for use,
and to be ju d g ed by its utility (not, o f course, in the narrow
utilitarian sense, b u t w ith reference to the needs o f the w hole
m an). Y our inference that the artist is only a ijieans to the
co n su m ers ends is perfectly correct, but does not involve w hat
you infer. O ne can best grasp the relations if wc consider first
the case in w hich the artist is w orking for himself, eg, building
his o w n house; in this case it is evident that the artist as such is
m eans to the m an as such. T here is no difference in principle
w hen artist [and consum er] arc tw o different persons; h ow can
the m aker be other than m eans to the user? T he user (patron,
consum er) is the first and last cause o f the w ork; it is done for
him and directed to him ; all other causes, including the efficient
cause, arc by hypothesis m eans to this en d . T he balance
T o H. M. KALLEN
D ecem ber 9, 1943
D ear Professor Kallcn:
M any thanks for your kind note. I d o n t, how ever, agree
w ith your interpretation o f the record . As I see it, m en have
never been less free (except, o f course, to w o rk o r starve)
than here and now . T he notion o f a hierarchy o f functions I
accept. B ut despising the w orker and treating him as a tool o f
the consum er is not attributed to C hristian doctrine, b u t to
the abandonm ent o f the C hristian doctrine against usury and
the accom panying gradual industrialization substitution o f
factory for w orkshop, etc. Exactly the same process can be
w atched today w herever industrial m ethods im pinge upon
vocational societies; the responsible w orkm an is reduced to a
producer o f raw materials. T he w orkm an to be despised (or,
T o BERNARD KELLY
D ate uncertain, b u t 1943 o r la te r
D ear M r Kelly:
It is n o t very easy to give a b rief and at the sam e tim e
adequate answ er to y o u r question. I w ould say that from the
Indian point o f view , Laborare est orare; and that the em phasis
laid upon perfection in doing-and-m aking (karma) in term s o f
vocation, by w hich at the same tim e the m an perfects b o th his
w o rk and him self, is very strong. T he Bhagavad Gita defines
Y oga as skill in w o rk s (here skill is w isdom , ju s t as G reek
sophia was originally skill ). Furtherm ore, o f the H indu term s
for Sacrifice, karma (action) is precisely a doing in the sense o f
sacra facere. This establishes the n o rm o f all activity; as I have
tried to indicate in Hinduism and Buddhism, the requirem ents
o f divine service and the satisfaction o f hum an needs are
inseparable.
A gain, there is no liberation b u t for those w ho are all in act
(krtakrtyah , having done w hat there was to be done ). I think
it is difficult for the m odern W estern m ind, w hich does n o t
m erely and properly recognize the validity o f bo th the active
and contem plative lives, b u t reverses their hierarchy (setting
M artha above M ary), to realise that alike in C hristianity and
H induism , there is recognized a double norm , an ordinary and
an extraordinary n orm . W e have n o t only to live this life well,
b u t also to prepare for another. T here are n o t only values ,
b u t also an ultim ate w o rth beyond all contraries.
T o MR LU D O V IC DE GAIGNERON
D ecem ber 16, 1935
M y dear M r G aigneron:
Let m e add that a further perusal o f your book leads m e to
adm ire very m uch your m ost able dialectic.
O n ju s t one point, 1 feel that the arg u m en t is a little
precarious, viz, in conncction w ith the doctrine o f lost
cultures . It seems to m e very unsafe to assum e that precisely all
the evidences o f a m echanically superior civilisation have been
lost and only those o f a mechanically inferior civilisation
preserved. It w ould be a strange chance that preserved only the
stone w eapons o f prim itives (ie, early) m an all over the
w o rld and no w here any trace o f his m ore elaborate
m echanism s if such there were. I think the point is m uch
rather that the lost cultures were superior intellectually, but not
materially. By w ay o f illustration, the m ode o f th o u g h t o f an
A m erican Indian shaman is even now m ore abstract than that o f
the civilised man, by far. W hen the Chinese speak o f the pure
m en o f o ld , they rather assum e that they had very fe w w ants,
and used very little means, than the contrary. If early m an was
m ore angelic than ourselves, m ust he not, like the angels,
have had few er ideas and used less m eans than m en ? T he
m agnitude o f o u r m eans and m ultiplicity o f o u r ideas are in fact
the m easure o f o u r decadence. T he pure m en o f old w ere not
civilised w ithin the profane m eaning o f the w ord.
Sincerely,
L udovic de G aigneron, Paris, France, au th o r o f Vers la connaissance interdite,
Paris, 1935.
T o GEORGE SARTON
M arch 25, 1939
D ear D r Sarton:
You probably know and m ust have reviewed F. M. Lund, A d
Quadratum, L ondon, 1921. It seems to me a quite rem arkable
w ork. If by any chance you have n o t dealt w ith it, it seems to
ANONYMOUS
D ate uncertain
Sir:
T he effect o f o u r civilization and o f industrialism upon any
traditional society is to destroy the basis o f hereditary vocation
on w hich such societies are based: and we m ay say that thus to
rob the m an o f his vocation, even th ough it be done in the nam e
o f lib erty , is to rob the m an o f his living , n o t only in an
econom ic sense, b u t in the sense that m an does not live by
bread alone : since it is precisely in such societies that the
professions them selves and for the very reason that the
vocation is in every sense o f the w o rd natural, provide the solid
basis o f initiatory teaching.
Sincerely,
T h e abo v e h an d w ritte n letter w as neither addressed n o r dated.
T o DR ROBERT ULICH
A ugust 24, 1942
D ear D r Ulich:
I think one o f the best points m ade in yo u r book is the
statem ent that all good teaching consists in changing passivity
into activity . For is it n o t the w hole nature o f progress to
progress from potentiality to act? G od is all in act . M oreover
it is consistent w ith the Platonic and Indian doctrine that all
learning is a recollection; a picture o f a lesson based on this
assum ption is given follow ing [ie, in^or according to] M eno.
I often feel that one cannot teach any understanding directly,
T o PROFESSOR L A N G D O N W ARNER
April 13, 1932
M y dear L angdon W arner:
M any 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 o u r forces b u t is useless to grieve over a thing
w hich cannot be am ended, after one has done everything
possible.
A propos o f o u r conversation, I reflect that I cannot really
agree w ith the idea that it is good to say to students bring your
ow n standards . It is the beginning o f w isdom to realise that all
standards are relative, and w hy n o t let them face this fact at
once? In m y N Y lectures, beginning w ith a few w ords as to
the value o f o u r discipline , I suggested that if this fact w ere
learnt from the course, it w ould be o f m ore value to the student
than any o f the facts o f the art history that he m ight acquire
from it. I tell them that art is n o t a universal language; pure
aesthetic experience is im m utable and universal, indeed
inscrutable, b u t no one is com petent to enjoy aesthetic
experience until all his objections (based on his ow n standards,
for exam ple) and curiosities have been allayed. So I set m yself
to rem ove these barriers, thinking that it depends then entirely
on the students ow n nature, when he is in a position to possess
the art, o r at the very least to take it for granted, w hether o r not
he can enjoy aesthetic experience. O therw ise, 1 tell them , in
m erely liking and disliking any w ork they are doing no m ore
than gaining one m ore new sensation; than which it w ould be
b etter n o t to go abroad, mais cultiver son jardin. All this m ay be
hard sledding for the average student, but the m ore you ask the
m ore you get, and I do not believe in com prom ise. I k now you
will be shocked.
Very sincerely,
L angdon W arner, B oston, M assachusetts, U SA .
T o STUART CHASE
3 February 1941
D ear M r Chase:
I was m uch interested in yo u r article in the February Readers
Digest, w hich I saw by chance. It affords another instance o f the
rediscovery o f a principle that has always been know n
traditionally. Plato (Republic 395 B, 500 D) points o u t that the
practice o f an art and the w age-earning capacity o r business
instinct are tw o different things, so that a m an does not earn
w ages by his a rt as such, but accidentally. He says that m ore
things are produced, and better and m ore easily, w hen one m an
perform s one kind o f w o rk 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 ones o w n
w o rk is his type o f ju stice (ibidem 433 B, 443 C). St.
T hom as Aquinas says that the w orkm an is inclined by justice
to do his w o rk faithfully (Sum Theol I-II 57.3 ad 2) and that he
is only concerned w ith the good o f the w o rk to be d o n e
(ididem 1.91'.3). I have m yself pointed out in print, as did also
Eric Gill, that under norm al (vocational) conditions the m an at
w o rk is doing what he likes best and w ould rather do than even
play. T he fact that under a system o f production for profit, in
w hich the w o rk m an is no longer a responsible m aker b u t only a
tool him self, a system in w hich livelihood is earned not in the
course o f follow ing a vocation, but in a jo b to w hich one is
T o STUART CHASE
February 11, 1941
D ear M r Chase:
T hanks for y o u r letter. T he problem you raise seems to m e
to be one o f values, and closely bound up w ith the alternatives,
p roduction for use o r production for profit. It is significant that
m anufacture has come to mean not the actual maker o f
anything, b u t essentially a big salesman. I am n o t going to deny
the benefits o f quantity p ro d u ctio n , b u t to m ake som e
reservations.
I think it is o u r great m istake to tend to identify civilisation
and standards o f living w ith quantity o f w ants and their
satisfaction. Vast quantities o f things arc n ow made, w hich are
ju s t w hat Plato w ould have described as n o t such as free m en
really need . Som e 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 w hich he ultim ately depends.
O th ers w hich provide us w ith am usem ent and distraction in
m any cases seem to be necessities only for the very reason that
w e are n o t deriving adequate pleasure (the traditional pleasure
that perfects the o p eratio n ) from our w ork. O thers are m ade
only to sell. A nd in any case there is som e natural antithesis
betw een quantity and quality.
N o w the events o f the last th irty years have m ade us a little
less confident that o u r progress has been altogether in the
right direction; w c are n o t altogether unw illing to m ake
revaluations. T h e sam e problem com es up in our educational
program m es. If w e are to have any standards by w hich to ju d g e
means to living, must wc not somehow once more come to kind o f
agreem ent ab o u t the purpose o f life and hence w hat w e o u ght
to m ean by standard o f living , or in traditional term s, the
good life ?
Means arc not and m ust not be confused with ends: they arc
m eans to ends. In any case, it seems obvious that the kind o f
m en w e produce is m ore im p o rtan t than the quantity o f things
they can possess*; and that the kind o f m en wc produce is very
closely bound up w ith the kind o f things they m ake, and the
quality o f these things them selves, w hich they use and by
w hich they cannot b u t be influenced.
T o ARTEMUS PACKARD
M ay 26, 1941
D ear Professor Packard:
First o f all, I w an t to say h o w com pletely I agree about the
genius m y th . Satan was the first to think o f him self as a
genius. We all have a genius (im m anent daimon ), w hich we
(so-and-so) should obey, b u t as so-and-so cannot be. T o
becom e it is theosis, but then w e are no longer ourselves , but
nameless.
Probably w e could reach som e approxim ation to agreem ent
on oth er problem s. I am wholly anti-totalitarian. B ut I could
hardly think o f dem ocracy, how ever high its present value, as
an ultimate ideal, as I crave to be governed by m y superiors, not
by m y equals. I do n o t w elcom e increased leisure (for m y self or
for anyone else). By (political) liberty, I understand freedom to
heautou prattein. W hen at w o rk w c should be doing w hat we
most delight in. C u ltu re th ro u g h w o rk (vocation) o r n o t at all, if
w e m ean the real thing!
T he m an w ith the hoe is only disgusting because the farm er,
too, has becom e a proletarian. I do n o t quite agree that Plato is
inapplicable (I am talking about Plato because that is w here the
discussion started actually m y indoctrination w ith the Philosophia Perennis is prim arily O riental, secondarily M ediaeval, and
thirdly classic) now .
I still think m ore w ill be done and better done, and w e shall
have better m en, w hen each m an follows a vocation. 1 cannot
regard w o rk on a chain- belt as a vocation but rather as w hat is
unbecom ing for a free m an . So long as we dem and such a high
material standard o f living as w c do, it seems to me som e men
m ust be w arped by their m enial tasks , if it is to be provided.
So it seems all im p o rtan t to decide w hat is w o rth m aking, and
w h eth er w e w an t m ore things, m ore than w e w ant better men
(m en for w h o m life is intelligible). I hope you m ay be in
B oston som e tim e.
Very sincerely,
P rofessor A rtem as P ackard is n o t identified, th o u g h apparently he w as
connected w ith D a rtm o u th C ollege, H anover, N "w H am pshire, U SA .
ANONYMOUS
D ate uncertain
D r N cib u h r is m istaken w hen he takes it for granted that
caste is a color-discrim ination analogous to the color-prejudices
w ith w hich w e are fam iliar in A m erica. T he late A. M . H ocart,
a scholar and anthropologist o f w orldw ide experience (very
necessary in this case, ju s t because caste is n o t an exclusively
Indian phenom enon), devotes tw elve pages (44-58) o f his book,
Les Castes to a destructive criticism o f the theory that
aristocracies are the end products o f conquests, and that the
Indian w o rd for co lo r (varna) can be adduced in support o f
this concept. T he Indian w o rd that m ost nearly corresponds to
the Portuguese casta is ja ti, b irth or lineage . As M r H ocart
points out, the four castes are connected w ith the four quarters
(and four ages), o f w hich the colours arc red, w hite, yellow
and black; and as he says, on the conquest theory, w e should
have to presum e successive invasions by peoples o f these four
colors, and that the last com ers always becam e the B rahm ans.
It is n o t quite so easy as all that for a conquering race to becom e
the priests o f the conquered. We m ust always rem em ber that in
ancient India, w here the n o w so m uch abused w o rd A ry an
originated, the distinction o f A ryan from non-A ryan was a
cultural and n o t a racial discrim ination. We can speak o f an
A ryan language, b u t n o t o f an A ryan people. T he distinction
o f higher from low er castes in India is n o t racial, but m ore o f
character (in the theological sense o f the w ord).
A lthough, on the average, high castes arc fairer than low
castes, there are very dark B rahm ans and very fair Sudras; in
K ashm ir, som e o f the low est castes are quite blonde. I have
k n o w n Europeans w ho w ere liked in spite o f w hat was called
their unfo rtu n ate o ff-colour . As a m atter o f taste, the
preferred colour is golden . A nd there cannot be said to be a
prejudice against a dark colour w here this is the colour o f one o f
the chief form s o f deity, V ishnu, and o f his descendents Ram a
and K rishna.
I
think it is because the N egro problem that he know s is
actually one o f race and colour, that D r N cib u h r is too m uch
inclined to confuse social w ith racial differences. As M r Fisher
has already pointed out, the distinction o f M uham m adans*
from H indus is hardly at all a m atter o f ' race; Indian
M uham m adans are alm ost w holly o f Indian blood and that,
indeed, is one o f the principal reasons w h y such a fusion o f the
tw o cultures as actually took place was possible; the other
being, in the w ords o f the M ughal E m peror Jahangir, that
their V edanta is the same as o u r Tassaw w uj (Sufism ) .
A further point: w hat does D r N eibuhr m ean by snobbish
ness? and w h o are his snobs? A snob is a person w ho does
n o t belong to the upper classes; one obviously w ith o u t rank or
gentility. . .one w ho vulgarly affects the m anners o r stations o f
those o f superior rank, esp by a display o f w ealth (W ebster). It
is then w ith the low er castes that he seems to be finding fault.
T he corresponding vice in an upper class w ould be arro
gance . Englishm en in India arc often arrogant, and physical
o r m oral half-castes som etim es snobbish , b u t one could
hardly pretend that either o f these vices are characteristic o f the
Indian peoples them selves.
A nd finally w ith respect to the distinction o f vocational from
plutocratic societies, I should like to quote from a Polish w riter:
It m atters n o t w hether the present-day factory w o rk er is, as
regards the intensity and duration o f his exertion, in a better
o r w orse condition than the savage hu n ter o r the artisan o f
the M iddle Ages. T he point that does m atter is that his m ind
has no share in determ ining the aims o f his w o rk and that his
body, as an instrum ent o f independent creative pow er, has
lost m ost o f its significance. Hence his m ind, divorced from
creative activity, turns in the m ain to the problem o f
satisfying the needs o f his prim itive anim al appetites; w hile
his body having lost, in his o w n eyes, well nigh all its
im portance as an in stru m en t o f skilled production, 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?). T h at is w hat the Indian holds against the m odern
plutocracies and w hy he docs n o t w ant to im itate them ,
except to the extent that he m ay be forced to do so in
self-defence.
AKC
* W ere D r C o o m arasw a m y w ritin g today, alm ost certainly he w o u ld use
the w o rd Muslim (or one o f the spelling variants) rather than M u h am m a
d an . T h e latter, an adjectival fo rm o f the nam e o f the P ro p h e t o f Islam , w as
T o THE N A T I O N , N E W YORK
January 30, 1943
D ear Sirs;
D r N eib u h r, in his review o f S hridharnis Warning to the West
in T he N ation o f January 2, speaks o f the Indian caste system as
the m ost rigid form o f class snobbishness in h isto ry . O ne
could n o t have a better illustration o f the fallacy o f claim ing
that the form o f o nes ow n go v ern m en t is best, n o t only for
him self, b u t also for the rest o f m ankind (Franz Boas, cited in
the sam e issue). In the first place, it m ay be observed that no
snobbishness can exist w here there is no social am bition:
Indians do not, like Am ericans, have to keep up w ith the
Joneses. A nd let m e add that the form o f his social o rder is the
last thing that could occur to an Indian to apologize for, w hen
he com pares it w ith the inform ality o f W estern proletarian
industrialism s. I say Industrialism s rather than dem ocra
cies because in these so-called self-governing societies the
Indian [can see] nothing that can be com pared w ith the really
dem ocratic character o f the internal self-governm ent o f his ow n
castes or guilds and his o w n village com m unities.
It has been very truly pointed out by A. M. H ocart, author
o f Les Castes (Paris, 1938), probably the best book in the subject
available that hereditary service is quite incom patible w ith our
industrialism , and that is w hy it is always painted in such dark
co lo rs. M r H ocart also points o u t that w e m ust n o t be
frightened by the connotations o f the E uropean w ords that are
used to translate Indian term s. T he caste system , he says, is not
one o f oppression, but, on the contrary, m ay be m uch less
oppressive than o u r industrial sy stem . T he m em bers o f the
T o D O N A LUISA C O O M A RA SW A M Y
A ugust 11, 1935
Darling:
. . . I did receive, value and answ er your letter about the
Vidyapati experience: 1 rem arked on yo u r having been able to
retain it after elim ination o f the personal elem ent. I do not
k n o w about kudra as Krishna's ego. B ut Indras position in R V
already n o t all the tim e, b u t in m any places represents the
revolt o f the tem poral p o w er (ksatra) against the spiritual pow er
(brahma), although the legitim acy o f ksatra depends entirely on
brahma consecration (rajasiiya). T he dual Indragni gives you the
2 operating in one the prim ordial condition: Indra, to w h o m
A gni entrusts the vajra, the true relationship w hen the functions
are separated. W hen Indra asserts his independence, being
carricd aw ay by pride (abhimana) the real deviation begins.
H istorically, this is the Ksatra asserting itself, retaining a
Luciferian grandeur, but the m ovem ent ultim ately becom es
Satanic. H istorically, the ksatra revolt is indicated in the
T o J O H N J. H O N I G M A N N
O cto b er 17, 1946
D ear M r H onigm ann:
I greatly appreciate yo u r noticc o f m y Religious Basis . . . in
Psychiatry. I should like to say, how ever, that you did n o t quite
T o A. M. H O CA RT
U ndated
D ear M r. H ocart:
V ery m any thanks for yo u r paper on Caste, w ith very m uch
o f w hich I am in agreem ent. O ne o f the best short discussions
o f caste I k n o w is the short article by M ukhopadhyaya in the
A ryan Path, June 1933. It m ight be pointed out that all castes are
united in divinis, eg, w e m ay say that as Tvastr-Visvakarm a (=
C hristian D ivine A rchitect w hose procession is per artem), the
deity is Sudra , as A gni is Brahmana, as Indra is Ksatriya, etc.
V ery sincerely,
A. M . H o cart, au th o r o f Les Castes, Paris, 1938.
Incom plete m an u scrip t letter, unsigned.
T o PROFESSOR W ES T O N LA BARRE
O cto b er 30, 1945
D ear Professor La Barre:
W hile I agree w ith m any points m ade in yo u r A ugust
Psychiatry article (notably the last sentence o f the second
paragraph in w hich respect, I think, Pearl Buck often offends) I
do n o t think the first sentence o f yo u r note 63* can be
substantiated; cf, for exam ple Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.14:
T his is w h at makes 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 stronger
than h im se lf puts his tru st in Justice, ju s t as one m ig h t in the
K in g . In the O riental concept o f m onarchy the king, o f
course, is expected to be the em bodim ent o fjustice; hence, as in
this n ex t text, it is taken for granted that to appeal to Justice is
the sam e thing as the appeal to Caesar. M oreover, as the
Arthasastra says, the w hole o f the science o f governm ent
depends u p o n a victory over the pow ers o f perception and
action (cf m y Spiritual A uthority and Temporal Power . . .,
1942, p 36).
T o THE NA TIO N
M ay 29, 1945
D ear Sirs:
In yo u r M ay 26 issue, p 604, M r H ook attributes to Plato the
doctrine that expert know ledge alone gives the right to rule .
This is m isleading, sincc w hat Plato had in m ind was
som ething very different from w hat w e mean w hen we speak
o f g o vernm ent by experts . His doctrine is that only w isdom
and the love o f w isdom qualify for rule, and at the same tim e
im pose upon those w ho are thus qualified a duty to participate
in public life, for w hich they will have*no natural taste. In the
Law s, Book III, he defines as ignorant those w ho are
unam enable to reason and are ruled by their likes and dislikes;
and they are ig n o ran t , even though they be expert
calculators, and trained in all m anner o f accom plishm ents ; it is
to the wise w ho live reasonably and harm oniously, that the
go v ern m en t should be entrusted, even if they arc illiterate and
unlearned w orkm en. His distinction o f the ignorant from the
expert is as betw een those w ho hate and those w ho love w hat
they ju d g e to be good and fair. Protagoras speaks sim ilarly,
3 22-3.
In the sam e issue, p 603, Miss M arshall quotes w ith approval
D r N o m ad on the camel and the eye o f needle. O ne w ould like
to k n o w in w hat authoritative version o f the Greek Gospels the
w o rd was kamilos: n o t only is it kamelos in the O x fo rd edition o f
the text that was follow ed by the Revisers o f the A uthorized
V ersion, and in the O x fo rd text o f the Four Gospels published
in 1932, b u t also in the Jam es Strong Exhaustive Concordance.
Jalalud din R um i, w ho both knew camels and was fam iliar also
w ith the traditional m eaning o f threading the eye o f the
needle , w rites: T he eye o f the needle is not suitable for the
cam el (M athnaw i , 1.83). T he camel has been, in fact, a
recognized sym bol o f the carnal as distinguished from the
spiritual self; and w c have the related figure in M atthew , o f
swallowing a cam el. While it is true that rope w ould also
have m ade good (and traditional) sense, it appears from Liddell
and Scott (w ho can cite only tw o references to the w ord
kamilos, neither o f them Biblical) that rope has been th o u g h t
by som e a m ore likely figure than a cam el , and it seems to me
that M r N o m ad , too, is only voicing an opinion, and that he
has no right to laugh at the translators, w ho w ere not m en o f
the s o r t'th a t m ake boners .
A KC
T o SIDNEY H O O K
U ndated
D ear Professor H ook:
I send you the copy o f a letter [above] sent to the Nation
w hich I daresay they m ay n o t find room for. H ow ever, I am
T o SIDNEY H O O K
June 6, 1945
D ear Professor H ook:
M any thanks for your letter. W e clearly disagree. H ow ever, I
w o u ld say that the w hole m atter is for Plato n o t so m uch a
m atter o f right to rule as o f duty. T o philosophers generally,
governm ental activity is distasteful, and should be exercised
precisely by those w ho are not interested in pow er. G overn
m ent, as distinguished from tyranny, is a m atter o f Justice, or
P roportionate Equality. In Protagoras, 3 2 2 -3 , it is pointed out
that w hile the special know ledges and vocations pertain to the
relatively few specialists in their fields, the sense o fju stice, etc,
is n o t peculiar to the few, b u t com m on to all regardless o f their
vocation, and therefore that all m ay be consulted in civic
m atters. All, that is, w ho arent ig n o ran t in the sense o f the
Laws passage to which I previously referred. I think these
passages are absolutely relevant to the present discussion.
Philo follow s Plato in saying that philosophers should be
kings, o r kings philosophers. Philo, o f course, m aintains that
d em ocfacy , as distinguished from m ob rule , is the best
constitution. B ut neither Plato n o r Philo is thinking o f
philo so p h y as a speciality in o u r academic sense, b u t o f
som ething that is quite as m uch a w ay o f life as a w ay o f
know ing. In m ost traditional societies philosophy, in their
sense, is actually widely distributed and com m on to all classes.
O n the o th er hand, o u r form o f governm ent here is not in fact a
dem ocracy at all in P hilos sense, b u t represents a balance o f
p o w er reached as betw een com peting interests; and so
approaches the classical definition o f tyranny, viz, g overnm ent
by a ruler in his o w n interest. T o be disinterested is the prim ary
qualification. As the Indian books on g o vernm ent m aintain,
that that will mean, as he says, the collapse o f all that the
makers o f Japan have toiled at building these m any years. But
is the m odem Japan, created in the image o f Europe, and so
distasteful to us, the creation o f the D ivine Em peror? N o t at all:
it is the w o rk o f the industrialists and m ilitarists.
It will certainly n o t be good psychological propaganda to
announce that we are o u t to destroy the ultim ate basis o f
Japanese culture and, indeed, to offend their deepest religious
instincts. If there is great suffering in Japan, its people m ight
well listen to those w ho sought to destroy, not the E m peror,
but the militarists and industrialists through w hom the suffering
cam e, and to w hose pow er the E m peror is n ow subjected. T he
D ivine E m p ero r ideology o f the East (for it is not only a
Japanese concept) having been uninterrupted in the history o f
Japan, m ight 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 m ilitarists and not the E m peror that
perverted that into Asia for the Japanese .
T he 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 hardly say that W estern sociologists are
p rofoundly ig n o ran t o f O riental theories o f governm ent, and
scarcely even conscious that a totalitarian state governed by a
proletarian individual exercising unlim ited pow er is nothing
but a pathetic caricature o f m onarchy. T he E m p ero r H irohito
and A dolph H itler m ake strange allies, and sarcastic propagan
da to that effect could hardly fail to m eet w ith som e favorable
response.
I w ould suggest that instead o f proposing to break dow n the
D ivine E m peror ideology o f Japan, for w hich I cannot share
M r L am o tts contem pt, we should propose to the defeated
Japanese a restoration o f the E m peror to a place o f real
p o w e r. A t the same tim e that such a proposal w ould enlist
the deepest sym pathies o f the Japanese psyche, a restoration o f
the E m p ero r to pow er w ould autom atically put the m ilitary
and industrial factions in their place.
AKC
T o HELEN CHAPIN
O ctobcr 21, 1945
D ear Helen C hapin:
O n gam es generally, cf m y Sym bolism o f A rchery in A rs
Islamica, X , 1943.
In all ball gam es I think the ball is the Sun: there is a contest
for possession o f it, o r to direct it on its way; Gods and Titans
com peting for the possession o r direction o f the w orld.
Severed head , precisely because that is the genesis o f the sun
(this last I think you m ight have understood in the article). As
to w hat you said about castc, d o n t confuse caste w ith classes in
a w ould-be egalitarian culture. Just as one m ust n o t confuse
m onarchy w ith totalitarianism ; the old definition o f tyranny as
a m onarch ruling in his ow n interests . All m onarchy
presupposes viceroyalty on behalf o f a transcendent justice
(dharma, dikaiosone ): and castc metier function, determ ined by
o n es nature, represents that o w n (sva in sva-dharma) share o f
this vice-regal responsibility. C astc is the only system that
provides for the dignity o f all men, w hatever their occupation
(the only w ay that [integrates] all m en into a certain royality,
provided it is not im posed upon them m erely by econom ic
necessity). T here arc conditions below caste (Russia, America)
and above castc (God, sannyasi, bhikkhu)', b u t the social n o rm is
one o f the natural hierarchy o f functions. W e only resent the
idea because it is incompatiablc w ith capitalism (free for all, devil
take the hindm ost, law o f the sharks, etc) because our ideal is
not o f beautiful w o rk but only one o f idleness (leisure ,
P latos living in sports always), and bccausc we have no longer
any conception o f liberty as anything but liberty o f choice. In a
castc system this liberty (com parable to that o f children in a
fam ily, w ho do not yet share their parents responsibilities) to
do w hat one likes really, the state o f subjection to ones likes
and dislikes is least at the top. T he proletarian ideal is one o f
leveling all m en dow n to this childish level. O f course, a herd, a
proletariat such as ours . . . could not bear the sudden im posi
tion o f a sense o f functional responsibility they w ould ridicule
the idea o f ju d g in g w ork by is it w orth doing? instead o f
will it pay? I o u ght not to have to tell you all this: w ho have
lived in the East w here it has n o t yet* becom e the fashion to
regard all values as bunk.
T o W ILLIAM R OT HE NS TEIN
June 25, 1910
D ear Rothenstein:
T hank you for yo u r letters and understanding w ords. I am
touched by the real sym pathy betw een us. By the w ay, it seems
that you did n o t realise m y wife is w ith me! If, as som e have
suggested, I should be accused o f o r even im prisoned for
sedition on account o f that book, I k now that you and others
will do som ething to point o u t that such w o rk does m ake for
real unity and that I m ight be m ore useful out o f prison than in.
I fully enter into w hat you say. I w ant to serve n o t m erely
India, but hum anity, and to be as absolutely universal as
possible like the avalokitesvara. M y o w n life ju s t n ow seems
tangled. I do tru st this m ay never h u rt the w ork.
Y ours,
R othenstein, Sir W illiam , critic, one tim e head o f the R oyal C ollege o f A rt,
leading figure in art circlcs and friend o f C o o m arasw am y .
A room in Norman Chapel, Coomaraswamys home at Broad Campton, Gloucestershire, about 1908
T o ARTHU R SIBLY
D ecem ber 6, 1945
D ear A rth u r Sibly;
A propos o f y our reference to India, in your last letter. I fully
understand that it is very difficult for you to realise that an
Englishm an west o f Suez and the same man cast o f Suez arc
m orally tw o different beings; this applies, o f course, not
necessarily to actual physical position, but w ith reference to
that to w hich the m ind is directed at a given time. H alf
consciously, even K ipling understood this w hen he said that
there are no ten com m andm ents East o f Suez. N o do u b t he
th o u g h t he was speaking o f the lesser breeds w ith o u t the
law ! but very little psychoanalysis w ould rem ind 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 ju s t
opinion (as an Englishm an, your opinion will be English ). Is
it too m uch to ask that you read these books only as a m an,
forgetting that you arc an Englishm an? For your hum anity
transcends your nationality.
W ith kind regards,
A rth u r Sibly w as Principal o f W ycliffc C ollege, S troud, G lostershire,
E ngland, and a fo rm er classm ate o f A K C at this sam e establishm ent w hich is
the p u b lic school at w hich A K C m atriculated prior to entering the
U n iv ersity o f L ondon. A copy o f the previous letter to The Boston Traveller
was enclosed.
T o ARTHUR SIBLY
N ovem ber 14, 1931
M y dear A rth u r Sibly:
I cant help w riting you again about India, because your
point o f view expressed in the last Star (p 53) is so typically
heartless and self-satisfied. Q u ite apart from the fact that in
India w e always have hundreds o f m en im prisoned w ith o u t
charge or trial, and such men can be held for 5 years w ith o u t
trial (your fathers history lessons taught me w hat to think o f
such things as this!), I m ust m ention that I have never m et any
Indian (and you will realise that I know m any w ho are your or
m y equals or superiors, intellectually and morally) w ho
believed in British ju stice . Really, a fact like this ought to
m ake you think seriously. W hat do you think the English are? I
T o ARTHU R SIBLY
January 12, 1932
D ear A rth u r Sibly:
T hanks for y o u r reply to m y letter, w hich I k now was rather
forcible in expression. In discussing justice I had reference (a) to
the general situation, including for exam ple the failure and even
obstruction o f justice that followed the A m ritsar massacre,
[and] (b) to justice as rendered in courts in cases betw een
Indians and the go v ern m en t or European individuals. (N o
Englishm an has ever been sentenced to death for the m u rd er o f
an Indian, I believe. Lord C urzon lost his V iceroyalty on trying
to do justice in a case o f this kind.) I am ready to adm it that in
som e cases an English m agistrate ju d g in g betw een tw o Indian
litigants m ay n o t only be perfectly ju st, b u t m ore ju s t than an
Indian ju d g e m ight always be in these circum stances. B ut this is
only a particular case o f w h at w ould be generally true: for
exam ple, a Swiss ju d g e m ight deal better w ith a poaching case
than could an English squire on the bench. Still this w ould be
no arg u m en t for go v ern m en t o f England by Switzerland.
I notice that English papers are filled w ith propaganda to
B uy B ritish . T he corresponding propaganda in India has
been m ade a felony by one o f the recent arbitrary ordinances.
T o A RTHUR SIBLY
January 18, 1932
D ear A rth u r Sibly:
I w o u ld add: a b o d y o f nine has been condem ned to 4 years
im p riso n m en t for picketing. O n e o f the recent ordinances
perm its a police m agistrate to condem n to death in absentia a
m an unrepresented by a law yer and w ith o u t appeal. C an you
w o n d er that T he Nation here recently had an article entitled
Has B ritain G one M ad? I am not solely concerned about
India: I am appalled at the m oral depths to w hich E ngland can
descend, inasm uch as things are being done by Englishm en like
yourself, for exam ple, normally o f high m oral principle and
respect for law.
V ery sincerely,
A rth u r Sibly, as above.
T o THE N A T I O N , N E W YORK
January 29, 1924
Sir:
Lord W illingdon is reported to have said that no selfrespecting g o v ern m en t could afford to ignore G andhis chal
lenge. N o one expects the British governm ent in India to
ignore the present situation, b u t there are different w ays o f
responding to it. So far, the response to civil disobedience,
w hich has rem ained am azingly non-violent 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 inform ers. Political prisoners are given hard
labour or deported. A m an can be indefinitely im prisoned
w ith o u t charge preferred, o r condem ned to death in absentia on
the basis o f a police rep o rt alone; and w hile in Britain, the
slogan B uy B ritish is everyw here proclaim ed, in India
children have been condem ned to years o f im prisonm ent or to
the lash for peaceful picketing. These are not the acts o f
self-respecting governm ent, but o f one driven by blind rage
and fear. O n e does n o t k now h o w m any English officials are
still living only as a consequence o f Indian reluctance to take
life; one does feel that the British arc hoping to break dow n this
patience so that they m ay have an excuse to use their rifles and
bom bs on unarm ed crow ds. English diehards have repeatedly
adm itted that E ngland cannot afford to lose India; at the
sam e tim e they have m ade it im possible that anything else
should happen.
W hat, if anything, can be done here? We cannot expect the
A m erican go v ern m en t to interfere in British dom estic
affairs , how ever scandalous. B ut w ould it n o t be helpful to
publish and distribute here som e o f the recent ordinances,
together 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 o u b t that a few hundred o f the m ost distinguished
A m ericans w ould be glad to sign in their individual capacity?
AKC
The Nation, N e w Y ork.
T o THE N E W AGE, L O N D O N
O cto b cr 15, 1914
Sir:
T h e present co-operation o f Indian w ith English forces on
the E uropean battlefield is an unprecedented event. As n o t even
a w ar can be productive o f unm ixedly evil results such is the
fundam ental goodw ill o f m an w e m ay, perhaps, put the fact
o f this co-operation on the credit side. B ut let us, at the same
tim e, consider som e o f its larger im plications.
I am n o t one o f those w ho think that India owes a debt o f
gratitude to E ngland. W here Englishm en have served o r do
serve the interests o f India to the best o f their ability in their
lifew ork, they do no m ore than their sim ple duty, w hether w e
regard this as responsibility voluntarily assum ed, o r as that o f a
servant paid w ith Indian m oney. In the cold light o f reason, it is
after all from the latter standpoint that m ost A nglo-Indians
have to be ju d g ed . In m any cases, perhaps in m ost cases, the
sam e w o rk m ig h t have been done as well by Indians: and even
if less efficiently, none the less better done by Indians, since
efficiency is n o t the last w o rd in hum an values. Passing over
elem ents o f evident injustice, such as the A rm s and Press Acts,
the C o tto n Excise and D eportations w ith o u t Trial, I see in the
ordinary operations o f G overnm ent few causes for gratitude: so
far as P rogress is concerned, to have done less w ould have
been crim inal, to have done m ore w ould n o t have been
astonishing.
W hen w e consider the so-called English Education that has
been given to India largely developed in the M acaulayan
spirit o f those w ho think that a single shelf o f a good E uropean
library is w o rth all the literature o f India, Arabia and
Persia and n ow essentially a m atter o f vested interests for
English publishers, the closely preserved Im perial E ducation
Service, and M issionaries w hen we rem em ber the largely
political purposes and bias o f all this education, its needless
secularisation, and that it has discontented the Indians w ith all
that was dearest and best in their hom e life, and [w hen we]
perceive in w hat countless ways it has broken the threads o f
traditional culture then w e are apt to feel som ething less than
gratitude. C om pared w ith all this, the social ostracism o f
AKC
T o PHILIP MAIRET
M arch 6, 1946
D ear Pam:
Entre nous and n o t for publication: In so m any o f your
editorials you say so m any wise things that it shocks m e to
w hat an extent you can at other times be confused. Im
referring n o w to y o u r rem arks about India in the issue o f Feb 7.
D o you know , m y wife (w ho has lived tw o years in India as a
student, lived as Indians live, spoke H indi and learned Sanskrit)
laughed out loud when she read it? M y prim ary interest is not, as
you k n o w , political, so I will dismiss that aspect by rem arking
that som eone asked m e recently if I did not think there w ould
be great disorder if the English quit, to w hich I replied: Little
doubt; it m ight be alm ost as bad as it is n o w . As regards the
English conscience , that is sim ply pour rire to us; no Indian
today regards an E nglishm ans w o rd as even w o rth the paper it
m ay be w ritten on. R ight o r w rong, these are the facts. O n the
o ther hand, you adm it another fact: that the Indians are
unanim ous in saying quit India . If the Englishm an rem ains,
it is an illustration o f the fact that outside England, he is
denatured; at hom e, the E nglishm an is a gentlem an, one o f the
m ost ch'arming in the w orld; east o f Suez, som ething m ore like
a bounder. D o gentlem en rem ain w here they are n o t w anted,
n o t trusted, and frankly disliked?
W hat you go on to say about H induism and Indian society
m ig h t have been w ritten by any B aptist m issionary. It is
precisely from the standpoint o f the m oral principles that
underlie the form s o f Indian society that those o f us w ho are not
yet W esternized and m odernized, not yet m echanized or
industrialized, can and do criticize the im m orality o f m o d em
W estern societies, w ith their free enterprise , w hich we call
the law o f the sharks . I have in the press a lecture on The
Religious Basis o f the Forms o f Indian Society w hich I gave this
T o T H E N E W ENGLISH WEEKLY L O N D O N
A ugust 20, 1942
Sir:
From the standpoint o f the purposes for w hich the Allies are
supposed to be fighting, the g overnm ent o f India by B ritain is
an anom aly. Indians have been asked to fight for a freedom that
docs n o t include their o w n freedom . T he Allies have n o t w on
the w hole-hearted co-operation o f even those Asiatics w ho are
fighting on their side; n o r will they until they include in their
p ro g ram w h at still rem ains o f a Japanese slogan, Asia for the
Asiatics , m aking it very clear that that includes India for the
Indians. A pologists o f B ritish rule have lately argued that the
Indians have been and w ould be far better o ff under British than
u nder Japanese rule. Indians agree. T h at is to say, that o f tw o
evils, they prefer the lesser evil. B ut such a choice scarcely
m akes for enthusiasm . T he Allies can count far m ore on the fact
that the Indians arc w hole-heartedly pro-C hinese than upon
their lo y alty to England; so long as the Allies are true to
C hina, the Indians will be on their side for that reason alone,
but not because they are pro -B ritish ; they are prim arily
pro-Indian.
If the recent negotiations broke dow n, w hatever the im m edi
ate o r nom inal reasons m ay have been, the ultim ate reason is
that it was only too obvious that the British offers (even if a
British prom ise could have been trusted) did n o t proceed from
any change o f heart on the British part; no such offers w ould
ever have been m ade if B ritain had n o t needed Indias aid.
A ctually, noth in g can be offered effectively by England that
does n o t im ply and confess a conviction o f past sins. T he
British arc hum an beings and Gandhi still believes in the
possibility o f hum an beings m aking an upw ard g ro w th . T he
tim e for such an up w ard g ro w th is now . Short o f that, the
struggle will go on until the inevitable conclusion follows:
inevitable, because w hatever the outcom e o f the present w ar, it
is clear that the days o f E uropean exploitation o f Asia are over.
T o free India from B ritain is pre-requisite to saving India from
Japan; to hold on grim ly to the brightest jew el in the British
cro w n m ay m ean losing it to Japan.
B ound up w ith the political problem , but ultim ately far m ore
im portant, is that o f the cultural relations to be established in a
w orld conditioned by Allied victory and organized on the basis
o f universal and co-operative self-determ ination. In that future
w orld all m en will o f necessity and to an ever increasing extent
have to live together. T he m ere industrialisation o f Asia will
only set new rivalries in m otion, and perhaps result in a new
and m ore terrible w ar, econom ic if not m ilitary. M uch rather
m ust the nations be united in the endeavour to liberate m ankind
from the evils o f industrialism , from purely m onetary valua
tions, and from the endeavour to live by bread alone, o f w hich
the consequences are before our eyes.
In o th er w ords, if there is to be peace, the relations o f
E uropeans w ith Asiatics m ust be hum anised; and since the
Europeans arc the interlopers, that is primarily a problem for
Sir:
D r A nanda K C o o m arasw am y s article is so full o f questionbegging statem ents that it w ould occupy too m uch o f your
space to deal w ith them adequately. I w ould, how ever, like to
put the follow ing three questions to him:
1)
W hen he speaks o f the Indian outlook, culture, civilisa
tion, etc, does he refer to that o f the C aste-H indus, o r the
T o M ON SIE U R R O M A IN ROLLAND
August 22, 1920
M y dear M R om ain Rolland:
It is by a curious coincidence that I had w ritten to you only a
few days before I received yo u r letter o f July 6, w ith your
invitation to subscribe to the Declaration de IIndependence de
VEsprit. I accept w ith great appreciation this h o n o r and signify
m y adherence accordingly. I am indeed convinced that a real
unity m oves in the m inds o f m en w ho are w idely separated by
space and by artificial barriers, and that this unity persists
unchanged behind the curtain o f a conflict that is m ore o r less
unreal. B y unreal, I m ean arising from an illusion superim
posed upon people w ho have no quarrel w ith one another.
It is sad that the form ulae o f th o u g h t should have been
p ro stitu ted in the service o f hatred. B u t to destroy the unreal, it
is needful, n o t that w e should seek to punish others, only that
w e ourselves recognize and live in accord w ith w hat is real.
Alas that at the present tim e the P ow ers have show n so
little self-respect, so little self-restraint, and so little sense o f
reality. T hey have sought to build for them selves bigger
barns , n o t thinking that their life m ay be required o f them!
T here is a B uddhist text that it w ould have been well to
rem em ber V ictory breeds hatred: because the conquered are
u n h a p p y .
A nd w ith regard to the still subject races h ow is it that the
P o w e rs forget that the greatest injury m ust be inflicted by
the ty ran t upon himself?
Believe me, yours m ost cordially,
R om ain Rolland, well k now n Frcnch author; his sister translated A K C s
Dance o f Shiva in to French.
T his letter, so replete w ith banalities, m ay serve to sh o w h o w
D r C o o m arasw a m y 's th o u g h t m a tu red to the rig o ro u s standards o f his later
years.
T o DR A N U P SINGH
Ju ly 10, 1944
D ear D r A nup Singh:
I look forw ard w ith pleasure to the appcarancc o f a
S ym posium to be entitled the Voice o f India , to be published
in the cause o f Indias freedom . We hear now adays alm ost
exclusively o f Indias right to a political and econom ic freedom
and (w ith the exception o f an infinitesim al num ber o f Indian
traitors w hose vested interests are bound up w ith the status quo)
w e affirm this right unanim ously and unconditionally.
T o MR K O D A N D O RAO
April 10, 1947
D ear M r K odando Rao:
It was a pleasure to m eet you again and to hear you speak
yesterday. As you know , I also have constantly em phasized
that the great difference betw een the traditional Indian and the
m odern w estern outlook on life arc a m atter o f tim es m uch
m ore than that o f place. I w ould like to urge you to study som e
o f the m odern W estern w riters on these subjects, especially
G uenon, o f w h o m you will find som e account in a little book
o f m y ow n that I am sending you.
As M r T oynbee said, We (o f the West) arc ju st beginning to
see som e o f the effects o f our action on them (o f the East), but
we have hardly begun to see the effects w hich will certainly
be trem endous o f their com ing counteraction upon u s.
T oynbee speaks o f the West as the aggressors and the East as
the victim s . H istorians, he says, a thousand years hencc, will
be chiefly interested in the trem endous counter cffcct w hich,
by that tim e, the victim s will have produced in the life o f the
agressor , and thinks the real significance o f the com ing social
unification o f m ankind will not be found in the field o f
technics and econom ics, and n o t in the field o f w ar and politics,
but in the field o f relig io n . Y ou, perhaps, w ould prefer to say
in the field o f th o u g h t or philosophy; at any rate, in that o f the
ultim ate principles on w hich any civilisation is really based.
We O rientals, then, have at least as m uch responsibility for
the kind o f w orld that w c shall be in the future as have the
W estern cultures that arc still predom inant but at the same tim e
declining. Few o f o u r students from India have had any chance
to realize the extent to w hich leaders o f W estern th o u g h t are
them selves aw are o f this decline. Y ou will find som e discussion
o f it in m y little book; but let me add that at H arvard, the
Professor o f E ducation very often refers to W estern civilization
them and their families in their hom es, nor do w e expect them
to treat us on term s o f social equality in India. H o w m uch less
have ordinary A m ericans and Europeans a right to expect such
a thing?
As a m atter o f fact, w e respect m ore those Indians w ho will
not cat w ith us, than those w ho will. We see no reason w hy we
should contam inate their hom es and kitchens m erely out o f
politcncs.
As for the girls: I say that how ever m uch they know a m an
is still u n e d u c a t e d if he cannot appreciate and understand
and be happy w ith an Indian girl, if she is still Indian, how ever
little o f his kind o f inform ation she m ay have. Praise G od if the
Indian girl retains standards and concepts o f value about life and
conduct that E uropean w om en have been robbed of. If m ost o f
them w ant to stay as they are, for G o d s sake let them!
Take note o f w hat Sir G eorge B irdw ood w rote in 1880:
O u r (W estern) education has destroyed their love o f their ow n
literature . . . their delight in their ow n arts and, w orst o f all,
their repose in their o w n traditional and national religion. It has
disgusted them w ith their ow n hom es their parents, their
sisters, their very wives. It b ro u g h t discontent into every
fam ily so far as its baneful influences have reached.
W ith kind regards,
* E u ro p e a n , as frequently used by Asians and Africans, refers to persons o f
E uropean ethnic b ack g ro u n d and is n o t lim ited to Frenchm en, G erm ans,
Spaniards, etc, and m ay often be applied to A m ericans.
P an d u ran g i K o d an d o Rao w as an Indian academ ic, a lecturer in b o tan y , w h o
becam e inv o lv ed in the independence m o v em en t and was im prisoned for his
su p p o rt o f G andhi. H e w ro te w idely on public affairs, and lectured in India,
C anada, the U SA and A ustralia. H e w as m arried to an A m erican w ife, and
was a m o d erate in politics.
Sir G eorge C h risto p h er M o lesw o rth B ird w o o d , B ritish civil servant, b o rn in
India, w as also a professor o f botany; cam e to E ngland w hile still a yo u n g
m an and w o rk e d for m any years in the India O ffice. H e m aintained a lifelong
professional in terest in India.
T o MRS GOBIN DR AM J. W A T U M U L L
A ugust 29, 1944
D ear M rs W atum ull:
M any thanks for yo u r letter and prospectus. I have always
had m ost pleasant relations w ith the B om bay m erchants o f
T o MRS GO BIN DR AM J. W A T U M U L L
January 3, 1944
D ear M rs W atum ull:
O f course, it is a w o rth y object to w ish to alleviate Indian
poverty and disease. T he difficulty lies in the fact that m odern
civilisation has so m any difficulties and dangers o f its ow n, for
exam ple such a high lunacy rate in Am erica. O n e can do
irreparable psychological dam age w hilst trying to do physical
good. T here is ju s t as m uch difference betw een the enorm ous
ly w ealth y and the pitifully p o o r here as there is in India.
T he only w ays to rem edy such things are partly political and
then by restoring (if it w ere possible) the status o f the guilds
and panchayats, and the jo in t fam ily system . We have disrupted
the structure o f Indian society, and then blam e it for not
functioning!* D oes W estern society function? W hat is free
enterprise b u t his hand against every man, and every m ans
hand against him ?
Y ou speak o f the background o f O riental learning, etc, that
w e possess. It is little enough. B ut I do n o t sec h ow one can
hope to help others until one has thoroughly grasped and unless
one is in sym pathy w ith their aspirations, their w ay o f life, their
w hole ideology . W hoever w ould [render such help m ust]
first o f all becom e one [o f them ]. In China, the Jesuits are
required to have earned their living for tw o years by practising a
Chinese trade before they are allow ed to teach. I believe the best
thing anyone can do for India is to go there to study.
I shall be m eeting the Scientific M ission here, too; and am
reading a lecture for them and the M IT boys on Science and
R eligion (the argum ent being that there is no possible conflict
betw een them ).
W ith kindest regards,
*A K C , in arg u m en t, did n o t alw ays take in to account the fact th at India w as
culturally decadent and internally divided o r else the E uropeans w o u ld never
have gained a fo o th o ld there. T h e sam e applies to the earlier and doubtless
p ro vidential advent o f the M uslim s in India.
M rs G o b in d ram J. W atum ull, as above.
M IT = M assachusetts Institute o f T ech n o lo g y , C am b rid g e, M assachusetts,
U SA .
T o ERIC GILL
May 23, 1939
D ear Eric:
. . . T alking o f sex sym bolism , it is w onderful h ow
C o u lto n m isunderstands and devalues the w onderful M ary
legend w hich he gives on P 509 o f his Five Centuries o f Religion.
H e misses entirely the trem endous significance o f the sacrifice
o f o n es eyes for the sake o f the vision. T here is a Vedic parallel,
too, w here W isdom is said to reveal her very body to some.
Perhaps you can prin t this legend som eday, and I could w rite a
few w ords o f introduction. O n the other hand, perhaps the
w orld does n o t deserve such things nowadays!
W ith love from Ananda,
Eric Gill, sec the In tro d u ctio n .
C o u lto n , G eorge G ., Five Centuries o f Religion, Vol I, C am bridge, England.
Sir:
P erm it m e to say that M ildred W orth P inkham s book on
Women in the Sacred Scriptures o f Hinduism , recently review ed in
y o u r issue o f Septem ber 16th, cannot be very strongly
recom m ended. I rather agree w ith a m ore learned review er in
the Journal o f the American Oriental Society (1941, p 195), w ho
says: T h ere are a great m any quotations, som e o f them
interesting, but they neither prove n o r indicate anything in
particular. T hey are n o t suitable for the use o f H indu w om en,
n o r for scholarly reference, n o r are they w elded by interpreta
tive co m m en t into any sort o f unity, n o r is the status o f H indu
w o m en to d a y discussed in relation to these snatches from the
scriptures. T h e book is one o f sustained confusion from
beginning to end . . . . T he quotations are all from English
tanslations and provide neither a com prehensive list o f refer
ences, n o r sufficient context to be very helpful.
T here is, o f course, an Indian theory, m etaphysical, as to the
natural, and therefore ju st, relationship o f the sexes, interpreted
in term s o f sky and eaith, sacerdotium and regnum, m ind and
perception, and it is, indeed, in term s o f the Liebesgeschichte
Him m els and the relationships o f Sun and M oon, that w hat we
should n o w call the psychology o f sex is set forth. All this
fundam ental m aterial, in the light o f w hich alone can the special
applications be understood, is ignored. N either is it realized
that the w hole problem is n o t m erely one o f external
relationships, b u t one o f the proper co-ordination o f the
m asculine and fem inine pow ers in the constitution o f everyone,
w hether m an o r w om an, that is involved. N either is it even
hinted that in o u r ultim ate and very Self, these very pow ers o f
essence o f nature are O ne.
AKC
M ildred W o rth P inkham , Women in the Sacred Scriptures o f Hinduism,
C o lu m b ia U n iv ersity Press, N e w Y o rk , 1941. T his u n fo rtu n ate b o o k began
as a P h D thesis, and reflected only a part o f the said thesis, w hich m ay help
account for its inadequacies.
T o GEORGE SARTON
M y dear Sarton:
M any thanks for yo u r note. Spiritual A u thority . . .
m ight com e m ore into yo u r field, n o t only as having to do w ith
political science (sociology), but because it deals th ro u g h o u t
w ith the problem o f conflict betw een the sexes, w hich is the
sam e thing as the conflict betw een the inner and the outer m an.
There is, in fact, a traditional psychology that is o f im mense
practical value and that leads to solutions o f the very problem s o f
disintegrated personality w ith w hich w e are still concerned.
K indest regards,
V ery sincerely,
G eorge Sarton, professor o f the h isto ry o f science, H arv ard U n iv ersity ,
C am b rid g e, M assachusetts, U SA .
Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory o f Government,
S upplem ent to the Journal o f the American Oriental Society, X X II, 1942.
T o S. DU RA I RAJA SINGAM
A pril 26, 1947
D ear M r Raja Singam:
M any thanks for your sons letter and the interesting
photographs o f y ourself and family.
As regards your Selections from m y w ritings, please o m it
page 12 (enclosed); page 9 requires som e alternation; I have
never placed nationalism above religion. B etter o m it the
paragraph I have struck out. Also page 11, o m it w hat I have
struck out: I have never been aw are o f the degrading position
of w om en in C eylon society ! ! ! Such ideas w ould seem quite
nonsense to me.
I expect you have received m y book, A m I M y Brothers
Keeper? I have no new photographs.
W ith best wishes,
Y ours sincerely,
S. D urai Raja Singam , Petaling Jaya, M alaysia (cf p 30). M r Singam was
collating a series o f q u otations from A K C s published w orks to be included
in a book o f Selections . . . . T h e section in question here w as A K C s
discussion o f te m p o rary m arriage in The Dance o f Shiva, the chapter on
T h e Status o f Indian W o m en . T h e Selections . . . w ere published in a
lim ited edition by M r Singam for private circulation.
A m I M y Brothers Keeper?, N ew Y ork, 1947.
T o THE SHIELD, L O N D O N
January 1911
Sirs:
I w rite these notes at the request o f a friend, b u t it m ust be
understood that I have made no special study o f the matter,
although I do take a great interest in the status o f w om en both
T o D O N A LUISA C O O M A R A S W A M Y
M ay 15, 1932
D arling:
. . . As to virginity, o f the M atrona (ra ta vuvatih): there are
several w ays o f looking at it. In the first place, you know ,
w hatever is given o u t o r em anated (srsti, etc) by the plerom a
(puma) cannot diminish w hat is infinite (aditi). She is naturally
in every sense inviolable. N either is he really but only logically
disintegrated (vy asrusakd, etc. by the act o f fecundation, for the
sam e reason. Lateral birth: for one reason because the branches
o f a tree g ro w o u t sidew ays, like the arm s o f the cross,
im plying extension into tim espace. Also, in a quite literal sense,
C aesarian birth im plies virginity. T hirdly, this is one w ay o f
saying that the eternal m other dies , or is slain by the birth
o f the Son. It is for this reason M aya, m other o f B uddha dies, as
one can see by com paring w ith the Indra nativity in R V IV, 18,
1-2 c f V, 2, 1-2: Indra in fact destroys the w o m b (yonim
aibhidya) lest there should be any b u t an only Son o f G od. She
To
WILLIAM ROTHENSTEIN
Date uncertain
Dear Rothenstein:
Please post m e the H im har (?) print to C am pden. I am afraid
you m ust have been disappointed last night. I had not heard
him sing before. H ow ever, the hym n have a little idea. T he
follow ing is a translation:
U nknow able, abiding in the th o u g h t o f B rahm ans, rare one,
Veda-Essence, atom unk n o w n to any, w ho art honey, w ho
art m ilk, w ho art a shining beam , Lord o f the devas,
inseparably m ingled in the dark V ishnu, in the four-headed
B rahm a, in the fire, in the w ind, in the sounding ocean, in
the m ightly m ountains, w ho are great and rare and precious,
dw elling in T ig er-to w n (C hidam baram , a sacred to w n in
S outh India) vain arc all the days w hen thy N am e is not
spoken.
Is it n o t grand to know that m en can sing this passionately? I
return to C am pden Saturday, and shall n o t be up again for ten
days after that.
Y ours very sincerely,
T o W illiam R othenstein, as above.
T o WILLIAM R OT HE NS TEIN
D ecem ber 29, 1914
D ear R othenstein:
T hanks for y o u r tw o notes. I quite agree that criticism and
appreciation are n o t a perm anent com pensation for creation.
H ow ever, the Lord m ade critics as well as artists, I suppose:
and they feel bou n d to get justice done for the w orks that have
touched them m ost. This necessity w hich they feel may be the
m eans o f creating beauty in their o w n w ork.
T he m ore austere Indian poetry w hich is at the sam e tim e
fully poetical w ould be found, I take it, in the Saiva and Sakta
hym ns. I w ould gladly w o rk at these if I could find a suitable
collaborator. H ow ever, I think it is still very necessary to
present the typical Vaisnava w ork. Even the Manchester
Guardian declared last year that T agore was the first Indian poet
to love life and believe in physical beauty! It is a natural
transition for m e from the Vaisnava paintings to the Vaisnava
literature, and I shall probably do m ore o f it. I have in hand a
very big w o rk on Rajput-Painting w hich it is alm ost settled will
be published by C larendon Press. In this connection, if you
have any new im p o rtan t R ajput paintings w hich I could see, or
photos o f them , I should be very pleased, as the very last
subjects are ju s t going in for reproduction now .
T o W ILLIAM R OT HE NS TEIN
. .
. . . ln0/1
M arch 14, 1924
M y dear Rothenstein:
I was very pleased to hear from you. We have here the largest
series o f photographs o f Indian architecture and sculpture in the
w orld, I believe, b u t o f course these are only available for study
here. I have th o u g h t o f various large books on Indian art to be
done som e day, but I am n o t ready yet there is m uch ground
to be cleared. M eanw hile I will get prints m ade o f a dozen o r so
o f the photographs m ost likely to suit you, and send them on. I
shall have to ask for $85 each, b u t no d o ubt the publishers
w ill attend to this. N o doubt, too, you will get such m aterial
from the A rcheological Survey negatives. Jo h n sto n and H off
m an also have som e good ones. A nyhow , you m ay expect
som e from m e in a few weeks. Is there anything in the M useum
you are likely to need, I w onder? By the w ay, I am sending you
m y little new Introduction to Indian A rt. If you review it
som ew here . . . so m uch the better.
I am fairly w ell settled here. I have been once to India Qapan,
T o ART NEW S
..
1fl n
M ay -A u g u st 1939
D ear M adam :
Y ou have kindly asked w hether 1 should care to deal w ith the
questions asked in y our 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.
G eom etry and algebra are abstract arts in that they do not
represent phenom ena as such, b u t the form s on w hich
phenom ena are built ( fo rm s in the sense that the soul is the
form o f the b o d y ). A religious art is necessarily abstract
because its thesis is the invisible things o f G o d w hich can be
represented in a likeness only by analogy, that is to say, by
m eans o f sym bols. Sym bolism is the representation o f the
reality o f one order by the analogous reality o f another order.
T here are degrees o f abstraction: an an thropom orphic sym bol
ism is unsuited, as St T hom as Aquinas rem arks, to those w ho
can think o f noth in g nobler than b o d ies. If the artist uses
m odels, it is as the m aterial and n o t the essence o f his art: if he
uses them for their o w n sake and n o t m erely as w ords are used
to com m unicate a thesis, he is no longer an artist b u t only an
illustrator. In the latter case, the free contem plative act o f
im agination having been om itted, only the servile operation
rem ains; the sam e holds good for the archaist and the
academician, or any mere im itator o f styles for their ow n sake.
A bstraction belongs to the very nature o f art: an abstract art is
w ro n g only w hen an abstract style is im itated for the sake o f
effect. W e m ust n o t say, G o to now , let us w ork abstractly :
abstraction is necessitated by the artists them e, or n o t at all.
I hardly k n o w w hat can be m eant by a reaction to ideas o f
the past cen tu ry . W hat has tru th to do w ith centuries ? T he
pen; for although w e are convinced that the visual arts have
only aesthetic values, w e have n o t yet fully surrendered to the
view that w ords are only charm ing sounds.
AKC
T o S. DU RA I RAJA SINGAM
July 21, 1947
D ear Raja Singam:
I think you had better use the article on art as it is, w ith
correction o f spelling and punctuation in a few places. If you
w ish, you can also quote m e as follows:
O n the last page it is a pity that Sanjiva D ev uses the w ord
aestheticism because this w ord, like aesthete, has always a bad
m eaning, w hich the w ords aesthetic, aesthetics, aesthetician do
n o t necessarily have. So it is not true that I consider
A estheticism to be the sine qua non in the daily life o f m a n .
W hat I say is w hat R uskin said, that Industry w ith o u t art is
b ru tality or, as St T hom as A quinas expressed it, T here can
be no good uses w ith o u t a rt. In his capacity as C reator, G od is
the archetype o f the hum an artist as m anufacturer; w hich is
w h at is m eant w hen art is called an im itation o f nature in her
m anner o f o peration , ie, o f the D ivine N ature. B haratan
K um arappas understanding o f the place o f art in hum an
life stated in his w ise and splendid book, Capitalism, Socialism
or Villagism is far deeper than G andhi-jis, w ho is to o ready to
give expression to his o w n feelings on a m atter on w hich he
really know s alm ost nothing.
V ery sincerely,
S. D urai Raja Singam , as on page 25.
B h aratan K um arap p a, Capitalism, Socialism or Villagism, M adras, 1946.
Sanjiva D ev, unidentified.
Sir:
A propos o f M r D ouglas N e w to n s article in yo u r issue o f
N o v em b er 1st, I should like to point out that art is like
G o d , precisely in this respect, that it cannot be seen; all that
w e can see is things made by art, and hence properly called
artifacts, and these arc analogous to those effects, w hich are all
that w e can see o f G od. T he art rem ains in the artist, regardless
o f the vicissitudes to w hich his w orks are subject; and I protest
against the serious use o f the term art by a w riter w ho really
m eans w o rk s o f a rt .
AKC
T o ADE DE BET HU NE
July 26, 1943
D ear M iss B ethune:
M any thanks. I w ould like to keep the article. I was for a
m o m en t surprised by M aria as J a m a Coeli (since C h rists w ords
are, 1 am the d o o r ): b u t at once rem em bered that bo th Sun
and M oon arc the doors and no d o ubt it is in her lunar aspect
M aria is the d o o r.*
By the w ay I do n o t think love o f tru th for tru th s sake and
beauty for beau ty s sake (top o f p 370 in the same issue o f Orate
Fratres) is sound C hristian doctrine w hich is that it is beauty
w hich summons us to be good (and true) and is therefore n o t
an end in itself; w hile tru th is to be sought in as m uch as the
tru th shall m ake you free . I cannot see that any m anifested
value o u g h t to be pursued for its o w n sake, but only as a
p ointer to an end beyond itself.
V ery sincerely,
* It w o u ld seem th at here D r C o o m arasw am y w as th in k in g prim arily o f the
sy m b o lism o f M ary in her role as h u m an m o th e r o f the incarnate W ord. B u t
M arian sy m b o lism is b o th m u ch b ro ad er and deeper than this considered in
isolation; it involves, eg, the act o f fecundation latent in etern ity , a phrase
o f E ck h a rt w hich A K C q u o ted fro m tim e to tim e and w hich places M arian
sy m b o lism squarely in divinis to w hich D an te alluded in his seem ingly
en ig m atic address: V irgin M o th er, d au ghter o f T h y S o n . T h e h u m an role
o f M ary im plies an archetypal Principle, w ith o u t w hich it w o u ld be
inconceivable literally. D r C o o m arasw am y h im self m ade these points in
o th e r contexts.
A dc D e B ethune, N e w p o rt, R hode Island, U SA ; artist and author.
Orate Fratres w as a C ath o lic jo u rn a l dev o ted prim arily to liturgical art; the
nam e w as changed later to Worship.
T o ADE DE BETHU NE
N o v em b er 22, 1939
D ear M iss Bethune:
I have a rule against lending any books; prim arily because
m ine is a reference library, containing only books I am apt to
need at any tim e. H ow ever, I break it to send the pam phlets
you refer to, if you will return them w ithin ten days.
1 think you o u g h t to go into the m atter a little m ore deeply. I
d o n t think all the w riters treat it from a profane p oint o f view.
It is o f course an erro r to suppose that people are being asked to
sacrifice som ething real in returning to severer form s, all that is
real exists in these em inently, although w ith less hum an appeal.
Y ou arc quite right about e m o tio n . Movere as a purpose o f
art originally m eant to im pel to corresponding action, n o t the
inducing o f feelings . C hristian art after the 13th century
gradually substitutes feeling for know ledge as the thesis (see
su m m ary o f B rehiers rem arks, quoted in m y T raditional
C onception o f Ideal P o rtraitu re in the current issue o f
Twice-a- Year.
In plainchant there is no clim ax (characteristic also o f
religious m usic elsewhere): it is n o t im posing (because a rite
before a ceremony): it does n o t represent violence o f action.
These arc also characteristics o f R om anesque [as distinct] from
G othic: G othic being a decadence, a step on the w ay to the
pathos and sentim entality o f m odern C hristianity in w hich in
accordance w ith o u r inversion o f the superiority o f contem pla
tion to action ethics has becom e the end instead o f the means
o f religion. T he revolt o f kings (against the C hurch), artists
(against patrons), w om an (against man) are all aspects o f one
and the sam e tendency.
I think you should o w n A R obertson, The Interpretation o f
Plainchant, O x fo rd , 1937 (sec p 106, parallel w ith Byzantine
plastic arts): and probably also G astouc, L A rt Gregorien and
L Eglise et la musique. Cccil G ray, History o f Music, has a good
section on Plainchant. St A ugustines D e Musica is im portant;
see J. H ure, A ugustin tnusicien, 1924.
T o GEORGE SARTON
M arch 12, 1946
D ear G eorge Sarton:
T hanks for the article on p o rtraits . I daresay you k n o w that
Indian (incl. C am bodian, etc) p o rtrait statues are not
intended to be likenesses . C f T he T raditional C onception
o f Ideal P o rtraitu re in m y W hy E xhibit Works o f Art?, 1943, C h
VII . . . : c f B onaventura In H exiam em , col 12 n q: melius videbo
me in Deo quam in me ipso.
AKC
W alt W hitm an, m y . . . looks . . . are n o t m e, m y self.
G eo rg e Sarton, page 13.
T h is w as a h an d w ritten postcard.
T o A. PHILIP M C M A H O N
N o v em b er 9, 1938
D ear Professor M cM ahon:
I take it for granted that you read m y M ediaeval A esthetic
II in M arch A rt Bulletin. I have no views o f m y o w n to
pro p o u n d , b u t those w hich I have m ade m y o w n include:
A rt is that n orm by w hich things arc m ade correctly (just as
prudence is that n o rm by w hich things are done correctly), and
after w hich they are called artifacts or w orks o f a rt . There
can be an industry w ith o u t art, but hardly absolutely. A rt and
beauty arc n o t the same thing logically. Beauty is the attractive
aspect o f perfection; perfection is the m akers intention. T he
w o rk o f art is always occasional; beauty in any thing can only
be a beauty in kind. B eauty is objective and does n o t depend on
the spectator for its existence, b u t only for its recognition.
T here is no distinction in principle betw een natural and
artificial, or physical and spiritual beauty. Beauty has nothing
to do w ith taste. Beauty is not the same thing as aptitude, but
cannot be apart from it; the converse docs n o t hold, unless w e
mean by aptitude, a total propriety. W hat is beautiful in a given
context m ay not appear to be so, ic, will be less attractive in
another.
In application to yo u r second paragraph: art and beauty are
n o t the sam e thing, b u t should coincide in the artist, and m ust
coincide if he has envisaged the w o rk to be done correctly. T he
w o rk o f art can hardly ever be as beautiful as the art by w hich it
was m ade, the degree o f approxim ation depending on the
receptivity o f the m aterial and the extent o f the artists m anual
skill. T he w o rk o f art is always as beautiful as it ever was, in its
original relations: b u t this beauty m ay be im perceptible to a
spectator w ho cannot p u t back, let us say, the m useum object,
into its original context. If it is dam aged, it is less beautiful
(though w e m ay like it better) than before, in the same sense
that a one-legged m an is by so m uch less a perfect m an, by so
m uch less than w hat he o u g h t to be.
A rt and aesthetic arc totally different things. A rt is
(1) functional and (2) com m unicative. In all norm al art these
tw o arc inseparable aspccts, though one m ay predom inate. In
Sanskrit the one w o rd artha denotes both value and m eaning.
T he idea o f a function w ith o u t m eaning or m eaning w ith o u t
T o A PHILIP M C M A H O N
N o v em b er 14, 1938
D ear Professor M cM ahon:
M any thanks for yo u r letter. I know and revere o f course
Plotinus, b u t also have great adm iration for the theory o f art as
form ulated by the Latin fathers (A ugustine, B onaventura,
T hom as, E ckhart, etc) and think it desirable to use these in
connection w ith the interpretation o f M ediaeval A rt as such. I
am in m ost th o ro u g h agreem ent w ith your last paragraph,
w hich seems to m e a m ost devastating criticism o f o u r m ethods
o f teaching a rt . M y point was that the aesthetic view o f art
is by definition a superficial one and our notion o f beauty
only skin deep .
V ery sincerely,
A P hilip M cM ah o n , as above.
H erb ert R ead, art critic, teacher and m useologist; w as especially interested in
m o d e m art. H e w as later knighted.
Sir:
I am astonished to find M r R om ney Green, w ith w hose
philosophy I am generally in cordial agreem ent, saying that
art is m ainly an affair o f in stinct. Socrates, on the other
hand, could n o t give the nam e o f art to anything irratio n al.
W hile for the w hole M iddle Ages, art is an intellectual
v irtu e . A rt is that kind o f know ledge by w hich we k n o w h ow
to m ake w hatever it has been decided should be m ade for a
given purpose, and w ith o u t w hich there can be no good use.
W ere it m erely or m ainly a m atter o f instinct, then art w ould
be m erely o r m ainly 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
tim e; and that means that they arc to be at the same tim e useful
and intelligible, aptus et pulcher.
O f expressions that arc m ainly instinctive one m ight citc a
b ab y s crying o r a la m b s gam boling. O f these, the form er is
n o t m usic , n o r the latter dancing . D ancing, if we ignore
such sensate cultures as our ow n, is a rational activity because
the gestures arc signs o f things, and w hat is signified is
som ething over and above the pleasures o f the feelings (D e
Ordine, 34). M r G reen him self is w illing to allow that a
significant art m ust be significant o f som ething. B ut an
instinctive expression, how ever revealing it m ay be (of the
exprcssors o w n state o f m ind), cannot be described as
significant . T o signify is to intend a given m eaning, and this
is an act o f the m ind: w hile any unintended subm ission to the
pulls o f instinct is n o t an act, but a passion.
AKC
T o T HE N E W ENGLISH WEEKLY L O N D O N
M arch 30, 1944
Sir:
In fu rther reply to M r R om ney Green: the artist does not
T o T HE N E W ENGLISH WEEKLY, L O N D O N
Ju n e 3, 1945
Sir:
A propos o f Im agination, discussed by M r W illiams in yo u r
issue o f M ay 10, I think it is too often overlooked that the w o rd
itself is the equivalent o f Iconography. T o im agine is to form an
im age o f an idea, a thing in itself invisible; and this kind o f
im itatio n is the proper w o rk o f art, to be distinguished from
the studio practice o f m aking copies o f copies . It presup
poses, n o t observation, b u t contem plation. T he em bodim ent
o f such concepts, fathered by Nous on Aisthesis in the actual
m aterial o f sound o r pigm ent, calls for know ledge and
precision, and that is w here the R om antics so often fall short,
by their exclusive reliance on feeling; it is true that mens sine
desiderio non intelligit, b u t also that sine intellectu non desiderat. H e
T o PROFESSORS W . K.
T o ERIC GILL
June 1934
D ear Eric:
As to m y book, there is one erro r I regret, nam ely m y use o f
consonantia, in w hich I m ade a m istake. Consonantia is w ith
reference to sym m etry o f parts, that kind o f order in things which
A ugustine regarded as, together w ith their unity, the m ost
evident trace o f G od in the w orld. 1 hope to be able to correct
this in a later edition. I am w orking at m ore m aterial from
Scholastic sources M aritains book is really very insufficient
and M ediaeval aesthetic has yet to be dem onstrated, starting
from the fundam ental analogy betw een the divine artifices.
T his recognized analogy enables us to understand from
expositions o f creation and in connection w ith the m agnifi
cent doctrine o f exem plarism (w hich goes back to neoPlatonic n o t to say earlier sources) ju s t w hat the mediaeval
authors u n derstood by operation per artem. I hope that at the
sam e tim e that I collect this m aterial to com plete a long article
on Vedic exem plarism and as I have often said before, there
can be no reason even from the m ost o rth o d o x C hristian point
o f view w h y the C hristian philosopher should n o t fortify his
position by use o f m aterial draw n from pagan sources, w hich is
precisely w h at was done by the great doctors o f C hristian
E u ro p e long ago.
W ith regard to yo u r other point, I think m ost likely the
secret o f a balance betw een love and th o u g h t centers, n o t in
not loving things, b u t in loving them n o t as they are in
them selves, b u t as they are m ore perfectly bottom s
included in G od. Speculum aeternum mentes re videntium ducit in
cognitionem omnium creatorum, quod rectuis bi cognoscunt quam alili
(A ugustine). G od is understood to k n o w things n o t by their
private essences, but by their form s (ideas), and it is precisely
these form s that w e o u g h t to try to see and to im itate in o u r art,
w hich is o r o u g h t to be an angelic communication.
N o w I w an t to see if you can help m e as follows: find a
young m an o f the p roper education w ho w ants to earn a few
pounds to m ake a translation for m e o f A quinas Opusculum de
pulchro et bono w hich is a part o f his com m entary on D ionysius
D e divinis nominibus; and perhaps also A quinas Opusculum de
T o ERIC GILL
M ay 23, 1939
M y dear Eric:
This is a short note in reply to yours o f M ay 5. Ive been
aw ay from the M useum for 3 weeks b u t expect to get back
soon th o I shall have lost a m onth: I g o t a facial cram p, due to a
chill they say, and one consequence is a w atering o f the eyes
that prevents reading w ith any com fort. H ow ever, I expect to
be p retty near well by next week.
M airet did speak o f asking you to w rite on m y stu ff and I
should have liked that. If Father V ann docs it, he should be lent
also the Z alm oxis article, the V edanta article and Eckstein,
w hich I had n o t sent to M airet. Im glad you like the B iu n ity ;
I th o u g h t I had sent you one and will do so next w eek. It was
approved by Bowen w ho is a Professor at Catholic University
here. M y lecture at this university, w ill be printed as a Stephens
pam phlet at the sam e tim e as yours. Yes, as som eone has
rem arked, Plato could n o t broadcast his stuff; but on the other
hand, could w e have written it? It is a question w hether this
absorption and preoccupation w ith means is not pretty danger
ous. T h e South Sea Islanders did their carving w ith very sim ple
tools o f stone and shell; w hen they w ere given good steel tools
their craftsm anship w ent to pieces.
T he chief new idea expressed in m y lecture to be printed, I
think is that merely functional art equates w ith bread
alone. . . . , husks that the swine did eat a g o o d , o f
course, b u t an insufficient good for man.
Affectionately,
E ric Gill, as above.
P hilip M airet, E nglish friend o f A K C and ed ito r o f the N ew English Weekly,
L ondon, to w hich A K C frequently co n tributed.
Father G erald V ann, O P , see p 105.
T o MR L. HARRISON
D ecem ber 17, 1946
D ear M r H arrison:
M any thanks for yo u r very kind letter w hich I read w ith
pleasure. First let m e say you will find som e m ore m aterial in
Figures o f Speech or Figures o f Thought . . . and som e on dance
and m usic in T he Mirror o f Gesture . . . ; a chapter on m usic in
m y Dance o f Shiva (o p); and on the representations o f (the ethos
of) m usical m odes in m y Rajput Painting (O xford, 1914) o r this
M u se u m s Catalog o f the Indian Collections, Vol V. M arco Pallis
Peaks and Lamas (A m ed at present o p) gives a very valuable
discussion o f the relation o f the arts to society as a w hole ( in
T o MRS W . Q. SWART
M arch 15, 1933
D ear M adam :
T here exists o f course a vast literature on Indian art. W e have
here w h at is on the w hole the best collection o f Indian paintings
in the w orld*, and certainly the best general Indian collections
and w o rk in g library in A m erica. I think it w ould be essential
for you to spend a sh o rt tim e here before actually going to
India. In the m eantim e I w ould suggest yo u r looking up m y
article on T h e T eaching o f D raw in g in C eylon in the Ceylon
National R eview for D ecem ber 1906; T agore, L Alpone, Paris,
1921; m y Introduction to the A rt o f Eastern A ssi , O pen Court
M agazine, M arch 1932; and articles on Indian art in the
'Encyclopaedia Britannica. Also such magazines as Rupam , nos
1-40, and the Journal o f Indian A rt. Also, H adaw ay, Illustrations
o f M etal Work in Brass and Copper. . . .
We have no m odern Indian paintings here. T hey are
analogous to Pre-Raphaelite art in Europe; m ore significant
as representing a revolution o f taste and outlo o k than as
everlasting w orks o f art, th ough they have great charm and
sensitiveness.
Y ou w o u ld also find m uch m aterial in m y Mediaeval Sinhalese
A rt, 1908. For the rest I can only suggest you spend a few days
here. I should be glad to assist you.
V ery sincerely,
*It is w o rth n o tin g th at D r C o o m a rasw a m y s o w n collection, am assed
d u rin g th e early years o f his career w hen he was in India, fo rm ed the basis o f
ou tstan d in g holdings o f the B o sto n M useum . W hen it becam e ap p aren t th at
n o satisfactory arran g em en ts could be m ade to house the C o o m arasw am y
T o GEORGE SARTON
D ate uncertain
D ear Sarton:
T here are three im p o rtan t pieces o f Islamic glass in the
M useum o f Fine A rts. T he lam p o f Karim al-D in, w ho retired
in 723 A H (= 1323); and published in G aston W iet, Musee
Arabe, le Caire Catalogue general . . . lampes et bouteilles en verre
emaille, M useum o f Fine A rts Bulletin, January 1928, and w ith a
revised translation o f the inscriptions in the 1940 edition o f the
M FA Handbook. T he glass globe was m ade for Saif al-din
A rghun al-A lai, w ho died in 748 A H (= 1347-8). It has been
published by M ayer, Saracenic Heraldry , p 74; and also in M FA
Bulletin for A ugust 1912 and in Eastern A rt, Vol II, p 245. A
glass bottle bears no inscription.
T here are over 300 im p o rtan t pieces o f enam elled glass
kn o w n . W iet in his catalogue (1929) has published 118 glass
objects and the m ajority o f them arc lam ps, o f w hich 87 can be
dated by their inscriptions (see his Introduction). T here arc 19
in the M etropolitan M useum o f A rt, a collection second only to
the C airo M useum .
AKC
G eorge Sarton, see page 13.
T o ROBIN FIELD
D ate uncertain
M y dear Robin:
T o have a background for E uropean art before 1300 and a
w ay o f understanding w hat happend after that, I think one
should have read:
Plato, Republic , G orgias, C artylus, Symposium Plotinus,
M cK ennas 5 vol version
H erm es, at least Asclepius I in S cotts Hermetica D ionysius,
translation published by SPCK
Svoboda, L Esthetique de Saint Augustin
A ugustine, Confessions and D e Doctrina Christiana
St T hom as A quinas, at least the first volum e o f the translation
Summ a Theologica
M eister Eckhart, 2 volum es translated by Pfeiffer [actually C de
B Evans], L ondon, 1924 and 1931
Longinus, O n the Sublime
Also, o f course, som e o f A ristotle, though you get this
im plicitly in St T hom as.
B ooks about the subject, I suggest:
F. M . Lund, A d Quadratum, L ondon, 1921
M . C. G hyka, L e Nombre d or, Gallim ard, Paris, 1931
A lbert Gleizes, Vers une conscience plastique, Paris
J. M . Bissen, L Exemplarisme divin selon Saint Bonaventure,
Librairie Philosophique, Paris, 1929
Rene G uenon, M ythcs, m ysteres et sym boles in Etudes
Traditionnelles, Paris, Vol 40, 1935
A K C , T he Part o f A rt in Indian Life , in The Cultural Heritage
o f India, vol III, 1937
M ediaeval A esthetic , A rt Bulletin, N ew Y ork, XVII
Spinden, in Brooklyn M useum Quarterly, O cto b er 1935
B aldw in, M ediaeval R hetoric and Poetic
B uchier, L A rt chretien
A K C , T h e N atu re o f B uddhist A rt [this was A K C s
Introduction to a collection o f Indian and Ceylonese wall
paintings by B enjam in R ow land, Jr, ag v]
You m ight read first, in the first group, Eckhart; and [first] in
the second group, G uenon, Spinden and Lund.
1 hope this will be o f som e help. D rop in again.
Very sincerely,
Robin Field was a m em ber o f the faculty o f fine arts at H arvard U niversity,
C am b rid g e, M assachusetts, U SA .
W e w ill n o t fu rth e r identify m ost o f these tides, as sufficient in fo rm atio n is
p ro v id ed for the serious reader, except to n o te that P lotinus Enneads are n o w
available in a on e v o lu m e edition (sam e translation); there have been
additional translations o f D ionysius in w hole o r in part; there have been
m o re recent editions a n d /o r translations o f E ckhart, Le Nombre d or, and
W alter S co tts Hermetica (1985). M ythes, m ysteres et sy m b o les by Rene
G uen o n appeared also as a chapter in his Apergus sur Iinitiation (Paris, 1946,
1975).
T o DR K W A N G - W A N KIM
A pril 26, 1947
D ear D r Kim:
It w ould take a very long letter to answ er yours fully; it is a
pity we cannot m eet. I think it is im portant to im press on
students that one cant have a single vo lu m e that will tell
them all they need to know . H ow ever, for China I w ould
recom m end E. R. H ughes, Chinese Philosophy in Classical Times
(E verym ans Library), and Rene G uenon, La Grande Triade (this
last being an exegesis o f the im plications o f the character ^ ).
For India I w ould recom m end Rene G uenon, Introduction to the
Study o f the H indu Doctrines (London, 1945), and m y Hinduism
and Buddhism (N ew Y ork, 1943); Z im m e rs M yths and Symbols
in Indian A rt and C ivilization (1946, N ew Y ork) and N ikhilananda, The Gospel o f Sri Ramakrishna (1942, N ew Y ork); and
(for T ibetan B uddhism ) M arco Pallis Peaks and Lamas (of
w hich there are four English editions and one U S). All these I
should call indispensable. For Islam, all the w orks o f R. A.
N icholson, especially Studies in Islamic Mysticism (C am bridge,
England, 1921), D iw an o f Sham s-i-Tabriz (1898), and his
translation o f the M athnaw i o f Jalalud-d -D in R um i (Gibb
M em orial Series); F rith jo f Schuon, C hristianity and Islam in
T o J O H N OS MA N
June 25, 1947
D ear M r O sm an:
I m ost certainly apologize for having neglected to send any
kind o f bibliography. Even n o w I cannot pretend to send you a
com plete guide, but I will list som e essential books for India,
and later ask you to let me k now w hether you m ean also
Islamic and Persian m aterial.
T he basic epitom e o f Indian religion and philosophy is, o f
course, the Bhagavad Gita; there are m any, b u t no perfect
translations; I prefer on the w hole the one by Bhagavan Das
and M rs [Annie] Bcsant. For the U panishads, H um e, The
Thirteen Principal Upanishads (O xford) has its uses, b u t it is not
always accurate, and the Introduction hardly acceptable from
the H indu point o f view; I prefer the freer b u t m ore
understanding version by the Rev W. R. Teape, in his The
Secret Lore o f India. For the B rahm anas and A ranyakas, for
w hich I have the highest respect, the follow ing are good:
E ggelings Satapatha B r (5 vols in SBE; Kieth, Rigveda
Brahmanas (H arvard O riental Series, vol 25) and Aitareya
A ranyaka (O xford) and Sankhayana Aranyaka (Royal Asiatic
Society, O riental T ranslation Fund, RAS, London) and O ertel,
Jatm iniya Upanishad Brahmana (in Journal o f the A m erican
O riental Society, 16) and Caland, Pancavimsa Brahmana (Cal
cutta, 1931) are all pretty good. All these sources at least should
be in y o u r library as well as m y H induism and Buddhism
(Philosophical Library, N . Y ., 1943).
T o LORD RAGLAN
July 14, 1938
D ear Lord Raglan:
V ery m any thanks for your letter. M ost likely you cannot
agree w ith m y (traditional) point o f view according to which
the ritual action is a m im esis, repitition and continuation o f
w hat was done in the beginning (explicit statem ents to this
effect can be cited at least as far back as the Satapatha Brahmana,
about the 8th ccntury BC). We arc nevertheless in full
agreem ent that the m yth-tellcr is dealing w ith actions and
sym bols already k n o w n to h im . It is these same actions that
T o O. H. dc A. WIJESEKERA
Date uncertain
D ear D r W ijcsckcra:
M any thanks for yours o f N o v em b er 26. R egarding B uddh
ist Yakkha: I regard this term , w here treated in conncction w ith
yakkhassa suddhi as = sappuriso and the atta hi attano natha, ie, as
w hat rem ains a reality w hen all that tie me so atta has been
elim inated.
Y our program for a book o f vitalism is very interesting,
and covers a great deal o f ground on w hich I have w orked for
m any years. I am only a little doubtful w hether you have a clear
grasp o f the real nature o f m y th . I w ould hardly think o f
m yths as biological , rather as m etaphysical. We arc easily
misled by their term s, w hich arc necessarily those o f experi
ence, em ployed analogically. For exam ple, the w hole 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
w h o m few know w ith the m in d (AV), in Greek the
distinction o f Helios from Apollo. I am sending you a few papers
in w hich I have discussed the nature o f m yths in conncction
w ith the study o f particular eases. I w ould add that w hole
subject o f p ra m pertains to a traditional psychology w hich is
anything b u t exclusively Indian; and also that duo sunt in homine
m ay be callcd one o f the m ost fundam ental axiom s o f the
universal and perennial philosophy w herever w e find it, in
C hina, India, Grcccc or M ediaeval Europe. I do not and cannot
believe in an evolution o f m etaphysics.
V ery sincerely,
D r O . H. de A. W ijesekera w as lecturer in Sanskrit at the U n iv ersity o f
C ey lo n , K andy.
T o PROFESSOR W A R D
U ndated
D ear Professor W ard:
R um i, M athnaw i , VI, 4578 (Gibb M em orial N ew s Series IV
6, p 511) com pares the divine hero to a h undred m en
concealed in a single m an (as w e should say, a host in
him selF ), a h u n d red bow s and arrow s concealed in a single
blowpipe . T he w ord is naivak . . ., for which I find in stcingass
Persian Dictionary, am ongst various m eanings, tube th ro u g h
w hich an arro w is projected . R u m is date is 1207-1273
(M athnaw i ab o u t 1260). For Indras b o lt (vajra) w e have tw o
old Indian accounts o f the m ythological origin o f the arrow *,
in one o f w hich, w hich can hardly be later than 8th century b c ,
they are said to be the slivers w ithin it (Indras bolt) that w ere
separated from it and becam e arrow s. C f Taittirva Samhita
V I.I.3.5.
AKC
T o DA VID W H IT E
O cto b er 15, 1946
D ear M r W hite:
T here m ust be a great deal m ore literature on M yth than I
k n o w of. T h e m ain thing is to k n o w the m yths o f the various
peoples, and to learn to recognize their similarities. For this,
perhaps, Lord R aglans The Hero should be considered; and, o f
course, folk-tales in general w hy are there so m any versions
o f the same story all over the w orld? So one com es to think o f
an Urmythos o f w hich all others are broken fragm ents; m yths
are the pattern that history exemplifies.
O f m y ow n I suggest M ind and M y th in the N ew English
W eekly o f Dec. 24, 1942 ( vide supra)-, Literary S ym bolism in
the Dictionary o f World Literature (also in Figures o f Speech or
Figures o f Thought (Luzac, L ondon, 1946). B ut I do com m end
J. A. Stew art, M yths o f Plato (M acm illan 1905); Fritz M arti,
R eligion, Philosophy and the C ollege , Review o f Religion,
VII, 1942, 41 ff ( M en live by m yths . . . they are no m ere
poetic in v en tio n s m ost serious students o f m yth em phasize
that m yths are not inventions ); W ilbur M arshall U rban, The
Intelligible World, 1929; Plato, Theatetus 144 D; w ith A ristotle,
Metaphysics 982 B; N . Berdyaev, Freedom and the Spirit, 1935;
E. Siecke, Drachenkampfe, Leipzig, 1907 (p 60: unglaublich, das
heute noch jem and sich einbilden kennte, weitverbreitete M ythen
Konnen ihre Entstehur der Erftndung eines einzelnen Dichters
verstanden (p 61) ein Grundirrtu, z u glauben, der mythische
Ausdruck sei allegorisch; p 49, die Sage ist von Gottermythen
ausgegangen. Herzfeld in M itth aus Iran 6, 1934, ridicules Frasers
interpretations o f m yths as m istaken explanations o f phe
n o m en a ; says D ie Geburt der Geschichte ist der Tod des M ythos\
lays d o w n sequence,
mythos = ursprungliche
Gottersage,
Sage = heroische Stadium, legende = Stadium in w hich m y th is
m ixed w ith lives o f real m en and so hofisch und pseudohistorische all like m y M yth, Epic, Rom ance; M . P. N ilsson,
Mycenean Origin o f Greek M ythology, 1932, m y th o lo g y can
never be converted into h isto ry . Read all the A m erican Indian
O rig in M yths also. Also N . K. C hadw ick, Poetry and Prophecy.
As for the history o f literature , from B eo w u lf to Forever
A m ber (sequence: m etaphysics, tragedy, sensation) consider
that in the last stage tragedy is impossible, nothing rem ains b u t
the lovely and the horrible; tragedy is only possible w here there
is a conflict betw een w hat is and w hat o u ght to be, the H ero
conquers o r loses according to w hether he can be w hat he
o u ght. T he sam e in the history o f pictorial art, C hristian and
other; Picasso is n o t tragic, he only depicts the horrible. From
things universally true to o u r curiosity about personalities,
w hat a co m e-d o w n as Lodge used to say, From the Stone
A ge until n o w , quelle degringoladeV
I w o u ld rather count in Blake w ith the m etaphysical poets
than w ith the Rom antics.
I am afraid this is a rather b rief answ er, b u t all I can m anage
now .
V ery sincerely,
PS: Also Karl von Spiese, M arksteine der V olkskunst
(Jahrbuch fu r Historische Volkskunde V, VI, Berlin, 1937); Jo h n
Layard, The Lady o f the Hare, 1945, and T he Incest T aboo and
the V irgin A rchetype , in Eranos Jahrbuch, XII, 1945.
D avid W hite, Friends U n iv ersity , W ichita, Kansas, U SA ; see letter p 155.
T o PROFESSOR R A Y M O N D S. STITES
January 25, 1937
D ear Professor R aym ond S. Stites:
I am having a p h oto o f the bronze sent to you.
I can best explain m y position about genius by saying that
W agner is typically a genius in m y sense, but n o t Bach. I
believe this really covers the ground.
T o PROFESSOR R A Y M O N D S. STITES
January 31, 1937
D ear Professor Stites:
If you will get Etudes Traditionnelles for Dec 1938, you will
find an article by G uenon, La Porte E tro ite in w hich the
theory o f the 7 rays o f the sun is stated w ith great exactitude
and sim plicity.
AKC
P ostcard to P rofessor Stites
T h e article in q u estion w as reproduced as chapter XLI in the p o sth u m o u s
T o PROFESSOR RA Y M O N D S. STITES
A pril 12, 1937
D ear Professor Stites:
I have n o t yet published on the Seven Rays o f the Sun, except
for a b rie f reference in a little book on The Symbolism o f the
D om e w hich is to be published by H arvard U niversity Press
soon. I have given a lecture at Ann A rbor on Is A rt a
Superstition o r a W ay o f Life? and shall send you it w hen
printed.
I do n o t by any means cite Bach as a genius but as
som ething better, a m aster craftsm an. W agner is a genius using
the m aterial for his o w n ends rather than for its o w n sake.
N o d o ubt, the end o f the road is beyond all art: bccause the
reality is n o t in any likeness n o r in any w ay expressible. In the
m eantim e Plato (etc) does n o t require to look directly at the
Sun before one has acquired the eagle-eye, b u t m uch rather to
look directly at the shadow s and through them at the Sun.
M aterialism and sentim entality im ply a looking at the shadow s
for their o w n sake. T he love o f fine bodies is all right: but for
those w ho can think o f nothing nobler than bodies (St
T hom as). O n e can decide to play w ith the kaleidoscopic pattern
o f things: o r to see this as a pattern em broidered on a
perm anent ground. T he m etaphysical w hole or holy m an
cannot make o u r kind o f distinction betw een w hat a thing is and
w hat it means; all values are traditionally at the same tim e
substantial and transubstandal (the Eucharist preserves an
isolated survival o f this once universal point o f view). T o speak
o f the picture that is n o t in the colours does not destroy the
colours but adds som ething to the definition o f w hat can be
experienced th ro u g h the aesthetic surfaces. T he w hole m an
does n o t only feel (aesthetics) but also understands (cognition)
what is expressed and to w hich he is attracted by the colours. Im
discussing all this once m ore in a long introduction to the
fo rthcom ing book by R ow land, o f reproductions o f Indian
X m as D ay 1943
I do n o t have all o f C usas w orks. T he w ords M ens sine
desiderio non intelligit, et sine intellectu non desiderat are from one
o f his serm ons at Brixcn, m y source being E. V ansteenberghe,
Autour de la docte ignorance, M unster, 1915, p 56. C f
B onaventura, N on 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 other w ords, I suppose,
the will is involved in all real know ing; w e cannot k n o w
som ething in w hich we arc n o t inter-est-ed.
Cordially,
O n ly this paragraph w as available to the editors, w ith no indication o f the
addressee. It is included because o f the im portance o f the citations and A K C s
conclusion, for in any traditional epistem ology it is the w hole m an that
k n o w s and n o t o nly the cerebral part.
T o PROFESSOR H. H. ROWLEY
M ay 10, 1945
D ear Professor H. H. Rowley:
M any thanks for sending me your Subm ission in Suffer
T o H. G. RAW LINS ON
D ecem ber 10, 1946
D ear R aw linson:
B y the w ay, apropos o f no sentience in N irv an 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, D iogenes Laertius, x. 64, 124, also in O T : the dead
k n o w n o t an y th in g .
O f course I cannot at all agree w ith yo u r view o f the Vcdic
sacrifice. In any case, the B uddhas (in S 1.169) substitution o f
internal sacrifice is only an echo o f the old teachings about the
A gnihotra in $A X , SB X I.5.6.3, SB X .5.4.16; c f already in RV
V III.70.3, na yajnair.
V ery sincerely,
H. G. R aw linson, see p 39.
T h e reader is referred again to W hitall P erry s rem arks on pp v and vi
(cspcciall the latter) regarding A K C s seem ing blindness to w ard s the
p o sth u m o u s states w hich for m ost souls intervene betw een the present life
and final liberation. N o sentience in N irv a n a is u n d o u b ted ly and even
T o RAMA P. CO OM A RA S W A M Y
1944
M y dear Rama:
T he follow ing is in response to yo u r question about images:
it says in E xodus xx, 4: T h o u shalt not m ake un to thee any
graven im age, o r any likeness o f anything that is in heaven
above, o r that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the w aters
under the earth ,
B E C A U S E G od instructed M oses w ith definite directions,
as in E xodus x x v , 9: A ccording 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 m ake it. T hen G od lists
the things that are proper to H I S T A B E R N A C L E : you k now
by n o w that this world that we live in is in imitation o f that world
that God lives in; n ow then G od gives specific patterns the w hich
M oses received and b ro u g h t to his people, for the things that
are p roper for m an to have and use. A nything other than those
specified by God are forbidden as subhuman , at least as u n w o rth y o f
m en w ho w orship G od and take His and only His directions as
their m eans o f living.
C hapters 25 th ro u g h 31 give the m ost w onderful description
o f w hat is suitable for G o d s follow ers to do and have. A t one
point M oses w onders w ho and how these things shall be made,
and in C hapters 3 1 -3 2 , it says:
Sec, 1 have called by nam e Bezaleel the son o f U ri, the son o f
H ur, o f the tribe o f Judah: (3) A nd I have filled him w ith the
Spirit o f G od, in w isdom and in understanding, and in
know ledge, and in all m anner o f workmanship, (4) to devise
T o RAMA P. C O O M A R A S W A M Y
. June 24, 1947
M y dear Rama:
I am afraid m y long letter about caste, etc, cannot 'have
reached you. T o perform srdddha, or have it perform ed for one
by a B rahm an, does n o t m ake one a Brahm an. O u r family is
Vcllala; this is n o t a well k n o w n caste nam e in N o rth India, but
any T am il you m ay run across will know it. We do w ear the
yajiiopavita\ I have received upanayana from a B rahm an in the
Punjab, and shall resum e w earing the thread w hen w e com e to
India. I suggested that you should accept the offer to give you
upanayana in Bengal, but if you did n o t do so, there will be
T o RAMA P. C OO M A R A S W A M Y
June 25, 1947
M y dear Rama:
In tw o recent letters, I think I m entioned numdah as m aterial
for kurtas ; I should have said pattu (patoo), as numdah is a felt
used only for rugs. T here are m any nice handm ade w oolen
m aterials obtainable in Punjab.
Also, I think I w rote sraddha; I should have said sraddha. The
form er means faith , the latter denotes the rite. O ne 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). O ur
inner and outer lives are bound up together, so that physical and
spiritual purity are intimately related. Ritual purity is a discipline,
som ething to be done and understood. Do not think o f it as a
mechanical formality. In Iceland, no one turned his face
unwashed to Holyfell , and this fastidious instinct towards sacred
things can be found all over the world. It may be possible, but it is
T o D O N A LUISA C O O M A R A S W A M Y
N o v em b er 23, 1935
D arling:
It certainly was a relief to hear from you after 20 days! I am
looking forw ard to hearing m ore about G urukul. As to magic,
one m u st rem em ber that th o u g h prevalent, it is by no means
encouraged for W ayfarers, b u t is a hindrance . I am ju s t
halfw ay th ro u g h correcting p ro o f (mainly checking som e
h u n d red o f references) in A ngel and T ita n w hich is at last to
ajjpear, taking 47 pp o f JA O S . As to D r Ross, he m ade no
p ro p er arrangem ents for paym ent, and I have to prove the
debt. (I have statem ents from M r H aw es, Edgar Parker, and
M r H olm es, etc) and in any case the estate will take som e tim e
to settle; I shall be glad w hen it is done this m onth I couldnt
have paid H olm es b u t for $50 received from College A rt
A ssociation for the Introduction I recently sent you (I hope you
like it, I think it quite right for its purpose). A aron was here last
night, w e had a great talk. A t the close, discussing circles, he
said a circle has no ends ; on the contrary I said, its ends
coincide ; he saw the point b u t finds it hard to think in that
fashion. I hope several long letters sent a w eek o r tw o back
reach you (addressed to Raj pur). D id I m ention that M an u s
d aughter is called R ib in X , 82, 23 [presum ably the reference
is to the Rig Veda]? By the w ay, A arons reply was T h a ts
w h at m y father w ould have said I m ean about the circles.
T h ey both (W arners) ask to be rem em bered. We are beginning
to have light snow . I im agine its quite pleasantly cool at
T o WALTER SHEWRING
A ugust 6, 1947
M y dear W alter Shew ring:
. . . Im sorry to hear that like m yself you are slow ed up. N o
do u b 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.
O n ly this w eek I received a very tragic letter from a m an w ho I
had th o u g h t o f as a pow erful healer o f others and n ow seeks
healing for himself.
I think you know we m y wife and I plan to retire to
com parative solitude som ew here in N India n o t later than the
end o f 1948. . . .
N o d o u b t the w hole w orld is in for a long period o f
suffering for its sins, and w e are all involved, som e m ore, som e
less, in the earning o f such retribution w hich w ould be true
enough even from a secular point o f view. . . .
Sincerely,
W alter S h ew rin g , identified o n page 23.
FAREWEL ADDRESS