A bit of a misnomer, I'm afraid, but I thought I would post some comments by one of the foremost spokespersons of the Sophia Perennis of the last century, Frithjof Schuon, on two ways of spiritual progression ... the way of Gnosis and the way of Love.
Note: On re-reading, get a bit Catholic towards the end, so you can skip my commentaries in black if you so choose.
The blue is from Frithjof Schuon Language of the Self:
There are various ways of expressing the difference between gnosis and love – or between jnana and bhakti – but here we wish to consider this:
For the volitional or affective man (the bhakta) God is 'He' and the ego is 'I', whereas for the gnostic or intellective man (the jnani) God is 'I' or 'Self' and the ego is 'he' or 'other'.
Guenon spoke about this a great deal, the necessity of the critical distinction between the 'self' and 'Self', one which the uninstructed jnani invariably falls foul of, the confusion of the two. Thus the traditional understanding of reincarnation is confounded by the belief that 'I' (the ego) is re-embodied to continue its journey, burdened (or unburdened) by karma, whereas the reality is that the egoic I is ephemeral and disperses, all that remains is a kind of physical trace of its existence in the world which 'sets the ground' for the next generation. That which goes on is life as such, and transcends all individual markers, and therefore is not susceptible to karmic burden in the way the term is commonly understood.
The majority of men start out from certainty about the ego rather than about the Absolute. Most men are individualists and consequently but little suited to concretely making an abstraction of their empirical 'I,' a process which is an intellectual problem and not a moral one: in other words, few have the gift of impersonal contemplation – for it is of this we are speaking – such as allows God to think in us, if such an expression be permissible ...
The individualist who 'naturally' (egoically) self-identifies as a jnani is actually far less capable of this 'impersonal contemplation' than the bhakta, because a 'natural' disposition to humility and self-efacement is part and parcel of the bhakti disposition.
Having said that, it's notable that works such as 'The Imitation of Christ', once a book second only the the Bible in Christendom, has all but vanished, precisely because contemporary man in the West is convinced that his individuality — the ability to be self-determined, self-directing and thus self-realising — is all-important, whereas the reality is, it is the least important and often the greatest impediment. It is little else than the idolatry of self.
Another example is the vanishing of the psalter (the Book of Psalms and other devotional materials) and the Prayer of Simplicity.
René Guénon spoke about the necessity of the critical distinction between the 'self' and 'Self' a great deal, a problem the uninstructed jnani invariably falls foul of; the confusion of the two. Thus the traditional understanding of reincarnation is confounded by the belief that 'I' (the ego) is re-embodied to continue its journey, burdened (or unburdened) by karma, whereas the reality is that the egoic I is ephemeral and disperses, all that remains is a kind of physical trace of its existence in the world which 'sets the ground' for the next generation. That which goes on is life as such, and transcends all individual markers, and therefore is not susceptible to karmic burden in the way the term is commonly understood.
God is 'Light before He is Heat,' if it may be so expressed; 'gnosis precedes love', or rather, 'love follows gnosis', since the latter includes love after its own fashion, whereas love is not other than the beatitude that has 'come forth' from gnosis.
Here, sadly, Schuon lets himself down. This is a statement from the perspective of the jnani. The truth is rather that the 'light' and 'heat' is one, the distinction is in the beholder.
One can love something false, without love ceasing to be what it is; but one cannot “know” the false in a similar way, that is to say knowledge cannot be under illusion as to its object without ceasing to be what it is ...
One can love something false, without love ceasing to be what it is, the error is in the object, not the subject. The jnani is more at risk false knowledge is a subjective error.
The background of the drama of life is, for the bhakta, the “Will of God” and, for the jnana, the nature of things; the accepting of his fate results, for the former, from unconditional love, from “that which must be”; for the latter, acceptance results from discernment of metaphysical necessity, therefore, from “that which is.”
The bhakta accepts all fate as coming from the Beloved ... if he accepts everything out of love of God, he also does so, on this same basis, out of love of his neighbor.
The attitude of the jnani, on the other hand, is an impassability founded upon discernment between the Real and the unreal: “The world is false, Brahma is true”; “That art thou” (Tat Tvam Asi); “All is Atma”; “I am Brahma.”
It should be noted here that in my personal opinion, the Christian Way, the Middle Way or, as it was originally known, The Way, combines the way of Gnosis and the way of Love as one, which one would expect of a God who desires (if we may use that term) the salvation of all men. Thus in the words of Christ can be found, "I am from above, you are from below", the 'I am' sayings, "Before Abraham was, I am", all of which say the same as the quotes above.
Events of life arise, as do all phenomena, out of the indefinitely varying combinations of the three “cosmic qualities” (the gunas: sattva, rajas and tamas); these events therefore cannot but be, to the extent that the world is relatively real; but as soon as that relativity is transcended, they cease to exist and then there is no longer a “good” or an “evil,” nor any karmic causation; the plane of the gunas (“simultaneous” qualities) and of karma (made up of “successive” qualities) is as if annihilated in the undifferentiated serenity of Being or of the Self.
Which the Christian jnani defines as 'the Beatific Vision' and the bhakta as "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding" (Philippians 4:7).
Christianity is the religion of gnosis/agape, of knowledge/love of jnani/bhakti, summed up succinctly in "The world became flesh" (John 1:4). It was something radically new and different, and to interpret it in light of other traditions inevitably leads to misunderstanding. Again it was St Paul who realised quite how profound the whole thing was:
"For both the Jews require signs (bhakti), and the Greeks seek after wisdom (jnana): But we preach Christ crucified, unto the (bhakta) indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the jnani foolishness: But unto them that are called, both bhakta and jnani, Christ the power of God (bhakti/will), and the wisdom of God (jnani/intellect)" (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)
Note: On re-reading, get a bit Catholic towards the end, so you can skip my commentaries in black if you so choose.
The blue is from Frithjof Schuon Language of the Self:
There are various ways of expressing the difference between gnosis and love – or between jnana and bhakti – but here we wish to consider this:
For the volitional or affective man (the bhakta) God is 'He' and the ego is 'I', whereas for the gnostic or intellective man (the jnani) God is 'I' or 'Self' and the ego is 'he' or 'other'.
Guenon spoke about this a great deal, the necessity of the critical distinction between the 'self' and 'Self', one which the uninstructed jnani invariably falls foul of, the confusion of the two. Thus the traditional understanding of reincarnation is confounded by the belief that 'I' (the ego) is re-embodied to continue its journey, burdened (or unburdened) by karma, whereas the reality is that the egoic I is ephemeral and disperses, all that remains is a kind of physical trace of its existence in the world which 'sets the ground' for the next generation. That which goes on is life as such, and transcends all individual markers, and therefore is not susceptible to karmic burden in the way the term is commonly understood.
The majority of men start out from certainty about the ego rather than about the Absolute. Most men are individualists and consequently but little suited to concretely making an abstraction of their empirical 'I,' a process which is an intellectual problem and not a moral one: in other words, few have the gift of impersonal contemplation – for it is of this we are speaking – such as allows God to think in us, if such an expression be permissible ...
The individualist who 'naturally' (egoically) self-identifies as a jnani is actually far less capable of this 'impersonal contemplation' than the bhakta, because a 'natural' disposition to humility and self-efacement is part and parcel of the bhakti disposition.
Having said that, it's notable that works such as 'The Imitation of Christ', once a book second only the the Bible in Christendom, has all but vanished, precisely because contemporary man in the West is convinced that his individuality — the ability to be self-determined, self-directing and thus self-realising — is all-important, whereas the reality is, it is the least important and often the greatest impediment. It is little else than the idolatry of self.
Another example is the vanishing of the psalter (the Book of Psalms and other devotional materials) and the Prayer of Simplicity.
René Guénon spoke about the necessity of the critical distinction between the 'self' and 'Self' a great deal, a problem the uninstructed jnani invariably falls foul of; the confusion of the two. Thus the traditional understanding of reincarnation is confounded by the belief that 'I' (the ego) is re-embodied to continue its journey, burdened (or unburdened) by karma, whereas the reality is that the egoic I is ephemeral and disperses, all that remains is a kind of physical trace of its existence in the world which 'sets the ground' for the next generation. That which goes on is life as such, and transcends all individual markers, and therefore is not susceptible to karmic burden in the way the term is commonly understood.
God is 'Light before He is Heat,' if it may be so expressed; 'gnosis precedes love', or rather, 'love follows gnosis', since the latter includes love after its own fashion, whereas love is not other than the beatitude that has 'come forth' from gnosis.
Here, sadly, Schuon lets himself down. This is a statement from the perspective of the jnani. The truth is rather that the 'light' and 'heat' is one, the distinction is in the beholder.
One can love something false, without love ceasing to be what it is; but one cannot “know” the false in a similar way, that is to say knowledge cannot be under illusion as to its object without ceasing to be what it is ...
One can love something false, without love ceasing to be what it is, the error is in the object, not the subject. The jnani is more at risk false knowledge is a subjective error.
The background of the drama of life is, for the bhakta, the “Will of God” and, for the jnana, the nature of things; the accepting of his fate results, for the former, from unconditional love, from “that which must be”; for the latter, acceptance results from discernment of metaphysical necessity, therefore, from “that which is.”
The bhakta accepts all fate as coming from the Beloved ... if he accepts everything out of love of God, he also does so, on this same basis, out of love of his neighbor.
The attitude of the jnani, on the other hand, is an impassability founded upon discernment between the Real and the unreal: “The world is false, Brahma is true”; “That art thou” (Tat Tvam Asi); “All is Atma”; “I am Brahma.”
It should be noted here that in my personal opinion, the Christian Way, the Middle Way or, as it was originally known, The Way, combines the way of Gnosis and the way of Love as one, which one would expect of a God who desires (if we may use that term) the salvation of all men. Thus in the words of Christ can be found, "I am from above, you are from below", the 'I am' sayings, "Before Abraham was, I am", all of which say the same as the quotes above.
Events of life arise, as do all phenomena, out of the indefinitely varying combinations of the three “cosmic qualities” (the gunas: sattva, rajas and tamas); these events therefore cannot but be, to the extent that the world is relatively real; but as soon as that relativity is transcended, they cease to exist and then there is no longer a “good” or an “evil,” nor any karmic causation; the plane of the gunas (“simultaneous” qualities) and of karma (made up of “successive” qualities) is as if annihilated in the undifferentiated serenity of Being or of the Self.
Which the Christian jnani defines as 'the Beatific Vision' and the bhakta as "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding" (Philippians 4:7).
Christianity is the religion of gnosis/agape, of knowledge/love of jnani/bhakti, summed up succinctly in "The world became flesh" (John 1:4). It was something radically new and different, and to interpret it in light of other traditions inevitably leads to misunderstanding. Again it was St Paul who realised quite how profound the whole thing was:
"For both the Jews require signs (bhakti), and the Greeks seek after wisdom (jnana): But we preach Christ crucified, unto the (bhakta) indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the jnani foolishness: But unto them that are called, both bhakta and jnani, Christ the power of God (bhakti/will), and the wisdom of God (jnani/intellect)" (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)
