Today I've been reading some of what Rama Coomaraswamy has written, and if he is a heretic, he's a subtle one.  More so even than Ratzinger.  

He often quotes Hindu "metaphysics" in the same breath as Catholic saints and theologians, a questionable approach, but usually with the intention to show the superiority of the Catholic theologians.  USUALLY.  Sometimes the impression is given, deliberately or not, that the Catholic religion only refines the kernel of truth found in other religions, when in reality no other religion except the one revealed by God -- the Old Covenant of Judaism which became the New Covenant of Christ as guided by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church -- has any value whatsoever, nor do they come from Him.  

He does this subtly enough that you can't pin him down as a heretic or blasphemer.  But it still feels slippery.  And I'm pretty sure his approach was condemned by Pius X, if someone wants to go out and dig up the exact quote.

Why, for instance, does a Catholic need to quote someone like Frithjof Schuon, a "perennialist" who believed in the eventual unity of all religions?  In his essay "On the Nature of Evil" Rama C. writes:  

"As Frithjof Schuon has put it, 'One cannot ask of God to will the world and at the same time to will that it be not the world.'"

By quoting this in the context of a Catholic article, Rama is suggesting that Frithjof Schuon is speaking of the same God that a Catholic speaks of, but he is not.  Frithjof Schuon's god is the devil.  This is either Ratzingerian in its sneakiness, or it was an honest mistake.  But in the age of Vatican II, why would any traditional Catholic want to associate themselves with another Teilhard?  Whether he was one himself or not, Rama was certainly not very careful about disassociating himself from charlatans.

I am also not comfortable with a Catholic going on a New Age website called "World Wisdom" and one look at their home page will tell you why.  Books about Catherine of Siena sit side-by-side with titles like "Native Spirit:  The Sun Dance Way," "Gnosis:  Divine Wisdom" and "Wisdom's Journey:  Living the Spirit of Islam in the Modern World."  And Rama's own anti-VII book is sold here!  Syncretism meets sedevacantism, what a mess!

http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/home.aspx

The question is, was Rama a syncretist himself?  I think I have suggested the answer.  Take this passage of his, also from The Nature of Evil:  

"The world is a whirlpool of contrasts as is so well expressed in the Hindu word samsara. It is not a unity in its own right. It is no limitation on the Almighty that He cannot produce another Himself, a second Absolute. The world is there to prove it."

First of all, Rama uses way too many terms and concepts from false religions.  I realize that he was a very learned man in the study of false religions before he became Catholic, and perhaps he doesn't want to let all that knowledge go to waste.  Well, too bad.  "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

Secondly, what does this quote of his even MEAN?  "A whirlpool of contrasts"?  "The world is not a unity in its own right"?  Ratzingerian gobbeldygook!  The usual Ratzinger tactic of setting up an argument no one has ever made in order to "heroically" destroy it, while subliminally leaving you with a false impression, in this case that the world is DISUNIFIED.  

Saying that the world can be described as "samsara" or as a bunch of "contrasts," right before saying "it is not a unity in its own right," leads to the conclusion that it must not be a unity at all.  But it is.  And there is no "whirlpool of contrasts."  In this world you only have those who do God's will, corresponding with His grace, and those who reject it.  Two types of people, period, full stop:  Does that sound like a "whirlpool"?  Take your samsara elsewhere, Mr. Coomaraswamy!

The world is a unity through its creation by God.  God is One and Indivisible and God created the world.  The world, like everything that ever has existed or will ever exist, is also therefore part of this One.  Even hell is part of this One, as it was also created by God.  That is why every knee on the earth, above the earth and UNDER the earth bows to the name of Christ.  It's why those in hell are aware of their separation from God.  Evil is not an alternate principle to God, but is in itself the rejection of God's goodness.  The point being, God created everything, and everything is thus unified.

Aquinas Pt. 1 Q.45 Art. 1:

"As said above, we must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from a universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation."

After Rama says that the world is not "unified in its own right," he seems to correct himself by saying that the misuse of our free will is what leads the world away from unity.  Actually, misuse of our free will leads us away from God, as creatures who were MADE by Him yet SEPARATE from Him.  But our choices do not lead the WORLD away from unity.  No matter how chaotic we make the world, God is still in control of this chaos, and he has planned for every misuse of free will, right up until the final apostasy and the consummation of the world in glory.

And who ever suggested that there would be any purpose for God to create "another Himself, a Second Absolute"?  Again, these hints at duality.

Is Rama flirting with Manicheanism?  Augustine was a Manichean before conversion, but when he did convert, he became that sect's worst enemy.  When he wrote about Manichean concepts, it was very clear that he was on the attack.  I don't feel that kind of hatred of his former life from Rama.  Instead, he seems to feel a nostalgia and continued fascination with his Hindu/theosophist/syncretist upbringing, and with his father.  And like his father, he comes off as a syncretist, though a far more guarded one.

He's dead now, so no one will ever be able to judge him except God.  But if he were alive, and the Church had a Pope, I would definitely expect Rama to be called to give an account of himself.  In the current crisis we do not need Frijthof Schuon and Rene Guenon and Ananda C. and Hindu terminology kept in circulation.  At the BEST, this behavior was incautious.  At worst, it was heretical.  You can call me judgmental if you want but I lean towards "heretical."  He had a long life to think about what he was doing, as well as a fantastic brain... But he kept doing it.

The name's Mike, actually, but thanks.  

Don't overlook the "guilt by association" stuff, though.  Why is he promoting his father's writings, or those of Guenon, or Burckhardt?  All this "Pereniallist" mumbo-jumbo?  This is like a Jєωιѕн convert to Catholicism retrospectively praising the тαℓмυd.

Quote from an interview:  

"But after my father's death I returned to America, where my mother was essentially alone. As it was impossible for me to live as a Hindu in America at that time, and as living without any traditional affiliation was in my mind to live on an animal level, I entered Catholicism which I found completely compatible with my Hindu outlook."

Or at least you warped Catholicism to make it seem so...  More:

"How do your remember your father?

"I remember my father as a most saintly man and learn from him every day."

 This is not as innocent as it may appear; it's not just a son praising his father.  His father poisoned the West with Eastern mysticism.  His father was an occultist and "Perennialist" -- those who believed that all religions would blend into one super-religion.  

Wikipedia on Pereniallism:  

"The Traditionalist School of thought, also known as Integral Traditionalism (in the sense of Integralism) or Perennialism (in the sense of perennial philosophy, or Sophia Perennis) is an esoteric movement inspired by the interwar period writings of French metaphysician René Guénon and developed by authors such as German-Swiss philosopher Frithjof Schuon, the Ceylonese-British scholar Ananda Coomaraswamy, Italian occultist Julius Evola,[1] Titus Burckhardt, Martin Lings, Huston Smith, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The movement divided in 1948-50 after a split between Guénon and Schuon."

No wonder it is so confusing when Rama uses the word "Traditional"!  

And on a purely gossipy level, Ananda Coomaraswamy was married four times, and the last two times were to women thirty years younger than himself, including Rama's mother.

Rama should have felt SHAME about his father, and about this Pereniallist tripe. He should have taken extraordinary measures to put distance between himself and all of this Rosicrucian mysticism, as well as between himself and Ananda.  Yet, far from doing that, this supposed sedevacantist Catholic is describing him as a saint who he "learns from him every day"!  This would be like St. Augustine, after his conversion, editing a book of Manicheanism and saying "I consider Mani a saint, he taught me a lot."   No.  No no no no no.  NO.  A thousand times no.  

And this interview gets even more shocking.  He seems to unveil himself as a Pereniallist just like daddy.

"I don't consider Schuon as between and above Guénon and my father. I think that Guénon, Schuon and my father expounded the Philosophia Perennis - each in their own way. None of them are without minor errors, but the errors are not important."

Listen to him!  Do you see what he's doing here?  He's not speaking of the entire Pereniallist system of metaphysics as being contemptible, but discussing the various errors of the authors WITHIN it, as if there is a purer strain of Pereniallism, not tapped into by any of these authors, that he himself has reached!

He acts as if Guenon and Schuon and Bert and Ernie and Phyllis Diller failed with their expositions of the "Philosophia Perennis" ( another term for Pereniallism ), when it is the Philosophia Perennis ITSELF that is a major HERESY from some kind of Renaissance gnostic Kabbala tradition.  It doesn't matter how it is "expounded" or by whom.  

Rama -- don't let the door hit you on the way out.  I'm getting angry now and don't feel that many nice things will come out of my mouth if I keep typing, so I'm off to walk the dog.   Here is a link to the interview:

http://www.svabhinava.org/friends/JoaquinAlbaicin/RamaCoom-English-frame.php

HERESIES DON'T SLEEP.  BUT NEITHER DOES RAOUL76 ( imagine that being said as the voiceover to a rain-soaked film noir about an embittered, tired detective )

P.S. Big things are being prepared, I can tell you that, and it is out of the tiny sedevacantist movement of today that I am almost positive that the unimaginably glorious Triumph of the Immaculate Heart will occur.  That is why we are under attack by the devil and his gang of charlatans and infiltrators.  

Raoul, do you think the above is a little revelation of the method?

Btw, Fr C is not the only one to tell me Coomaraswamy was a plagiarist.  While Fr C's penchant for lying COULD be taken as good reason to doubt his claim, the other source cannot be so easily gainsaid.  However, for the present, I shall leave his identity private.  Let us just say he is, and has long been, the REAL DEAL where writers in the world of traditional Roman Catholicism are concerned.

Pinay of course is an SSPX apologist, he won't even post stuff if it's too sedevacantist in tone...

Do you know him?  Do you know Hoffman?

I know Mr Hoffman personally, and he is NOT a man with a "one track mind."  Neither is the man behind the Maurice Pinay blog.

He is a rather sound-thinking sede, rather than an "SSPX apologist."  He is a good young man, dedicated to exposing the works of darkness.  Yes, he focuses on the Judaics, but he also understands their shenanigans far better than most.  When he moves to expose something, it gets exposed.  Did you ever read anything he posted while a member of FE a few years ago?  Go search the archives there.  The folder (which I will link in a moment) is FULL of evidence that indicates the contrary of your claim.

That said, I am really glad you have returned.  I am very much enjoying your comments, Raoul.  Thank you.

Here is the link to the archived folder from FE:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=802894345975d5655402ab28ab2432f0&board=4.0

Hi, I am also enjoying your thoughts on this thread, Raoul.

Can we have a teensie hint as to whom is the plagerist?

Also, Fr. C hinting that Coomaraswamy copied off his homework is just a hoot.

I still am not convinced of Malachi Martin being an evil infiltrator, but I must admit this thread is affecting my opinion of old Rama Coomaraswamy's influence.  I had no idea he had a teaching position in the seminary, for example.  

 

P.S. I'm not convinced of Malachi being an evil infiltrator either, nor am I calling Rama C. an infiltrator.  Just suggesting that infiltrators may be out there.

We would be brain-dead to think otherwise.  It worked like a charm up to V2.  Do you think they would just STOP, leaving the resisters in peace?  NO WAY!!!