Customer Reviews

Knowledge and the Sacred

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Have you ever wondered:

1. Why no one ever goes to a philosopher for advice?
2. Why one mother had this to say about her son the philosopher: "He's the kind of doctor who can't help anyone."?

If you're curious about it, simply read the first chapter of this book. Once you have discovered.what we have lost, you will be encouraged to read the rest of the book.

"In the beginning Reality was at once being, knowledge and bliss ..." began the the first sentence of the book. For the purposes of this exceedingly short review, that phrase will be truncated to: "being and knowledge were one", on the theory that once you have those two the third will follow. The important part about all three qualities is that they constituted the sacred. But that was a long time ago in the era of the "primordial religion", long before even the first ancient texts of the Vedic scriptures were written. The wisdom of that religion however persisted in the lineage of Pythagoras -- Socrates -- Plato -- Plotinus, and even survived intact for the few centuries after them.

The author details how Western Civilization gradually lost touch with the wisdom of the ages. In the beginning, all knowledge was sacred, as well as art, music, dancing, and the crafts. The beginning of the decline of philosophy from its pristine wisdom to pure rationalism started with the famous -- or infamous -- enunciation :

"Cogito ergo sum," of Descartes, "I think, therefore I am.", entirely ignoring being. Anyway, modern philosophy was born. After that, we were treated to many "-isms", from nominalism to existentialism. And, of course, Sartre and his book: "Being and Nothingness". That was the final decree. Being and knowledge were officially divorced.

Fortunately however, there has been a rediscovery of the traditional wisdom, the two most notable names in this rediscovery being Guenon and Schuon. This book details that rediscovery and shows how not only is all knowledge sacred but how the arts and sciences are fountains of Grace.

This is not easy reading. However, it will interest and repay the reader with an interest in tradition as defined by Schuon. All of the ills of the modern world, global warming, overpopulation of the globe, nuclear weapons, etc., etc., etc. can be traced to the decline of traditional wisdom.

The book is stunning in the ground it covers. His knowledge of world religion is comprehensive and his appreciation of the world religions and their wisdom traditions is wonderfully explored.It is comprehensive, detailed, analytical and has ample footnotes for further research. His chapter on sacred art titled 'Traditional Art as Fountain of Knowledge and Grace' is must reading for any student/artist/teacher/lover of sacred art because he manages to get to the core overlap of sacred wisdom and art. Parabola reviewed this book as 'magisterial'. It is indeed.'The author is a phenomenon and this book is an event'-Huston Smith

Good at the beginning then it just builds and builds. A wonderful piece of work, all the more valuable for its uncompromising style

This book is supposed to be about knowledge and the sacred and yet Professor Nasr states, at the top of page two of the first chapter, "In paradise man had tasted of the fruit of the Tree of Life which symbolizes unitive knowledge." If he had actually read the Bible (much less, his own footnote, referencing Gen 2:17 & 3:24), he would know that man never tasted of the Tree of Life! And, moreover, it does not "symbolize" "unitive knowledge" (whatever that is), but everlasting life. Wow, two big things wrong, right at the start; in fact, the two things he builds his discussion on. Incredibly, Knowledge and the Sacred begins with ignorance, or a license that amounts to sacrilege. The fact is, "man" was most vehemently prohibited from tasting of the tree of life, as a punishment (the worst of many) for having tasted of the first tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In the next paragraph he says that "man was also to taste of the tree of Good and Evil and to come to see things as externalized, in a state of otherness and separation." Ah, so that's where he gets his "unitive knowledge" for the tree of life - to compliment his interpretation of the tree of Good and Evil. But here again he got something wrong: it is not "the tree of Good and Evil," but "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" - a little more subtle than Nasr has it. His interpretation of the meaning of his mis-named tree is up for grabs. You don't have to go along with it, it's not in the Bible. But then, nothing else he says is, either.

With Nasr's travesty of the drama in Eden, the book is a quagmire of words which have no meaning because the Biblical references on which they seem to depend don't support his statements and claims. In this regard Nasr is profoundly disrespectful, not just of the sacred sources he abuses, but of responsible scholarship and writing, and of his audience. I am agog at such arrogance. Here is a man with an agenda, to which all else is subservient.

I couldn't continue reading much farther. Maybe there are worthwhile elements in the greater portion of the book but he completely lost my trust at the beginning.