While Coomaraswamy attempted a direct synthesis of perennialism and Catholicism, other thinkers have explored alternative approaches. Wolfgang Smith engaged sympathetically with Vedanta while maintaining Catholic orthodoxy, recognizing fundamental incompatibilities. Jean Borella mounted a comprehensive critique exposing perennialism's hidden Advaitism. Both demonstrate the limits of synthesis between Catholic theology and perennialist metaphysics.
A. Smith's Background and Engagement with Vedanta
Wolfgang Smith (1930-2024) was an Austrian-American mathematician, physicist, and philosopher who graduated from Cornell at age 18 with degrees in physics, mathematics, and philosophy. Unlike Coomaraswamy, who inherited perennialism from his father, Smith came to Eastern thought through direct experience—traveling to India as a young man to seek counsel from sadhus in quest of spiritual wisdom.
In his late work Vedanta in Light of Christian Wisdom (2022), Smith recounts this formative encounter and his subsequent decades-long reflection on the relationship between Vedantic and Christian soteriology. The book's title deliberately inverts René Guénon's Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, signaling Smith's conviction that Christianity, not Vedanta, provides the ultimate framework for judging other traditions.For a detailed comparison of Thomistic and Vedantic metaphysics, see the dedicated page on Śaṅkara and Aquinas.
B. The Nirvanic Option: Two Incompatible Soteriologies
Smith's central insight concerns what we might call the "nirvanic option"—the recognition that there exist two fundamentally incompatible soteriological paths that cannot be synthesized without betraying one or the other.
Two Incompatible Paths:
1. The Nirvanic Path (Vedanta, Buddhism)
- Goal: Nirvana as cessation of individual existence
- Method: Realization that the individual self (jiva) is illusory
- End: Return to undifferentiated Absolute (Brahman)
- Metaphor: Being "snuffed out" like a candle flame
2. The Christian Path
- Goal: Salvation as reaching immortality through Christ
- Method: Transformation and divinization of the person
- End: Eternal communion with the Trinitarian God
- Metaphor: Fulfillment and glorification of the person
As one reviewer summarizes Smith's position:
"Profoundly, Smith points to the great gap between Vedantic notions of nirvana or being 'snuffed out,' and the Christian goal of salvation, reaching immortality through Christ. He realized what I had never articulated, that it was Jesus who introduced the Trinitarian conception of God, and the Christian teaching of salvation. The first was no part of the Judaic heritage, and however they understood salvation, it was transformed by Jesus."
C. Smith's Affirmation of Christian Uniqueness
Unlike Coomaraswamy, who attempted to subordinate Christian doctrine to perennialist principles, Smith affirms the irreducible uniqueness of Christianity. The Trinitarian revelation—that God is essentially relational, three Persons in one Nature—cannot be accommodated within Vedantic monism without distortion.
Smith recognizes that the nirvanic path may represent a genuine spiritual attainment—what Catholic theology would classify as natural contemplation reaching the limits of unaided reason. But it is not equivalent to Christian salvation, which involves supernatural transformation through grace and participation in the divine life of the Trinity.
D. Critique of Perennialist Synthesis
Smith's approach implicitly critiques the perennialist project. By recognizing two incompatible soteriological paths, he rejects the perennialist claim that all orthodox traditions lead to the same goal. The nirvanic "snuffing out" of individual existence is not the same as Christian immortality in communion with the Trinity, no matter how much perennialists try to harmonize them through esoteric reinterpretation.
A. Borella's Central Thesis
Jean Borella (b. 1930) has mounted the most comprehensive Catholic critique of Guénonian perennialism. His central thesis: despite claiming to transcend all particular forms, Guénon's perennialism actually imposes the form of Advaita Vedanta on all religions.
"Guénon's metaphysics is structurally Advaitic, and Advaita Vedanta, while it may be the most rigorous expression of non-dualism, is not the only possible metaphysics, nor is it compatible with the Christian revelation of the Trinity."
— Jean Borella, "Diversity and Unity of Religions"
B. The Hidden Advaitism
Borella demonstrates that Guénon's supposedly universal metaphysical framework mirrors Advaita Vedanta's structure:
- Nirguna Brahman = Guénon's "Supreme Principle"
- Saguna Brahman = Guénon's "Being" (subordinate)
- Maya = Guénon's "universal manifestation"
"The 'transcendent unity of religions' is not a formless truth that transcends all forms, but rather the imposition of one particular form—the Advaitic form—on all religions."
— Jean Borella
C. Borella's Ternary Schema: Esoterism and Exoterism as Hermeneutical Categories
In his major work Ésotérisme guénonien et mystère chrétien (Guénonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery), Borella demonstrates that Guénon's fundamental error is substantifying esoterism and exoterism as independent realities. Guénon proposes a binary schema: different traditions differ only in appearance (exoteric forms), while a single esoteric truth unites them all.
Borella corrects this with a ternary schema: esoterism and exoterism are not substances buthermeneutical categories relative to a third term—the revelatum (that which is revealed):
"Il n'y a d'ésotérisme et d'exotérisme que par rapport à une tradition ou révélation particulière."
(There is esoterism and exoterism only in relation to a particular tradition or revelation.)
— Jean Borella, Ésotérisme guénonien et mystère chrétien
This means there is no single "esoteric truth" behind all religions. Rather, each revelation has its own esoteric depth—Christianity's esoterism is Christian, Islam's is Islamic, etc. Guénon's "Primordial Tradition" is not a neutral framework but an Advaitic lens imposed on other traditions.
D. Christian Initiation: Sacramental and Mystical
Borella demonstrates that Christianity possesses authentic initiation through the sacraments. Guénon identifies Christian sacraments with Hindu samskaras (rites of aggregation), denying their initiatic character. But Borella shows that sacraments have both aggregative function and lead infallibly to the mystery of Christ in its fullness.
Following Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Borella argues that Christian initiation is the progressive purification, illumination, and unification with God through the Church's hierarchical and sacramental structure:
"Il n'y a pas de divinisation en dehors des cadres hiérarchiques voulus par Dieu."
(There is no divinization outside the hierarchical frameworks willed by God.)
— Jean Borella, citing Pseudo-Dionysius
The sacrament operates ex opere operato—it operates what it signifies and signifies what it operates. Guénon himself admits the sacramental rite confers an "indelible" spiritual influence, which is a habitus(quality received in a faculty perfecting it for determined operation). Therefore, Borella concludes, Christian initiation is "real and effective," not merely "virtual" as Guénon claims:
"En reconnaissant la virtualité de l'initiation sacramentelle, Guénon aurait donc dû conclure à son effectivité chez toutes les âmes qui accueillent cette grâce."
(In recognizing the virtuality of sacramental initiation, Guénon should have concluded its effectivity in all souls who welcome this grace.)
— Jean Borella, Ésotérisme guénonien et mystère chrétien
E. The Tearing of the Temple Veil
Borella emphasizes that Christian Revelation made accessible to all (through the sacraments) the mysteries formerly reserved for rare initiates. This is the significance of the temple veil being torn at Christ's death: universal salvific initiation. The Church's mission is:
"Constituer le peuple des sanctifiés, de faire entrer tous les hommes dans l'assemblée des saints, dans l'Ekklesia christique, dans laquelle être sauvé, c'est être sacramentellement déifié."
(To constitute the people of the sanctified, to bring all men into the assembly of saints, into the Christic Ekklesia, in which to be saved is to be sacramentally deified.)
— Jean Borella
Objection: Maybe Guénon's critique of modernity is still valid even if his metaphysics is flawed?
Even if Borella is right that Guénon imposes Advaitic form, doesn't his critique of modern materialism and rationalism remain valuable? Can't we accept his social criticism while rejecting his metaphysics?
Response:
Guénon's critique of modernity is indeed penetrating and valuable. Catholics can agree with much of his diagnosis of modern errors: materialism, rationalism, individualism, the loss of the sacred. However, the remedy he proposes—perennialism—is incompatible with Catholic faith. One can accept Guénon's critique of modernity without accepting his solution. In fact, Catholic tradition has its own robust critique of modernity (see the Syllabus of Errors, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, etc.) that doesn't require subordinating Christ to an impersonal Absolute. The danger is that Guénon's valuable social criticism becomes a gateway to accepting his metaphysical framework, which is fundamentally anti-Christian. We must distinguish between his diagnosis (often accurate) and his cure (incompatible with Catholicism).
F. Catholic Esoterism vs. Perennialist Esoterism
Borella's positive program aims at "l'éveil de la conscience spirituelle dans l'âme du chrétien" (awakening of spiritual consciousness in the soul of the Christian). He distinguishes between two types of esoterism:
- Guénon's "formal esoterism": Identifiable with initiatic organizations (Freemasonry, Compagnonnage)
- Borella's "real" or "spiritual" esoterism: Informal, depends on individual's hermeneutical aptitude to "penetrate into its deifying interiority" through the Church and sacraments
Catholic esoterism deepens understanding of revealed truth; perennialist esoterism subordinates revelation to a supposedly higher gnosis. The former preserves the primacy of Christ; the latter reduces Christ to one manifestation among many of an impersonal Absolute. As Simone Weil wrote (cited by Borella):
"L'Église n'est parfaitement pure que sous un rapport : en tant que conservatrice des sacrements. Ce qui est parfait, ce n'est pas l'Église, c'est le corps et le sang du Christ sur les autels."
(The Church is perfectly pure only in one respect: as conservator of the sacraments. What is perfect is not the Church, but the body and blood of Christ on the altars.)
— Simone Weil, cited by Jean Borella
Conclusion
Both Smith and Borella demonstrate the limits of synthesis between Catholic theology and perennialist metaphysics. Smith's recognition of the "nirvanic option" shows that Vedantic and Christian soteriology are fundamentally incompatible. Borella's critique exposes that Guénon's supposedly universal framework is actually Advaitic particularism in disguise. The Trinitarian doctrine of subsistent relations represents a metaphysical revolution that cannot be accommodated within an Advaitic framework without betraying its essence.