The Return of the Perennial Philosophy: The Supreme Vision of Western Esotericism (review)

This compact volume attempts to define and explicate a sprawling field of what is alternatively called esotericism, esoterism, theosophy, theophany, or occultism. It might have been more aptly entitled, "The Return of Perennial Philosophies." Holman espouses an approach that at one and the same time upholds a theory/practice distinction and avows itself to side with the practitioner, for example: "it is only by having personal experience of the same that we can truly know that, and what, such is" (p. xx). His "ethnomethodological" approach assumes that theory emerges only through praxis, that understanding synthesizes knowing with being. Following Dilworth's term, the economy of the perennial philosophy is "diaphanic." An ultimate hope is to isolate a body of work, separate from cult, sect, faith, or religion, that could serve both the adherent and the scholar. Much of the problematic of such a shared discipline is too briefly summarized, and the interested reader will need to consult secondary texts such as those by Faivre or Hanegraaff for the nuances.

The work is divided into three sections. The first lays out the historical grounds of the field in terms of "schools" or "teachings," themselves terms that might invite further inquiry. Traditionalism and Blavatsky's Theosophy are grouped with ancient sources. The second part outlines a path that underlies or synthesizes the diverse conceptions of inner development and gives the author's views of the objective or transpersonal implications of a search for self-perfection. The final part attempts to place esoteric studies in a broader academic context, where kindred or competing views such as postmodernism or spiritual psychology appear to cover the same ground. It also tries to evaluate the idea of esoteric studies in the marketplace of contemporary theories.

Holman is on his safest ground when he provides a historical background for an esoteric tradition, though one might wonder about the excessive emphasis on Blavatsky and Guenon over alchemical, kabbalistic, or thaumaturgical schools of thought. More controversial is the material on an initiatory path (the development of "higher faculties"), which in general follows the curriculum of a course in Theosophy (is it true that "its language is arguably at once more accessible and technically complete"?) (p. 46). Initiation itself is "a breakthrough into a new awareness" in which one comes to recognize the limitations of a subjectivity and opens to a wider perspective on reality (p. 47). Although it is reasonable to expect divisions or stages in development, some of the tougher questions concern their placement or number. Is there agreement concerning the common ground of what appears as a great diversity of approach? There is the perennial appeal of a single paradigm, a "unified field theory," of esoteric studies—if only to show the "transcendental unity" of all religions. But the manner in which it might be proposed, hypothesized, or determined remains highly contested. And, perhaps one needs to be suspicious about the notion of unity itself.

In the third section, the initiatory prerogative is contrasted with contemporary alternatives, conceived as challenges to a participatory ethnomethodology. Perhaps chief among these is "postmodernism." Here, Holman might have lingered to say more than the "deconstructionist project is to reveal the 'ever-emptiness' of philosophy" (p. 98). One might think of Sankara and his work in Vedanta to destroy the grounds of any proposed conceptualization of existence. Derrida's deft intellectual sword-play surely calls into question thought's tendency to fix on positions, themes, arguments, or trajectories—pathways. Having much to say about "higher consciousness," deconstruction could be profitably compared to esotericism in terms of the notions of non-literal meaning, dissimulation, and secrecy.

Further, there is an all too brief inclusion of Carl Jung, whose view of the human psyche might be expected to conflict with Holman's own. Holman cites William Quinn's view that Jungian thought meshes well with Traditionalism. But Quinn's version of Traditionalism has been strongly criticized from within Traditionalist ranks...