And if we were to boil down the concept of Marifat even further, the result would be that Marifat would amount to a direct and intuitive diversion or facilitation of an individual towards the essence by virtue of an ‘autonomous’ process or stream of knowledge that controls the individual and is largely out of the control of the individual. Before the modern period, the methods and the techniques which directed the individual towards the essence was largely commonplace. But as certain thinkers may have come to realize and understand, these methods and techniques are now largely invisible and hidden.
Hence, the invisibility and hiddenness of the basic methods and techniques which would direct an individual towards the essence in a direct and intuitive manner has led to a state of disequilibrium which needs adjustment, to borrow from Schuon. And as Schuon wrote: “Being is Equilibrium, immanent Justice; we are disequilibria.”
In turn, the course of action we take from this point forward consists of two distinct attitudes, options, or possibilities, as Schuon argued:
“Two possible attitudes are open to us: we may revolt against the Norm in the name of our own particularity or deviation, or we may conform to it and reintegrate ourselves in Equilibrium; our deviation is obvious, for its stain can be seen in our existential and individual imperfections and terrestrial exile. To revolt against Being is to revolt against ourselves.”
Also, and as René Guénon noted, Western theosophy – if it even exists and is even operational in this day and age – has at its core an adherence to evolutionary and Darwinist notions and ideas that makes it quite different from Eastern theosophy. Western theosophy amounts to a rejection of Eastern doctrines and ideas based on a type of ethnocentrism and racism which is then manifested in political and social affairs. Modern ‘intuitionism’ also lends a focus towards the lower aspects of the being such as base desires and instincts, whereas the intuitionism of Eastern theosophy directs the focus towards the essence by virtue of a kind of asceticism that is guided by perennial and traditional methods and techniques.
In essence, there actually is an ‘invariable doctrine’ of theosophy which many of us have either denied or have overlooked for a variety of reasons. This ‘invariable doctrine’ of theosophy comes from tradition, which coincidentally, the Western world has confused for ‘dogma’ as Guénon suggested. Tradition, as Guénon argued, is synonymous with civilization, and in turn, civilization is synonymous with a formula.
Yet, there is a huge distinction between ‘dogma’ on one hand and the tradition which fosters an ‘invariable doctrine’ of theosophy on the other hand. Modernism equates and translates to anti-traditionalism in a larger sense, which is why the methods and techniques or the ‘invariable doctrine’ of theosophy is largely hidden and invisible in this day and age, not just in the West, but in many other parts of the world where this doctrine of theosophy once existed because of our recent colonial history.
Overall, and to conclude, there is knowledge which is “relative” or “contingent” to borrow from Guénon, and then there is knowledge which is “effective” and “complete” and is in turn is a kind of knowledge that is relevant to the aims and goals of traditional theosophy.