Orthodoxy is the conformity of an idea – or of a form in general – to some revealed perspective, or, in other words, to some aspect of truth. (GTUFS: SPHF, Contours of the Spirit)
Orthodoxy (criterion): When we say that a doctrine is providential, we mean by this that it is contained in its own way in the Revelation itself and that it cannot fail to be “crystallized” at the cyclic moment assigned to it by its nature; thus, bhakti has always existed as a spiritual possibility, but its flowering required particular conditions, belonging to a given phase of the Hindu cycle. Every cycle has qualitative aspects: what is possible at a certain moment is not possible at another, so that the birth of a particular perspective cannot occur at some arbitrary moment. And this provides us with yet another criterion of ORTHODOXY – or of heterodoxy – for it is certain that in our times, that is for the last centuries, the cyclic moment for the manifestation of the great perspectives (darshanas) is past; readaptations – in the sense of a legitimate and therefore adequate and efficacious synthesis – are always possible, but not the manifestations of perspectives that are fundamental and “new” as to their form. The least that can be said is that no present formulation could surpass the ancient formulations; commentaries can be made on the traditional perspectives, they can be summed up from a particular point of view or expressed according to a particular inspiration, but they cannot be contradicted or replaced . . . The spuriousness of such attempts always shows itself – apart from intrinsic errors – in the belittling and falsifying spirit which is so characteristic of the modern world; in fact it requires a prodigious lack of spiritual sensibility and of sense of proportion to take any contemporary thinking, even the best possible, for one of the great providential “crystallizations” of the philosophia perennis. (GTUFS: StationsW, Orthodoxy and Intellectuality)
Orthodoxy (Hindu): Objections will no doubts be made that Hindu spirituality does not know ORTHODOXY, since opinions and systems contradict one another in Hinduism even more than in any other traditional wisdom; rightly or wrongly, according to the individual, it will be claimed that the “great thinkers” of India are beyond forms and so are free from all “narrow dogmatism.”* It is true that Hindu ORTHODOXY is sometimes more difficult to grasp from outside than that of a monotheist tradition; this is because Hinduism is founded more directly on the metaphysical essence, so that the form can be treated more freely; also, dogma – or what corresponds to it – assumes forms more varied than in Western religions, which amounts to saying, not that Hinduism is not quite orthodox, but that its ORTHODOXY has a wider scope in respect of forms, which is all that is in question here.^ The wide range of forms belonging to Hinduism may be bewildering to some minds, but could never mean that Hinduism sanctions error, as is in fact done by modern philosophy, where “genius” and “culture” count as much as or more than truth, and where the very idea of truth is even called into question by some people. The formal “fluidity” proper to Hinduism in no way prevents error from being always recognizable, whether by the aid of scriptural criteria, or in the light of metaphysical truth, which immediately unmasks absurdity, even when heterodoxy is founded on a sacred text, this of course through falsifying its meaning. (* Westernized heretics – pseudo-intellectual molluscs if ever there were any – are placed on the same level as the most venerable authorities of the Vedic tradition; the “breadth of mind” boasted by the moderns profits nothing except error and unintelligence. ^ Hinduism, despite its extreme conceptual “elasticity,” does not swallow everything, for otherwise Jainism and Buddhism would have become additional darshanas (orthodox perspectives) instead of being excluded from specifically Hindu ORTHODOXY; on the other hand, the very breadth of this ORTHODOXY allows it to recognize a posteriori – but “on the margin” and without any innovation – the celestial character both of the Buddha and of his message.) (GTUFS: StationsW, Orthodoxy and Intellectuality)
Orthodoxy (intrinsic): The first question to be asked concerning any doctrine or tradition is that of its intrinsic ORTHODOXY; that is to say one must know whether that tradition is consonant, not necessarily with another given traditionally orthodox perspective, but simply with Truth. (GTUFS: LSelf, Orthodoxy and Originality of Buddhism)
Orthodoxy (Moslem): Whatever may be the divergences between the Moslem denominations, the metaphysics of Unity and of Union dominates the entire horizon of thought, Shiite as well as Sunni; when all is said and done, the Moslem is orthodox to the extent that he identifies himself with the fundamental thesis of Islam and takes upon himself all its consequences. (GTUFS: ChristIslam, Images of Islam)
Orthodoxy (quintessential): Quintessential ORTHODOXY is sanctity, which in the purity of its experience combines or transcends all partial truths. (GTUFS: ChristIslam, Images of Islam)
Orthodoxy (religion intrinsically orthodox): For a religion to be considered intrinsically orthodox – extrinsic ORTHODOXY depending on specific formal factors that cannot be applied literally outside of the perspective to which they belong – it must be founded on a doctrine of the Absolute which, taken as a whole, is adequate; this religion must then advocate and achieve a spirituality that is proportioned to this doctrine, which is to say that it must comprise sanctity both in notion and in fact. Therefore, the religion must be of divine and not of philosophical origin, and consequently it must be the vessel for a sacramental or theurgic presence made manifest notably in miracles and also – though this may be surprising to some – in sacred art. Specific formal elements, such as apostolic personages and sacred events, are subordinated inasmuch as they are forms to the principial elements just mentioned; their meaning or value can therefore change from one religion to another – human diversity making such fluctuations inevitable – without this constituting any contradiction with regard to the essential criteriology that concerns both metaphysical truth and salvific efficacy, and secondarily – and on that basis – human stability; this stability can make demands that seem paradoxical at first sight given that it necessarily entails a certain compromise between earth and Heaven. Islam may appear markedly problematical from the Christian point of view, but it answers unquestionably to the overall description given above; it is intrinsically orthodox while differing extrinsically from the other orthodox monotheistic forms, and it is bound to differ most particularly from Christianity owing to a kind of regression – in appearance – to an Abrahamic and as it were timeless equilibrium. Every religion has a form and a substance; Islam spread like lightning by virtue of its substance; but its expansion was brought to a halt on account of its form. Substance possesses every right; it derives from the Absolute; form is relative; its rights are therefore limited. (GTUFS: FormSR, Truth and Presence)
A denomination or a religion is intrinsically orthodox when it comprises a metaphysical doctrine that is at least adequate, and which offers both the notion and the phenomenon of sanctity. (GTUFS: ChristIslam, Images of Islam)
Orthodoxy / Intellectuality: At first sight there seems to be no connection between intellectuality and ORTHODOXY, for the term ORTHODOXY is too often taken as a synonym of “conformity,” even of “prejudice” or “mental laziness,” while intellectuality, on the contrary, appears to most of our contemporaries as “unfettered exploration” or even “creative thinking,” hence as something at the antipodes of intellectual intuition and contemplation. From our standpoint, ORTHODOXY is the principle of formal homogeneity proper to any authentically spiritual perspective; it is therefore an indispensable aspect of all genuine intellectuality, which is to say that the essence of every ORTHODOXY is the truth and not mere fidelity to a system that eventually turns out to be false. To be orthodox means to participate by way of a doctrine that can properly be called “traditional,” in the immutability of the principles which govern the Universe and fashion our intelligence. (GTUFS: StationsW, Orthodoxy and Intellectuality)