We direct ourselves to all those, independent of affiliation, whose intelligence looks for the satisfaction that only Tradition can provide integrally. Most of these are not among the ones that cultivate merely academic knowledge or insignificant discussions of erudite hue.
It is fit to recall, in this matter, Guénon’s comment on the title of his first book, General Introduction to the Studies of the Hindu Doctrines. Guénon considered the title pompous, academic and potentially capable of keeping away many readers who would be perfectly able to read the work and take advantage of its content.
To IRGET, it is a matter totally unfit for discussion the pretenses of some, or of many, to being "successors" or "heirs" of René Guénon's spiritual authority. Guénon’s stature, in the modern Occident, has never been equaled and much less overcome.
The death of Guénon challenged many of those that benefited from his work and influence; a few, however, have had the greatness of honoring it as, for example, Michel Vâlsan has done.
Others, in Europe and the USA, fake recognition by trying to transfer to themselves the Traditional Authority to which Guénon was a mediator, and in so doing, they exercise their vanity and powers.
IRGET, from the point of view of theoretical studies guided by the works of Guénon, never recognized Schuon (who died 1998) as a legitimate spiritual authority. However, that does not prevent us from considering the value of some of his books, or of parts of them. It is necessary to point out that these books we refer to would not, in fact, have been entirely possible without the existence of René Guénon's works.
The so called "incidental adaptations" of the Islamic rites and the "syncretism" involving different traditional forms that may have been done by Schuon, according to reports in books and in the Internet, do not deserve our comments.
Also, certain "recent, true revelations" — truthful or not — that involve Schuon’s name in an episode in the North American judicial courts do not interest us.
It has been pointed to us Nasr’s adhesion — and even leadership after Schuon’s death — of the group founded by Schuon, as well as, on the other hand, the removal of Rama Coomaraswamy from this same group.
Regarding Nasr, we continue to consider what we know of his vast literary production as an excellent reference for themes related to Islam - and we do not find reasons to change this opinion, independent of his adhesion to Schuon’s group, a choice, we think, pertaining to the individuality of Mr. Nasr.
The same can be said for Rama Coomaraswamy. We are acquainted with some books from this author that deserve consideration, as well as with other of his books, whose exclusive Christian perspective deserves reservations from the more comprehensive traditional point of view with which we identify ourselves. The news that he has left Schuon’s group does not alter in any respect our opinion of his work.
On the other hand, some in favor of Julius Evola desire that we consider him in the same level or even higher (!) than Guénon. These, we sent to Evola himself, in whose books they at once can find registered the pride in being a Kshatryia and the recognition of Guénon being a spiritual authority, a Brahman. Thus, we are released from longer explanations. We maintain our partially positive impression of Evola registered in the "Presentation" of our homepage.
From a distance, we observe many "happenings" involving René Guénon's memory; meetings, debates and varied colloquies, of strong academic colors, with endless discussions, disputes among factions, charges of dissembling and other accusations, all resulting in a final balance, let us say, close to the mediocre.
Impassive and above all these noises, lies the impersonal authority of René Guénon's work, up to date and not temporal, silent and eloquent, powerful and unshakable, alive as Tradition itself, because it is a crystalline and fulgurant expression of it.