The Tree of Tradition

I have reviewed quite a few of Nicholas’ books in these pages, and here he focuses on traditions and influences that shape the works of writers in general, and himself in particular over his seven key disciplines ranging across mysticism, literature, philosophy and the sciences, history, comparative religion, international politics and statecraft, and world culture. Reading about the specific influences – for instance, 63 listed under universalist writers – is quite fascinating and of particular interest to other writers. In each of these areas, he applies the formula given to him as a young man in Japan: +A + -A = O. This enables him to achieve a universalist reconciliation between traditional-metaphysical and social-secular traditions, all of which he spells out as a series of taxonomies. One list of particular interest is the proliferation of doctrinal -isms arising from secularisation (p. 17).

Among the universalist characteristics cited with respect to the metaphysical tradition are: the infinite surrounding the universe, metaphysical reality perceived as light, the universal principle of order in the universe, the wonders of humankind behind apparent diversity, universal virtue, an inner transformation or centre-shift from ego to universal being, and a new perspective of unity in key disciplines. This is of special importance in our time of metaphysical amputation, as Peter Kingsley puts it. The perennial wisdom of the past has to be reborn in every generation. In going through the various disciplines, individual readers will find their own resonances with Nicholas’ explanation of traditions within these disciplines. This culminates (p. 148) in an overall schematisation of 109 traditions over the seven disciplines, and 84 principal influences on his own work. It also illustrates the importance of cultural critique by contemporary thinkers, as was the case with TS Eliot, who wrote that ‘the responsibility of the man of letters at the present time (1944) should be vigilantly watching the conduct of politicians and economists, for the purpose of criticising and warning, when the decisions and actions of the politicians and economists are likely to have cultural consequences.’ (p. 19) This is a rich resource.