Translated by
H.D. Fohr, C. Bethell
P. Moore, H. Schiff
SOPHIA PERENNIS
HILLSDALE NY
Guénon, René
[Mélanges. English!
Miscellanea I René Guénon ; translated by Henry D. Fohr,
Cecil Bethell, Hubert Schiff, Patrick Moore
p.
cm. — (Collected Works of René Guénon) Includes bibliographical references
and index.
Contents
Editorial Note xi
Foreword xv
Tart One. Metaphysics & Cosmology
1 The Demiurge i
2
Monotheism &
Angelology 16
3
Spirit & Intellect 20
4
The Eternal Ideas 25
5
Silence 6- Solitude
29
6
‘Know Thyself’ 34
7
On the Production of
Numbers 42
Tart Two: Traditional S^rts &
Sciences
1
Initiation & the
Crafts 53
2
On Mathematical Notation
59
3
The Arts & Their
Traditional Conception 78
4
The Conditions of
Corporeal Existence 84
Tart Three: Some Modern Errors
i The ‘Empericism’ of the Ancients
107
2
The Diffusion of Knowledge
& and the Modern Spirit 112
3
The Superstition of‘Value’
117
4
The Sense of Proportions
124
5
The Origins of Mormonism
129
6
Gnosis & the Spiritist
Schools 142
7
Concerning a Mission to
Central Asia 172
8
Profane Science in Light
of Traditional Doctrines 180
Index 187
The
past century has witnessed an erosion of earlier cultural values as well as a
blurring of the distinctive characteristics of the world’s traditional
civilizations, giving rise to philosophic and moral relativism,
multiculturalism, and dangerous fundamentalist reactions. As early as the
1920s, the French metaphysician René Guénon (1886-1951) had diagnosed
these tendencies and presented what he believed to be the only possible
reconciliation of the legitimate, although apparently conflicting, demands of
outward religious forms, ‘exoterisms’, with their essential core, ‘esoterism’.
His works are characterized by a foundational critique of the modern world
coupled with a call for intellectual reform; a renewed examination of
metaphysics, the traditional sciences, and symbolism, with special reference to
the ultimate unanimity of all spiritual traditions; and finally, a call to the
work of spiritual realization. Despite their wide influence, translation of
Guenon’s works into English has so far been piecemeal. The Sophia Perennis
edition is intended to fill the urgent need to present them in a more authoritative
and systematic form. A complete list of Guénon's works, given in the order
of their original publication in French, follows this note.
Guenon frequently uses words or
expressions set off in 'scare quotes’. To avoid clutter, single quotation marks
have been used throughout. As for transliterations, Guénon was
more concerned with phonetic fidelity than academic usage. The system adopted
here reflects the views of scholars familiar both with the languages and Guénon’s writings.
Brackets indicate editorial insertions, or, within citations, Guénon’s additions.
Wherever possible, references have been updated, and English editions
substituted.
The present translation is based on
the work of Henry Fohr, Cecil Bethell, Hubert Schiff, and Patrick Moore. The
entire text was
There are
a certain number of problems which have constantly preoccupied men, but perhaps
none has ever seemed so insoluble as that of the origin of evil, a problem
which most philosophers, and especially theologians, encounter as an
insurmountable obstacle: Si Deus est, unde Malum? Si non
est, unde
Bonum? | If God is, whence Evil? If He is
not, whence the Good?] In fact, this dilemma is insoluble for those who
consider Creation as the direct work of God, and who, consequently, have to
make him equally responsible for good and evil. One may well say that this
responsibility is to a certain extent attenuated by the creatures’ freedom;
but if the creatures can choose between good and evil, this means that both
already exist, at least in principle; and if they are prone to sometimes
deciding in favor of evil rather than being always inclined toward good, this
is because they are imperfect. How then can God, if he is perfect, create
imperfect beings?
Obviously the perfect
cannot engender the imperfect, for, if that were possible, the perfect would
have to contain within itself the imperfect in the principial state, and then
it would no longer be the perfect. Therefore the imperfect cannot proceed from
the perfect by way of emanation, and can only result from creation ex
nihilo. But how can one accept that something can come from nothing, or, in
other words, that anything can exist without having a principle? Moreover, to
admit creation ex nihilo would be to acknowledge ipso facto the
final annihilation of created beings, for what has a beginning must also have
an end; and nothing is more illogical than to speak of immortality under such
an hypothesis. But creation thus understood is an absurdity, for it is contrary
to the principle of causality, which it is impossible for any reasonable man
to deny
sincerely; and we can say
with Lucretius; Ex nihilo nihil, nd nihilunt nil posse reverti [Nothing
comes from nothing; nothing can revert to nothing].
There can be nothing that does not
have a principle; but what is this principle? and is there in actual fact only
one Principle ot all things? If the entire universe is considered, it is
certainly obvious that it contains all things, for all parts are contained
within the whole. On the other hand, the whole is necessarily unlimited, for if
it had a limit, whatever exceeded that limit would not be included within the
whole, and this supposition is absurd. That which has no limit can be called
the Infinite, and since it contains everything, this Infinite is the principle
of all things. Moreover, the Infinite is necessarily one, for two Infinites
that are not identical would exclude one another. Hence there is only one
unique Principle of all things—and this Principle is the Perfect, for the
Infinite can only be such if it is the Perfect.
Thus, the Perfect is the supreme
Principle, the primal Cause: it contains all things potentially and it has
produced all things. But then, since there is only one unique Principle, what
becomes of all the opposites that are usually considered in the universe: Being
and Non-Being, spirit and matter, good and evil? Hence we find ourselves again
in the presence of the same question we posed at the outset; and we can now
formulate the question in a more general way: how has unity been able to
produce duality?
Certain people have found it
necessary to admit two distinct principles opposed to each other; but this
hypothesis is ruled out by what we said previously. In fact, these two
principles cannot both be infinite, for they would then exclude each other, or
else they would be identical. If only one was infinite, it would be the
principle of the other. Finally, if both were finite they would not be true
principles, because to say that what is finite can exist by itself amounts to
saying that something can come from nothing—since whatever is finite has a
beginning, logically, if not chronologically. Consequently, in the latter case,
since both are finite they must proceed from a common principle, which is
infinite, and so we are brought back to the consideration of one unique
Principle. Furthermore, many doctrines usually considered dualistic are so
only in appearance. In
Manicheism as well as in
the Zoroastrian religion, dualism was only a purely exoteric doctrine,
concealing the true esoteric doctrine of Unity: Ormuzd and Ahriman are both
engendered by Zervane- Akerene, and must merge in him at the end of time.
Hence duality is
necessarily produced by unity, since it cannot exist by itself, but how can it
be produced? In order to understand this, we must first of all consider duality
under its least particularized aspect, which is the opposition between Being
and Non-Being. Moreover, since both are necessarily contained within the total
Perfection, it is obvious in the first place that this opposition can only be
apparent. It would thus be better to speak only of distinction; but of what
does this distinction consist? Does it exist as a reality independent from us,
or is it merely the result of our way of viewing things?
It by Non-Being one
understands only pure nothingness, it is useless to speak about it, for what
can be said about that which is nothing? But if Non-Being is considered as the
possibility of being, then this is completely different. In this sense, Being
is the manifestation of Non-Being and is contained in a potential state within
Non-Being. The relationship of Non-Being to Being is then that of the
non-manifested to the manifested, and it can be said that the non-manifested is
superior to the manifested (of which it is the principle) since it contains
potentially the whole of the manifested, plus that which is not, has never
been, and never will be manifested. At the same time it can be seen that here
it is impossible to speak of a real distinction, since the manifested is
contained principially within the non-manifested. However, we cannot conceive
the nonmanifested directly, but only through the manifested; this distinction
therefore exists for us, but only for us.
If such is the case for
duality under the aspect of the distinction between Being and Non-Being, the
same holds true with greater reason for all other aspects of duality. From this
it is already easy to see how illusory is the distinction between spirit and
matter, a distinction on which, nevertheless, so many philosophical systems
are built, especially in modern times, as if on an unshakable basis; if this
distinction disappears, nothing is left of all these systems. Furthermore, we
can point out in passing that duality cannot exist without
the ternary, for if in
differentiating itself the Supreme Principle gives rise to two elements (which
moreover are only distinct insofar as we view them as such), these two
elements, together with their common Principle, form a ternary, so that in
reality it is the ternary, and not the binary, which is directly produced by
the first differentiation of the primordial unity.
Let us now come back to the
distinction of good and evil, which too is only a particular aspect of duality.
When good and evil are opposed to each other, the good is usually seen to lie
in Perfection, or, at a lower degree at least, as a tendency toward Perfection,
so that evil is then nothing other than the imperfect. But how could the
imperfect oppose the Perfect? We have seen that the Perfect is the Principle of
all things and that, on the other hand, it cannot produce the imperfect, from
which it follows that in reality the imperfect does not exist, or at least
that it only exists as a constituent element of total Perfection; but then it
cannot really be imperfect, and what we call imperfection is only relativity.
Thus, what we call error is only relative truth, for all errors must be
included within total Truth, or else the latter, being limited by something
external to itself, would not be perfect, which amounts to saying that it would
not be the Truth. Errors, or rather relative truths, are only fragments of the
total Truth, so that it is fragmentation that produces relativity, and
consequently could be said to be the cause of evil—if relativity is really
synonymous with imperfection. But evil is such only if it is distinguished from
the good?
If the perfect is called good, the
relative is not really distinct from it, since it is contained within it
principially. Therefore evil does not exist from the universal point of view.
It will exist only if all things are considered in a fragmentary and analytical
light, separating them from their common Principle, instead of viewing them as
contained synthetically within this Principle, which is Perfection. Thus is the
imperfect created; in distinguishing evil from good, both are created by this
very distinction, for good and evil are such only when they are opposed to each
other. If there is no evil, there is no longer any reason to speak of good in
the ordinary sense of this word, but only of Perfection. It is thus the fatal
delusion of dualism that realizes good and evil, and which, considering things
from a
particular point of view,
substitutes multiplicity for unity, and thus encloses the beings who are under
its spell within the sphere of confusion and division. This sphere is the
Empire of the Demiurge.
II
What we have just said
concerning the distinction of good and evil makes it possible to understand the
symbol of the original Fall, at least insofar as such things can be expressed.
The fragmentation of total Truth, or of the Word—for fundamentally they are the
same thing—a fragmentation that produces relativity, is identical to the
dismemberment of Adam Kadnion, whose separated fragments constitute protoplastic
Adam, namely the first creator of forms. The cause of this segmentation is
Nahash—egoism, or the desire for individual existence. Nahash is not a cause
external to man but is within him, potentially at first, and becomes external
to him only insofar as man himself exteriorizes it. This instinct of
separativity, which by its very nature provokes division, induces man to taste
the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that is, to create the
very distinction of good and evil. Thus man’s eyes open, for what was internal
to him has become external as a result of the separation that has arisen
between beings; from now on beings assume forms which limit and define their
individual existence, and so man was the first maker of forms. But henceforth he
too is subject to the conditions of this individual existence and he also
assumes a form, or, according to the biblical expression, a tunic of skin. He
is enclosed within the sphere of good and evil, within the Empire of the
Demiurge.
This essay, very abridged and
incomplete though it is, makes it evident that the Demiurge is not a power
external to man. In principle he is merely man’s will, inasmuch as this will
realizes the distinction between good and evil. But then man, limited as an
individual being by this will which is his very own, regards it as something
external to himself, and thus it becomes distinct from him. Furthermore, as it
opposes the efforts he makes to escape from the sphere in which he has enclosed
himself, he views it as a hostile power and calls it Satan or the Adversary.
Let us note, moreover, that this
Adversary, whom we
ourselves created and whom we create moment by moment—for this should not be
considered as having taken place at a given time—is not evil in itself, but is
merely the whole of everything that is adverse to us.
From a more general point
of view, once the Demiurge has become a separate power and is considered as
such, he is the Prince of this World mentioned in Saint John’s Gospel. Here
again, strictly speaking, he is neither good nor bad, or rather he is both,
since he contains within himself both good and evil. His sphere is regarded as
the lower world, as opposed to the upper world or principial Universe from
which it has been separated, but it should be carefully noted that this
separation is never absolutely real. It is real only insofar as we realize it,
for this lower world is contained potentially within the principial Universe,
and it is obvious that no part can really depart from the Whole. This is what keeps
the fall from going on indefinitely; however, this is only a purely symbolic
expression and the depth of the fall simply measures the degree to which the
separation is realized. With this reservation in mind, the Demiurge is opposed
to Adam Kadmon or principial Mankind, manifestation of the Word, but only as a
reflection, for he is not an emanation and does not exist by himself. This is
what is represented by the two old men of the Zohar, and also by the two
opposed triangles of the Seal of Solomon.
We are thus led to
consider the Demiurge as a dark and inverted reflection of Being, for in
reality he cannot be anything else. So he is not a being; but according to what
we said earlier, he can be considered as the community of the beings to the
extent that they are distinct, or if one prefer, insofar as they are endowed
with individual existence. We are separate beings insofar as we ourselves
create the distinction, which only exists insofar as we create it. As creators
of this distinction, we are elements of the Demiurge; and to the extent that we
are distinct beings, we belong to the sphere of this same Demiurge, which is
what we call Creation.
All elements of Creation,
namely the creatures, are therefore contained within the Demiurge himself, and
he cannot in fact draw them out of anything but himself, since creation ex
nihilo is impossible. As Creator, the Demiurge first produces division,
from which
he is not really distinct,
since he exists only inasmuch as division itself exists. And then, as division
is the source of individual existence, which in turn is defined by form, the
Demiurge should be considered as the form-maker, and as such he is identical to
protoplastic Adam, as we have seen. One can also say that the Demiurge creates
matter, understood in the sense of the primordial chaos that is the common
reservoir of all forms. Then he organizes this chaotic and dark matter, in
which confusion reigns, bringing forth from it the multiple forms the totality
of which constitutes Creation.
Now, must one say that
this Creation is imperfect? Certainly, it cannot be regarded as perfect;
however, from a universal point of view, it is merely one of the constituent
elements of total Perfection. It is imperfect only when considered analytically
as separated from its Principle, and it is moreover in the same extent that it
is the sphere of the Demiurge. But if the imperfect is merely an element of the
Perfect, then it is not really imperfect, and consequently the Demiurge and his
sphere do not really exist from the universal point of view, any more than does
the distinction between good and evil. From the same point of view it also
follows that matter does not exist: material appearance is only an illusion.
However, one should not conclude from this that beings with a material
appearance do not exist, for this would amount to succumbing to another
illusion, that of an exaggerated and poorly understood idealism.
If matter does not exist,
the distinction between spirit and matter thereby disappears. Everything must
in reality be spirit, but spirit understood in a completely different sense
from (hat attributed to it by most modern philosophers. In fact, while opposing
spirit to matter, they still do not consider spirit as independent of all form,
and one may then wonder in what way it is differentiated from matter. If it is
said that spirit is unextended whereas matter is extended, how then can that
which is unextended assume a form? Moreover, why should one want Io define
spirit? Whether by thought or otherwise, one always attempts to define it by
means of a form, and then it is no longer spirit. In reality, the universal
spirit is Being,and not such or such a being in particular, but the Principle
of all beings, and thus it contains them all. This is why everything is spirit.
When man reaches real knowledge of
this truth, he identifies himself and all things with the universal Spirit.
Then all distinctions vanish for him, so that he contemplates everything as
being within himself, and no longer as external, for illusion vanishes before
Truth like a shadow before the sun. By this very knowledge, then, man is freed
from the bonds of matter and individual existence; he is no longer subject to
the domination of the Prince of this World, he no longer belongs to the Empire
of the Demiurge.
Ill
From the preceding it
follows that beginning with his earthly existence man can free himself from
the sphere of the Demiurge, or the hylic world, and that this emancipation is
achieved through gnosis, that is, through full knowledge. Let us further point
out that this knowledge has nothing to do with analytical science, and does not
imply it in any way. It is too widespread an illusion nowadays to believe that
total synthesis can only be attained through analysis. On the contrary, ordinary
science is quite relative, and, limited to the hylic world as it is, does not
exist any more than this world, from the universal point of view.
Moreover, we must also point out that
the different worlds—or, according to a generally accepted expression, the
various planes of the universe—are not places or regions, but modalities of
existence or states of being. This enables one to understand how a man living
on the earth might in reality no longer belong to the hylic world, but to the
psychic or even to the pneumatic world. It is this that constitutes the second
birth; however, strictly speaking, this birth is only a birth into the psychic
world, through which man becomes conscious on two planes but without yet
reaching the pneumatic world, that is, without identifying himself with the
universal Spirit. This last result is only obtained by the one who fully
possesses the triple knowledge, by which he is forever liberated from mortal
births; this is what is being expressed when it is said that only pneumatics
are saved. The state of the psychics is, in short, only a transient stale; it
is that of the being that is already prepared to receive
the Light, but that does not yet
perceive it, that is not yet aware of the one and immutable Truth.
When we speak of mortal
births, we mean the modifications of a being, its passage through multiple and
changing forms. There is nothing here which resembles the doctrine of
reincarnation, such as it is accepted by the spiritists and Theosophists, a
doctrine which we might some day have the opportunity to explain.[1] The
pneumatic is freed from mortal births, that is to say he is liberated from
form, hence from the demiurgic world. He is no longer subject to change, and,
consequently, is actionless; we shall come back to this point later. The
psychic, on the contrary, does not pass beyond the World of Formation, which is
symbolically designated as the first heaven or the Sphere of the Moon. From
there he comes back to the terrestrial world, which does not in fact mean that
he will actually take a new body on earth, but simply that he will need to
assume new forms, whatever they may be, before obtaining Liberation.
What we have just said
illustrates the agreement—we could even say the real identity, despite certain
differences of expression—of the gnostic doctrine with the Eastern doctrines,
particularly with the Vedanta, the most orthodox of all the metaphysical
systems based on Brahmanism. This is why we can complete what we have said
about the various states of the being by borrowing a few quotations from Self-Knowledge
\Atma-Bodha\ by Shankarâchârya:
There
is no other way of obtaining full and final Liberation than through Knowledge;
it is the sole means which loosens the bonds of passion; without Knowledge,
Beatitude cannot be obtained. Action, not being opposed to ignorance, cannot
cast it away; but Knowledge dispels ignorance, as light dispels darkness.
Ignorance here means the
state of a being shrouded in the darkness of the hylic world, attached to the
illusory appearance of matter and to individual distinctions. Through
knowledge, which is not within the sphere of action but superior to it, all
these illusions vanish, as we said above.
When ignorance born of
earthly affections is cast away, Spirit shines from the distance by Its own
splendor in an undivided state, just as the Sun sheds its light when the cloud
is dispersed.
But before reaching this
state, the being goes through an intermediate stage corresponding to the
psychic world. Then it no longer believes itself to be the material body but
the individual soul, for all distinction has not vanished for it, since it has
not yet departed the sphere of the Demiurge.
Imagining that he is the
individual soul, man becomes frightened like a person mistaking a piece of
rope for a snake. But his fear is dispelled by the perception that he is not
the soul, but the universal Spirit.
The one who has become
aware of the two manifested worlds, namely the hylic (the totality of gross or
material manifestations) and the psychic (the totality of subtle
manifestations), is twice born, dvija. But the one who is aware of the
unmanifested universe or the formless world—that is, the pneumatic world—and
who has achieved the identification of himself with the universal Spirit, Àtniâ, he
alone can be called yog/, that is to say united with the universal Spirit.
The Yogi, whose intellect
is perfect, contemplates all things as abiding in himself and thus, through the
eye of Knowledge, he perceives that everything is Spirit.
Let us note in passing
that the hylic world is likened to the waking state, the psychic world to the
dream state, and the pneumatic world to deep sleep. In this connection, we
should recall that the unmanifested is superior to the manifested, since it is
its principle. According to the gnostic doctrine there is nothing beyond the
pneumatic Universe but the Pleroma, which can be viewed as constituted by the
totality of attributes of the Divinity. This is not a fourth world, but is the
universal Spirit itself, the Supreme Principle of the three worlds, neither
manifested nor unmanifested, indefinable, inconceivable, and incomprehensible.
The yogi or
pneumatic, for they are fundamentally the same thing, perceives himself no
longer as a gross or subtle form, but as a
formless being. Hence he
identifies himself with the universal Spirit, a state which Shankarâchârya describes
as follows:
He is Brahma beyond whose
possession there is nothing to be possessed; beyond whose happiness once
enjoyed there is no happiness which could be desired; and beyond whose
knowledge once obtained there is no knowledge that could be obtained.
He is Brahma who having
once seen, no other object is contemplated; with whom once identified, no
birth is experienced; whom once perceived, there is nothing more to be
perceived.
He is Brahma who is spread
everywhere, all-pervading: in midspace, in what is above and what is below;
the true, the living, the happy, non-dual, indivisible, eternal and one.
He is Brahma without size,
unextended, uncreated, incorruptible, figureless, without qualities or
character.
He is Brahma by whom all
things are illuminated, whose light makes the Sun and all luminous bodies
shine, but who is not made manifest by their light.
He himself permeates his
own eternal essence and he contemplates the whole World appearing as being
Brahma.
Brahma does not resemble
the World, and apart from Brahma there is nothing; whatever seems to exist
apart from him is an illusion.
Of all that is seen, of
all that is heard, nothing exists other than Brahma; and through knowledge of
the principle, Brahma is contemplated as the real Being, living, happy,
non-dual.
The eye of Knowledge
contemplates the true, living, happy, allpervading Being; but the eye of
ignorance does not discover It, does not catch sight of It, just as a blind man
does not see the light.
When the Sun of spiritual
Knowledge arises in the sky of the heart. It casts away darkness, pervades
everything, embraces everything and illuminates everything.
Let us point out that the
Brahma here in question is the superior Brahma. It should be carefully
distinguished from the inferior Brahimi, for the latter is none other
than the Demiurge, regarded as a reflection of the Being. For the Yogi there is
only the superior Brahma, who contains all things and apart from whom there is
nothing; for him, the
Demiurge and his work of division no longer exist.
The one who has
accomplished the pilgrimage of his own spirit, a pilgrimage in which there is
nothing connected to the situation, the place, or the time, which is
everywhere, in which neither heat nor cold are experienced, which bestows
eternal happiness and freedom from all sorrow, that one is actionless; he knows
everything and obtains eternal Beatitude.
IV
After having characterized
the three worlds and the corresponding states of the being, and having
indicated as far as possible what being is liberated from the demiurgic
domination, we must once again return to the question of the distinction
between good and evil, in order to draw a few consequences from the preceding
exposition.
First of all, one might be
tempted to say that if the distinction between good and evil is sheer illusion,
if it does not exist in reality, the same should hold true for morality, for
moral standards are obviously based on this distinction, since they essentially
imply it. But this would be going too far; morality does exist, but only to the
same extent as the distinction between good and evil, that is, for anything
that belongs to the sphere of the Demiurge; from the universal point of view,
it no longer has any raison d’etre. Morality, in fact, can apply only to
action; now action implies change, which is only possible in the formal or
manifested order. The formless world is immutable, superior to change, and
therefore also to action; and this is why the being no longer belonging to the
Empire of the Demiurge is actionless.
All this shows that one
should take great care never to confound the various planes of the universe,
for what is said about one could be untrue for another. So, morality
necessarily exists on the social plane, which is essentially the field of
action, but it can no longer be in question when the metaphysical or universal
plane is considered, since thenceforth there is no more action.
Having established this
point, we should mention that the being that is superior to action nevertheless
possesses the fullness of activity, but it is a potential activity, hence an
activity that does not act. This being is not motionless, as might be wrongly
said, but immutable, that is to say superior to change; indeed, it is
identified with Being which is ever identical to itself, according to the
biblical formula ‘Being is Being'. This must be compared with the Taoist doctrine,
according to which the Activity of Heaven is non-acting. The sage, in whom the
Activity of Heaven is reflected, observes nonaction; nevertheless, the sage,
whom we designated as the pneumatic or the yogi, can give the
appearance of action, just as the moon appears to move when clouds pass over
it; but the wind that blows away the clouds has no influence on the moon.
Similarly, the agitation of the demiurgic world has no effect on the pneumatic;
in this connection, we can again quote what Shankarâchârya says:
The
Yogi, having crossed the sea of passions, is united with Tranquility and
rejoices in the Spirit.
Having
renounced these pleasures that are born of external and perishable objects, and
enjoying spiritual delights, he is calm and serene like the lamp placed inside
a jar, and rejoices in his own essence.
During
his residence in the body, he is not affected by its properties, just as the
firmament is not affected by what is floating within its bosom; knowing all, he
remains unaffected by contingencies.
By this we can understand
the real meaning of the word Nirvana, to which so many wrong
interpretations have been given. This word literally signifies extinction of
the breath or of agitation, therefore the state of a being no longer subject to
any agitation, ever free from form. At least in the West, it is a very
widespread error to believe that when there is no more form, there is nothing,
whereas in reality it is form that is nothing and the formless that is
everything. Thus, far from being annihilation, as certain philosophers have contended,
Nirvana is
on the contrary the plenitude of Being.
From all that has been said till now, one could draw the
conclusion that one should not act; but this would again be inaccurate, if
not in principle, at least
in the application that one would like to draw from it. In fact, action is the
condition of individual beings belonging to the Empire of the Demiurge. The
pneumatic or the sage is really actionless, but as long as he resides in a body
he gives the appearance of action. Externally, he is in all respects like other
men, but he knows this is only an illusory appearance, and this is enough to
set him truly free from action, since it is through knowledge that Deliverance
is obtained. By the very fact that he is free from action, he is no longer subject
to suffering, for suffering is merely the result of effort, hence of action,
and it is this that constitutes what we call imperfection, although there is
nothing imperfect in reality.
Obviously action cannot exist for the
one who contemplates within himself all things as existing within the universal
Spirit, without any distinction of individual objects, as is expressed in these
words from the Vedas: ‘Objects differ merely in designation, accident and name
just as earthly utensils receive various names, although they are only
different forms of earth.’ The earth, principle of all these forms, is itself
formless, but contains them all potentially; such also is the universal
Spirit.
Action implies change, namely the
unceasing destruction of forms which disappear in order to be replaced by
others. These are the modifications that we call birth and death, the multiple
changes of state which any being that has not yet attained liberation or the
final transformation (transformation taken here in its etymological sense, that
of passing beyond form) must traverse. Attachment to individual things, or to
essentially transient and perishable forms, is characteristic of ignorance.
Forms are nothing for the being liberated from form, and this is why it is not
affected by the properties of the latter, even during its residence in the
body.
Thus he moves about free
as the wind, for his movements are not impeded by the passions.
When forms are destroyed,
the Yogi and all beings enter the allpervading essence.
He is devoid of qualities
and actionless; imperishable and without volition; happy, immutable, faceless;
eternally free and pure.
He
is like ether which is spread everywhere and pervades simultaneously both the
inside and the outside of things; he is incorruptible, imperishable; he is the
same in all things, pure, undisturbed, formless, immutable.
He
is the great Brahma who is eternal, pure, free, one, unceasingly happy,
non-dual, existing, perceiving and endless.
Such is the state attained
by a being through spiritual knowledge; thus is it forever free from all the
conditions of individual existence, and thus liberated from the Empire of the
Demiurge.
What we
said earlier makes it possible to understand the nature of the error that tends
to give rise to polytheism: this latter, which in short is but the most extreme
case of‘association’,[2]
consists of admitting a plurality of totally independent principles, whereas in
reality these are and can be only more or less secondary aspects of the supreme
Principle. It is obvious that this can only be the result of a failure to
understand precisely those traditional truths that refer to the divine aspects
or attributes. Such a lack of understanding is always possible among isolated
individuals, whatever their number, but its generalization, which corresponds
to the state of extreme degeneration of a traditional form about to disappear,
has no doubt been far more uncommon in fact than is usually believed. In any
case, no tradition whatsoever could ever be polytheist in itself; it is a
reversal of all normal order to suppose, as do the ‘evolutionist’ views of
most moderns, a polytheism at the origin rather than to see therein only the
simple deviation that it is in reality. All genuine tradition is essentially
monotheistic; more specifically, it affirms above all the oneness of the
supreme Principle,[3]
from which
everything is derived and
on which it entirely depends, and it is this affirmation that, especially in
the guise in which it is clothed in the traditions having a religious form,
constitutes monotheism in the strict sense of the word; but, having given this
explanation in order to avoid any possible confusion of points of view, we can
ultimately extend the meaning of the term monotheism so as to apply it to every
affirmation of principial unity. On the other hand, when we say that monotheism
is therefore necessarily at the origin, it goes without saying that this is in
no way related to the hypothesis of a so-called ‘primitive simplicity’, which
probably never existed.[4] Furthermore,
to avoid any misunderstanding in this respect, it is enough to note that
monotheism can include all the possible developments connected with the
multiplicity of divine attributes, and also that angelology, which is closely
related to the consideration of these attributes as we have already explained,
plays an important role in the traditional forms where monotheism is affirmed
most explicitly and rigorously. Thus no incompatibility exists here, and even
the invocation of the angels is perfectly legitimate and normal from the
strictest monotheistic point of view, provided they are considered solely as
'celestial intermediaries’, that is to say, finally, as representing or
expressing certain divine aspects within the order of supra-formal
manifestation, according to what we have already explained.
In this connection we
should also mention certain misuses of the so-called historical’ point of view
dear to many of our contemporaries, and particularly as regards the theory
of‘borrowings’ which we have already mentioned on various other occasions.
Indeed, to give an example, we have quite often seen authors claim that the
Hebrews did not know anything about angelology before the captivity in Babylon
and that they simply borrowed it from the Chaldeans, while others maintain that
all angelology, wherever encountered, invariably proceeds from Mazdaism. It is
clear enough that similar assertions implicitly suppose that angelology belongs
to the sphere
of mere ‘ideas’ in the
modern and psychological sense of this word, or of baseless concepts, whereas
for us—as for all those who share the traditional point of view—on the contrary
it concerns knowledge of a certain order of reality. It is hard to imagine why
such knowledge should have been ‘borrowed’ by one doctrine from another,
whereas it is very easy to understand that it is inherent to one as well as the
other, since both are expressions of one and the same truth. The same knowledge
can and must be found everywhere; and when we speak here of equivalent
knowledge, we mean knowledge that is basically the same, but presented and
expressed in different ways in order to adapt to the special constitution of
this or that traditional form.[5] In
this sense, it could be said that angelology or its equivalent—whatever its
particular designation—exists in all the traditions; it is hardly necessary to
recall for instance that in the Hindu tradition, the Devas are the exact
equivalent of the angels of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic traditions. In
all cases, what is in question can be defined as the part of a traditional
doctrine that refers to supra-formal or supra-individual states of
manifestation, either purely theoretically or in view of an actual realization
of these states? It is obvious that in itself this is something that does not
have the slightest connection with any kind of polytheism, even if, as we have
said, polytheism can only be the result of a lack of understanding of such
matters, but when those who believe in the existence of polytheistic
traditions speak of‘borrowings’ such as those mentioned above, they seem to
want to suggest thereby that angelology represents nothing but a ‘contamination’
of monotheism by polytheism! This would amount to saying that because idolatry
can arise from the misunderstanding of certain symbols, symbolism itself is
only a derivation of idolatry; the above case would be completely similar, and
we think the comparison is more than enough to point out how absurd such a view
is.
To conclude these remarks,
which are meant to complete our preceding study, let us quote this passage
from Jacob Boehme, who, with his characteristic terminology and somewhat
obscure form, seems to us to express correctly the relationship of the angels
to the divine aspects:
The
creation of the angels has a beginning, but the forces from which they were
created never knew a beginning, but were present at the birth of the eternal
beginning.... They are born of the revealed Word, out of the eternal, dark,
fiery, and luminous nature, from desire for divine revelation, and have been
turned into ‘creatured’ images [that is, fragmented into isolated creatures].[6]
And Boehme says elsewhere:
'Each angelic prince is a property come out of the voice of God, and he bears
God’s great name.'[7] A.
K. Coomaraswamy, quoting this last sentence and comparing it with various texts
about 'Gods’ in the Greek as well as the Hindu tradition, adds these words, which
fully accord with what we have written above:
We
hardly need say that such a multiplicity of Gods is not polytheism, for all
are the angelic subjects of the Supreme Deity from whom they originate and in
whom, as is so often recalled, they again become one.[8]
Intellect
It has
been pointed out that, while it is often affirmed that the spirit is not other
than Atmii, there are nevertheless instances in which this same spirit
seems to be identified only with Buddlii-, is there not something contradictory
here? It would not suffice to see in this a simple question of terminology, for
if such were the case one could just as well go further and accept indiscriminately
the many more or less vague and incorrect meanings commonly given to the word
‘spirit’, instead of carefully avoiding them, as we have always tried to do;
and the only too evident inadequacy of Western languages regarding the
expression of ideas of a metaphysical order is, to say the least, certainly no
reason for not taking all the precautions necessary to avoid confusion. What
justifies these two uses of the same word, let us state it at (he outset, is
the correspondence that exists between different ‘levels’ of reality, and that
makes possible the transposition of certain terms from one of these levels to
another.
The case in question is in
short comparable to that of the word ‘essence’, which can also be applied in
several different ways. Insofar as it is correlative to ‘substance’, it
designates, from the point of view of universal manifestation, Purusha
envisaged in relation to Prakriti-, but it can be transposed beyond this
duality,[9] and
such is necessarily the case when one speaks of the ‘Divine Essence’, even if,
as usually happens in the
West, those who use this expression do not go beyond pure Being in their conception
of the Divinity. Similarly, one can speak of the essence of a being as
complementary to its substance, but one can also designate as essence that
which constitutes the ultimate, immutable, and unconditioned reality of that
being; and the reason for this is that the first is after all nothing other
than the expression of the second in regard to manifestation. Now, if one says
that the spirit of a being is the same as its essence, this can also be
understood in both of these two senses, and from the point of view of absolute
reality, spirit or essence obviously is not and cannot be anything other than Atmâ. Only,
it must be noted that Atmâ, comprising all reality within itself principially, for
that very reason cannot enter into correlation with anything whatsoever. Thus,
as long as it is a question of the constitutive principles of a being in its
conditioned states, what is considered spirit (as for example in the
ternary'spirit, soul, and body') can no longer be the unconditioned Atmâ, but
only that which so to speak most directly represents it in manifestation. We
would add that this is no longer even the essence correlative to substance, for
although it is true that (his latter must be considered in relation to
manifestation, it is nevertheless not within manifestation itself; therefore,
properly speaking it will only be the first and highest of all manifested
principles, that is, Buddhi.
From the point of view of a state of
manifestation such as the individual human state, it is therefore necessary to
introduce what could be called a question of‘perspective’; thus, when we speak
of the universal, distinguishing it from the individual, we must thereby
understand not only the unmanifested, but also that which in manifestation
itself is non-individual, that is, supra-formal manifestation, to which Buddhi
essentially belongs. Similarly, with regard to the individuality as such,
including as it does the entirety of the psychic and corporeal elements, we
can only designate as spiritual the principles that are transcendent in
relation to this individuality, which again is precisely the case with Buddhi,
or the intellect. This is why we can say, as we often have, that for us pure
intellectuality and spirituality are fundamentally synonymous; and furthermore
the intellect itself can also be transposed as in the cases above, since it is
generally considered quite
acceptable to speak of the ‘Divine Intellect’. In this connection, we will
again note that although the gunas are inherent in Prakriti, only
sattva can be considered as a spiritual tendency (or‘spiritualizing’
tendency, if one prefers) because it is the tendency that orients the being
toward the higher states. This, in short, is a consequence of the same
‘perspective’ that presents the supra-individual stales as intermediary degrees
between the human state and the unconditioned state, although between the
latter and any conditioned state whatsoever, even the most elevated of all,
there is really no common measure.
What must be emphasized most particularly
is the essentially supra-individual nature of the pure intellect; moreover,
only that which belongs to this order can truly be called ‘transcendent’ as
this term normally can be applied only to what lies beyond the individual
domain. The intellect is thus never individualized; this again corresponds to
what, from the more particular point of view of the corporeal world, is
expressed when it is said that whatever the appearances may be, the spirit is
never really ‘incarnated’, which moreover is equally true of all the legitimate
senses of the word ‘spirit’.[10] It
follows that the distinction existing between the spirit and elements of the
individual order is much more profound than all those distinctions which can be
established among these elements themselves, and notably between the psychic
and corporeal elements, that is, between those which belong respectively to
subtle and gross manifestation, both of which are after all only modalities of
formal manifestation.[11]
But this is still not all: not only
does Buddhi constitute the link between all the states of manifestation
insofar as it is the first production of Prakriti, but from another
perspective and considered
from the principial point
of view, it appears as the luminous ray emanating directly from the spiritual
Sun, which is Atmâ itself.
It can therefore be said that Buddhi is also the first manifestation of Attna,[12]
even though it must be clearly understood that Atmà itself
always remains unmanifest, not being affected or modified by any contingency.[13]
Now, light is essentially one, and is not of a different nature in the sun and
in the sun’s rays, which latter, from the point of view of the sun itself, are
distinguishable from the former only in an illusory mode (although this
distinction is nonetheless real for the eye which perceives these rays, and
which here represents the being situated within manifestation).*' By reason of
this essential ‘connaturality’, Buddhi is ultimately none other than the
very expression of Atma in the manifested order. This luminous ray which
links all the stales together is also represented symbolically as the ‘breath’
by which they subsist—which, let us note, is in strict conformity with the
etymological sense of the words designating spirit, whether this be the Latin spiritus
or the Greek yneuma\ and as we have already explained on other
occasions, it is properly the sùtrâtmâ, which amounts to saying that in
reality it is Atmâ itself, or, more precisely, the appearance which Atmii
takes Iront the
moment that, instead of considering only the supreme Principle (which would
then be represented as the sun containing in itself all the rays in an
‘indistinguished’ state), we also consider the manifested states. Moreover,
this appearance, which seems to give to the ray an existence distinct from its
source, is such only from the point of view of the beings within these
manifested states, for it is evident that the ‘exteriority’ of the manifested
states in relation to the Principle can only be altogether illusory.
The immediate conclusion to be drawn
from these considerations is that as long as the being is not only in the
human state, but
in any manifested state
whatsoever, either individual or supra-indi- vidual, there can be for it no
effective difference between the spirit and the intellect, nor, consequently,
between spirituality and true intellectuality. In other words, in order to
arrive at the supreme and final goal, there is no other path for this being but
the very ray by which it is linked to the spiritual Sun; whatever the apparent
diversity of paths al the point of departure, sooner or later they must all be
united in this one ‘axial’ path; and when the being has followed this path to
the end, it‘will enter into its own Self’, which it has been outside of only
illusorily, because this ‘Self’—called analogically spirit, essence, or
whatever name one wishes—is identical to absolute reality in which everything
is contained, that is, supreme and unconditioned Atmâ.
With
regard to the identification of spirit with intellect, we noted in the
preceding chapter that no one hesitates to speak of the'Divine Intellect’,
which obviously implies a transposition of this term beyond the domain of
manifestation; but this point deserves further attention, for ultimately it is
here that the very basis for this identification is to be found. Let us
immediately note that here again one can place oneself at different levels,
according to whether one stops at the consideration of Being alone, or whether
one goes beyond Being; but in any case it is obvious that when theologians
consider the Divine Intellect or the Word as the ‘place of possibles’, they
have in view only possibilities of manifestation, which as such are included in
Being. The transposition that allows the shift from Being to the Supreme
Principle no longer pertains to the domain of theology, but solely to that of
pure metaphysics.
One might wonder whether
this conception of the Divine Intellect is identical to Plato’s ‘intelligible
world’, or, in other words, whether the‘ideas' understood in the Platonic sense
are the same as those contained eternally in the Word. In both cases, it is
clearly a question of the ‘archetypes’ of manifested beings; however, at least
at first glance, the ‘intelligible world’ might seem to correspond to the
supra-formal order of manifestation rather than to that of pure Being, or,
according to Hindu terminology, it would be identical to Buddhi
envisaged in the Universal sense rather than to Atmâ, even
were Attnâ taken
in a sense restricted to the consideration of Being alone. Both points of view
are of course perfectly legitimate,[14]
but, if
such is the case, then the
Platonic‘ideas’ cannot properly be called ‘eternal’, for this word cannot be
applied to anything that belongs to manifestation, even manifestation at its
highest degree anil closest to the Principle, whereas the ‘ideas’ contained in
the Word are necessarily eternal, as is the Word, since whatever is of the
principial order is absolutely permanent and immutable and admits of no kind of
succession.[15]
Notwithstanding this, it appears to us quite probable that the passage from one
of these points of view to the other must have remained possible for Plato
himself, as in reality it still remains. We will not dwell further on this,
however, preferring to leave to others the task of examining this question more
closely, its interest being after all more historical than doctrinal.
What is rather strange is that some
people seem to consider the eternal ideas as mere ‘virtualities’ in relation to
the manifested beings of which they are the principial ‘archetypes’. Here is a
delusion that is doubtless due to the common distinction between the
‘possible’ and the ‘real’, a distinction which, as we explained elsewhere,
could not have the least value from the metaphysical point of view.[16]
This delusion is all the more grave in that it leads to a real contradiction,
and it is difficult to understand how it can go unnoticed. In fact, there can
be nothing virtual within the Principle but, 011 the contrary, only the
permanent actuality of all things in an ‘eternal present’, and it is this very
actuality that constitutes the sole foundation of all existence. Still, there
are those who push the misunderstanding so far that they seem to regard
eternal ideas merely as kinds of images (which, let us note in passing, implies
a further contradiction in wanting to introduce something of a formal nature
even into the Principle), images that have no more real a connection
each being, basically corresponds,
despite the different mode of expression, to the Catholic concept of the
‘guardian angel'.
with the beings themselves
than would their reflected image in a mirror. This is strictly speaking a
complete reversal of the relationship of the Principle with manifestation,
which is too obvious to require further explanation. The truth is indeed very
far from all such erroneous conceptions: the idea in question here is the very
principle of the being; it is that which gives it all its reality and without
which it would be only nothingness pure and simple. To maintain the contrary
amounts to severing all links between the manifested being and the Principle,
and if at the same time a real existence is attributed to the being, this
existence cannot but be independent of the Principle, whether or not one wishes
it, so that, as we said on another occasion,[17]
one inevitably ends up in the error of association’. From the moment one
recognizes that the existence of manifested beings in all their positive
reality can only be a ‘participation’ in principial Being, there cannot be the
slightest doubt about this matter. If one were to admit this‘participation’
simultaneously with the so-called ‘virtuality’ of the eternal ideas, one would
face yet another contradiction. What is in fact virtual is not our reality
within the Principle, but only the awareness we may have of it as manifested
beings, which is obviously something quite different; and it is only through
metaphysical realization that this awareness of our true being, which is
beyond and above all ‘becoming’, can become effective, that is, actualized into
the awareness, not of something that might pass as it were from ‘potency’ to
‘act’, but rather an awareness of that which we really are principially and
eternally, and this in the most absolutely real sense possible.
Now, to relate what we
have just said about eternal ideas to the manifested intellect, one must
naturally turn once again to the doctrine of the sûtrâtmâ, regardless
of the form under which it is expressed, for the various symbolisms
traditionally used in this respect are basically perfectly equivalent. Thus, to
return to the representation we used earlier, it can be said that the Divine
Intellect is the spiritual Sun, while the manifested intellect is one of its
rays;[18]
and there can be no more
discontinuity between the Principle and manifestation than there is between the
sun and its rays.[19] It
is thus by the intellect that every being in all its states of manifestation is
directly attached to the Principle, and this is because the Principle, insofar
as it eternally contains the ‘truth’ of all beings, is itself none other than
the Divine Intellect.[20]
speaks), but it will seemingly be
multiplied indefinitely in relation to particular beings (as the sushumnil
ray by which each being, in whatever state it is situated, is permanently
linked to the spiritual Sun).
ular beings (as the sushtmtna
ray by which each being, in whatever state it is situated, is permanently
linked to the spiritual Sun).
& Solitude
In
every tribe without exception among the North American Indians, there exists,
in addition to various kinds of collective rites, the practice of a solitary
and silent worship, which is regarded as what is most profound and of the
highest order.[21] To
some degree, collective rites always have, in fact, something relatively
external about them; we say‘to some degree because in this as in every other
tradition it is of course necessary to differentiate between rites that may be
called exoteric, that is, those in which any and all may participate, and the
initiatic rites. Moreover, it is quite clear that, far from excluding these
rites or opposing them in any way, the worship here in question is merely
superimposed on them as something of another order as it were; and there is
even every reason to think that to be truly effective and to produce actual
results, initiation is implied as a necessary prerequisite.[22]
This worship is sometimes spoken of
as ‘prayer’, but this is obviously inaccurate, for there is no petition of any
kind; besides, prayers such as are generally expressed in ritual chants can
only be addressed to the various divine manifestations,[23]
and we will see that in reality what is here under consideration is something
completely different. It would certainly be much more appropriate to speak of
‘incantation’, in the sense in which we have defined it elsewhere,[24]
and it could also be spoken of as an ‘invocation’, in a sense exactly
comparable to that of dhikr in the Islamic tradition, as long as it is
made clear that it is essentially a silent and wholly interior ‘invocation’.[25]
Here is what Charles Eastman[26]
writes in this connection: ‘The worship of the Great Mystery was silent,
solitary, without inner complication; it was silent because all speech is
necessarily weak and imperfect, also the souls of our ancestors reached God
through silent worship. It was solitary because they thought that God is closer
to us in solitude, and there was no priest to serve as mediator between man and
the Creator.’" In truth, there can be no intermediaries in such a case,
since this worship lends to establish a direct communication with the Supreme
Principle, which is designated here as the ‘Great Mystery'.
Not only is it solely in and through
silence that this communication can be obtained-for the‘Great Mystery’ is
beyond any form or expression—but silence itself‘is the Great Mystery’. How can
this
assertion be properly understood? First of
all, one may recall in this connection that the true‘mystery’ is essentially
and exclusively the inexpressible, which can obviously be represented only by
silence.[27]
Furthermore, since the ‘Great Mystery’ is the unmanifested, silence
itself, which is precisely a state of non-manifestation, is thus like a
participation in or conformity to the nature of the Supreme Principle.
Moreover, silence, correlated to the Principle, is so to speak the unuttered
Word; this is why ‘sacred silence is the voice of the Great Spirit’, insofar as
the latter is identified with the Principle itself.[28]
This voice, which corresponds to the principial modality of sound which
the Hindu tradition calls para or un manifested,[29] is
the response to the call of a being at worship: call and response, alike
silent, are an aspiration and an illumination (hat are both purely interior.
For this to be true,
silence must in reality be something more than the mere absence of word or
speech, even if they are in a purely mental form. In fact, for the Indians,
silence is essentially ‘the perfect balance of the three parts of the being,’
that is, of what is known in Western terminology as spirit, soul, and body, for
the whole being, in all its constituent elements, has to participate in the worship
in order to obtain a fully valid result. The necessity for this condition of
equilibrium is easy to understand, for within manifestation itself equilibrium
is like the image or reflection of the principial indistinction of the
unmanifested, an indistinction also well represented by silence, so that there
is no cause to wonder at the assimilation that has thus been established
between silence and balance.[30]
As for solitude, let us
first of all point out that its association with silence is in a way normal and
even necessary, and that whoever
establishes perfect
silence within himself is thereby, even in the presence of other beings,
necessarily isolated from them. Moreover, silence and solitude are both implied
in the meaning of the Sanskrit term triatina, which, in the Hindu
tradition, is no doubt what applies most exactly to the state currently under
consideration.[31]
Multiplicity, being inherent to manifestation, and increasing as one
descends to its lower degrees, necessarily removes one from the unmanifested.
Also, the being that wishes to communicate with the Principle must first of all
establish unity within itself to the degree possible by harmonizing and
balancing all its elements; and at the same time it must isolate itself from
all external multiplicity. The unification thus realized, even if still only
relative in most cases, is nonetheless a certain conformity to the
‘non-duality’ of the Principle, in accordance with the present possibilities
of the being. In the highest sense, isolation has the meaning of the Sanskrit
term kaiva- }ya, which simultaneously expresses the notions of
perfection and of totality, and in its full significance even designates the
absolute and unconditioned state, that of the being that has reached final
Deliverance.
At a much lower degree than this, one
still belonging only to the preliminary phases of realization, one notes the
following: wherever dispersion necessarily exists, solitude, inasmuch as it
opposes multiplicity and coincides with a certain unity, is essentially
concentration; and indeed one is well aware of the importance accorded
concentration by all the traditional doctrines without exception, as means and
indispensable condition for any realization. It seems of little use to
emphasize this point further, but there is yet another consequence to which we
wish to draw attention in closing: the method in question, by opposing every
dispersion of the being’s powers, excludes the separate and more or less
disorderly development of one or another of its elements, particularly that of
the psychic elements cultivated for their own sake as it were, a development
that is always contrary to the harmony and equilibrium of the whole. According
to Paul Coze, for the Indians ‘it seems that in
order to develop orenda,[32]
the intermediary between the material and the spiritual, one must first of all
dominate matter and tend toward the divine? This amounts to saying that they
consider it legitimate to approach the psychic domain only ‘from above’, since
results of the psychic order are obtained only in a very secondary way and ‘by
way of addition’ so to speak, which is in fact the sole means of avoiding the
dangers; and let us add that this is assuredly as far removed from common
‘magic’ as can be, contrary to what has all too often been attributed to such
results by profane and superficial observers, no doubt because they themselves
do not have the least notion of what true spirituality can be.
The
saying ‘Know Thyself’ is frequently cited, but its exact meaning is very often
lost sight of. As for the prevailing confusion over this saying, two questions
may be posed: the first concerns its origin, and the second its real meaning
and raison d’être. Certain
readers would like to believe that these two questions are entirely distinct
and unrelated, but on reflection and after careful examination it becomes quite
clear that they are in fact very closely connected.
If we ask students of Greek
philosophy who is the man who first uttered these words of wisdom, most of them
will not hesitate to reply that it was Socrates, although some of them attempt
to link them to Plato and others to Pythagoras. From these contradictory views
and divergences of opinion we may rightfully conclude that none of these
philosophers is the author of this phrase and that one should not seek its
origin with them.
This opinion seems permissible to us,
as it will to the reader once he knows that two of these philosophers,
Pythagoras and Socrates, left no writings. As for Plato, whatever his
philosophical competence might be, we are even unable to distinguish his own
words from those of his master Socrates. Most of Socrates’ doctrine is known to
us only through Plato, who, as is well known, garnered some of the knowledge
displayed in his Dialogues from the leachings of Pythagoras. It is thus
extremely difficult to determine what comes from each of the three
philosophers: what is attributed to Plato is often attributed to Socrates as
well, and, among the theories brought forward, some predate both of them and
come from (he school of Pythagoras, or from Pythagoras himself.
In truth, the origin of
the saying in question goes back much further than the three philosophers here
mentioned; better yet, it is older than the history of philosophy, even passing
beyond the domain of philosophy. It is said that this saying was inscribed over
the door of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, it was adopted by Socrates, and
likewise by other philosophers, as one of the principles of their teaching,
despite the difference existing between these various teachings and the ends
pursued by their authors. It is probable moreover that Pythagoras had employed
this expression long before Socrates. By this saying these philosophers
intended to show that their teaching was not strictly personal, that it came
from an older starting-point, from a more elevated point of view rejoining the
very source of its original inspiration, which was spontaneous and divine. We note
that in this these philosophers differed greatly from modern philosophers, who
expend all their efforts in expressing things anew so as to present them as
the expression of their own thought, and to pose as the sole authors of their
opinions, as if truth could be the property of one man.
We shall now see why the
ancient philosophers wished to attach their teaching to this saying, or to a
similar one, and why it can be said that this maxim is of an order superior to
all philosophy. To reply to the second part of this question, then, let us say
that the answer is contained in the original and etymological meaning of the
word ‘philosophy’, which is said to have been used for the first time by
Pythagoras. The word ‘philosophy1 properly expresses the fact of loving
Sophia, or wisdom, the aspiration toward it or the disposition required
for acquiring it. This word has always been used to signify a preparation for
this acquisition of wisdom, and especially such studies as could help the philosophas, or
the man who felt some inclination toward wisdom, to become a sophos—that
is, a sage. So, just as the means cannot be taken as an end, the love of wisdom
cannot constitute wisdom itself. And since wisdom in itself is identical with
true inner knowledge, it can be said that philosophical knowledge is only a
superficial and outward knowledge. Hence it does not have an independent value
in itself or by itself; it constitutes only a first degree on the path of the
superior and veritable knowledge which is wisdom.
Those who have studied the
ancient philosophers know well that these latter had two kinds of teaching, one
exoteric and the other esoteric. What had been written down belonged only to
the first. As for the second, it is impossible for us to know its precise nature,
for on the one hand it was reserved for a few, and on the other hand it had a
secret character. There would have been no reason for these two characteristics
had there not existed something higher than mere philosophy. One may at least
surmise that this esoteric teaching had a close and direct connection with
wisdom, and that it did not only appeal to reason or to logic, as is the case
with philosophy, which for this reason has been called rational knowledge—the
philosophers of antiquity maintained that rational knowledge, that is,
philosophy, is not the highest degree of knowledge, is not wisdom.
Is it possible that wisdom
could be taught in the same way that exterior knowledge is taught, through
speech or through books? This is in fact impossible, as we shall shortly see.
But what we can already affirm now is that philosophical preparation was not
enough, even as preparation, for it concerns only the limited faculty of
reason, whereas wisdom concerns the reality of the whole being. Hence there
exists a preparation for wisdom which is higher than philosophy, which no
longer addresses itself to reason, but to the soul and to the spirit, and which
we may call inner preparation; and it appears to have been the characteristic
of the highest levels of the school of Pythagoras. Its influence extended
through the school of Plato right up to the Neoplatonism of the Alexandrian
school, where it clearly appears anew, as well as among the Neo-Pythagore- ans
of the same period.
If words were still made
use of in this inner preparation, they could now only be taken as symbols for
the purpose of focusing inner contemplation. Through this preparation, man was
led to certain states which enabled him to go beyond the rational knowledge
that he had attained earlier, and since all of this lay beyond the level of
reason, it was also beyond philosophy, for the name‘philosophy’ is in fact
always used to designate something pertaining to reason alone. It is
nonetheless surprising that the moderns should have come to consider philosophy,
thus defined, as if it were complete in itself, thus forgetting what is higher
and superior.
Esoteric teaching had been
known in the lands of the East before spreading to Greece, where it received
the name of‘mysteries’. The first philosophers, Pythagoras in particular, had
linked their teaching to it, considering it as no more than a new expression
of ancient ideas. There were several kinds of mysteries, of diverse origin.
Those which inspired Pythagoras and Plato were connected with the cult of
Apollo. The ‘mysteries’ always had a reserved and secret character—the word
‘mystery’ itself has the etymological meaning of‘total silence’—since they were
in connection with things that could not be expressed in words, but could only
be taught by a way of silence. But the moderns, knowing of no method other than
one implying the use of words, and which we may call the method of exoteric
teaching, for this reason falsely believed that these ‘mysteries’ conveyed no
teaching at all. We can affirm that this silent teaching made use of figures,
symbols, and other means the purpose of which was to lead man to certain
interior states that would allow him gradually to attain real knowledge or
wisdom. This was the essential and final purpose of all the ‘mysteries’ and of
similar things found elsewhere.
As for the ‘mysteries’
specially connected with the cult of Apollo and with Apollo himself, it must be
remembered that this latter was the god of the sun and of light—light in its
spiritual sense being the source whence all knowledge springs forth and all the
sciences and the arts derive. It is said that the rites of Apollo came from the
north, and this refers to a very ancient tradition also found in sacred books
like the Hindu Veda and the Persian Avesta. This northern origin
was affirmed even more specially for Delphi, which was known as a universal
spiritual center; and in its temple was a stone called omphalos, which
symbolized the center of the world.
It is thought that the
story of Pythagoras and even the name of Pythagoras have a certain link with
the rites of Apollo. The latter was called Pythios, and it is said that
Pylho was the original name of Delphi. The woman who received inspiration from
the gods in the temple was called Pythia;the name of Pythagoras therefore
signified ‘the guide of Pythia’, which was applied to Apollo himself. It is
also said that it was the Pythia who had declared Socrates to be the wisest of
men. From this it appears that Socrates had a link with the spiritual center of
Delphi, as did Pythagoras himself.
Let us add that although all the
sciences were attributed to Apollo, this was more particularly so for geometry
and medicine. In the Pythagorean school, geometry and all the branches of mathematics
were foremost in the preparation for higher knowledge. With regard to this
knowledge itself, these sciences were not then set aside, but on the contrary
remained in use as symbols of spiritual truth. Plato also considered geometry
an indispensable preparation for every other teaching and had these words
inscribed over the entrance of his school: ‘Let no one enter who is not a
geometrician.’ The meaning of these words can be understood when they are
linked to another of Plato’s expressions, ‘God always geometrizes’, if we add
that in speaking of a geometer God Plato was again alluding to Apollo. One
should thus not be astonished that the philosophers of antiquity made use of
the saying inscribed over the entrance to the temple of Delphi, for we now know
what links bound them to the rites and to the symbolism of Apollo.
From all of this we can easily
understand the real meaning of the saying under consideration, as well as the
error of the moderns on this subject. This error arises from the fact that they
have viewed the phrase as a simple saying of a philosopher, whose thought they
always assume to be comparable to their own. But in reality ancient thought
differed profoundly from modern thought. Thus many people impute a
psychological meaning to this phrase, but what they call psychology consists
only in the study of mental phenomena, which are no more than external
modifications—and not the essence—of the being.
Others, particularly among those who
attribute the phrase to Socrates, see in it a moral goal, the search for a law
applicable to practical life. All these external interpretations, though not
entirely false, do not justify the sacred character it had originally, and
which implies a much more profound meaning than the one they would thus like to
attribute to it. The saying signifies first and foremost that no exoteric
teaching is capable of providing true knowledge, which man must find only
within himself, for in fact no knowledge can be acquired except through a
personal comprehension. Without this comprehension, no teaching can lead to an
effective result, and the teaching that awakens no personal resonance in the
one who
receives it cannot give
any kind of knowledge. This is why Plato says that 'everything that a man
learns is already within him.’ All the experiences, all the external things
that surround him, are only an occasion to help him become aware of what is
within himself. This awakening he calls anamnesis, which
signifies‘recollection’.
If this is true for any kind of
knowledge, it is all the more so for a more exalted and profound knowledge,
and, when man advances toward this knowledge, all external and perceptible
means become increasingly insufficient, until they finally become useless.
Although they can assist to some degree in the approach to wisdom, they are
powerless in actually attaining it. In India it is commonly said that the true
guru or master is found within man himself and not in the external world,
although in the beginning an external aid can be useful to prepare man to find
within himself and by himself that which cannot be found elsewhere, and
especially what is above the level of rational knowledge. In order to attain
this, it is necessary to realize certain states which go ever deeper within the
being, toward the center symbolized by the heart, and whither man’s consciousness
must be transferred in order to make him capable of attaining real knowledge.
These states, which were realized in the ancient mysteries, are degrees on the
path of this transposition from the mind to the heart.
As we said, in the temple of Delphi
there was a stone called omphalos, which represented the center of the
human being as well as the center of the world, in accordance with (he
correspondence existing between the macrocosm and the microcosm—that is to say,
man— so that everything that is in the one is directly related to what is in
the other. Avicenna said: ‘You believe yourself to be nothingness, yet the
world abides within you.’ It is curious to note the widespread belief in
antiquity that the omphalos had fallen from the sky, and an accurate
idea of the sentiment of the Greeks regarding this stone can be had by saying
it was somewhat similar to the sentiment Muslims feel with regard to the sacred
black stone of (he Kaaba.
The similarity which exists between
the macrocosm and the microcosm is such that each is the image of the other,
and the correspondence of the constitutive elements shows that man must first
of all know himself so (hat he may then know al) things, for in truth,
he can find all things
within himself. It is for this reason that certain sciences, especially those
which were a part of ancient knowledge and are now almost unknown to our
contemporaries, possess a double meaning. In their outward appearance, these
sciences are related to the macrocosm, and can justly be considered from this
point of view. But at the same time they have also a deeper meaning, which is
related to man himself and to the inner path through which he can realize
knowledge within himself, a realization which is none other than the realization
of his own being. Aristotle has said: ‘the being is all that it knows,’ so much
so that, where there is real knowledge, and not its appearance or its shadow,
knowledge and being are one and the same thing.
The shadow, according to Plato, is
knowledge through the senses and even rational knowledge which, although
higher, has its source in the senses. As for real knowledge, it is above the
level of reason, and its realization, or the realization of the being itself,
is similar to the formation of the world, according to the correspondence which
we have mentioned above. That is why certain sciences can describe it under the
appearance of this formation; this double meaning was included in the ancient
mysteries, as it is also to be met with in all kinds of teachings having the
same goal among the peoples of the East. It seems that in the West, too, this
teaching existed throughout the Middle Ages, even though today it may have
completely disappeared to the point that most Westerners have no idea of its
nature or even of its existence.
From all that has been said, we see
that real knowledge is not based on the path of reason, but on the spirit and
the whole being, for it is none other than the realization of this being in all
its states, which is the culmination of knowledge and the attainment of supreme
wisdom. In reality, what belongs to the soul, and even to the spirit,
represents only degrees on the path toward the intimate essence that is the
true self; this self can be found only when the being has reached its own
center, all its powers being united and concentrated as in a single point in
which all things appear to it, since they are contained in this point as in
their first and unique principle; thus the being is able to know everything as
in itself and of itself, as the totality of existence in the oneness of its own
essence.
It is easy to see how far this is
from psychology in the modern sense of the word, and that it goes even further
than a truer and more profound knowledge of the soul, which can only be the
first step on this path. It is important to note that the meaning of the Arabic
word nafs should not be limited here to the soul, for this word is found
in the Arabic translation of the saying in question, while its Greek equivalent
psyche does not appear in the original. Nafs should therefore not
be taken in its usual sense, for it is certain that it has another much higher
significance, which makes it similar to the word essence, and which refers to
the Self or to the real being; as proof of this, we can cite what
has been said in a hàdith that is like a complement of the
Greek saying: ‘He who knows himself, knows his Lord.’
When man knows himself in his deepest
essence, that is, in the center of his being, then at the same time he knows
his Lord. And knowing his Lord, he at the same time knows all things, which
come from Him and return to Him. He knows all things in the supreme oneness of
the Divine Principle, outside of which, according to the words of Muhyi ’d-Din
Ibn al-‘Arabi,‘there is absolutely nothing which exists,’ for nothing can be
outside of the Infinite.
‘In the
beginning, before the origin of all things, was Unity,’ say the loftiest of
Western théogonies,
which strive to reach Being beyond its ternary manifestation,
not halting at the universal appearance of the Binary. But the théogonies of
the East and Far East say: ‘Before the beginning, before even the primordial
Unity, was the Zero,’ for they know that beyond Being there is Non-Being; that
beyond the manifest there is the non-manifest, which is its principle; and that
Non-Being is not nothingness, but on the contrary infinite Possibility,
identical to the universal All, which is at the same time absolute Perfection
and integral Truth.
According to the Kabbalah, the
Absolute, in order to manifest itself, concentrates itself in an infinitely
luminous point, leaving darkness around it. This light within the darkness,
this point within limitless metaphysical extension, this nothing that is all in
an all that is nothing, if one may so express it, is Being in the midst of Non-
Being, active Perfection within passive Perfection. This luminous point is
Unity, the affirmation of metaphysical Zero, here represented by unlimited extension;
it is the image of infinite, universal Possibility. In order to serve as the
center from which, like so many rays, the indefinite manifestations of Being
will emanate, Unity once affirmed is united to Zero, which contains it in
principle, that is, to the state of non-manifestation. Here the Decad already
appears in potentiality, and it will be the perfect number, the complete
development of the primordial Unity.
Total Possibility is at the same time
universal Passivity, for it contains all particular possibilities, certain of
which will be manifested, passing from potentiality to actuality under the
action of Unity- Being. Each manifestation is a radius of the circumference
that represents total manifestation; and this circumference, the points of
which are indefinite in number, is again Zero in relation to its center, which
is Unity. But the circle was not laid out in the Abyss of Non-Being, and it
only marks the limit of manifestation, of the domain of Being within the heart
of Non-Being; it is therefore Zero realized, and, through the totality of its
manifestation following the indefinite circumference, Unity perfects its
development into the Decad.
Moreover, with the affirmation of
Unity even before all manifestation, if this Unity were opposed to Zero, which
contains it in principle, the Binary would then appear within the Absolute
itself, in the primary differentiation that leads to the distinction between
Non- Being and Being. But in our study on the Demiurge we saw what this
distinction is, and showed that Being, or active Perfection — Khien—is
not really distinct from Non-Being, or passive Perfection— Khoucn—that
this distinction, which is the point of departure for all manifestation,
exists only insofar as we create it ourselves, since we can only conceive of
Non-Being through Being, the non-manifest through the manifest; thus the
differentiation between the Absolute within Being and the Absolute within Non-
Being only expresses the manner in which we represent things to ourselves, and
nothing more.
Viewing things in this light, one
might be tempted to speak of the Absolute as the common principle of Being and
Non-Being, of the manifest and the non-manifest, although in reality it should
be identified with Non-Being, since the latter is the principle of Being, which
in turn is itself the first principle of all manifestation. Thus if one should
wish to consider the Binary here, one would immediately find oneself in the
presence of the Ternary; but in order for such to be a true Ternary, that is,
already a manifestation, the Absolute would have to be primordial Unity, and
we have seen that Unity represents only Being, the affirmation of the Absolute.
It is this
Unity-Being that will be
manifested in the indefinite multiplicity of numbers, the entirety of which it
contains in potentiality, and which emanate from it like sub-multiples of
itself; and all of these numbers are included within the Decad, realized
through the course of the cycle of the total manifestation of Being. It is
therefore the production of this Decad, starting from the primordial Unity,
that we must now consider.
In a previous study, we
saw that all the numbers can be considered to emanate from Unity in pairs;
these pairs of inverse or complementary numbers, which may be regarded as
symbolizing the syzygies of the Eons of the Pleroma, exist within Unity in the
undifferentiated or non-manifest state:
1 = V2 x 2 = V3 x 3 = V4 x 4 = V5 x 5 =... = o x co
None of these groups, '/„
x n, is distinct from Unity, or from the other groups within Unity; they
become so only when their constituent elements are considered separately; it
is then that Duality is born, distinguishing one principle from the other, not
in opposition, as is ordinarily—and wrongly—said, but as complementary
principles; active and passive, positive and negative, masculine and feminine.
But the two principles coexist within Unity, and their indivisible duality
itself constitutes a secondary unity, a reflection of primordial Unity; thus,
together with the Unity that contains them, the two complementary elements
compose the Ternary, which is the first manifestation of Unity, for two, being
the issue of one, cannot exist without three thereby existing as well:
2 + 2 = 3
And just as we can only
conceive of Non-Being through Being, we can only conceive of Unity-Being
through its ternary manifestation, the necessary and immediate consequence of
the differentiation or polarization that our intellect creates within Unity.
Whatever the aspect according to which this ternary manifestation is viewed, it
is always an indissoluble Trinity, that is, a Tri-Unity, since the three terms
are not really distinct, but are only the same Unity conceived as containing
within itself the two poles through which it will produce all of manifestation.
1 his polarization is again found immediately within the
Ternary itself, for if one considers its three terms to have an independent
existence, one will thereby obtain the Senary number, implying a new ternary,
which is the reflection of the first.
•+2+3=6
This second ternary has no
real existence by itself; it is to the first what the Demiurge is to the
emanative Logos, a tenebrous and inverted image, and in what follows we shall
indeed see that the Senary is the number of Creation. For the moment let us
content ourselves with saying that it is we who realize this number, as we
distinguish the three terms of Tri-Unity, instead of envisaging prin- cipial
Unity synthetically, independent of all distinction, that is, of all
manifestation.
If the ternary is regarded
as a manifestation of Unity, it will at the same time be necessary to consider
Unity insofar as it is not manifested, and then Unity, joined to the Ternary,
will produce the Quaternary, which can be represented here by the three vertices
of a triangle, together with its center. One could also say that the Ternary,
symbolized by a triangle of which the three vertices correspond to the first
three numbers, necessarily presupposes the Quaternary, the first term of which,
being unexpressed, would then be Zero, which indeed cannot be represented. Thus
one could consider the first term within the Quaternary to be either Zero or
primordial Unity. In the first instance, the second term will be Unity insofar
as it is manifested, and the two others its double manifestation; in the
second instance, on the contrary, these last two, the two complementary
elements mentioned above, will logically have precedence over the fourth term
(which is nothing other than their union), realizing between them an
equilibrium in which principial Unity is reflected. Finally, if one considers
the Ternary according to its lowest aspect, taking it to be formed from the two
complementary elements and the equilibrating term, then the latter, as the
union of the other two, will participate in both, such that one will be able to
regard it as double; here again, the lernary will immediately imply a
Quaternary, which is its development.
Whatever manner in which one
considers the Quaternary, one can say that it contains all numbers, for if its
four terms are regarded as distinct, one will see that it contains the Decad:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10
This is why all the
traditions say that one produced two, two produced three, three produced all
numbers. The expansion of Unity in the Quaternary immediately realizes its
total manifestation, which is the Decad.
The Quaternary is represented
geometrically by the square, if the static state is considered, and by the
cross, if the dynamic state is considered. When the cross turns about its center,
it engenders the circle, which, together with its center, represents the Decad.
This is what is called circling the square, and it is the geometric representation
of the arithmetical fact set forth above; conversely, the Hermetic problem of
squaring the circle will be represented by the division of the circle into four
equal parts by means of two rectilinear diameters, and it will be expressed
numerically by the preceding equation written in the opposite direction:
10
= 1 + 2 + 3 + 4
The Decad as formed by the
set of the first four numbers, is what Pythagoras called the Tetraktys. In its
entirety the symbol representing it had a ternary form, each of its exterior
sides embracing four elements, and composed of ten elements in all. The figure
is given, in a note, in the translation of the chapter on Pythagoras in the Philosophumena.
If the Ternary is the number that
represents the first manifestation of principial Unity, then the Quaternity
stands for its total expansion. This latter is symbolized by a cross of which
the four branches are formed by two indefinite straight lines extending fully
in each direction, and oriented along the four cardinal points oi the
indefinite, pleromatic circumference of Being, points the Kabbalah represents
by the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, mil'. The Quaternity is the number
of the manifested Word, of Adam Kad- mon, and one can say it is essentially the
number of Emanation, for Emanation is the manifestation of the Word. From it,
the other
degrees of manifestation
of Being are derived in logical succession, by the development of the numbers
it contains within itself, the totality of which constitutes the Decad.
If the quaternary
expansion of Unity is considered to be distinct from Unity itself, when it is
added to Unity it produces the number five, and this again is symbolized by the
cross with its four branches and center, Moreover, it will be the same for all
new numbers whenever they are regarded as distinct from Unity, even if they
cannot really be so, since they are only manifestations thereof; each of these
numbers when added to primordial Unity, gives birth to the following number.
Having pointed out this successive mode of production for numbers once and for
all, we shall not return to it in what follows.
If the center of the cross
is taken to be the starting-point for the four branches, it will represent the
primordial Unity; if on the contrary it is only considered as their point of
intersection, it will merely represent equilibrium, a reflection of Unity. This
second point of view is marked Kabbalistically by the letter ü ['shin’l,
which, placed at the center of the Tetragrammaton, mT—the four letters of which
represent the four branches of the cross—forms the pentagrammatic name m&T,[33]
the significance of which we shall not stress here, as we only wish to point it
out in passing. The five letters of the Pentagram are placed at the five points
of the Blazing Star, a figure of the Quinary, which symbolizes more
particularly the Microcosm, or individual man. The reason for this is as
follows: if the Quaternary is taken to be Emanation, or the total manifestation
of the Word, then each emanated being, a sub-niultiple of this Emanation, will
be characterized by the number four; it will be an individual being to the
measure in which it is distinguished from Unity, or from the emanating center,
and we have just seen that this distinction between the Quaternary and Unity is
precisely the genesis of the Quinary.
In our study on the
Demiurge we said that the distinction that gives birth to individual existence
is the point of departure for Creation; indeed, the latter exists to the
measure in which the totality of
individual beings,
characterized by the number five, is considered to be distinct from Unity,
which gives birth to the number six. As we have seen earlier, this number can
be considered as formed from two ternaries, the one the inverted reflection of
the other; this is represented by the two triangles in the Seal of Solomon,
symbol of the Macrocosm, or the created World.
Things are distinct from us to the
degree that we distinguish between them; and it is precisely to this degree
that they become external to us, as well as distinct from one another; from
this point they appear clothed in forms, and this process of Formation, which
is the immediate consequence of Creation, is characterized by the number that
follows the Senary, namely the Septenary. We only need indicate the concordance
of the preceding with the first chapter of Genesis; the six letters of the
word rWN“Q, the six phases of Creation, and the formative role of the seven
Elohim, representing the totality of natural forces, and symbolized by the
seven planetary spheres, which latter could also be made to correspond to the
first seven numbers, the lowest sphere, that of the Moon, being designated as
the World of Formation.
The Septenary, such as we have just
considered it, can be represented either by the double triangle and its
center, or by a seven- pointed star, around which are inscribed the signs of
the seven planets; this is the symbol of the forces of nature, that is, of the
Septenary in the dynamic state. If it were considered in the static state, it
could be seen as formed by the reunion of a Ternary and a Quaternary, and it
would then be represented by a square surmounted by a triangle. Much could be
said on the meaning of all these geometric forms, but such considerations would
take us too far afield from the subject of our present study.
The process of Formation leads to
what one can call material realization, which for us marks the limit of the
manifestation of Being, which will then be characterized by the number eight.
This number corresponds to the terrestrial World contained within the seven
planetary spheres, and which be should be taken here as symbolizing the whole
of the material World (each World is of course not to be understood as a place,
but rather as a state or modality of being). The number eight also corresponds
to an idea of equilibrium, because material realization is, as we have just
said, a limitation, a
halting point as it were
with respect to the distinctions we create in things, the degree of these
distinctions being a measure of what is symbolically designated as the depth of
the fall. We have already said that the fall is nothing other than a means of
expressing precisely this distinction that created individual existence,
separating us from principial Unity.
In its static stale, the
number eight is represented by two squares, one inscribed within the other in
such a way that the vertices of the inner square intersect the sides of the
outer. In its dynamic state it is symbolized by two crosses with the same
center, oriented in such a way that the branches of one bisect the right angles
formed by the branches of the other.
If the number eight is
added to Unity, it forms the number nine. For us this new number serves to
limit the manifestation of Being, since it corresponds to material realization
distinguished from Unity; it will therefore be represented by the circle, and
will designate Multiplicity. We have said elsewhere that this circle, the
points of which, indefinite in number, represent the formal manifestations of
Being—we do not go further and say all manifestations, only the formal manifestations—can
be regarded as Zero realized. Indeed, added to Unity the number nine forms the
number ten, which also results from the union of Zero with the Unit, and which
is represented by the circumference of the circle taken together with its
center.
On the other hand, the
Novenary could also be envisaged as a triple Ternary; from this, the static
point of view, it will be represented by three superimposed triangles, each the
reflection of the one immediately above, such that the intermediate triangle is
inverted. This figure is the symbol of the three Worlds and their relationships;
this is why the Novenary is often considered the number of hierarchy.
Finally, the Decad,
corresponding to the circumference of the circle together with its center, is
the total manifestation of Being, the complete development of Unity. It can
therefore be regarded as nothing other than Unity realized within Multiplicity.
Starting from it, the sequence of numbers begins again, forming a new cycle:
11 = 10 + 1; 12= 10 +
2;... 20 = 10 + 10
Then comes a third cycle,
and so on indefinitely. Each of these cycles can be regarded as reproducing the
first, but at another level, or, if one wishes, in another modality; they will
therefore be symbolized by as many circles placed parallel one above another,
in different planes; but since in reality there is no point of discontinuity
between them, it is necessary that they be open circles, so that the end of
each will at the same time be the beginning of the next. They will then not be
circles, but the successive spirals of a helix traced on a cylinder, and these
spirals will be indefinite in number, the cylinder itself being indefinite;
and each spiral is projected as a circle onto a plane perpendicular to the axis
of the cylinder, although in reality its point of departure and its point of
arrival are not in the same plane. But we shall return to this subject in
another study, when we come to the geometric representation of evolution.[34]
We must now consider another mode of
production for numbers, production by multiplication, and more particularly
the multiplication of a number by itself, giving birth successively to various
powers of the number. But here the geometric representation would lead us to
considerations concerning the dimensions of space, which it is preferable to
study separately; we would then have to consider in particular the successive
powers of the Decad, which would lead us to consider the question of the limits
of the indefinite in a new light, as well as the question of passage from the
indefinite to the Infinite.
In the preceding remarks, we have
simply wished to indicate how the production of numbers starting from Unity
symbolizes the different phases of the manifestation of Being in logical
succession starting from the principle, Being itself, taken as identical to
Unity; and if Zero—preceding primordial Unity—is introduced, one can thus even
ascend beyond Being to Non-Being, that is, even to the Absolute.
Traditional Sciences
& Arts
& the Crafts
We
have often said that the 'profane’ conception of the sciences and the arts,
such as is now current in the West, is a very modern one and implies a
degeneration with respect to a previous state where both presented an
altogether different character. The same can also be said of the crafts;
moreover, the distinction between arts and crafts, or between ‘artist’ and
‘artisan’, is also specifically modern, as if it were born of this profane
deviation and had no meaning outside of it. For the ancients, the artifcx
is indifferently a man who practices either an art or a craft; but in truth he
is neither artist nor craftsman in the current sense of these words, but
something more than either, for, at least originally, his activity is related
to principles of a far more profound order.
In every traditional civilization all
activity of man, whatever it might be, is always considered as essentially
deriving from principles; by this it is as if‘transformed’, and instead of
being reduced to what it is as a simple outer manifestation (which, in short,
is the profane point of view) it is integrated in the tradition; and for the
one who accomplishes it, it constitutes a means of participating effectively in
this tradition. Even from a simple exoteric point of view this is the case: if,
for example, one looks at a civilization like that of Islam or the Christian
civilization of the Middle Ages, it is easy to see the ‘religious’ character
which the most ordinary acts of existence assume. There religion is not
something that holds a place apart, unconnected with everything else,as it is
for modern Westerners (those at least who still consent to acknowledge a
religion); on the contrary, it pervades the entire existence of the human
being,
or, better yet, all that
constitutes this existence; and social life in particular is included in its
domain, so much so that in such conditions there cannot really be anything
‘profane’, except for those who for one reason or another are outside of the
tradition and whose case is then a simple anomaly. Elsewhere, when there is
nothing to which the name of religion can properly be applied, there is
nonetheless a traditional and‘sacred’ legislation which, while having different
characteristics, exactly fulfills the same role; these considerations can
therefore be applied to all traditional civilizations without exception. But
there is something more: if we pass from exoterism to esoterism (we use these
words here for the sake of greater convenience, although they do not equally
suit every case), we notice very generally the existence of an initiation bound
up with and based on the crafts. These crafts are therefore still susceptible
of a higher and more profound meaning; and we would like to point out how they
can effectively furnish a way of approach to the initiatic domain.
What allows the above to
be better understood is the notion of what the Hindu doctrine calls svadhartnn,
that is to say the performance by each being of an activity in conformity with
its own nature, and it is this notion, or rather its absence, that most clearly
marks the shortcomings of the profane conception. According to the latter a man
can adopt any profession, and he can even change it at will, as if this
profession were something purely exterior to him, without any real connection
with what he truly is, with what makes him himself and not another. In the
traditional conception, on the contrary, everyone must normally fulfill the
function for which he is destined by his very nature, and he cannot fulfill any
other function without a resulting grave disorder, which will have its
repercussion on the whole social organization to which he belongs. Even more
than this, if such a disorder becomes general, it will have its effects on the
cosmic realm itself, all things being linked together according to strict
correspondences. Without dwelling further on this last point, which, however,
could be quite easily applied to the conditions of the present time, we will
note that the opposition of the two conceptions can, at least in a certain
connection, be reduced to that of a ‘qualitative’ and a ‘quantitative’ point of
view: in the traditional conception, it is the essential qualities of beings
which determine
their activities; in the
profane conception, individuals are considered as interchangeable ‘units’, as
if in themselves they were without any quality of their own. This last
conception, which is obviously closely connected to modern ideas of‘equality’
and ‘uniformity’ (the latter being literally against true unity, for it implies
the pure and ‘inorganic’ multiplicity of a kind of social ‘atomism’), can
logically lead only to the exercise of a purely ‘mechanical’ activity, in which
nothing specifically human subsists; this is in fact what we can see today. It
must therefore be well understood that the ‘mechanical’ crafts of the moderns,
being but a product of the profane deviation, can in no way offer the
possibilities of which we intend to speak here; strictly speaking, they cannot
even be considered crafts if one wishes to preserve the traditional meaning of
this word, which is the only meaning with which we are concerned here.
If the craft is something of the man
himself, and like a manifestation or expansion of his own nature, it is easy
to understand that, as we were just saying, it can serve as a basis for an
initiation, and even that in most cases it is what is best adapted to this end.
Indeed, if initiation essentially aims at going beyond the possibilities of the
human individual, it is equally true that it can only take this individual
such as he is as its starting-point. This accounts for the diversity of
initiatic ways, that is to say of the means implemented by way of‘supports’, in
conformity with the difference of individual natures, this difference
subsequently arising ever less as the being advances on its way. The means thus
employed can be efficacious only if they correspond to the very nature of the
beings to whom they are applied. Because one must necessarily proceed from the
more accessible to the less accessible, from the exterior to the interior, it
is normal to take these means as the activity by which this nature is outwardly
manifested. However, it goes without saying that this activity can play such a
role only inasmuch as it really expresses the inner nature; it is thus truly a
question of‘qualification’ in the initiatic sense of this term. In normal
conditions this ‘qualification’ should be a necessary condition for the very
exercise of the craft. At the same time this touches on the fundamental difference
which separates initiatic teaching from profane teaching: what is
simply‘learned’ from outside is here without any value.
What is in question is the
‘awakening’ of the latent possibilities that the being bears in itself {and
this is basically the true significance of Platonic ‘reminiscence’).
These last considerations
can further help us understand how initiation, taking the craft as its
‘support’, will at the same time, and inversely, as it were, have a
repercussion on the exercise of this craft. The individual, having fully
realized the possibilities of which his professional activity is but an
external expression, and thus possessing the effective knowledge of what is
the very principle of this activity, will henceforth consciously fulfill what
had hitherto been only a quite ‘instinctive’ consequence of his nature. Thus,
if for him initiatic knowledge is born of the craft, the latter, in its turn
will become the field of application of this knowledge, from which it can no
longer be separated. There will henceforth be a perfect correspondence between
the interior and the exterior, and the work produced will no longer be only
the expression to a certain degree and in a more or less superficial way, but a
truly adequate expression of the one who will have conceived and executed it,
and it will constitute a ‘masterpiece’ in the true sense of this word.
As can be seen, this is
very far from the so-called unconscious or subconscious ‘inspiration’ in which
moderns wish to see the criterion of the true artist, while considering him
superior to the artisan, according to the more than contestable distinction
that normally applies. Artist or artisan, anyone who acts under such an
‘inspiration’ is in any case only a profane person. No doubt, he shows by his
‘inspiration’ that he carries within himself certain possibilities, but as long
as he has not effectively become aware of them, even if he attains to what is
fittingly called ‘genius’, this changes nothing. Unable as he is to control
these possibilities, his success will be so to speak accidental, which,
moreover, is commonly recognized by saying that the ‘inspiration’ is sometimes
lacking. All that can be conceded in order to reconcile the case under
discussion to that in which true knowledge operates, is that the work which,
consciously or unconsciously, truly flows from the nature of the one who performs
it, will never give the impression of being a more or less painful effort
which, because it is something abnormal, always leads to some imperfection. On
the contrary, such a work will draw its very
perfection from its
conformity to nature, which implies directly and so to speak necessarily that
it is exactly suited to the end for which it is destined.
If we now want a more rigorous
definition of the sphere of what can be called the craft initiations, we will
say that they belong to the ‘lesser mysteries’, referring to the development of
the possibilities ihat belong properly to the human stale, which is not the
final aim of initiation, but at least constitutes the first obligatory phase.
This development must first be accomplished in full, so as then to allow the
surpassing of this human state; but beyond this, it is evident that individual
differences which these craft initiations emphasize disappear completely and
no longer play any role. As we have explained on other occasions, the‘lesser
mysteries’ lead to the restoration of what the traditional doctrines designate
as the ‘primordial state’. Once the being has reached this state, which still
belongs to the sphere of human individuality, and which is the point of communication
between it and the superior states, the differentiations which give rise to the
various‘specialized’ functions have disappeared, although all these‘specialized’
functions also had their source there, or rather by this very means, and it is
really a question of returning to this common source so as to possess in its
plenitude all that is implied by the exercise of any function whatsoever.
If we view the history of
humanity as taught by the traditional doctrines in conformity with the cyclical
laws, we must say that since in the beginning man had full possession of his
state of existence, he naturally had the possibilities corresponding to all
the functions prior to every distinction of these latter. The division of these
functions came about in a later phase, representing a state already inferior to
the‘primordial state’, but in which every human being, while having as yet only
certain determined possibilities, still spontaneously had the effective
consciousness of these possibilities. It was only in a period of the greatest
obscuration that this consciousness became lost. From this point initiation
became necessary to enable man to regain, along with this consciousness, the
former state in which it inhered; this is the first of its aims, at which it
aims most immediately. For this to be possible what is implied is a transmission
going back by an unbroken ‘chain’ to the state to be
restored, and thus, step
by step, to the 'primordial state’ itself; yet initiation does not stop there,
for since the 'lesser mysteries’ are only the preparation for the ‘greater
mysteries’, that is to say for the taking possession of the superior states of
the being, it is necessary to go back even beyond the origins of humanity. In
fact, there is no true initiation, even to the most inferior and elementary
degree, without the intervention of a ‘non-human’ element, which, as we have
already explained in other articles, is the ‘spiritual influence’ regularly
communicated by the initiatic rite. If this is so, there is obviously no place
to search ‘historically’ for the origin of initiation, a search which now
appears as bereft of meaning, nor, moreover, for the origin of the crafts,
arts, and sciences viewed according to their traditional and ‘legitimate’
conception, since by means of multiple but secondary differentiations and
adaptations they too all derive from the ‘primordial state’, which contains
them all in principle. In this way they link up with other orders of existence
beyond humanity itself, which moreover is necessary so that each according to
its rank and measure can contribute effectively to the realization of the plan
of the Great Architect of the Universe.
We
have often had occasion to remark that in reality most of the profane
sciences—the only sciences the moderns know or even consider possible—represent
only simple, distorted residues of the ancient, traditional sciences in the
sense that the lowest part of these sciences, having ceased to have contact
with the principles, and having thereby lost its true, original significance,
ended up undergoing an independent development and came to be regarded as a
branch of knowledge sufficient unto itself. In this respect, modern
mathematics is no exception if one compares it to what was for the ancients the
science of numbers and geometry; and when we speak here of the ancients, it is
necessary to include therein even those of‘classical’ antiquity, as the least
study of Pythagorean and Platonic theories suffices to show, or at least should
were it not necessary to take into account the extraordinary incomprehension
of those who claim to interpret them today. Were this incomprehension not so
complete, how for example could one maintain a belief in the‘empirical’ origin
of the sciences in question? For in reality— and to the contrary—they appear
all the more removed from any ‘empiricism’ the further back one goes in time,
and this is moreover equally the case for all other branches of scientific
knowledge.
Modern mathematicians seem
to have become ignorant of what number truly is, for they reduce their entire
science to calculation, which for them means a mere collection of more or less
artificial processes, and this amounts to saying, in short, that they replace
number with the numeral; moreover, this confusion between the two is today so
widespread that it can be found everywhere, even in
everyday language. Now a
numeral is strictly speaking no more than the clothing of a number; we do not
even say its body, for it is rather the geometric form that in certain
respects, can legitimately be considered to constitute the true body of a
number, as the theories of the ancients on polygons and polyhedrons show when
seen in the light of the symbolism of numbers. We do not mean to say, however,
that numerals themselves are entirely arbitrary signs, the form of which has
been determined only by the fancy of one or more individuals; there must be
both numerical and alphabetical characters (the two not being distinguished in
some languages moreover) and the notion of a hieroglyphic, that is, an
ideographic or symbolic origin, can be applied to the one as well as to the
other, and this holds for all scripts without exception.
What is certain is that
mathematicians employ in their notation symbols the meaning of which they no
longer understand, and which are like vestiges of forgotten traditions; and
what is more serious, not only do they not ask themselves what this meaning
might be, they even seem not to want them to have any at all. Indeed, they tend
more and more to regard all notation as mere ‘convention’, by which they mean
something set out in an entirely arbitrary manner, which in reality is a
veritable impossibility, for one never establishes a convention without having
some reason for doing so, and for doing precisely that rather than anything
else. A convention can appear arbitrary only to those who are ignorant of this
reason, and this is exactly what happens in this instance. Likewise, it is all
too easy to pass from a legitimate and valid use of a notation to an
illegitimate use that no longer corresponds to anything real, and that can
even sometimes be completely illogical; this may seem strange when it is a
question of a science like mathematics, which should have a particularly close
relationship with logic, yet it is nevertheless all too true that one can find
many illogicalities in mathematical notions as they are commonly understood.
One of the most striking
examples of these illogical notions is that of the so-called mathematical
infinite, which, as we have amply explained on other occasions, can in reality
be no more than the indefinite—and let it not be believed that this confusion
of the infinite and the indefinite can be reduced to a mere question of words.
What mathematicians
represent by the sign oo can in no way be the Infinite understood in its true
sense; the sign co is itself a closed figure, therefore visibly finite, just
like the circle, which some people have wished to make a symbol of eternity. In
fact, the circle can only be a representation of a temporal cycle, indefinite
merely in its order, that is to say, of what is properly called perpetuity; and
it is easy to see that this confusion of eternity with perpetuity corresponds
exactly to that of the infinite with the indefinite. In fact, the indefinite is
only a development of the finite; but the Infinite cannot be derived from the
finite. Furthermore, the Infinite is no more quantitative than it is
determined, for quantity, being only a special mode of reality, is thereby
essentially limited. What is more, the idea of an infinite number, that is to
say a number greater than all other numbers according to the definition given
by mathematicians, is an idea contradictory in itself, for however great a
number n might be, the number n +1 will always be greater in
virtue of the law of formation for the indefinite sequence of numbers. This
contradiction leads to many others, as various philosophers have noted,
although they never saw the full import of this argument, for they believed
they could apply to the metaphysical Infinite what applies only to the false
mathematical infinite, and thus they fell prey to the same confusion as their
adversaries, only in an opposite direction. It is obviously absurd to wish to
define the Infinite, for every definition is necessarily a limitation, as the
words themselves show clearly enough, and the Infinite is that which has no
limits; to seek to place it within a formula, or, in short, to clothe it in a
form, is to attempt to place the universal All within one of its minutest
parts, which is manifestly impossible. Finally, to conceive of the Infinite as
a quantity is not only to limit it, as we have just said, but in addition it
is to conceive of it as subject to increase and decrease, which is no less
absurd. With similar considerations one quickly finds oneself envisaging
several infinites that coexist without confounding or excluding one another,
as well as infinites greater or smaller than other infinites; and, the infinite
no longer sufficing, one even invents the ‘transfinite’, that is, the domain of
quantities greater than the infinite: so many words and so many absurdities,
even with regard to simple, elementary logic. Here we intentionally speak
of‘invention,
for if (he realities of
the mathematical order, like all other realities, can only be discovered and
not invented, it is clear that this is no longer the case when, by a ‘game’ of
notation, one allows oneself to be led into the domain of pure fantasy; but how
could one hope for mathematicians to understand this difference when they
willingly imagine that the whole of their science is and must be no more than a
‘construction of the human mind’, although if this were true it would of course
reduce their science to a mere trifle?
What we said concerning
the infinitely great, or what is so called, is equally true of what is no less
improperly called the infinitely small: however small a number x/n
might be, the number l/n + i will be smaller still; later we
shall return to the question of what exactly this notation should be taken to
mean. In reality, there is thus neither an infinitely great nor an infinitely
small; but one can envisage the sequence of numbers as increasing and
decreasing indefinitely in such a way that the so-called mathematical infinite
will only be the indefinite, which, let us say again, proceeds from the finite,
and is consequently always reducible to it. The indefinite is thus still
finite, which is to say limited; even if we do not know its limits, or are
incapable of determining them, we do know that they exist, for every
indefinitude pertains only to a certain order of things, limited precisely by
the existence of other things outside of it. By the same token, one can
obviously envisage a multitude of indefinites; one can even add them to each
other, or multiply them by each other, which naturally leads to the consideration
of indefinites of unequal magnitude, and even different orders of indefinitude,
in both the increasing direction and the decreasing direction. Once this is
understood, we shall be able to see the real significance of the previously
mentioned absurdities, which disappear as soon as the so-called mathematical
infinite is replaced with the indefinite; but whatever might be obtained thus
will of course have no relation to the Infinite, and will always be rigorously
null with respect to it; and the same may be said of all ordinary finitude, of
which the indefinite is necessarily but an extension. At the same time, these
considerations also show in a precise way the impossibility of arriving at
synthesis by analysis: however much one adds together an indefinite number of
elements successively, one will never obtain
the All, because the All
is infinite, and not indefinite; it cannot be conceived of as other than
infinite, for it could only be limited by something outside of itself, and then
it would not be the All. If it can be said that it is the sum of all its
elements, this is only on the condition that the word ‘sum’ be taken in the
sense of an integral, which is not calculated by taking its elements one by
one; and even were one to suppose that one or more indefinite sequences could
be passed through analytically, one would not for that have advanced a single
step from the point of view of universality, and one would always be at exactly
the same point in relation to the Infinite. Moreover, all of this can be
applied analogically to other domains than quantity; and the immediate
consequence is that profane science, of which the points of view and methods
are exclusively analytical, is by that very fact incapable of transcending
certain limitations; here the imperfection is not simply inherent in its
present state, as some have wished to believe, but in its very nature, that is,
ultimately, in its lack of principles.
We have said that the sequence of
numbers can be considered indefinite in two directions, the increasing and the
decreasing; but this demands some further explanation, for an objection can
immediately be raised. True number, what one might call pure number, is
essentially whole number; and the sequence of whole numbers, starting from the
unit, continues ever to increase, but it progresses entirely in a single
direction, and thus the other, opposite direction—that of indefinite
decrease—cannot be represented by it. However, one is brought to consider
various other kinds of number aside from the whole numbers; these, it is
usually said, are extensions of the idea of number, and this is true after a
certain fashion; but at the same time these extensions are also distortions,
which is what mathematicians seem too easily to forget on account of their
‘conventionalism’, which causes them to misunderstand the origin and raison d’être of
these numbers. In fact, numbers other than whole numbers always appear first
and foremost as the representation of the results of operations that would be
impossible were one to keep to the point of view of pure arithmetic, which, 111
all strictness, is the arithmetic of whole numbers alone. Indeed, one does not
arbitrarily consider the results of the aforementioned operations
thus, instead of regarding
them purely and simply as impossible; generally speaking, it is in consequence
of the application made of number—discontinuous quantity—to the measurement of
magnitudes belonging to the order of continuous quantity. Between these modes
of quantity there is a difference of nature such that a correspondence between
the two cannot be perfectly established; to remedy this to a certain degree,
at least insofar as it is possible, one seeks to reduce, as it were, the
intervals of this discontinuity constituted by the sequence of whole numbers,
by introducing between its terms other numbers, such as fractional and
incommensurable numbers, which would be meaningless apart from this consideration.
Moreover, it must be said that in spite of this something of the essentially
discontinuous nature of number will inevitably always remain, preventing one
from thus obtaining a perfect equivalent to the continuous. The intervals can
be reduced as much as one might like—that is, in short, they can be reduced
indefinitely—but they cannot be eliminated; thus one is once again brought to
consider a certain aspect of the indefinite, and this could find its
application in a study of the principles of the infinitesimal calculus,
although this is not what we propose to do at present.
Under these conditions and
with these reservations, one can accept certain of these extensions of the idea
of number to which we have just alluded, and give them, or rather restore to
them, a legitimate significance; thus, notably, we can consider the inverses
of the whole numbers represented by symbols of the form Vm and forming the indefinitely decreasing sequence,
symmetrical to the indefinitely increasing sequence of whole numbers. We must
further note that although the symbol '/n could evoke the idea of
fractional numbers, the numbers in question here are not defined as such; it
suffices for us to consider the two sequences as constituted by numbers respectively
greater and smaller than the unit, that is, by two orders of magnitude having
their common limit in the unit, while at the same time both can be regarded as
having issued from this unit, which is indeed the primary source of all
numbers. Since we have spoken of fractional numbers, we should add in this
connection that the definition ordinarily given to them is again absurd: in no
way can fractions be ‘parts of a unit’, as is said, for the true unit is
necessarily
indivisible and without
parts; arithmetically, a fractional number represents no more than the quotient
of an impossible division; but this absurdity arises from a confusion of the
arithmetical unit with what are called 'units of measurement’, which are units
only by convention, since in reality they are magnitudes of another sort than
number. The unit of length, for example, is only a certain length chosen for
reasons foreign to arithmetic, to which one makes the number 1 correspond in
order to be able to measure all other lengths by reference to it; but by its
very nature as continuous magnitude, all length, even when thus represented
numerically by unity, is no less always and indefinitely divisible. Comparing
it to other lengths, one might therefore have to consider parts of this unit of
measurement, without it in any way being necessary that they be parts of the
arithmetical unit; and it is only thus that the consideration of fractional
numbers is really introduced, as a representation of the ratios of magnitudes
that are not exactly divisible by one another. The measurement of a magnitude
is in fact no more than the numerical expression of its ratio to another
magnitude of the same species taken as the unit of measurement, or, basically,
as the term of comparison; and from this one sees that all measurement is
essentially founded on division, something which could give rise to further
observations which are important, but beyond our present subject.
That said, we can now return to the
double numerical indefini- tude constituted in the increasing direction by the
sequence of whole numbers, and in the decreasing direction by that of their inverses;
both sequences start from the unit, which alone is its own inverse, since Vi =
1. Moreover, there are as many numbers in one sequence as there are in the
other, such that if one considers the two indefinite sets as forming a unique
sequence, one could say that the unit occupies the exact mid-point within this
sequence of numbers; indeed, for every number n in one sequence, there
will correspond another number Vn in the other, such that 11 x '/11
= 1, any two inverse numbers multiplied together again producing the unit. To
generalize further, if we wished to introduce fractional numbers instead of
considering only the sequence of whole numbers and their inverses as we have
just done, nothing would be changed in this regard: on one side there would be
all the numbers greater than
(he unit, and on the other
all those smaller than the unit; here, again, for any number a/b
> i, there will be a corresponding number b/a < i in the other
set, and reciprocally, such that a/b x b/a = i, and
there will thus be exactly the same number of terms in each of these two
indefinite groups separated by the unit. One can say further that the unit,
occupying the mid-point, corresponds to the state of perfect equilibrium, and
that it contains in itself all numbers, which proceed from it in pairs of
inverse or complementary numbers, each pair, by virtue of its complementarity,
constituting a relative unity in its indivisible duality. In what follows we
shall further examine the consequences implied by these various considerations.
If one considers the
sequence of whole numbers together with that of their inverses, in accordance
with what was said above, the first will be indefinitely increasing and the
second indefinitely decreasing; one could say that the numbers thus tend on the
one side toward the indefinitely great and on the other toward the indefinitely
small, understanding by this the very limits of the domain in which one
considers these numbers, for a variable quantity cannot but tend toward a limit.
The domain in question is, in short, that of numerical quantity taken in every
possible extension; this amounts to saying that its limits are not determined
by such and such a particular number, however great or small one might suppose
it to be, but solely by the nature of number as such. By the same token number,
like everything else of a determined nature, excludes all that it is not, and
thus there can be no question of any infinite here; moreover, we have just
said that the indefinitely great must inevitably be conceived of as a limit,
and in this connection one can point out that the expression ‘tend toward
infinity’, employed by mathematicians in the sense of‘increase indefinitely’,
is again an absurdity, since the infinite obviously implies the absence of all
limits, and since consequently there is nothing toward which it is possible to
tend. It goes without saying that the same observations can be applied to modes
of quantity other than number, that is, to different kinds of continuous quantity,
notably the spatial and the temporal; each of these is likewise capable of
indefinite extension within its order, but essentially limited by its very
nature, as, moreover, is quantity itself in all its generality; the very fact
that there exist things
Oit Mathematical Notation * 67 to
which quantity is not applicable suffices to demonstrate the contradiction in
the idea of the so-called ‘quantitative infinite’.
Furthermore, when a domain is
indefinite, we cannot know its limits distinctly, and, consequently, we will
not be able to fix them in a precise manner; here, in short, we have the entire
difference between indefinitude and ordinary linitude. There thus remains a
sort of indeterminacy, but one which is such only from our point of view and
not in reality itself, since its limits are no less existent on that account;
whether we see them or not in no way changes the nature of things. As far as
number is concerned, one could also say that this apparent indeterminacy
results from the fact that the sequence of numbers in its entirety is not
‘terminated’ by a certain number, as is always the case with any given portion
of the sequence considered in isolation; there is thus no number, however great
it might be, that can be identified with the indefinitely great in the sense in
which we take it; and parallel considerations naturally apply to the
indefinitely small. However, one can at least regard a number as practically
indefinite, if one may so express it, when it can no longer be expressed by
language or represented in writing, which indeed occurs the moment one
considers numbers that go on ever increasing or decreasing; here we have simply
a matter of‘perspective’, if one wishes, but even this is in accordance with
the character of the indefinite, which is ultimately nothing other than that
of which the limits can be, not done away with—which would be impossible, since
the finite can only produce the finite—but simply pushed back to the point of
being entirely lost from view.
In this regard certain rather curious
questions arise: thus, one could ask why the Chinese language symbolically
represents the indefinite by the number ten thousand; the expression 'the ten
thousand beings’, for example, means all beings, which in reality are an
indefinite multitude. What is most remarkable is that precisely the same thing
occurs in Greek, where a single word likewise serves to express both ideas at
once, with a simple difference in accentuation, which is obviously only a quite
secondary detail: pûpioi.'ten thousand’; uvpioi,'an indefinitude’.[35]
The true reason
for this is as follows:
the number ten thousand is the fourth power of ten; now according to the
formulation of the Tao Te Ching, one produced two, two produced three,
three produced all numbers,’ which implies that four, produced immediately
after three, is in a way equivalent to the whole set of numbers, and this
because, when one has the quaternary, by adding the first four numbers one also
has the decad, which represents a complete numerical cycle: i + 2+3 + 4 = 10;
this is the Pythagorean Tetraktys, the significance of which we shall perhaps
return to more thoroughly on another occasion. One can further add that this
representation of numerical indefinitude has its correspondence in the spatial
order: raising a number from one power to the next highest power represents in
this order, the addition of a dimension; now, since our space has only three
dimensions, its limits are transcended when one goes beyond the third power. In
other words, this amounts to saying that elevation to the fourth power marks
the very term of its indefinitude, since, as soon as it is effected, one has
thereby departed from this extension.
Be that as it may, it is
in reality the indefinitely great that mathematicians represent by the sign
co, as we have said; if the sign did not have this meaning, it would have none
at all; and according to the preceding, what is thus represented is not a
determined number, but as it were an entire domain, which, moreover, is
necessary for it to be possible to envisage inequalities and even different
orders of magnitude within the indefinite, as we have already pointed out.
As for the indefinitely
small, which can similarly be regarded as embracing everything in the decreasing
order that is found to lie outside the limits of our means of evaluation, and
which as quantity we are consequently led to consider practically non-existent
with respect to us, one can represent it in its own set by the symbol o—
although this is in fact only one of the meanings of zero—without bringing in
here the notation of differential or infinitesimal quantity, which essentially
finds its justification only in the study of continuous variations; and it
must be understood that this symbol no longer represents a determined number
for the same reasons as those given for the indefinitely great.
The sequence of numbers such as we
have been considering it, extending indefinitely in the two opposite directions
of increase and decrease and composed of the whole numbers and their inverses,
presents itself in the following form: 0... 'A, V3,1/2,1,2,3, 4 ... co; two
numbers equidistant from the central unit will be inverses or complementaries
of one another, thus producing the unit when multiplied together, as we
explained earlier: Vn x n = 1, such that, for the two extremities of the
sequence, one would be compelled to write o x 00 = 1 as well. However,
since the signs o and co, the two factors of this product, do not really
represent determined numbers, it follows that the expression o x 00 itself
constitutes what is called an indeterminate form, and must then be written: 0
x 00 = », where
n could be any number; but in any case one is thus brought back to
ordinary finitude, the two opposed indefinites being so to speak neutralized by
one another. Here, once again, one can clearly see that the symbol 00 most
emphatically does not represent the Infinite, for the Infinite can have neither
opposite nor complement, and it cannot enter into correlation with anything
whatsoever, no more with zero than with the unit or with any number; as the
absolute All, it contains Non-Being as well as Being, such that zero itself,
whenever it is not regarded as purely nothing, must necessarily be considered
to be contained within the Infinite.
In alluding here to Non-Being, we
touch on another meaning of zero, quite different from the one we have just
been considering, and moreover one that is more important from the point of
view of metaphysical symbolism; but in this regard, in order to avoid all
confusion between the symbol and that which it represents, it is necessary to
make it quite clear that the metaphysical Zero, which is Non-Being, is no more
the zero of quantity than metaphysical Unity—which is Being—is the arithmetical
unit; what is designated by these terms is so only by analogical transposition,
since as soon as one places oneself within the Universal, one is obviously
outside of all special domains such as that of quantity. Moreover, it is not
insofar as it represents the indefinitely small that zero can be taken as a
symbol of Non-Being, but rather insofar as, following another of its
mathematical meanings, it represents the absence of quantity,
which in its order indeed
symbolizes the possibility of non-manifes- tation, just as the unit symbolizes
the possibility of manifestation, since it is the point of departure for the
indefinite multiplicity of number, as Being is the principle of all
manifestation.
In whatever manner zero is envisaged,
it can in 110 case be taken to be purely nothing, which is all too obvious when
it is a question of the indefinitely small; it is true that (his is only a
derivative sense so to speak, owing to a sort of approximate assimilation of
quantities that are negligible for us to the total absence of quantity; but
insofar as it is a question of this absence of quantity itself, which is null
in this connection, it is quite clear that it cannot be so in all respects, as
is apparent in an example like that of the point, which is without extension,
that is, spatially null, but which is as we have explained elsewhere
nonetheless the very principle of all extension. It is truly strange, moreover,
that mathematicians are for the most part inclined to envisage zero as purely
nothing, when at the same time it is impossible for them not to regard it as
endowed with an indefinite potentiality, since, placed to the right of
another,‘significant’ digit, it helps to form the representation of a number
that, precisely by the repetition of this zero, can increase indefinitely, as
for example with the number ten and its successive powers; if zero really were
absolutely nothing, this could not be so, and it would even be a useless sign,
entirely deprived of real value; here we have yet another inconsistency to add
to the list of those we have already pointed out so far.
Returning now to zero considered as a
representation of the indefinitely small, what is important is to keep in mind
the fact that within the doubly indefinite sequence of numbers, the domain of
the latter embraces all that eludes our means of evaluation in a certain
direction, just as within the same sequence the domain of the indefinitely
great embraces all that eludes our means of evaluation in the other direction.
This being said, to speak of numbers less than zero is obviously no more
appropriate than to speak of numbers greater than the indefinite; and it is
still more unacceptable—if such is even possible—when zero simply represents
the absence of quantity, for it is totally inconceivable that a quantity
should be less than nothing; this, however, is what is attempted—although in a
slightly
different sense than the
one just discussed—when the consideration of so-called negative numbers is
introduced into mathematics, forgetting that these numbers were originally no
more than an indication of the result of a subtraction impossible in reality,
in which a greater number is taken away from a smaller; but this subject of
negative numbers, and the logically contestable consequences it entails, calls
for further discussion.
Ultimately, the
consideration of negative numbers arises solely from the fact that when a
subtraction is arithmetically impossible, its result is nonetheless not devoid
of meaning when linked to magnitudes that can be reckoned in two opposite
directions, as, for example, distances or times. From this results the
geometric representation habitually accorded negative numbers: on a straight
line, the distances lying along it are considered to be positive or negative
depending on whether they fall in one direction or the other, and a point is
chosen to serve as the origin, in relation to which the distances are positive
on one side and negative on the other, the origin itself being given a
coefficient of zero; the coefficient of each point on the line will thus be (he
number representing its distance from the origin, and its sign of + or - will
simply indicate on which side the point falls on in relation to the origin;
with a circle one could likewise designate positive and negative directions of
rotation, which would give rise to analogous remarks. Furthermore, as the line
is indefinite in both directions, one is lead to consider both a positive and a
negative indefinite, represented by the signs +00, and -co respectively, commonly
designated by the absurd expressions ‘greater infinity’ and ‘lesser infinity’.
One might well ask what a negative infinity would be, or again what could
remain were one to take away an infinite amount from something, or even from
nothing, since mathematicians regard zero as nothing. In cases such as these
one has only to put the matter in clear language in order to immediately see
how devoid of meaning they are. We must further add that, particularly when
studying the variation of functions, one might next be led to believe that the
negative and the positive indefinite merge, such that a moving object,
departing from its origin and moving further and further away in the positive
direction would return toward the origin from the negative side if
the movement were carried
on for an indefinite amount of time, or vice versa, whence it would result that
the straight line, or what is so considered, would in reality be a closed line,
albeit an indefinite one. One could show, moreover, that the properties of the
straight line in a plane would be entirely analogous to those of a diameter on
the surface of a sphere, and that the plane and the straight line could thus be
likened respectively to a sphere and a ciicle of indefinitely great radius,
ordinary circles in the plane then being comparable to the smaller circles on
the sphere; without pushing the issue further, we shall only note that here one
can grasp the precise limits of spatial indefinitude directly, as it were; if
one wishes to maintain some semblance of logic, how then can one still speak of
the infinite in all of this?
When considering positive and
negative numbers as we have just done, the sequence of numbers takes the
following form: -oo ... - 4,-3, -2, -1, o, 1, 2,3, 4 ... +00, the order of these
numbers being the same as that of the corresponding points on the line, that
is, the points having these numbers for their respective coefficients. Although
the sequence is just as indefinite in either direction, it is completely
different from the one we envisaged earlier: it is symmetric not with respect
to 1, but to 0, which corresponds to the origin of the distances; and two
numbers equidistant from the central term again reproduce it, but this time by
‘algebraic’ addition—that is, by addition performed while taking account of
signs, which in this case would amount, arithmetically speaking, to a
subtraction — and not by multiplication. One can immediately see a disadvantage
that inevitably results from the artificial—we do not say arbitrary- character
of this notation: if one takes the unit as the point of departure, the entire
sequence of numbers will immediately follow from it; but, if one takes zero, it
is on the contrary impossible to derive any number from it, the reason for this
being that in reality the forming of the sequence would then be based on
considerations of a geometric rather than an arithmetical order, and also that,
in consequence of the difference in nature of the quantities treated in these
two branches of mathematics, there can never be a completely rigorous
correspondence between arithmetic and geometry, as we have already said.
Moreover, the new sequence in no way increases
indefinitely in one
direction and decreases indefinitely in the other as was the case with the
preceding series; or at least, if one claims to consider it thus, it is only in
a most incorrect ‘manner of speaking’. In reality, the sequence increases
indefinitely in both directions equally since it is the same sequence of whole
numbers that is contained on either side of the central zero; what is called
the ‘absolute value’ —another rather singular expression, as the quantities in
question are always of an essentially relative order—must be taken into
consideration only in a purely quantitative respect, the positive or negative
signs changing nothing in this regard, since they express no more than
differences in ‘situation’, as we have just now explained. The negative
indefinite is thus by no means comparable to the indefinitely small; on the
contrary, just like the positive indefinite, it belongs with the indefinitely
great; the only difference is that it proceeds in another direction, which is
perfectly conceivable when it is a question of spatial or temporal magnitudes,
but totally devoid of meaning in the case of arithmetical magnitudes, which
proceed solely in one direction since they are nothing other than the
magnitudes of which the sequence of numbers is composed. Negative numbers are
by no means numbers'less than zero’, which essentially is but a pure and
simple impossibility, and the sign by which they are designated can in no way
reverse the order in which they are ranked with respect to their magnitude.
Moreover, in order to realize it as clearly as possible, it suffices to note
that the point of the coefficient -2, for example, is further from the origin
than the point of the coefficient -1, and not less far, as would inevitably be
the case were the number -2 in fact less than the number -1; in reality, it is
not the distances themselves, insofar as they are capable of being measured,
that can be qualified as negative, but only the direction in which they lie;
here we have two entirely different things, and it is precisely the confusion
of the two that is the source of a large part of the logical difficulties
raised by the notation of negative numbers.
Among the other bizarre
and illogical consequences of this notation, let us draw attention to the
question of so-called ‘imaginary’ quantities, introduced in the solving of
algebraic equations; these quantities are presented as the roots of negative
numbers, which again could answer only to an impossibility; perhaps some other
meaning could be assigned
to them, whereby they might correspond to something real, but in any case,
their theory and application to analytic geometry as presented by contemporary
mathematicians hardly appears as anything but a veritable mass of confusions
and even absurdities, and as the outcome of a need for excessive and artificial
generalizations, a need that does not draw back even at manifestly
contradictory propositions; certain theorems concerning the ‘asymptotes of a
circle’, for example, amply suffice to prove that this remark is by no means
an exaggeration. One could say, it is true, that this is no longer a question
of geometry strictly speaking, but only of algebra translated into geometric
terms; but precisely because such translation, as well as its inverse, is
possible to a certain degree, it is extended to cases in which it can no longer
mean anything, for this is indeed the symptom of an extraordinary confusion of
ideas, as well as the extreme result of a ‘conventionalism’ that goes so far
as to cause a loss of the sense of all reality.
There is yet more to be said, and
before ending we shall now turn to the consequences, also quite contestable, of
the use of negative numbers from the point of view of mechanics; indeed, since
in virtue of its object the field of mechanics is in reality a physical
science, the very fact that it is treated as an integral part of mathematics
has not failed to introduce certain distortions. In this regard we shall only
say that the so-called ‘principles’ upon which modern mathematicians build
this science such as they conceive of it (and among the various abuses of the
word ‘principles’, this is not the least worthy of remark) are in fact only
more or less well-grounded hypotheses, or again, in the most favorable case,
only more or less simple, general laws, perhaps more general than others, but
still no more than applications of true universal principles in a highly
specialized domain. Without entering into excessively long explanations, let us
cite, as an example of the first case, the so-called ‘principle of inertia’,
which nothing justifies, neither experience, which on the contrary shows that
inertia has no role in nature, nor the understanding, which cannot conceive of
this so-called inertia consisting only in a complete absence of properties;
rigorously speaking, such a word could only be applied to pure potentiality,
but this latter is assuredly something altogether different from the quantified
and qualified
‘matter’ envisaged by
physicists. An example of the second instance may be seen in what is called the
'principle of the equality of action and reaction’, which is so little a
principle as to follow immediately from the general law of the equilibrium of
natural forces: whenever this equilibrium is in any way disturbed, it
immediately tends to reestablish itself, whence a reaction of which the
intensity is equivalent to that of the action that provoked it; it is
therefore only a simple, particular case of concordant actions and reactions’,
a principle that does not concern the corporeal world alone, but indeed the
totality of manifestation in all its modes and states; and it is precisely on
this question of equilibrium that we propose to dwell for a little while.
Two forces in equilibrium
are usually represented by two opposed ‘vectors’, that is, by two line segments
of equal length, but of opposite directions; if two forces applied to the same
point have the same intensity and fall along the same line, but in opposite
directions, they are in equilibrium. As they are then without action at their
point of application, it is even said that they cancel each other out, although
this ignores the fact that if one of the forces is suppressed, the other will
immediately act, proving that they were never really annulled in the first
place. The forces are characterized by numerical coefficients proportional to
their respective intensities, and two forces of opposite direction are given
coefficients with different signs, the one positive, the other negative: the
one being/, the other -/'. in the case just considered, in which the two forces
are of the same intensity, the coefficients characterizing them must be equal
with respect to their ‘absolute values’; one then has: f = f, from which
can be derived the condition for their equilibrium:/— f = o, which is to
say that the sum of the two forces, or of the two ‘vectors’ representing them,
is null, such that equilibrium is thus defined by zero. Now zero having been
incorrectly regarded by mathematicians as a sort of symbol for nothing—as if
nothing could be symbolized by something—it seems to follow that equilibrium
is the state of non-existence, which is a rather strange conclusion;
nonetheless, it is almost certainly for this reason that instead of saying that
two forces in equilibrium neutralize one another, which would be more exact, it
is said that they annul one another,
which is contrary to the
reality of things, as we have just made clear by a most simple observation.
The true notion of
equilibrium is entirely different. In order to understand it, it suffices to
point out that all natural forces—and not only mechanical forces, which, let us
say again, are no more than a very particular case—are either attractive or
repulsive; the first can be considered compressive forces, or forces of
contraction, and the second expansive forces, or forces of dilation. Given an
initially homogenous medium, it is easy to see that for every point of
compression there will necessarily correspond an equivalent expansion at
another point, and conversely, such that two centers of force, neither of which
could exist without the other, will always have to be considered correlatively.
This is what can be called the law of polarity, and it is applicable to all
natural phenomena, since it is derived from the duality of the very principles
that preside over all of manifestation; in the domain with which physicists
occupy themselves, this law is evident above all in electrical and magnetic
phenomena. Now if two forces, the one compressive, the other expansive, act
upon the same point, then the condition requisite for them to be in equilibrium
or to neutralize one another, that is, the condition which, when fulfilled,
will produce neither contraction nor dilation, is that the intensities of the
two forces be equivalent— we do not say equal, since they are of different
species. The forces can be characterized by coefficients proportional to the
contraction or dilation they produce, in such a way that if one considers a compressive
force and an expansive force together, the first will have a coefficient 11
> i, the second a coefficient ri' < i; each of these coefficients
will be the ratio of the density of the space surrounding the point in
consideration under the action of the corresponding force, to the original
density of the same space, which is taken to be homogenous when not subject to
any forces, in virtue of a simple application of the principle of sufficient
reason. When neither compression nor dilation is produced, the ratio will
inevitably equal one, since the density of the space will be unchanged; in
order for two forces acting upon a point to be in equilibrium, their resultant
must have a coefficient of one. It is easy to see that the coefficient of this
resultant is the product—and not the sum, as in the'classical'
conception—of the
coefficients of the two forces under consideration; these two coefficients, n
and 11', must therefore each be the inverse of the other: ti' = Vn,
and we will then have as the condition for equilibrium, {n)(n' ) = 1;
thus equilibrium will no longer be defined by zero, but by the unit.
It will be seen that the definition
of equilibrium with respect to the unit—which is the only real
definition—corresponds to the fact that the unit occupies the mid-point in the
doubly indefinite sequence of whole numbers and their inverses, while this
central position is as it were usurped by zero in the artificial sequence of
positive and negative numbers. Par from being the state of nonexistence,
equilibrium is on the contrary existence considered in and of itself,
independent of its secondary, multiple manifestations; moreover, it is certainly
not Non-Being, in the metaphysical sense of the word, for existence, even in
this primordial and undifferentiated stale, is still the point of departure for
all differentiated manifestations, just as the unit is the point of departure
for the multiplicity of numbers. As we have just considered it, this unit, in
which equilibrium resides, is what the Far-Eastern tradition calls
the‘Invariable Middle’; and according to the same tradition, this equilibrium
or harmony is the reflection of the ‘Activity of Heaven’ at the center of each
state and of each modality of being.
We conclude this study, which makes
no claim to be exhaustive, with a ‘practical’ conclusion; we have shown
explicitly why the conceptions of modern mathematicians cannot inspire us with
any more respect than do those of the representatives of the other profane
sciences; their opinions and views thus have no weight in our eyes, and we need
take no account of them in our evaluations of one or another theory,
evaluations which, in this domain as well as any other, can be based for us
only on the data of traditional knowledge.
Their Traditional
Conception
We
have frequently emphasized the fact that the profane sciences are only the
product of a relatively recent degeneration brought about by a misunderstanding
of the ancient traditional sciences—or rather only of some of them—the others
having completely fallen into oblivion. This is true not only for the
sciences, but also for the arts, and furthermore the distinction between them
was once far less accentuated than it is now; the Latin word artes was
sometimes also applied to the sciences, and in the Middle Ages, the
classification of the ‘liberal arts’ included subjects which the modern world
would assign to either one or the other group. This one remark is already
enough to show that art was once something other than what is now understood by
this name, and that it implied a real knowledge with which it was incorporated,
as it were, and this knowledge obviously could only have been of the order of
the traditional sciences.
By this alone can one understand that
in certain initiatory organizations of the Middle Ages, such as the Tedeli
d’Amore’, the seven 'liberal arts’ were considered to correspond to the'heavens’,
that is, to states which were identified with the different degrees of initiation.[36]
For this the arts as well as the sciences had to be susceptible of a
transposition giving them a real esoteric value; and what makes such a
transposition possible is the very nature of traditional
The Arts & Their
Traditional Conception * 79 knowledge, which,
whatever its order, is always connected to transcendent principles. This
knowledge is thus given a meaning which can be termed symbolic, since it is founded
on the correspondence that exists between the various orders of reality; but
here it must be stressed that this does not involve something supcradded to
them accidentally, but on the contrary something that constitutes the profound
essence of all normal and legitimate knowledge, and which, as such, is inherent
in the sciences and the arts from their very beginning and remains so as long
as they have not undergone any deviation.
That the arts can be
viewed from this point of view should cause 110 astonishment, once one sees
that the crafts themselves, in their traditional conception, serve as a basis
for an initiation, as we have explained.[37]
In this connection we should also recall that we spoke at that time about how
the distinction between the arts and the crafts seems specifically modern and,
in short, appears to be only a consequence of the same degeneration which has
given birth to the profane outlook, for this latter literally expresses
nothing other than the very negation of the traditional spirit. After all,
whether it was a question of art or craft, there was always to one degree or
another the application and the implementation of various sciences of a higher
order, gradually linked to initiatic knowledge itself. Furthermore, the direct
implementation of initiatic knowledge also went by the name of art, as can be
seen clearly by expressions such as 'sacerdotal art’ and ‘royal art’, which
refer to the respective applications of the 'greater mysteries’ and the'lesser
mysteries’.
Let us now consider the
arts and give to this word a more limited and at the same time more customary
meaning, that is, what is more precisely called the ‘fine arts’. From the
preceding we can say that each of them must constitute a kind of symbolic
language adapted to the expression of certain truths by means of forms which
are of the visual order for some, and of the auditive or sonorous order for
others, whence their customary division into two groups, the ‘plastic arts’ and
the ‘phonetic arts’. In previous studies we have explained that this
distinction, like that between two kinds of corresponding
80 « MISCELLANEA
rites founded on the same
categories of symbolic forms, originally refers to the difference that exists
between the traditions of a sedentary people and those of a nomadic people.[38]
Moreover, whether the arts are of one or another genre, it is easy to see in a
general way that in a civilization they have a character all the more
manifestly symbolic as the civilization itself is more strictly traditional, for
their true value then lies less in what they are in themselves than in the
possibilities of expression which they afford, beyond those to which ordinary
language is confined. In a word, their productions are above all destined to
serve as‘supports’ for meditation, and as foundations for as deep and
extensive an understanding as possible, which is the very raison d’être of
all symbolism;[39]
and everything, even to the smallest details, must be determined by this
consideration and subordinated to this end, without any useless addition
emptied of meaning and simply meant to play a ‘decorative’ or ‘ornamental’
role.[40]
One sees that such a conception is as
far removed as possible from all modern and profane theories, as for example
that of‘art for art’s sake’, which fundamentally amounts to saying that art is
what it should be only when it has no meaning, or again that of‘moralizing’
art, which from the standpoint of knowledge is obviously of no greater value.
Traditional art is certainly not a ‘game’, to use an expression dear to certain
psychologists, nor is it simply a means of procuring for man a special kind of
pleasure, qualified as ‘superior’, although no one really knows why, for as
soon as it is only a question of pleasure, everything is reduced to purely
individual preferences, among which no hierarchy can logically be established.
Moreover, neither is it a vain and sentimental declamation, for which ordinary
language is certainly more than sufficient without
there in any way being a
need to resort to more or less mysterious or enigmatic forms, and in
any case forms far more complicated than what they would have had to express.
This gives us an opportunity to recall in passing—for one can never insist too
much on these things—the perfect uselessness of‘moral’ interpretations which
certain people aim to give to all symbolism, including initi- atic symbolism
properly speaking. If it really were a question of such banalities, one does
not see why or how one would ever have thought of‘veiling’ them in some way,
for they do very well without this when expressed by profane philosophy, and it
would then be better to say quite simply that in reality there is neither
symbolism nor initiation.
That said, one may ask on
which of the various traditional sciences the arts most directly depend. This,
of course, does not exclude their also having more or less constant relations
with the others, for here everything necessarily holds together and is connected
in the fundamental unity of the doctrine, which could neither be destroyed in
any way, nor even affected by the multiplicity of its applications. The
conception of sciences which are narrowly 'specialized’ and entirely separated
from each other is clearly anti- traditional insofar as it manifests a lack of
principle, and is characteristic of the ‘analytic’ outlook that inspires and
rules the profane sciences, whereas any traditional point of view can only be
essentially ‘synthetic’. With this reservation, it can be said that what lies
at the very heart of all the arts is chiefly an application of the science of
rhythm under its different forms, a science which is itself immediately
connected with that of number. It must be clearly understood that when we speak
of the science of number, it is not a question of profane arithmetic as
understood by the moderns, but of that arithmetic to be found in the Kabbalah
and in I’ythagorism (the best known examples), whose equivalent also exists,
under varied expressions and with greater or lesser developments, in all the
traditional doctrines.
What we have just said may
appear especially obvious for the phonetic arts, the productions of which are
all constituted by sequences of rhythms unfolding in time. Poetry owes its
rhythmical character to having originally been the ritual mode of expression of
the ‘language of the
gods’, that is to say the ‘sacred language’ par excellence,[41]
a function of which it still preserved something until a relatively recent time
when ‘literature’ had still not been invented.[42]
As for music, it will surely not be necessary to insist on this, since
its numerical basis is still recognized by moderns themselves, distorted though
it is through the loss of traditional data; formerly, as can be seen especially
well in the Far East, modifications could only be introduced into music in
consequence of certain changes occurring in the actual state of the world in
accordance with cyclical periods, for musical rhythms were at once intimately
linked with the human and social order and with the cosmic order, and in a
certain way they even expressed the connections between the one and the other.
The Pythagorean conception of the ‘harmony of the spheres' belongs to exactly
the same order of considerations.
For the plastic arts, the
productions of which are developed through extension in space, the same thing
cannot appear as immediately apparent, and yet it is no less strictly true;
but rhythm is then as it were fixed in simultaneity, and not in a state of
successive unfolding as in the previous case. This can be understood especially
by observing that in this second group the typical and fundamental art is
architecture, and in the final analysis the other arts, such as sculpture and
painting —at least in regard to their original intention—are only simple
dependencies thereof. Now, in architecture, rhythm is directly expressed by
the proportions existing between the various parts of the whole, and also
through geometric forms, which, when all is said and done are from our point of
view only the spatial translation of numbers and their relations/ Here
The Arts & Their
Traditional Conception * 83 again, of course, geometry must
be considered in a very different way from that of the profane mathematicians,
and its anteriority in respect to the latter most completely refutes those who
would like to attribute an ‘empirical’ and utilitarian origin to this science,
On the other hand, we have here an example of the way in which, from the
traditional point of view, the sciences are linked together to such an extent
that at times they could even be considered the expressions, as it were, of the
same truths in different languages. Furthermore, this is only a most natural
consequence of the‘law of correspondences’which is the very foundation of all
symbolism.
These few notions, summary and
incomplete as they are, will at least suffice for an understanding of what is
most essential in the traditional conception of the arts and what
differentiates this conception most profoundly from a profane one with regard
to the basis of these arts as applications of certain sciences, with regard to
their significance as different modalities of symbolic language, and with
regard to their intended role as a means for helping man to approach true knowledge.
Corporeal Existence
According to
the Sânkhya of
Kapila, there are five tan- mâtras or elementary essences, ideally
perceptible (or rather ‘con- ceptible’), but incomprehensible and imperceptible
under any mode of universal manifestation, because themselves unmanifested;
for just this reason it is impossible to attribute to them particular
designations, for they cannot be defined by any formal representation.[43]
These tanmâtras are
potential principles, or, to use an expression recalling the doctrine of Plato,
the ‘ideas-archetypes’ of the five elements of the physical material world, and
thus, of course, of an indefinitude of other modalities of manifested existence
corresponding analogically to these elements in the multiple degrees of this
existence. According to the same correspondence, these principial ideas also
potentially imply, respectively, the five conditions the combinations of which
constitute the determinations of this particular possibility of manifestation
that we call corporeal existence. Thus, the five tmitniitras or
principial ideas are the ‘essential’ elements, primordial causes of the five
'substantial’ elements of physical manifestation, which are only particular
determinations of exterior modifications. Under this physical modality, they
are expressed in the five conditions according to which the
[aws of corporeal
existence are formulated;[44]
the law, intermediate between the principle and the consequence, expresses the
relation of cause and effect (relation in which the cause can be regarded as
active and the effect as passive), or of the essence to the substance,
considered as the 8 and the H, the two extreme points of the modality of
manifestation that are envisaged (and which, in the universality of their
extension, are the same for each modality). But in themselves neither essence
nor substance belong to the domain of this manifestation, any more than the two
extremities of yin- yang are contained in the plane of the cyclic curve;
they are on either side of this plane, and this is why, in reality, the curve
of existence is never closed.
The five elements of the
physical world[45]
are, as we know, ether (akashaf air (vayu), fire (tejas),
water (apa), and earth (prithvTp the order in which they are
enumerated is that of their development, in accordance with the teaching of the
Veda.[46]
The effort has often been made to assimilate the elements to the different
states or degrees of condensation of physical matter, starting with primordial
homogenous ether, which fills the whole expanse, thus uniting between them all
the parts of the corporeal world; from this point of view, proceeding from the
densest to the most subtle, that is, in the inverse order of their
differentiation, the earth is made to correspond to the solid state, water to
the liquid state, air to the gaseous state, and fire to a still more rarefied
state rather similar to the'radiant state’ recently discovered by the
physicists and currently under investigation with the help of their special
methods of observation
and experimentation. This
point of view undoubtedly contains a portion of truth, but it is too
systematic, that is, too strictly particularized, and the order it establishes
in the elements differs from the preceding on one point, for it places fire
before air and immediately after ether, as if it were the first element to
differentiate itself within the original cosmic milieu. On the contrary,
according to the teaching that conforms to orthodox doctrine, air is the first
element, and air, a neutral element (only potentially containing the
active-passive duality), differentiating itself through polarization (bringing
about this duality from potency to act), produces in itself fire, an active
element, and water, a passive element (one could also say ‘reactive’, that is,
acting in reflective mode, correlatively to action in spontaneous mode of the
complementary element). The reciprocal action and reaction of fire and water
gives birth (through a sort of crystallization or residual precipitation) to
earth, the‘terminating and final element’ of corporeal manifestation. More
justifiably, we could consider the elements as different vibratory modalities
of physical matter, modalities under which it makes itself perceptible
successively (in purely logical succession, naturally)[47]
to each of the senses of our corporeal individuality; moreover, all of this
will be sufficiently explained and justified through the considerations we will
bring out later in this study.
Above all, we must establish that
ether and air are distinct elements, contrary to what is maintained by some
heterodox schools;[48]
but to make what we are going to say on this point more comprehensible,
let us first recall that the five conditions taken together, to which corporeal
existence is subject are space, time, matter, form, and life. Consequently, in
order to set forth these five conditions in a single definition, it can be said
that a body is ‘a material form living
in time and space’; let us
add that when we use the expression ‘physical world’, it is always as a
synonym of‘domain of corporeal manifestation’.[49]
It is only provisionally that we have enumerated these conditions in the
preceding order, without prejudgment of relations between them, until in the
course of our exposition we determine their respective correspondences with the
five senses and the five elements, which, moreover, are all likewise subject to
this set of five conditions.
11 ] Akcisha,
ether, considered as the most subtle element and the one from which all the
others proceed (forming, in relation to its primordial unity, a quaternary of
manifestation ), occupies all physical space, as we have said;[50]
however, it is not immediately through the ether that this space is perceived,
its particular quality not being extension, but sound; this requires some
explanation. In fact, ether, envisaged in itself, is originally homogenous; its
differentiation, which engenders the other elements (beginning with air), takes
its start from an elementary movement, originating at any point whatsoever, in
this indeterminate cosmic milieu. This elementary movement is the prototype of
the vibratory movement of physical matter, from the spatial point of view, it
is propagated around its starting- point in isotropic mode, that is to say
through concentric waves, in a helicoidal vortex along all the directions of
space, forming the unclosed figure of an indeterminate sphere. To mark the
connections which already link together the different conditions of corporeal
existence as enumerated above, we will add that this spherical form is the
prototype of all forms; it contains them all potentially, and its first
differentiation in polarized mode can be represented by the figuration of yin-yang,
which is easy to see if one refers back to the symbolic conception of Plato’s
Androgyne/
Movement, even when elementary,
necessarily presupposes space, just as it does time, and one can even say that
in a way it is the result of these two conditions, since it necessarily depends
on them as the effect depends on the cause (in which it is implied potentially);10
but it is not the elementary movement itself that gives us the direct
perception of space (or more exactly of extension). In fact, it is important to
note clearly that when we speak of movement produced in the ether at the origin
of all differentiation, it is exclusively a question of elementary movement, a
movement that we can call undulatory, or simple vibratory movement (the
wave-length and the infinitesimal period) in order to indicate its mode of
propagation, which is uniform in space and time, or rather the geometric
representation of the latter. Only in considering the other elements will we be
able to envisage complex modifications of this vibratory movement,
modifications which correspond for us to various orders of sensations. This
last point is all the more important in that on it lies the entire fundamental
distinction between the characteristic qualities of ether and those of air.
We must now ask which among the
corporeal sensations presents the perceptible exemplar of vibratory movement,
which we perceive directly without its passing through one or another of the
various modifications to which it is subject. Now, elementary physics itself
teaches us that these conditions are fulfilled by sonorous vibrations, of which
the wavelength, just as the speed of propagation," falls within the limits
of our sensory perception; one can thus say that it is the sense of hearing
which directly perceives vibratory movement. It will doubtless be objected at
this juncture that it is not the etheric vibration that is thus perceived in
sonorous mode, but rather the
Kt. However, it is clear
that in the spatial and temporal conditions which make its production possible,
movement can only commence tinder the action (exteriorized activity, in
reflective mode) of a principial cause, which is independent of these
conditions (see further on).
11. Velocity in any movement is the relation at any given moment
between the space traversed and the time elapsed in traversing it; and, in its
general formulation, this relation (constant or variable according Io whether
the movement is uniform or not) expresses the law governing the movement under
consideration (see below).
vibration of a gaseous,
liquid, or solid medium. It is no less true that it is ether that forms the
original medium of propagation of vibratory movement, which, in order to enter
within the limits of perceptibility corresponding to the range of our auditive
faculty, must be amplified only by its propagation through a denser medium (ponderable
matter), without for all that losing its characteristic of simple vibratory
movement (in this case, however, its wavelength and frequency are no longer
infinitesimal). In order thus to manifest the sonorous quality, it is necessary
that this movement already possess it potentially (directly)[51] in
its original medium, ether, of which consequently this quality, in its
potential state (of primordial indifferentiation), really constitutes its
characteristic nature in relation to our corporeal sensibility.[52]
On the other hand, if one
investigates by which of the five senses time is more particularly manifested
to us, it is easy to see that it is the sense of hearing; moreover, this is a
fact that can be verified experimentally by all those who are accustomed to
examining the respective origins of their various perceptions. The reason is as
follows: for time to be perceived materially (that is, for it be in contact
with matter, particularly as regards our corporeal organism), it must be
measurable, for in the physical world this is a general characteristic of all
perceptible quality (when considered as such).1'1
Now, for us it is not
direct because it is not in itself divisible, and we only conceive the measure
through division, at least in the usual and perceptible way (for one can
conceive of other modes of measure, such as integration for example). Time will
therefore be rendered measurable only insofar as it expresses itself according
to a divisible variable, and as we shall see further on, this variable can only
be space, divisibility being a quality essentially inherent to the latter.
Consequently, in order to measure time it will be necessary to envisage it
insofar as it enters into contact with space, as it is combined therewith, as
it were, and the result of this combination is the movement by which space is
traversed, which, being the sum of a series of elementary displacements
envisaged in successive mode (that is, precisely under the temporal condition),
is a function1^ of the time elapsed to traverse it. The relation
existing between this space and this time expresses the law of movement under
consideration.[53]
Conversely, time will then likewise be expressed in relation to space, by
reversing the previously considered relation between these two conditions in a
determined movement; this amounts to considering this movement as a spatial
representation of time. The most natural representation will be that which
represents it numerically by the simplest function; it will therefore be a
uniform oscillatory movement (rectilinear or circular), one, that is, with a
constant velocity or oscillatory period, which can be regarded as no more than
a sort of amplification (implying moreover a differentiation in relation to the
directions of space) of the elementary vibratory movement. But since this is
also the characteristic of sonorous vibration, we see immediately by this that
it is hearing which, among the senses, particularly gives us the perception of
time.
We must now observe that even if
space and time are the necessary conditions of movement, they are not its
first causes; they are themselves the effects by means of which is manifested
movement, itself another effect (secondary in relation to the preceding ones,
which can be regarded tn
this sense as its immediate causes since it is conditioned by them) of the same
essential causes, causes which potentially contain the integrality of all their
effects, and are synthesized in the total and supreme Cause conceived as the
unlimited and unconditioned Universal Power.17 On the other hand,
for movement to actually occur, there must be something which is moved, in
other words a substance (in the etymological sense of the word)18 on
which it is exercised; that which is moved is matter, which thus
17. This is clearly expressed in biblical symbolism: as regards
the special cosmogonic application to the physical world, Cain (‘the
strong and powerful transformer, the one who centralizes, seizes and
assimilates to himself’) corresponds to time, Abel (‘the gentle and
peaceful liberator, the one who withdraws and calms, who vanishes, who flees
the center’), to space, and Seth ('the base and the basis of things’) to
movement (see the works of Fabre d'Olivet [esp. Cain (New York; G.P.
Putnam’s Sons, 1923)], Et>). The birth of Cain precedes that of
Abel, which is to say that the perceptible manifestation of time precedes
(logically) that of space, just as sound is the perceptible quality which
develops first; the murder of AM by Cain represents then the apparent
destruction—in the exteriority of things—of simultaneity by succession. The
birth of Seth is consecutive to this murder, as conditioned by what it
represents, but Seth, or movement, does not proceed in itself from Cain
and Abel, or from time and space, although its manifestation is a
consequence of the action of one on the other (hence regarding space as passive
in relation to time); but, like them, he is born from Adam himself, that
is, that he proceeds as directly as do they from the exteriorization of the
powers of Universal Man, who has, as Fabre d'Olivet says, ‘generated, in the
midst of its integrating faculty, its reflective shadow.'
1 ime, under its three
aspects of past, present, and future, unites between them all the
modifications—considered as successive—of each of the beings that it leads
through the Current of Forms toward the final Transformation; thus Shiva,
under the aspect of Mahàdeva, having three eyes and holding the trishula
(trident), keeps to the center of the Wheel of Things. Space, product of the
expansion of the potentialities of a principial and central point, makes the
multiplicity of things coexist in its unity; now these things, considered (exteriorly
and analytically) as simultaneous, are all contained in it and penetrated by
ether, which entirely fills space. I ikewise, Vishnu under the aspect of
Vitsudeva, manifests things, penetrating them in their intimate essence
through multiple modifications distributed along the circumference of the
Wheel of Things, without the Unity of its supreme Essence being altered (ci. Bhagavad
Cita, 10).
Finally, movement, or better, ‘mutation’, is the law of all modification or
diversification in the manifested order, a cyclic and evolutive law, which
manifests Prajapaii or Brahmâ considered as 'Lord of the
Creatures’ at the same time that it is ‘the Provider of Substance (Subslantear)
and organic Sustainer'.
18.
But not in the sense
understood by Spinoza.
does not intervene in the
production of movement except as a purely passive condition. The reactions of
matter are subject to movement (since passivity always implies a reaction) and
develop in matter the different perceptible qualities, which, as we have already
said, correspond to the elements the combinations of which constitute this
modality of matter (considered as object, not of perception, but of pure
conception)[54]
that we know as the ‘substratum of physical manifestation. In this domain,
activity is therefore neither inherent nor spontaneous in matter, but belongs
to it in a reflexive fashion insofar as this matter coexists with space and
time; and it is this activity of matter in movement which constitutes, not lite
in itself, but the manifestation of life in the domain that we are considering.
The first effect of this activity is to give form to this matter, for it is
necessarily formless so long as it is in a homogenous and undifferentiated
state, which is that of primordial ether; it is only capable of taking on all
the forms potentially contained within the integral extension of its particular
possibility.[55] It
can thus be said that it is also movement that determines the manifestation of
form in physical or corporeal mode; and, just as all form proceeds from the
spherical primordial form by differentiation, so all movement can be reduced to
a set of elements each of which is a vibratory heli- coidal movement differing
from the elementary spherical vortex only in that space will no longer be
envisaged as isotropic.
We have already had
occasion to consider the five conditions of corporeal existence taken as a
whole, and we will have to return to this subject from different points of view
as we consider each of the four elements the respective characteristics of
which remain to be studied.
2.
] Vâyu is
air, and more particularly air in movement (or considered as principle of
differentiated movement[56]
since in its original meaning this word really means breath or wind); mobility
is thus
considered as the characteristic
nature of this element,[57]
which is the first to be differentiated from the primordial ether (and which,
like ether, is still neutral, the exterior polarization appearing by duality as
the complementarity Fire and Water, and not before). In fact, this first
differentiation necessitates a complex movement, constituted by a series
(combination or coordination) of elementary vibratory movements, and
determining a rupture of the homogeneity of the cosmic milieu by propagating
itself according to certain particular and determined directions from its point
of origin. Once this differentiation takes place, space must no longer be
regarded as isotropic; on the contrary, it can then be related to a complex of
several defined directions taken as axes of coordinates, and which, serving to
measure it in any portion of ils extension—and even, theoretically, in the totality of
the latter—are what one calls the dimensions of space. These coordinate axes
(at least according to the ordinary idea of so-called ‘Euclidean’ space, which
corresponds directly to the sensible perception of corporeal extension) will be
three orthogonal diameters of the indeterminate spheroid that comprise the
full extension of its deployment, and their center can be any point of this
extension, which latter will then be considered as the product of the
development of all spatial virtualities contained in this point (principially
indeterminate). It is important to note that the point in itself is not
contained in space and cannot in any way be conditioned by it, because on the
contrary it is the point that creates out of its own ‘ipseity’ redoubled or
polarized into essence and substance,[58]
which amounts to saying that it contains space
potentially. It is space
that proceeds from the point, and not the point that is determined by space;
but secondarily (all manifestation or exterior modification being only
contingent and accidental in relation to its‘intimate nature’), the point
determines itself in space in order to realize the actual extension of its
potentialities of unlimited multiplication (of itself by itself). Again, one
can say that this primordial and principial point fills all of space by the
deployment of its possibilities (envisaged in active mode in the point itself
dynamically‘effecting’ the extension, and in passive mode in this same
extension realized statically). It is situated in space only when it is
considered in each particular position that it is able to occupy, that is to
say in each of its modifications corresponding precisely to each of its special
possibilities. Thus extension already exists in the potential state in the
point itself; it starts to exist in the actual state only when this point, in
its first manifestation, is in a way doubled in order to stand face to face
with itself, for one can then speak of the elementary distance between two
points (although in principle and in essence the latter are only one and the
same point), whereas, when one considers only a single point (or rather when
one considers the point only under the aspect of principial unity), it could
obviously not be a question of distance. However, one must point out that the
elementary distance is only what corresponds to this doubling in the domain of
spatial or geometric representation (which only has the character of symbol for
us). Metaphysically, the point is considered to represent Being in its unity
and its principial identity, that is to say Anna outside of any special
condition (or determination) and all differentiation; this point itself, its
exteriorization (which can be considered as its image, in which it is
reflected) and the distance that joins them while at the same time separating
them, and that marks the relationship existing between both (a relationship
that implies causality, indicated geometrically by the direction of the
distance, envisaged as a ‘directed’ segment, and going from point-cause to
point-effect), corresponds respectively to the three terms of the ternary that
we have distinguished in Being considered as knowing itself (that is to say in Buddhi),
terms which, outside this point of view, are perfectly identical among
themselves, and which are designated Sat, Chit, and Ananda.
We say that the point is
the symbol of Being in its Unity; this latter can in fact be conceived in the
following way: if the extension of a dimension, or a line, is measured
quantitatively by a number a, the quantitative measure of the extension
in two dimensions, or of the surface, will be of the form a2,
and that of the extension in three dimensions, or of volume, will be of the
form a3. Thus, adding a dimension to the extension is equivalent to
raising by one the exponent of the corresponding quantity (which is the
measure of this extension), and, inversely, to take away a dimension from the extension
is equivalent to diminishing this very exponent by one. If the last dimension,
that of the line (and, consequently, the final unity of the exponent), is
removed, it remains the point geometrically, and numerically it remains a0,
that is, from the algebraic point of view, unity itself, which identifies
quantitatively the point of this unity. It is therefore an error to believe, as
some do, that the point can only correspond numerically to zero, for it is
already an affirmation, that of Being pure and simple (in all its
universality). No doubt it has 110 dimension, because in itself it is not
situated in space, which latter contains, as we have said, only the
indefinitude of its manifestations (or of its particular determinations); since
it is without dimension, it obviously no longer has any form; but to say that
it is non-formal is by no means to say that it is nothing (zero is considered
thus by those who assimilate the point to it), and moreover, although without
form, it contains space potentially, which, realized in actuality, will in its
turn be the container of all forms, at least in the physical world.[59]
We have said that
extension exists in actuality once the point has manifested itself by its
self-exteriorization, since it is by this very act that the point realizes
space. It should not be thought that this assigns a temporal beginning to
space, however, for it is a question of a purely logical starting-point only,
of an ideal principle of space understood in the fullness of its extension, and
not limited to corporeal extension alone.[60]
Time intervenes only when the two positions of the point are envisaged as
successive, while on the other hand the relation of causality that exists
between them implies their simultaneity; and it is also insofar as this first
differentiation is envisaged under the aspect of succession, that is, in
temporal mode, that the resulting distance (as intermediary between the
principial
point and its exterior
reflection, the first by implication being immediately situated in relation to
the second)[61]
can be regarded as measuring the amplitude of elementary vibratory movement, of
which we have spoken previously.
However, without the
coexistence of simultaneity with succession, movement itself would not be
possible, for then the mobile point (or at least considered as such in the
course of its process of modification) would be there where it is not, which is
absurd, or it would not be anywhere, which amounts to saying that there would
not actually be any space where movement can in fact occur,[62]
Ultimately all the arguments that have been raised against the possibility of
movement, notably by certain Greek philosophers, amount to this, and it is this
question, moreover, that most embarrasses academicians and modern
philosophers. Its solution is very simple, however, and as we have already
indicated elsewhere, lies precisely in the coexistence of succession and
simultaneity, succession in the modalities of manifestation, in the actual
state, but simultaneity in principle, in the potential state, making possible
the logical linking of causes and effects (every effect being implied and
contained potentially in its cause, which is in no way affected or modified by
the actualization of this effect).[63]
From the physical point of view, the idea of succession is tied to the temporal
condition and the idea of simultaneity to the spatial condition;[64]
movement, in its passage
98
* MISCELLANEA
from potency to act,
results from the union or the combination of these two conditions, and
reconciles (or balances) the two corresponding ideas, by making a body coexist
with itself in simultaneous mode from the purely spatial point of view (which
is essentially static), identity thus being conserved through all its modifications,
contrary to the Buddhist theory of‘total dissolubility’. This coexistence
underlies an indefinite series of positions (which are so many modifications of
this same body, and are accidental and contingent in relation to what
constitutes its intimate reality, in substance as in essence), positions which
are successive from the temporal point of view (kinetic in its relation with
the spatial point of view).[65]
On the other hand, since actual
movement supposes time and its coexistence with space, we are led to the
following formulation: a body can move according to one or another of the three
dimensions of physical space, or following a direction that is a combination of
these three dimensions, for whatever the direction (fixed or variable) of its
movement, it can always be reduced to a more or less complex series of
components related to the three axes of the coordinates to which is linked the
space under consideration; but in every case this body moves always and
necessarily in time. As a result, time will become another dimension of space
if one changes succession into simultaneity; in other words, to suppress the
temporal condition amounts to adding a supplementary dimension to physical
space, of which the new space thus obtained constitutes a prolongation or
extension. This fourth dimension thus corresponds to ‘omnipresence’ in the
domain considered, and it is through this transposition in ‘non-time’ that we
can conceive the ‘permanent actuality’ of the manifested Universe. While noting
that
till modification is
not assimilable to
movement, which is only an exterior modification of a special order, this also
explains all the phenomena commonly regarded as miraculous or supernatural31—
quite mistakenly, since they still belong to the domain of our present
individuality in one or the other of its multiple modalities, for the corporeal
individuality constitutes only a very small part thereof, a domain in which the
conception of‘fixed time’ allows us to embrace fully all indéfini Iude.32
31. There are facts that seem inexplicable only because in
searching for an explanation one does not move outside the ordinary conditions
of physical time. Hence it is said that the sudden reconstitution of injured
organic tissues that is observed in certain cases regarded as ‘miraculous’
cannot be natural because it is contrary to the physiological laws of the
regeneration of these tissues, which laws operate through multiple and surcesshe
generations (or bipartitions) of cells, and necessarily require the
collaboration of time. First, it is not proved that a regeneration of this
kind, as sudden as it may be, is truly instantaneous, that is. not
actually requiring anytime in order to occur, and it is possible that in
certain circumstances the multiplication of the cells is simply rendered much
more rapid than in normal cases, to the point of no longer requiring even the
least duration detectable to our sensory perception. Next, even in admitting
that it is really a question of a truly instantaneous phenomenon, there
is still the possibility that in certain particular conditions differing from
the ordinary, but nonetheless quite natural, this phenomenon is in fact
accomplished outside of time (implying the ‘instantaneity’ in question,
which, in the cases considered, amounts to the simultaneity of the multiple
cellular bipartitions,
or at least as expressed in its corporeal or physiological
correspondence), or, if one prefers, that it is accomplished in 'mm-time',
whereas in ordinary conditions it is accomplished in time. It would no
longer be a miracle for the person who could understand its real meaning and
resolve the following question, which is much more paradoxical in appearance
than it is in reality: how, while living in the present, can we act so
that any event produced in lite past has not happened? And it is
essential to note that this (which is not more impossible ri priori than
it is to presently prevent the realization of an event in the future,
since the link of succession is not a causa! link) does not in any way suppose
a return to the past as such (such a return being a manifest impossibility
since it would equally be a transport into the future as such), since there is
obviously neither past nor future in relation to the'eternal present’.
32.
In this connection, we
might add a remark on the numeric representation of this indefinitude
(continuing to take it under its spatial symbol): the line is measured, that
is to say represented quantitatively by a number a to the first power:
but since its measure may also be taken using decimal division as basis, one
can write « -
ton. In tliis case, then, one will have for the surface: <1- = toon’, and
for the volume: a-' = looon'; for the extension to four dimensions, it
will again be necessary to
Let us return to our conception
of the point filling all of space through the indefinitude of its
manifestations, that is to say of its multiple and contingent modifications.
From the dynamic point of view[66]
the latter must be considered in space (of which they are all the points) as so
many centers of force (of which each is potentially the very center of space),
and force is nothing other than the affirmation in manifested mode of the will
of Being, symbolized by the point. In the universal sense, this will is the
active power or ‘productive energy’ (Shakti)'[67]
of Being indissolubly united to itself, and exerted on the actional domain of
Being, that is to say, using the same symbolism, on space itself envisaged
passively, that is, from the static point of view (as the field of action of
any one of these centers of force).[68]
Thus, in all its manifestations and in each of
adit a factor a, giving: ir1
= to.ooiw1. Furthermore, it can be said that all the powers of 10
are contained virtually in its fourth power, just as the denary, complete manifestation
of unity, is contained in the quaternary
them, the point can be
regarded in relation to these manifestations as being polarized in active and
passive mode, or, if one prefers, direct and reflected mode;36 the
dynamic, active, or direct point of view corresponds to essence, and the
static, passive, or reflective point of view corresponds to substance;37
but of course the consideration of these two complementary points of view in
every modality of the manifestation in no way alters the unity of the
principial point (any more than of Being, of which it is the symbol), and this
allows one clearly to conceive the fundamental identity of the essence and the
substance, which, as we said at the beginning of this study, are the two poles
of universal manifestation.
Extension, considered from
the substantial point of view, is not distinct as regards our physical world
from the primordial ether {akâshaf so long as it does not produce therein a complex movement
determining a formal differentiation; but the indefinitude of possible
combinations of movements then gives birth in this extension to the
indefinitude of forms, all differentiating themselves, as we have just shown,
starting from the original spherical form. From the physical point of view,
movement is the necessary factor in all differentiation, and thus the condition
of all formal manifestations, and also, simultaneously, of all vital
manifestations, both in the domain considered, being equally subject to time
and space, and presupposing, on the other hand, a material ‘substratum' on
which this activity is physically exercised through movement. It is important
to note that every corporeal form is necessarily living, since life
3ft. But this polarization
remains potential (therefore wholly ideal, and not perceptible) as long as we
do not have to envisage the actual compleinentarisin of fire and water (each of
the latter remaining likewise potentially polarized); till then, the two
aspects active and passive, can be dissociated only conceptually, since air is
still a neutral element.
37. For every point in extension, the static aspect is reflected
in relation to the dynamic aspect, which latter is direct as long as it
participates immediately in the essence of the principial point (implying an
identification), but which in its indivisible unity, however, is itself
reflected in relation to this point considered in itself. One must never lose
sight of the fact that the consideration of activity and passivity implies only
a relation or a link between two terms envisaged as mutually complementary.
as well as form is a
condition of all physical existence.38 Moreover, this physical life
consists of an indefinitude of degrees, its most general divisions
corresponding to the three kingdoms mineral, vegetable, and animal, at least
from our terrestrial point of view, but without the distinctions between these
kingdoms having more than a wholly relative value.39 It follows that
in this domain any form is always in a state of movement or activity,
manifesting the life proper to it, and that it can be envisaged statically,
that is to say at rest, only through a conceptual abstraction.40
It is through mobility that form
manifests itself physically and is rendered perceptible to us, and, just as
mobility is the characteristic nature of air (vayti), touch is the sense
which corresponds properly to form, for it is by touch that we generally
perceive form. But owing to its limited mode of perception which operates
exclusively
38. Conversely, it is clearly understood thereby that in the
physical world life cannot manifest itself otherwise than in forms; hut this is
no proof against the possible existence of a non-formal life outside of this
physical world, without it being legitimate however to consider life itself, in
all the indefinitude of its extension, as being more than a contingent
possibility comparable to all the others, and in the same way as the others,
arising in the determination of certain individual states of manifested beings,
states which proceed from certain specialized and refracted aspects of
Universal Being.
39. It is impossible to determine characteristics that permit the
establishment of certain and precise distinctions between these three kingdoms,
which seem closely akin, especially in their most elementary forms, which are
in some way embryonic.
40. From this it is sufficiently clear what, from the physical
point of view, one should think of the so-called ‘principle of inertia of
matter’: truly inert matter, that is to say matter deprived of all attribution
or actual property, and therefore indistinct and undifferentiated; a pure
passive and receptive power on which is exercised an activity of which it is
not the cause, is, we repeat, only conceivable when envisaged apart from this
activity of which it is only the 'substratum' and from which it takes all its
reality. It is this activity (to which it is not opposed, in order to furnish a
support for it, except by the effect of a contingent reflection which does not
give to it any independent reality) which, through reaction (by reason of this
very reflection), in fact, in the special conditions of physical existence,
makes of it the place of all sensory phenomena (just like other phenomena which
do not reappear within the limits of our sense perception), the substantial and
plastic milieu of all corporeal modifications.
through contact,[69]
this sense still cannot directly and immediately give us the full idea of
corporeal extension in three dimensions,[70]
which belongs only to the sense of sight; but here the actual existence
of this extension is already assumed through that of form, since it conditions
the manifestation of this latter, at least in the physical world.41
Moreover, insofar as air
proceeds from ether, sound is also perceptible therein; since, as we have
established above, differentiated movement implies the distinction of the
directions of space, the role of air in the perception of sound, apart from its
quality of medium in which the etheric vibrations are amplified, will consist
principally in enabling us to recognize the direction according to which this
sound is produced in relation to the actual situation of our body. In the
physiological organs of hearing, the part corresponding to this perception of
direction (a perception which, moreover, effectively becomes complete only with
and through the notion of extension in three dimensions) constitutes what are
known as the ‘semi-circular canals’, which are precisely oriented according to
the three dimensions of physical space,[71]
Finally, to a point of
view other than that of the perceptible qualities, air is the substantial
medium whence the vital breath (prana) proceeds. This is why the five
phases of respiration and assimilation, which are modalities or aspects of prana,
are identified as a whole with vâyit. This is the particular role of air
with regard to life; hence
we see that, just as we
had foreseen for this element as for ether, we have really had to consider the
totality of the five conditions of corporeal existence and their relations.
The same will hold true for each of the other three elements, which proceed
from the first two, and which we shall now discuss.[72]
Some Modern Errors
The ‘Empiricism’ of the Ancients
On
numerous occasions we have already explained the fundamental difference between
the sciences of the ancients and the moderns, which is that between traditional
and profane sciences; but this is a question involving so many commonly held
errors that it cannot be overemphasized. Thus it is often affirmed as self-evident
that the science of the ancients was purely 'empirical’, which basically
amounts to saying that it was not really even a science strictly speaking, but
only a kind of practical and utilitarian knowledge. Now it is easy to see on
the contrary that preoccupations of this order have never held such sway as
among the moderns, and also, even without going further back than what is
called ‘classical’ antiquity, that everything concerned with experimentation
was considered by the ancients as only constituting knowledge of a very
inferior degree. It is not very clear how all of this can be reconciled with
the preceding affirmation; and, by a remarkable inconsistency, those very
people who express the latter almost never fail to reproach the ancients for
their disdain for experimentation!
The source of the error in
question, as also for a multitude of others, is the notion of‘evolution’
or‘progress’: by virtue of the latter, it is claimed that all knowledge began
in a rudimentary state from which it was to be gradually raised and developed.
A sort of crude, primitive simplicity is postulated which, of course, cannot be
the object of any observation; and it is maintained that everything started
from below, as if it were not contradictory to accept that the superior can
originate in the inferior. Such a concept is not just any error, but quite
specifically a counter-truth’; by this we mean that it
goes right against the
grain of the truth by a strange inversion which is very characteristic of the
modern spirit. The truth, on the contrary, is that since the beginning there
has been a sort of degradation or continual ‘descent’, going from spirituality
to materiality, that is, from the superior to the inferior, and manifesting
itself in all the domains of human activity; and from this, in fairly recent
times, sprang the profane sciences separated from any transcendent principle
and justified solely by the practical applications to which they give rise, for
this is in sum all that interests modern man, who cares little for pure
knowledge, and who, as we have just said, only attributes his own tendencies[73] to
the ancients because he cannot even conceive that theirs may have been
altogether different, any more than he can imagine that there may exist
sciences altogether different in objective and method from those which he
himself cultivates exclusively.
This same error also implies
‘empiricism’ when understood to designate a philosophical theory, that is, the
idea —also very modern—that all knowledge derives entirely from experience and,
more precisely, from perceptible experience; in reality, this is only one form
of the claim that everything comes from below. It is clear that outside of this
preconceived notion there is no reason to suppose that the first state of all
knowledge must have been an ‘empirical’ state; this comparison between the two
meanings of the same word certainly has nothing fortuitous about it, and it
could be said that it is the philosophical ‘empiricism’ of the moderns that
leads them to attribute to the ancients a de facto ‘empiricism’. Now it
must be admitted that we have never been able to understand even the
possibility of such a concept, so much does it seem to us to go against all
evidence: that there may be knowledge that does not come from the senses, is,
purely and simply, a matter of fact; but the moderns, who claim that they rely
only on facts, ignore them or readily deny them when they do not agree with
their theories. In short, the existence of this notion of‘empiricism’ simply
proves that
among those who have
expressed it and among those who accept it, certain faculties of a supra-sensible order
beginning, it goes without saying, with pure intellectual intuition, have
entirely disappeared.[74]
Generally speaking, the
sciences as understood by the moderns, that is to say the secular sciences,
actually assume nothing more or less than a rational elaboration of perceptible
data; it is therefore they who are truly ‘empirical’ as to their point of
departure; and it could be said that moderns unduly confuse this starting-point
of their sciences with the origin of all science. Yet even in their sciences
there are sometimes diminished or altered vestiges of ancient knowledge, the
real nature of which escapes them; and here we are thinking especially of the
mathematical sciences, the essential concepts of which cannot be drawn from
sensory experience. The efforts of certain philosophers to explain
‘empirically’ the origin of these ideas is at times irresistibly comical! And,
if some are tempted to protest when we speak of dimimshment or alteration for
the worse, we will ask them to compare in this regard, for example, the
traditional science of numbers to profane arithmetic; no doubt they will then
be able to understand quite easily what is meant.
Moreover, most of the profane
sciences really owe their origin only to fragments or even, one could say, to
residues from misunderstood traditional sciences: elsewhere we have mentioned
as particularly characteristic the example of chemistry, which arose, not from
genuine alchemy, but from its denaturation by‘puffers’, that is, by the profane
who, ignorant of the true meaning of hermetic symbols, understood them in a
crudely literal sense. We have also cited the case of astronomy, which
represents only the material portion of ancient astrology, isolated from
everything that constituted the ‘spirit’ of this science, and irremediably lost
to moderns, who go off spouting foolishly that astronomy was discovered in a
totally empirical’ way by Chaldean shepherds, without suspecting that the
name‘Chaldean’ was really
the designation of a priestly caste! We could multiply examples of the same
kind to establish a comparison between sacred cosmogonies and the theory of the
‘nebula’ and other similar hypotheses, or, in another order of ideas, to show
the degeneration of medicine from its ancient dignity of‘sacerdotal art’, and
so on. The conclusion would always be the same: secular people, having
illegitimately taken over fragments of knowledge of which they can grasp
neither the scope nor the significance, have formed so-called independent
sciences which are worth just exactly what they themselves are worth; and thus
modern science, which has sprung from them, is literally only the science of
the ignorant.[75]
The traditional sciences, as we have
so often said, are characterized essentially by their attachment to
transcendent principles, upon which they depend strictly as more or less
contingent applications, and this is the complete contrary of‘empiricism’; but
the principles necessarily escape the profane, and that is why the latter, even
our modern experts, can never really be other than ‘empirical’. Since the time
when, as a result of the degradation alluded to previously, men have no longer
been equally qualified for all knowledge, that is to say, at least since the
beginning of the Knli-Yuga, the profane became inevitable. However, in
order that their truncated and falsified science be taken seriously and pass
for what it is not, it was necessary that true knowledge together with the initiatic
organizations which were charged with conserving and transmitting it disappear,
and this is precisely what has happened in the Western world in the course of
the last centuries.
We should add that in the way moderns
envisage the knowledge of the ancients one may clearly see this negation of any
‘suprahuman’ element which constitutes the basis of the anti-traditional
spirit, and which, after all, is only a direct result of secular ignorance.
Not only is everything reduced to purely human proportions, but, as a result of
this reversal of all things which the evolutionist’ conception entails, they go
so far as to put the ‘infra-human’ at the
origin. What is most
serious is that in the eyes of our contemporaries these things seem to be
self-evident; because they no longer even have any inkling that things might be
otherwise, they go so far as to state them as if they could not even be
disputed, and to present as ■facts’ the most unfounded hypotheses. This is most
serious, we say, because it is what makes us fear that, having reached such a
point, die deviation of the modern spirit may be altogether irremediable.
These considerations will
help us understand why it is absolutely futile to seek to establish any accord
or reconciliation whatsoever between traditional and secular knowledge, and why
the first does not have to ask of the second a 'confirmation’ of which it has
no need in and of itself. If we stress this, it is because we know how
widespread this point of view is today among those who have some idea of
traditional doctrines; yet an ‘exterior’ idea, so to speak, is insufficient to
enable one to penetrate their profound nature, as well as to prevent one from
being deluded by the false prestige of modern science and its practical
applications. The former, by thus putting on the same plane things that are in
no way comparable, not only waste their time and effort, but also risk going
astray and misleading others into all kinds of false conceptions. And the many
varieties of occultism’ are there to show that this danger is only too real.
The Diffusion of Knowledge & the
Modern Spirit
We
have already had more than one occasion to say what we think of the modern
tendencies to ‘propaganda’ and ‘popularization’, and of the incomprehension of
true knowledge that they imply; so we do not intend to return yet again to the
many disadvantages presented generally by the unconsidered diffusion of an
‘education’ which is intended to be distributed equally to everyone under forms
and by methods that are identical, and that can only result in a kind of
levelling; here, as everywhere in our time, quality is sacrificed to quantity.
Yet in a relative way this kind of activity is perhaps excusable in light of
the very character of the secular education in question, which offers no
knowledge in the true sense of the word, and contains absolutely nothing of a
profound order. What makes it especially harmful is that it is taken for what
it is not and tends to deny everything that is beyond itself, thus stifling all
possibilities relating to a higher domain. But what is perhaps more serious
still—and what we wish especially to call attention to here—is that some people
believe they are able to expound traditional doctrines on the model as it were
of this same profane education, applying considerations that take no account of
the actual nature of these doctrines, and of the essential differences that
exist between them and everything that is today designated by the terms
‘science’ and ‘philosophy’. Here we see the modern spirit penetrating even into
what is by very definition radically opposed, so that it is not
difficult to understand
what destructive consequences, may result from it, consequences unknown even to
those who often in good faith and with no precise intention make themselves the
instruments of such penetration.
We have recently had an
example of this which is rather surprising in more than one respect: one
cannot stifle a certain astonishment in hearing it asserted first of all that
‘in India it has long been believed that certain aspects of the Vedantic
teaching must be kept secret,’ that ‘the popularization of certain truths was
reputed to be dangerous,’ and that ‘one was even forbidden to speak of it
outside a small circle of initiates.' There is no call to cite any names here,
since this case is of value only to ‘illustrate’ a certain mentality; but to
account for our astonishment we must at least say that these assertions do not
come from an orientalist or Theosophist, but from a native Hindu. Now, if there
was ever a country where it has always been held that the theoretical aspect of
doctrine (for of course there is no question here, of‘realization’ and its
proper means) could be expounded with no other reservation than that of their
ultimate inexpressibility, it is precisely India. Given the actual constitution
of traditional Hindu organization, one cannot imagine who could be qualified to
prohibit anyone’s speaking of this or that; in fact, such a situation can only
occur where there is a clear distinction between esoterism and exoterism, which
is not the case for India. Neither one say that the ‘popularization’ of
doctrines is dangerous, but rather that, were it even possible, it would simply
be useless, since in reality truths of this order resist all ‘popularization’
by their very nature. However clearly they may be presented, they will be understood
only by those qualified to understand them, while for the rest the doctrines
will be as if they do not exist. Our opinion of the ‘secrets’ so dear to
pseudo-esoterists is known well enough: a reserve in the theoretical order can
only be justified by considerations of simple expediency and thus on purely
contingent grounds; ultimately, any outward secret can only have the value of a
symbol, or sometimes also that of a ‘discipline’, which would not be without
benefit... But the modern mentality is such that it cannot abide any secret or
even any reserve; the import and significance ol such things entirely escape
it, and its incomprehension in their regard
quite naturally engenders
hostility; yet the truly monstrous character of a world in which everything
would be made ‘public’ (we say ‘would’ for in spite of everything we have not
yet come to such a pass) is such that it would merit a special study in itself.
But this is not the moment to indulge in perhaps too facile‘anticipations’, and
we will simply say that we can only pity those who have fallen so low as to be
able to live, literally as well as symbolically, in ‘hives of glass’.
But to continue with our
citations: ‘Today, one can no longer take these restrictions into account; the
average level of culture has been raised and minds have been prepared to
receive the complete teaching.’ Here we see as clearly as possible the
confusion of traditional teaching with profane education, designated by the
term ‘culture’, which in our time has come to be one of its standard
designations. But this is something that has not the least connection to
traditional teaching or to the aptitude for receiving it; and in addition,
since the so-called raising of the'average level’ has its inevitable
counterpart in the disappearance of the intellectual elite, one can truly say
that this ‘culture’ represents exactly the opposite of the preparation in
question here. We wonder moreover how a Hindu can completely ignore our present
position in the Kali-Yuga, and can go so far as to say that ‘the time
has come when the entire system of the Vedanta can be publicly
expounded,’ whereas the least knowledge of cyclical laws obliges one to say, on
the contrary, that they are less favorable than ever; and if it has never been
‘within the reach of the common man,’ for whom it is not made, it certainly is
not so today, for this ‘common man’ has never been so totally lacking in
understanding. Besides, the truth is that for this very reason everything
representing traditional knowledge of a truly profound order, and thus corresponding
to what an ‘integral teaching’ must imply, is made increasingly difficult of
access —and this everywhere. Faced with the invasive modern and profane spirit,
it is all too obvious that it could not be otherwise; how then can one so
misunderstand the reality as to affirm its complete opposite, and this with as
much tranquillity as if one were expressing the most incontestable of truths?
The reasons our author
advances for his current interest in spreading the Vedantic teaching are
no less extraordinary. First, he
The Diffusion of Knowledge
& the Modern Spirit * 115 highlights the
‘development of social ideas and political institutions’; but even if there
truly is a ‘development’ (and in any case he should specify what sense he
intends), this is still something that has no more relation to the
understanding of a metaphysical doctrine than has the diffusion of secular
education. Moreover, it is enough to observe in any country of the East how
political preoccupations hinder the knowledge of traditional truths wherever
they have been introduced, for one to think it more justifiable to speak of an
incompatibility (more or less of fact) than of a possible agreement between two
such ‘developments’. We do not really see what connection ‘social life', in
the purely profane sense as conceived by the moderns, could possibly have with
spirituality; on the other hand, there was such a connection when social life
was integrated into a traditional civilization. But it is precisely the modern
spirit that has destroyed such civilizations, or aims to destroy them wherever
they still exist; that being so, what can one really expect from a ‘development’
the most characteristic trait of which is its opposition to all spirituality?
But he invokes yet another
reason: ‘Furthermore, for the Vedanta as for the truths of science, a
scientific secrecy no longer exists today; science does not hesitate to publish
the most recent discoveries.’ In fact, this profane science is made only for
the ‘general public', and this is indeed its whole raison d’être; it
is all too evident that science is really nothing more than it appears to be,
since—we cannot say ‘in principle’, but rather ‘in the absence of principle’—it
restricts itself to the surface of things. Surely there is nothing in it worth
the trouble to keep secret, or, to speak more precisely, that merits being
reserved for the use of an elite; and besides, only an elite need do such a
thing. What assimilation, then, can one possibly want to establish between the
so-called truths of profane science and the teachings of a doctrine such as the
Vedanta7. It is always the same confusion, and one may well
wonder just how deeply someone who commends it so insistently can understand
the doctrine that he wishes to teach; in any event, assertions of this kind can
only prevent this comprehension in those to whom it is addressed. Between •he
traditional spirit and the modern spirit there really can be no accommodation;
every concession made to the second is necessarily
at the expense of the
first, and can only result in a weakening of the doctrine, even when its
consequences do not go as far as their most extreme and also most logical
outcome, that is, to the point of true deformation.
It will be noted that in all this we
do not adopt a point of view that includes the hypothetical dangers that a
general diffusion of true knowledge could present; we only affirm the pure and
simple impossibility of such a diffusion, especially in present conditions, for
the world has never been further from true knowledge than it is today. If,
however, one insists on speaking of dangers, we will say this: formerly, in
explaining doctrinal truths exactly as they are, and without any
‘popularization’, one sometimes risked being misunderstood, but now the risk
is simply that of not being understood at all, which perhaps is in fact less
serious in a certain sense, although we do not really see what the partisans of
diffusion have to gain thereby.
In
certain of our works we have denounced a number of specifically modern
‘superstitions’, the most striking characteristic of which is that ultimately
they rest only on the prestige attributed to a word, a prestige all the greater
as the idea evoked by this word is, for most people, the more vague and inconsistent.
The influence exercised by such words themselves, independently of what they
express or should express, has in fact never been as great as in our time. It
is like a caricature of the power inherent in ritual formulas, and those who
are most intent on denying the latter are also, through a singular‘backlash’,
the first to allow themselves to adopt what is actually a kind of profane
parody. It goes without saying that this power of formulas or words is not at
all of the same order in the two instances: the power of ritual formulas, which
is essentially based on ‘sacred science’, is something fully effective, and is
truly operative in the most diverse domains, according to the effects one
wishes to obtain; on the contrary, that of their profane counterfeit is
naturally only capable—at least directly—of a purely'psychological' and above
all sentimental action, that is, it falls within the most illusory of all
domains. This is not to say that such an action is harmless; far from it, for
these ‘subjective’ illusions, however insignificant they may be in themselves,
nevertheless have very real consequences in all human activity, and, above
all, they contribute greatly to the destruction of all true intellectuality,
which moreover is probably the chief function assigned them in the‘plan’ of the
modern subversion.
The superstitions of which we speak
vary to some extent from moment to moment, for in all of this there is a kind
of‘fashion’, as with all things in our time. We do not mean that when a
superstition arises, it at once entirely replaces the others, for on the
contrary we can easily observe their coexistence in the contemporary mentality;
but at least the most recent takes a predominant place and relegates the
others more or less to the background. Thus, keeping more specifically to what
we presently have in view, it can be said that there was first the superstition
of‘reason’, which reached its culmination near the end of the eighteenth
century, then the superstitions of‘science’ and ‘progress’, closely attached
to the former, but more particularly characteristic of the nineteenth century;
more recently still, we see the appearance of the superstition of‘life’, which
had great success in the early years of the present century. As everything changes
with an ever increasing speed, these superstitions, like all the scientific
and philosophical theories to which they are linked in a certain way, seem to
‘wear out’ more and more rapidly. Thus we must now note the emergence of yet
another superstition, that of‘value’, which apparently only dates from a few
years back, but which is already tending to follow in the steps of those that
have preceded it.
We are certainly not inclined to
exaggerate the importance of philosophy, and above all of modern philosophy,
for while recognizing that it may be one of the factors that act more or less
on the general mentality, we think that it is far from the most important, and
that, under its‘systematic’ form, it even represents more of an effect than a
cause. As such, however, it expresses in a more clearly defined way what
already existed in a diffused state in this mentality, and consequently, in
somewhat the same way as a magnifying instrument, it reveals things that could
otherwise escape the attention of the observer, or that would be at least more
difficult to discern. Also, in order to understand fully what is involved, it
helps to recall first of all the stages of the gradual decline of modern
philosophical conceptions, which we have already pointed out elsewhere: first,
the reduction of all things to the ‘human’ and to the ‘rational’; then the
increasingly narrow meaning given to the ‘rational’ itself, which in the end is
envisaged only in its most inferior functions; and finally, a
descent into the ‘infra-rational’
with so-called‘intuitionism’and the various theories that are more or less
directly part of it. The ‘rationalists’ at least still spoke of‘truth’,
although for them it could obviously only be a question of a very relative
truth; the ‘intuitionists’ tried to replace the ‘true’ with the ‘real’, which
could be almost the same thing if one kept to the normal meaning of words, but
which is very far from being the case in fact, for here one must take into
account the strange deformation by which, in current usage, the word ‘reality’
has come to designate exclusively things of the sensible order, which is to say
precisely those that have the least degree of reality. Next, the ‘pragmatists’
chose to ignore truth entirely, and to suppress it in a certain manner by
substituting for it ‘utility’; this is then really the fall into the
‘subjective’, for it is quite clear that the utility of a thing is by no means
a quality that resides in the thing itself, but depends entirely on the one who
appraises it and who makes it the object of a kind of individual appreciation,
without in the least concerning himself with what the thing is outside of this
appreciation, that is to say with all that it really is. Assuredly, it would be
difficult to proceed any further on the path of the negation of all
intellectuality.
The ‘intuitionists’ and
the ‘pragmatists’, and likewise the representatives of some other related
schools of lesser importance, willingly adorn their theories with the label
‘philosophy of life’; but it seems that already this expression no longer
enjoys as much success as it once did, and that today it is the ‘philosophy of
values’ that is most in favor. This new philosophy appears to attack the‘real’
itself, however one wishes to understand it, almost as ‘pragmatism’ attacks
the‘true’; its affinity in certain respects with ‘pragmatism’ is obvious, for
both ‘value’ and ‘utility’ can be no more than a simple matter of individual
appreciation, and its ‘subjective’ character is perhaps even more accentuated,
as will be made evident below. It is possible that the current success of the
word ‘value’ is due in part to the rather grossly material sense that, although
not inherent to its original meaning, is associated with it in ordinary
language: when one speaks of‘value’ or‘evaluation’, one immediately thinks of
something that can be ‘counted’ or ‘numbered’, and it must be agreed that this
accords quite well with the ‘quantitative’ spirit
characteristic of the
modern world. However, this is at most only half of the explanation; indeed, it
must be remembered that ‘pragmatism’, which is defined by the fact that it
relates everything to ‘action’, does not only mean ‘utility’ in a material
sense, but also in a moral sense. ‘Value’ is equally subject to these two
meanings, although the second clearly predominates in the conception in
question, for the moral—or more exactly ‘moralist’—aspect is still exaggerated.
This ‘philosophy of values’ appears above all as a form of‘idealism’, and this
no doubt explains its hostility toward the ‘real’, since it is understood that
in the special language of modern philosophers,‘idealism’ is opposed to
‘realism’.
It is known that for the
most part modern philosophy thrives on ambiguity, and there is something
noteworthy hidden in this label ‘idealism’. The word can in fact be derived
both from ‘idea’ and from ‘ideal’; and in bet, the two essential
characteristics that can easily be discerned in the‘philosophy of values’
correspond to this twin derivation.‘Idea’ is of course taken here in the
purely‘psychological’ sense, which is the only sense the moderns knew (and it
will be seen shortly that it is useful to emphasize this point in order to
dispel yet another ambiguity), and this is the ‘subjectivist’ side of the
conception in question; as to the‘ideal’, it represents no less obviously its
‘moralist’ side. Thus, in this case the two meanings of‘idealism’ are closely
associated and as it were support each other, because they both correspond to
rather general tendencies of the contemporary mentality: ‘psychologism’
indicates a state of mind that is far from being peculiar to‘professional’
philosophers, and furthermore, the fascination which the empty word ‘ideal’ has
exercised on most of our contemporaries is only too well known!
What is almost incredible
is that the philosophy in question claims to have its roots in ‘Platonic
idealism’; and it is difficult to refrain from a certain stupefaction in seeing
the assertion that‘true reality lies not in the object but in the idea, that is
to say in an act of thought,’ attributed to Plato. First, there is no ‘Platonic
idealism’ in any of the meanings that the moderns give to the word ‘idealism ;
for Plato, ‘ideas’ are neither ‘psychological’ nor ‘subjective’, and have
absolutely nothing in common with an ‘act of thought’; on the contrary, they
are the transcendent principles or ‘archetypes’ of all
things. That is why they
constitute reality par excellence, and although Plato himself did not express
it in this way (any more than he anywhere expressly formulates something that
could be called a ‘theory of ideas’), one could say that the ‘world of ideas’
is ultimately nothing other that the ‘Divine Intellect’; what connection can
this have with the product of an individual ‘thought’? Even from the mere point
of view of the ‘history of philosophy’, there is a truly extraordinary error
here; and not only is Plato neither ‘idealist’ nor ‘subjectivist’ in any
degree, but it would be impossible to be more completely‘realist’ than he; it
is surely more than paradoxical that the avowed enemies of the‘real’wish to
make him their predecessor. Furthermore, these same philosophers commit yet
another error that is hardly less serious when, in trying to connect their
‘moral- ism’ to Plato, they invoke the‘central’ role, as it were, that he
assigns to the 'idea of the Good’; here, to use Scholastic terminology, we can
say that they quite simply confuse the ‘transcendental Good’ with the ‘moral
good’, so great is their ignorance of certain notions, no matter how
elementary. When one sees the moderns thus ‘interpret’ ancient conceptions—even
though no more than philosophy is involved—can one still be astonished how
outrageously they deform doctrines of a more profound order?
The truth is that the‘philosophy of values’
cannot claim the least connection with any ancient doctrine whatsoever, save in
indulging in very poor puns on the ‘ideas’ and the‘good’, to which must be
added yet other confusions—and rather common ones—such as that of‘spirit’ with
‘mind’; on the contrary, it is one of the most typically modern confusions,
arising from the ‘subjectivist’ and ‘moralist’ traits noted above. It is not
difficult to understand at what point it is thereby opposed to the traditional
spirit, as is all ‘idealism’ moreover, the logical outcome of which is to make
truth itself (and today one would also say the ‘real’) dependent on the
operations of mdividual ‘thought’. At a time when intellectual disorder had not
yet reached the point it has today, perhaps certain ‘idealists’ sometimes
'etreated before the enormity of such a consequence, but we do not believe that
contemporary philosophers have such reservations... but after all this, one may
still wonder just what exactly is served by promoting this particular idea
of‘value’, thrust thus into the world
like a new 'slogan or, if
one wishes, a new ‘suggestion’. The answer to this question is also easy, if we
simply consider that nearly the entire modern deviation could be described as a
series of substitutions that amount to just so many falsifications in all
orders. It is in fact easier to destroy a thing by claiming to replace it, even
with a more or less crude parody, than to acknowledge openly that one wishes to
leave behind only nothingness; and, even when it is a question of a thing that
already no longer in fact exists, one can still have an interest in devising
an imitation in order to prevent anyone from feeling the need to restore it, or
in order to create an obstacle for those who might in fact have such an
intention. Thus, to take only one or two examples of the first case, the idea
of‘free enquiry’ was invented in order to destroy spiritual authority, not by
denying it purely and simply all at once, but by substituting for it a false
authority, (hat of individual reason; or again, philosophical ‘rationalism’
made a point of replacing intellectuality with what is only a caricature. For
us, the idea of‘value’ seems to be connected rather to the second case; it is
already a long time since anyone has in fact recognized any real hierarchy,
that is, one founded essentially on the very nature of things. For one reason
or another—a point we do not intend to investigate here—it seemed opportune
(doubtless not to the philosophers, for in all likelihood they were merely the
first dupes) to establish in the public mentality a false hierarchy based
solely on sentimental appreciation, and hence entirely ‘subjective’ (and all
the more innocuous, from the point of view of modern ‘egalitarianism’, which
finds itself thus consigned to the mists of the ‘ideal’, or, one might say, to
the fancies of the imagination). One could say, in sum, that 'values’ represent
a counterfeit of hierarchy used by a world that has been led to the negation of
all true hierarchy.
What is even less reassuring is that
some dare to qualify these ‘values’ as ‘spiritual’, and the abuse of this word
is no less significant than all the rest. In fact, here we recognize another
counterfeit, that of‘spirituality’, the different forms of which we have already
denounced; would the ‘philosophy of values’ also have some role to play in this
connection? What in any case is not in doubt is that we are no longer at the
stage where ‘materialism’ and ‘positivism’ exert a preponderant influence;
henceforth it is a question of something
else, which, to fulfill
its purpose, must assume a more subtle character; and, to state clearly our
complete thought on this point, in the oriler of philosophical ideas, and by
means of their reactions on the general mentality,'idealisin’ and
‘subjectivism’ at present are and no doubt will increasingly be the principal
obstacles to a full restoration of true intellectuality.
In
witnessing the confusion reigning in our time in every domain, we have often
emphasized that, in order to escape it, one needs to know above all how to put
each thing in its place, that is, to situate it with respect to other things
exactly according to its own nature and exact importance. Most of our
contemporaries in fact no longer know how to do this because they no longer
have an idea of any true hierarchy; this idea, which in a way is part of the
foundation of every traditional civilization, is for (his same reason an idea
which the forces of subversion, whose action has produced what is called the
modern spirit, try especially to destroy. Thus, mental disorder today exists
everywhere, even among those who call themselves 'traditionalists’ (and we
have already shown how what this word implies is not sufficient to react
effectively against this state of things); in particular, the sense of
proportions is strangely lacking, to the point that one not only sees what is
most contingent or even most insignificant taken for the essential, but even
the normal and abnormal, the lawful and unlawful, are put on equal footing, as
if both were equivalent and had the same right to exist.
A characteristic example
of this mentality is furnished by a ‘neo- Thoniist’ philosopher[76]
who in a recent article stated that in ‘the
s;Kred
type of civilization’ (we would rather say‘traditional’) like the Islamic
civilization or the Christian civilization of the Middle Ages, ‘the idea of a
holy war could have a meaning’ but that it 'loses a|| meaning’ in
‘the profane type of civilization’ such as ours today, in which the temporal is
more completely distinguished from the spiritual, and, since from now on it is
wholly autonomous, it no longer has an instrumental role with regard to the
sacred.’ Does not this way of speaking seem to indicate that fundamentally one
is not far from seeing‘progress’ therein, or at least that it is considered
something more or less definitively established and from which there is‘from
now on’ no turning back? Moreover, we would like someone to cite at least one
other example of a ’profane type of civilization’, because for our part we
know of none outside of modern civilization, which, precisely because it is
such, is strictly nothing but an anomaly; the plural seems to have been put
there expressly to allow a parallel or, as we will explain shortly, an
equivalence between this ‘profane type’ and the ‘sacral’ or traditional type,
which is the type of every normal civilization without exception.
It goes without saying that this is
not a mere recognition of a state of fact, which would raise no objection; but
from such a recognition to the acceptance of this state as constituting a
lawful form of civilization in the same way as that form which it negates,
there is a veritable abyss. That one should say that the ideal of‘holy war’ is
inapplicable in present circumstances is a fact that is only too obvious, and
one with which everyone will necessarily agree; but let no one say because of
this that the idea has no more meaning, for the intrinsic value of an idea’,
especially a traditional idea like this, is entirely independent of
contingencies and has not the least connection with what is called ‘historical
reality’, for it belongs to a completely different order of reality. To make
the value of an idea—that •s> ultimately, its very truth, for as soon as it
is a question of an idea 've do not see how its value could be anything
else—depend on the vicissitudes of human events is the very mark of
that‘historicism’ which we have denounced as error on other occasions and which
is nothing but one of the forms of modern ‘relativism’. That a ‘tradi-
fionalist’ philosopher should share this way of seeing things is indeed
regrettably significant! And if, instead of seeing the profane
point of view as the
degeneration or deviation that it really is, he accords it the same validity as
the traditional point of view, how can he then object to the too well known
‘tolerance’, also a specifically modern and profane attitude, that consists in
giving every error the same rights as the truth?
We have dwelt at some
length on this example because it is very representative of a certain
mentality; but one could of course find a great many others from a more or less
closely related order of ideas. The undue importance attributed to the profane
sciences by the more or less authorized (but quite poorly qualified)
representatives of traditional doctrines, ultimately belong to the same
tendencies. Indeed, an attempt is constantly made to accommodate the doctrines
to the more or less hypothetical and always provisional results of these
sciences, as if between the one and the other there could be any common
measure, and as if they were things situated on the same level. Among those who
believe themselves obliged to adopt it, a similar attitude, its weakness
particularly visible in religious ‘apologetics’, shows a truly singular
misunderstanding of the value—we would even willingly say of the dignity—of the
doctrines they think they are thus defending, while in fact they only abase and
diminish them. These same people are thereby led imperceptibly and unwittingly
to the worst compromises, thus offering a bowed head to the noose held out to
them by those who seek only to destroy all that has a traditional character and
who know very well what they are about in leading them onto this terrain of
useless profane discussion. It is only by maintaining the transcendence of
tradition in an absolute way that one makes (or rather keeps) it inaccessible
to every attack by its enemies, whom one must never consent to treat as
‘adversaries’; but in the absence of the sense of proportions and of hierarchy,
who still understands this today?
We have just spoken of
concessions made to the scientific point of view in the sense that this latter
is understood by the modern world; but the too frequent illusions about the
value and scope of the philosophical point of view also imply the same kind of
error of perspective since by very definition this point of view is no less profane
than the other. One should be content to smile at the pretensions of those who
wish to put purely human ‘systems’, products of
mere individual thought,
in parallel or in opposition to traditional doctrines, which are essentially
supra-human, if in so many cases t|iey did not succeed
only too well in having these pretensions taken seriously. If the consequences
are perhaps less serious, it is only because philosophy has a more restricted
influence than profane science does on the general mentality of our time.
Nevertheless, here too it would be a great mistake to conclude that the danger
is non-existent or negligible just because it does not appear to be as
immediate. Moreover, even when in this regard there is no other result than to
‘neutralize’ the efforts of many 'traditionalists’ by leading them into a
domain where there is no real headway to be made regarding a restoration of the
traditional spirit, this is still always so much the more gain for the enemy.
Our reflections on another occasion concerning various illusions of the
political or social order also find an application in such cases.
from this philosophical
point of view, let it be said in passing, it sometimes happens that things take
a rather amusing turn; we are speaking of the 'reactions’ of certain
‘polemicists’ of this kind when they find themselves on that rare occasion in
the presence of someone who positively refuses to follow them onto this
terrain, and of the amazement mingled with vexation, even rage, that they
exhibit in realizing that their whole argument falls into the void, something
to which they are as little able to resign themselves as they are obviously
incapable of understanding the reasons. We have even dealt with people who
claimed we were obliged to bestow on the flimsy constructions of their
individual fantasies a significance that we must reserve exclusively for
traditional truths alone; naturally we could only demur, hence the fit of truly
indescribable anger; thus it is no longer only the sense of proportions that is
lacking but also the sense of the ridiculous.
But let us return to more
serious things. Since these are errors of perspective we will point out
another, which is to tell the truth of a wholly different order, for it occurs
in the traditional domain itself a|ul is ultimately only a
particular case of the difficulty men generally have in admitting whatever
surpasses their own point of view. I hat some, even the great majority, should
have their horizon limbed to a single traditional form or even to a certain
aspect of this
form, and that they should
consequently be enclosed in a point of view that could be called more or less
narrowly ‘local’, is something perfectly legitimate in itself and in any case
wholly inevitable; but on the other hand what is in no way acceptable is that they
should imagine that this same point of view with all its inherent limitations
must also belong to everyone without exception, including those who are
conscious of the essential unity of all traditions. Against anyone who
manifests such an incomprehension we must steadfastly maintain the rights of
those who have risen to a higher level from which the perspective is
necessarily wholly different; that they give the benefit of the doubt to what
they themselves, at least presently, are unable to understand, and that they
not meddle with anything beyond their competence—this is basically all we ask
of them. Moreover, we very readily recognize that for them this limited point
of view is not without certain advantages, first because it permits them to
cling intellectually to something rather simple and to be satisfied with it,
and then, because of the ‘local’ situation to which they are restricted, they
certainly bother no one, which avoids their provoking hostile forces against
themselves which, for them, would probably be impossible to resist.
Among the
religious or pseudo-religious sects widespread in America, the Mormon sect is
assuredly one of the oldest and most important, and we believe that it would
not be without some interest to look at its origins.
At the beginning of the
nineteenth century there lived in New England a Presbyterian pastor named
Solomon Spalding, who had abandoned his ministry in favor of commerce, where it
was not long before he went bankrupt. After this setback, he began writing a
kind of novel in biblical style which he entitled Manuscript Found, and
which, it seems, he counted on to restore his fortune; in this he was mistaken,
as he died before he could find a publisher. The subject of this book concerns
the history of the North American Indians, who were portrayed as the
descendants of the Patriarch Joseph; it was a protracted account of their wars
and their supposed migrations from the time of Sedecias, king of Judah, up to
the fifth century ad. I his
account was supposed to have been written by various chroniclers, the last of
whom, named Mormon, is said to have deposited it in an underground hiding
place.
How had Spalding struck
upon the idea of compiling this extremely boring, incredibly monotonous work
written in a deplorable style? It is hardly possible to say, and one wonders
whether this 'dea came to him spontaneously or was suggested to him by someone
or other, for he is far from having been alone in searching for what had become
of the ten lost tribes of Israel and in the attempt to resolve the
problem in his own way. We know that some tried to find traces of these tribes
in England, and that there are even Englishmen
who stoutly claim the
honor of this origin for their nation; others sought these same tribes much
further afield—as far even as Japan. What is certain is that there are very old
Jewish colonies in some regions of the East, notably Cochin in southern India,
and also China, which claim to have been established there since the time of
the Babylonian captivity. The idea of a migration to America seems much more
unlikely and moreover has occurred to others than Spalding; in fact there is a
rather remarkable coincidence to be noted here. In 1825, a Jew of Portuguese
origin, Mordecai Manuel Noah, former consul of the United States in Tunis,
bought an island named Grand Island situated in the Niagara river, and issued a
proclamation urging all his co-religionists to come and settle on this island,
which he named Ararat. On September 2nd of the same year, the
foundation of the new city was celebrated with great pomp; now, and this is
what we wish to draw attention to, the Indians had been invited to send
representatives to this ceremony in the capacity of descendants of the lost
tribes of Israel, and they also were to find a refuge in the new Ararat. This
project came to nothing, and the town was never built. About twenty years
later, Noah wrote a book in which he advocated the re-establishment of the
Jewish nation in Palestine, and, although his name may be almost forgotten
today, he must be regarded as the real promoter of Zionism. The episode that we
have cited took place almost five years prior to the foundation of Mormonism;
Spalding was already dead, and we do not think that Noah had known of his Manuscript
Found. In any case, at that point the extraordinary fortune that was
reserved for this work could hardly have been foreseen, and Spalding himself
probably never suspected that the day would come when the multitudes would consider
it a new divine revelation. At this period no one had yet formed the
premeditated intention of composing so-called ‘inspired’ writings such as the Oahspe
Bible or the Aquarian Gospel—wild imaginings which find among the
Americans of this day and age a milieu well-prepared to receive them.
In
Palmyra, Vermont there was a young man of rather bad reputation named Joseph
Smith. He had first attracted the attention of his
fellow citizens during one
of those periods of religious enthusiasm that the Americans call revivals,
by spreading the account of a vision with which he claimed to have been
favored; after that he became a ‘treasure hunter’, living on money given to him
by the credulous people whom, thanks to certain divinatory processes, he
promised to lead to riches buried in the ground. It was at this point, twelve
years after the death of its author, that he laid his hand on Spalding’s
manuscript. It is believed that this manuscript was given him by one of his
accomplices, Sidney Rigdon, who could have stolen it from a printery where he
was serving his apprenticeship. Still, the widow, brother, and former associate
of Spalding recognized and formally affirmed the identity of the Book of
Mormon with the Mantiscript Found. But the'treasure seeker’claimed
that, guided by an angel, he had pulled this book from the earth where Mormon
had buried it, in the form of plates of gold covered with hieroglyphic
characters. He added that the angel had also led him to discover two
translucent stones—none other than the Vrim and Thummin—which
figured on the breast-plate of the High Priest of Israel,[77]
the possession of which, bestowing the gift of tongues and the spirit of
prophecy, had allowed him to translate the mysterious plates. Ten or so
witnesses said they had seen these plates; three of them even asserted that
they had also seen the angel, who had then taken away the plates and kept them
under his guard. Among the latter was a certain Martin Harris, who despite the
opinion of Prolessor Anthon of New York, to whom he had submitted a sample of
the alleged hieroglyphics, and who cautioned Harris against what seemed to him
no more than a common hoax, sold his farm to meet the cost of publishing the
manuscript. It is to be assumed that Smith had procured some brass plates upon
which he inscribed characters borrowed from various alphabets; according to
Professor Anthon,[78]
they were mainly a mixture of Greek and Hebrew charac- ’ers, as well as a crude
imitation of a Mexican calendar published by Humboldt. It is extremely
difficult to say whether those who helped Smith in the early stages were his
dupes or accomplices. In the case
of Harris, whose fortune
was seriously compromised by the initial lack of success of the Book of
Mormon, he did not hesitate to renounce the new faith and to quarrel with
Smith. The latter soon had a revelation which charged his followers with his
upkeep; then, on the April 6, 1830, another revelation came appointing him
prophet of God, with the mission of teaching men a new religion and
establishing the Church of Latter-Day Saints, which one had to enter
through a new baptism. Smith and his associate Cowdery administered this
baptism to each other; at the time the Church consisted of only six members,
but after a month it numbered about thirty, including Smiths father and
brothers. This Church, in short, differed little from the majority of
Protestant sects; in the thirty articles of faith which were then drawn up by
the founder, there is reason to note only the condemnation of child baptism
(article 4), the belief‘that a man can be called to God by prophecy and by the
laying on of hands’ (article 5), and that miraculous gifts such as ‘prophecy,
revelation, visions, healing, exorcism, and the interpretation of tongues’ are
perpetuated in the Church (article 7), the addition of the Book of Mormon
to the Bible as being the ‘word of God’ (article 8), and finally the promise
'that God will again reveal great things concerning His Kingdom’ (article 9).
Let us also mention article 10, couched as follows: ‘We believe in the literal
gathering of Israel and the restoration of the ten tribes; we believe that Zion
will be rebuilt on this continent, that Christ will reign personally on the
earth, and that the earth will be renewed and will receive the heavenly glory.’
The beginning of this article curiously recalls the projects of Noah; what
follows is the expression of a ‘mil- lenarism’ which is in no way exceptional
in Protestant churches, and which, around 1840 in this same region of New
England, would also give birth to the‘Seventh Day Adventists’. Finally, Smith
wished to reconstitute the organization of the early Church: Apostles,
Prophets, Patriarchs, Evangelists, Elders, Deacons, Pastors, and Doctors, plus
two hierarchies of pontiffs, one according to the order of Aaron, the other
according to the order of Melchizedek.
The first adherents of the
new Church were people with very little education, for the most part small
farmers or craftsmen; the least ignorant among them was Sidney Rigdon, the one
who had
probably put Smith in
possession of Spalding’s manuscript; and who, also by a revelation,
was given responsibility for the literary part of the work; and to him is
attributed the first part of the book of Doctrines and Alliances,
published in 1846, and which is as it were (be Mormon New Testament.
Furthermore, Rigdon did not hesitate to compel the prophet, to whom he had
become indispensable, to have another revelation that shared the leadership
between them. Meanwhile, the sect began to grow and to make known its existence
abroad: the English hvingites,* who also believed in the perpetuation
of miraculous gifts in the Church, sent a letter to Smith signed by a 'council
of pastors’ and expressing their sympathy. But Smith’s very success made for
him enemies who did not hesitate to recall his less than honorable past. And
so, from 1831, the prophet judged it prudent to change his residence; from
Fayette, in Seneca County, New York, where he had started his Church, he
established himself at Kirtland, in Ohio. Then he and Rigdon took a journey of
exploration in the regions of the West, and on their return Smith issued a
series of revelations ordering the'Saints’ to go to Jackson County in Missouri
to build a ‘Holy Zion’. Within a few months, twelve hundred faithful responded
to this appeal and set about working to clear the land and to erect the ‘New
Jerusalem’. But the first occupants of the region underwent all sorts of
vexations which finally forced them to leave Zion. During this time, Joseph
Smith remained in Kirtland where he had founded a business and bank, from whose
till—as we learn from his own autobiography—he and his family had an unlimited
right to help themselves freely. In 1837 the bank failed, and Smith and Rigdon,
threatened with prosecution for fraud, had to flee to their followers in
Missouri. Four years had already passed since the latter had been driven out of
Zion, but ’hey had retired into neighboring regions, where they bad acquired
new properties; upon his arrival, Smith told them the hour had come when he was
going to ‘trample his enemies under his feet.’ I he Missourians, having learned
of his attitude, were infuriated, and hostilities began almost immediately. The
Mormons, defeated.
‘*. A religious sect named
after Edward Irving (1792-1834), a deposed Presbyte- rian minister. En.
had to surrender and
started to leave the area immediately; the prophet, handed over to the
authorities, managed to escape his guards and rejoin his disciples in Illinois.
There the ‘Saints’ began to construct a town, the city of Nauvoo, on the bank
of the Mississippi; proselytes arrived, even from Europe, for a mission sent
to England in 1837 had resulted in ten thousand baptisms, and a revelation
summoned the new converts to hasten to Nauvoo ‘with their money, their gold,
and their precious stones.’ The state of Illinois accorded the city a charter
of incorporation; Joseph Smith was made mayor and organized a militia of which
he was named general; thenceforth he often made a show of appearing on
horseback and in uniform. His military adviser was a certain General Bennett,
who had served in the United States army. Bennett had offered his services to
Smith in a letter in which, while professing a complete incredulity as to the
latter’s divine mission, and even treating the Mormon baptism he had received
as a ‘joyous masquerade’, promised the prophet ‘a dedicated assistance and the
appearance of a sincere faith.’ The growing prosperity of the faith
carried Smith’s vanity to such a point that he dared, in 1844, to declare his
candidacy for the presidency of the United States.
It was around this time
that polygamy was introduced into Mormonism. The revelation authorizing it is
dated July 1843, but for a long time it was kept secret and reserved for a
small number of initiates. Only after ten years was the practice admitted
publicly by the Mormon leaders.[79]
Yet despite the efforts that had been made to conceal the revelation, the outcome
of it had been known in spite of everything; a body of opposition formed in the
very bosom of the sect made its protests known in a journal called The
Expositor. The partisans of the prophet razed the journal’s workroom; the
editors fled and denounced Joseph Smith and his brother Hiram to the
authorities as disruptive of the public order. A warrant for their arrest was
issued, and in order to execute it, the Illinois government
appealed to the military.
Joseph Smith, seeing that he could not resist. judged it prudent to give
himself up and together with his brother was locked up in the county jail at
Carthage. On July 27, ,344 an armed crowd invaded the jail and fired on the
prisoners. Hiram Smith was killed on the spot, and Joseph, trying to escape through
the window, misjudged his jump and was dashed against the foot of the wall; he
was thirty-nine years old. It is unlikely that the assailants had assembled
spontaneously in front of the prison; it is not known by whom they were led or
at least influenced, but it is very likely that someone had an interest in
causing Joseph Smith’s disappearance at the precise moment when he saw all his
ambitions being realized.
In any case, if he was
undeniably an impostor—although some had tried to present him as a sincere
fanatic—it is not certain that he himself had thought up all his impostures.
There are too many other more or less similar cases, where the apparent leaders
of a movement are often only the instruments of hidden instigators, whom they
themselves perhaps do not always know. A man such as Rigdon, for example, could
very likely have played an intermediary role between Smith and the likely
instigators. The personal ambition that was part of Smith’s character, joined
to his lack of scruples, could make him suitable for the realization of more or
less shadowy plans; but, beyond certain limits, it risked becoming dangerous,
and as is usual in such cases, the instrument is broken mercilessly; this is
precisely what happened to Smith. We point to these considerations only by way
of hypothesis, not wishing to establish any connection; but this is sufficient
to show that it is difficult to make a definitive judgment on individuals, and
that the search for those truly responsible is much more complicated than those
who hold to outer appearances imagine.
After the
prophet’s death, four claimants, Rigdon, William Smith, byman Wight, and
Brigham Young, disputed his succession. It was Brigham Young, a former
carpenter and president of the‘College of Apostles’, who finally prevailed and
was proclaimed ‘seer, revealer, ■’nd president of the Latter-Day Saints’. The
sect continued to grow, but it was soon learned that the inhabitants of nine
counties were
united in the intention of destroying
the Mormons. The leaders then decided on a migration en masse of
their people to a remote and deserted region in High-California belonging to
Mexico. This news was announced by a 'catholic epistle’ dated January 20,1846.
The Mormons’ neighbors agreed to let them go quietly, on condition that they
leave before the beginning of the following summer; the‘Saints’ took advantage
of this delay to complete the temple they were building on the summit of the
Nauvoo hill, and to which a revelation had attached various mysterious
blessings; the consecration took place in May. The citizens of Illinois, seeing
in this a lack of sincerity and the sign of an intention on the part of the
Mormons to return, brutally drove from their homes those who were still there
and, on September 17, took possession of the abandoned town. The emigrants
began a punishing journey; many of them were left by the wayside, and some even
died of cold and privations. In spring, the president went on ahead with a body
of pioneers; on July 21, 1847, they reached the valley of the Great Salt Lake
and, struck by the similarity of its geographic configuration to that of the
land of Canaan, resolved to found there a stake of Zion, while awaiting
the time when they could reconquer the real Zion, that is, the city in Jackson
County that Smith’s prophecies assured them would be their heritage. When the
colony was assembled, they numbered four thousand people. It grew rapidly, and
six years later the number of its members had already reached thirty thousand.
In 1848, the country had been ceded by Mexico to the United States; the inhabitants
asked Congress to establish them as a sovereign state under the name ‘State of
Deseret’, taken from the Book of Mormon, but Congress only established
the country as a Territory under the name of Utah, which could only become a
free State when its population numbered sixty thousand men. This encouraged the
Mormons to intensify their propaganda in order to attain this number as quick y as
possible and so legalize polygamy and their other particular instr tutions. In
the meantime, the president Brigham Young was named governor of Utah. From this
moment, the material prosperity of the Mormons as well as their numbers
continued to grow, in spite of some unfortunate episodes, among which may be
noted a schism which occurred in 1851. Those who had not followed the
emigration
formed a ‘Reorganized
Church’ with its center at Lamoni, in Iowa, which claimed to be the only
legitimate church. They appointed as their head the prophet’s own son, young
Joseph Smith, who had been living in Independence, Missouri. According to an
official statistic dated 1911, this ‘Reorganized Church’ then numbered fifty
thousand members, while the branch in Utah numbered three hundred and fifty
thousand.
[
he success of Mormonism may seem astonishing. It is likely that
it is due more to the hierarchical and theocratic organization of the sect—very
cleverly conceived, it must be acknowledged—than to the value of its doctrine,
although the very eccentricity of the latter enabled it to exercise an
attraction on certain minds; in America especially, the most absurd things of
this kind succeed in an incredible fashion. This doctrine has not remained the
same as it was at the beginning, which is easily understood, since new
revelations could come along and modify it at any moment. Thus in the Book
of Mormon polygamy was called an abomination—‘an abomination in the eyes of
the Lord'—which did not prevent Joseph Smith from receiving another revelation
by which it became‘the great blessing of the last Alliance’. The strictly
doctrinal innovations seemed to have been due especially to Orson Pratt, under
whose intellectual domination Smith had fallen toward the end of his life, and
who had a more or less vague knowledge of the ideas of Hegel and some other
German philosophers, popularized by writers such as Parker and Emerson.[80]
The religious ideas of the
Mormons are the grossest anthropomorphism, as these extracts from one of their
catechisms proves:
Question 28.
What is God?—An intelligent and material being, having a body and limbs.
Question 38.
Is he also susceptible to passion?—Yes, he eats, he drinks, he hates, he loves.
Question 44.
Can he live in several places at the same time?— No.
This material God inhabits
the Planet Colob', he is also materially the Father of the creatures he
has begotten, and the prophet says in his last sermon: ‘God did not have
the power to create the spirit of man. This idea would diminish man in my eyes;
but 1 know better than that.’ What he knew, or claimed to know, is this:
initially the Mormon God was a God who‘evolved’; his origin was ‘the fusion of
two particles of elementary matter,’ and, by a progressive development, he
attained human form:
God, it goes without
saying, commenced by being a man, and, by a path of continual progression,
he has become what he is, and he can continue to progress in the same manner
eternally and indefinitely. Likewise, man can also grow in knowledge and in
power as long as it pleases him. If man is thus endowed with eternal
progression, there will certainly come a time when he will know as much as God
now knows.
Joseph Smith says again:
The weakest child of God
who now exists on the earth, will in his time have greater domination,
subjects, power, and glory than Jesus Christ or his Father have today, whereas
the power and elevation of the latter will grow in the same proportion.
And Parly Pratt, brother
of Orson, also developed this idea:
What will man do when this
world is overpopulated? He will make other worlds and fly off like a
swarm of bees. And when a farmer will have too many children for his portion of
earth, he will say to them: My sons, matter is infinite; create a world and
populate it.
In addition, the
representations of the future life are as crude as possible, and consist of
details as ludicrous as the descriptions of Sttm- merland by Anglo-Saxon
spiritualists: ‘Suppose,’ says the same Parly Pratt,
that
of the population of our earth, one person in a hundred partakes of a happy
resurrection; what portion could each of the Saints have? We reply: each of
them could well have one hundred and fifty acres of land, which would be fully
sufficient to gather manna, erect splendid dwellings, and also to cultivate
flowers and all things liked by the fanner and botanist.
Another ‘Apostle’, Spencer,
chancellor of the University of Deseret and author of the Patriarchal Order,
also says:
The
future residence of the Saints is not something figurative; just as in this
world, they will also need houses for themselves and their families. Literally,
those who have been deprived of their goods, houses, land, wife, or children,
will receive a hundred times more.... Abraham and Sarah will continue to multiply
not only in this world, but in all the worlds to come.... The resurrection will
restore your own wife, whom you will keep for eternity, and you will raise
children of your own flesh.
Some spiritualists, it is
true, do not even wait for the resurrection to speak to us of‘celestial
marriages’ and 'astral children’! But this is not all. From the idea of a God
‘in the making’—an idea not exclusively theirs, as witnessed in more than one
instance of modern thought—the Mormons soon passed to that of a plurality of
gods forming an indefinite hierarchy. In fact, it was revealed to Smith 'that
our actual Bible was no more than a truncated and perverted text that he had
the mission to restore to its original purity,’ and that the first verse of
Genesis should be interpreted thus: ‘The Godhead engenders other gods together
with the heaven and the earth.’ Furthermore, ‘each of these gods is the
special god of the spirits of all flesh which live in the world he has formed.’
Finally, something more extraordinary still, a revelation from Brigham Young in
1853 informs us that the God of our planet is Adam, who is himself only another
form of the archangel Michael:
When our father Adam arrived in Eden,
he took with him Eve, dne of his wives. He helped with the organization
of this world. He is Michael, the Ancient of Days. He is our father and our
God, the only God with whom we have anything to do.
In these fantastic stories
some things remind us of certain rabbinical speculations, whereas in other
respects we cannot help but think of the 'pluralism' of William Janies. Are not
the Mormons among the first to have formulated the conception, so dear to the
pragmatists, of a limited God, ‘the invisible king’ of Wells?
The cosmology of the Mormons, as far
as one can judge from the rather vague and confused expressions, is a kind of
atomist monism in which consciousness or intelligence is regarded as inherent
to matter. The only thing that has existed for all eternity is
an
indefinite quantity of moving and intelligent matter, of which each
particle that now exists has existed through all the depths of eternity in a
state of free locomotion. Each individual of (he animal or vegetable kingdom
has a living and intelligent spirit. People are only tabernacles wherein
resides the eternal truth of God. When we say that there is only one God and
that He is eternal, we do not designate any being in particular, but this
supreme Truth which inhabits a great variety of substances.
The conception of an
impersonal God which appears here seems to be in absolute contradiction with
the anthropomorphic and evolutionist conception noted earlier. But no doubt it
is necessary to make a distinction and to admit that the corporal God who lives
on the planet Coloh is only the chief of this hierarchy of‘particular’
beings that the Mormons also call gods. We must add as well that Mormonism, the
leaders of which pass through a series of'initiations’, really has an
exoterism and an esoterism. But to continue: ‘Each man is an aggregate of so
many intelligent individuals, which he incorporates into his formation of
particles of matter.’ Here we find something which simultaneously recalls
Leibnitzian monadism understood moreover in its most outer meaning, and the
theory of 'poly-psychism' held by certain ’neo-spiritualists’. Finally, again
in the same order of ideas, the president Brigham Young, in one of his sermons,
proclaimed that ‘the recompense of the virtuous will be an eternal progression,
and the punishment of the wicked a return of their substance to the primitive
elements of all things.’ In several schools of occultism, those who are unable
to gain immortality are similarly threatened with 'final dissolution’; and
there are also some
Protestant sects, the
Adventists among others, who allow for man only a conditional immortality’.
We think we have said
enough to show the worth of the Mormon doctrines, and also to make it clear
that, in spite of their singularity, their appearance does not constitute an
isolated phenomenon; in short, they represent in many of their particulars,
tendencies that have found multiple expressions in the contemporary world, and
of which the actual development even seems a rather worrisome symptom of a
mental disequilibrium that risks becoming widespread if care is not taken. In
this respect, the Americans have given Europe some truly deplorable gifts.
Gnosis & the Spiritist Schools
In its
widest and highest meaning gnosis is knowledge; therefore true gnosticism
cannot be a particular school or system but must above all be the search for
integral truth. Nonetheless, it must not be thought that gnosticism must accept
every doctrine whatsoever under the pretext that all contain a particle of
truth, for synthesis is never reached by an amalgamation of disparate elements,
as is too readily believed by minds habituated to the analyti
cal methods of modern Western
science.
Today there is much talk
of unity among the different schools called spiritist, but all the efforts
undertaken up to this point have remained fruitless. We believe that this will
always be the case, for it is impossible to bring together doctrines so
dissimilar as are those listed under the name of spiritism; such elements can
never make a stable edifice. The mistake of most of these so-called spiritist
doctrines is that in reality they are only materialism transposed onto another
plane, and that they aim to apply to the domain of the Spirit methods used by
ordinary science to study the hylic world. These experimental methods can never
make known anything but mere phenomena, on which basis it is impossible to
build any metaphysical theory whatsoever, for a universal principle cannot be
inferred from particular facts. Moreover, the attempt to acquire a knowledge of
the spiritual world by material means is obviously absurd; it is only in
ourselves that we can find the principles of this knowledge, and never in
outward objects.
Certain experimental
investigations indeed have a relative value in their proper domain, but outside
this same domain any such
value is lost. This is
why, for us, the investigation of so-called psychic forces, for example, can
have neither more nor less interest (han the investigation of any other natural
force, and we have no more reason to show solidarity with the scholar who
pursues this investigation than with the physicist or chemist who studies
forces of other kinds. We speak of course only of the scientific investigation
of so-called psychic forces and not of the practices of (hose who, starting
from a preconception, wish to see in them the manifestation of the dead. These
practices do not hold even the relative interest of an experimental science,
and they possess the danger that the manipulation of any force by the ignorant
always presents.
It is therefore impossible
for those who seek to acquire spiritual knowledge to join with (he
experimenters, psychists or others, and this is not at all due to contempt for
these latter, but simply because these latter do not work on the same level as
themselves. It is no less impossible for them to accept doctrines with
metaphysical claims that rely on an experiment base; these doctrines cannot
seriously be granted any value at all and always lead to absurd consequences.
Gnosis must therefore
avoid ail these doctrines and base itself only on the orthodox Tradition
contained in (he sacred books of all peoples, a Tradition that in reality is
everywhere the same despite the different forms it clothes itself with in order
to adapt to every race and age. But here again great care must be taken to
distinguish this true Tradition from all the erroneous interpretations and all
the fantastic commentaries that have been bestowed on it in our day by a throng
of more or less occultist schools, which unfortunately too often wish to speak
about things of which they are ignorant. It is easy to attribute a doctrine to
imaginary persons in order to lend it more authority and to claim a relation
with lost initiatic centers in the furthest reaches of Tibet or 011 the most
inaccessible summits of the Himalayas; but those who know the real initiatic
centers know what to think of these pretensions.
This is enough to show
that a union of so-called spiritist schools is impossible and that, moreover,
even if it were possible, it would produce no worthwhile result and would
consequently be far from as desirable as is thought by those who are well
intentioned but insufficiently informed of what these different schools really
are. In
reality, the only possible
union is that of all orthodox initiatic centers that have preserved the true
Tradition in its original purity; but this union is not merely possible, it
exists now as it has existed in al] times. When the moment conies, the
mysterious Thebah which contains all principles will open and show the
immutable edifice of the universal Synthesis to those capable of contemplating
the Light without being blinded.
From the first appearance of the journal
La Gnose we
have very clearly repudiated any solidarity with the different spiritist
schools, whether occultist, Theosophist, spiritist, or any other more or less
similar group, for we thought it particularly important to leave no room for
doubt on this score in the minds of our readers. None of these opinions, which
can be combined under the common denomination ‘neo-spiritualist’,[81]
have any more connection with metaphysics, which alone interests us, than do
the different scientific or philosophical schools of the modern West; and in
addition, by virtue of their unjustified and unreasonable claims, they possess
the serious drawback of being able to create among the insufficiently informed
extremely regrettable confusions leading to nothing less than a reflection on
others, we among them, of the discredit on the part of all who are serious that
ought by right to be attached to them alone.
This is why we consider that we owe
no particular circumspection to the theories in question, all (he more so in
that, if we did so, we are certain that their more or less authorized
representatives, far from doing the same for us, would in no way be grateful to
us, and would show us no less hostility; it would thus be pure weakness on our
part that would do us no good, quite the contrary, and those who know our true
thoughts on the subject would always reproach us for it. Thus we do not
hesitate to declare that we consider all these neo-spiritist theories to be no
less false in their very principle
aIul
harmful to the public mentality than is, in our eyes, the modernist tendency
under whatever form and in whatever domain it manifests itself.[82]
Indeed, if there is at
least one point on which the Catholic church as presently oriented has all our
sympathies, it is its fight against modernism.[83]
The church appears to be much less preoccupied with neo-spiritism which, it is
true, lias perhaps not spread as far and as rapidly, and moreover is something
outside of it and on another ter- rain, so that it can hardly do more than to
point out the dangers to those of the faithful who might risk being seduced by
doctrines of this kind. But if someone were to place himself outside of all
confessional preoccupations, thus in a much more extended field of action, and
could find a practical means of halting the spread of so many ravings and
insanities presented more or less cleverly according to whether this is done
by men of bad faith or mere imbeciles (and that in either case have already
contributed to irremediably confusing such a large number of individuals), we
think that he would thus accomplish a true work of mental health and would render
an outstanding service to a considerable portion of present-day Western
humanity.[84]
This cannot be our role,
for on principle we forego all polemics and remain apart from all outward
action and all partisan strife. Nonetheless, without leaving the strictly
intellectual domain, we may as occasion arises point out the absurdities of
certain doctrines or beliefs and sometimes emphasize certain statements made by
the spiritists themselves in order to show how these can be used against their
own doctrinal affirmations, for logic is not always their strong
point and incoherence is a
widespread defect with them, visible to all who do not let themselves be taken
in by pompous words and bombastic phrases which very often only hide an
emptiness of thought. It is with this end in mind that we write the present
chapter, reserving the right to take up the question again whenever we judge
it opportune. We hope that our remarks, made in the course of reading and
research that drew our attention incidentally to the incriminated theories,
might, if there is still time, open the eyes of those of good faith who have
gone astray among the neo-spiritual- ists and of whom at least some may be
worthy of a better fate.
We
have already made it known on many occasions that we absolutely reject the
fundamental hypotheses of spiritism, namely reincarnation,[85]
the possibility of communicating with the dead by material means, and the claim
to demonstrate human immortality experimentally.[86]
Moreover, these theories are not unique to the spiritists, the belief in
reincarnation in particular being shared, by the majority of them, with the
Theosophists and many occultists of different kinds. We can accept nothing from
these doctrines because they are formally contrary to the most elementary
principles of metaphysics; in addition, and for the same reason, they are
clearly anti-traditional, and besides they were invented only during the
nineteenth century, although their partisans try by every method of twisting
and distorting texts to have us believe that they go back to remotest
antiquity, 'lb this end they use (he most extraordinary and unexpected
arguments; thus in a review that we will have the charity not to name, we
recently saw the Catholic dogma of the ‘resurrection of the body’ interpreted
in a reincarnationist sense; and it was a priest, no doubt strongly suspected
of heterodoxy, who dared to make such assertions! It is true that reincarnation
has never been
explicitly condemned by
the Catholic church, and some occultists do not fail to note this with obvious
satisfaction at every opportunity. But they do not seem to suspect that, if
this is so, it is merely because it was not even possible to conceive that a
day might come when such folly could be imagined. As to the ‘resurrection of
the body’, this is really only a defective way of speaking of‘the resurrection
of the dead’, which esolerically can correspond to the inclusion, in the being
that has realized Universal Man, of all the states that were considered as
having passed away with respect to its present state but that are eternally
present in the‘permanent actuality of the extra-temporal being.’[87]
In another article in the
same journal we came across an unintended and even unconscious admission
amusing enough to merit a note in passing. A spiritist declares that ‘truth
lies in the exact relationship between the contingent and the absolute’; now,
this relationship, which is that between the finite and the infinite, can
rigorously be equal only to zero; draw the conclusion yourself and see if after
this there remains anything of that claimed ‘spiritist truth’ that they offer
as future‘experimental evidence’! Poor‘human child’ [sic],[88]
poor ‘psycho-intellectual’, that is to be ‘nourished’ with such a truthf?) and
who is to be made to believe that he is‘made to know, love, and serve it’ in a
faithful imitation of what the Catholic catechism teaches in regard to its
anthropomorphic God. Since in the intention of its promoters this‘spiritist
teaching’ seems above all to have a sentimental and moral goal, we wonder if it
is worth the trouble to substitute for these old religions—which despite all
their defects at least have an incontestable validity from this relative point
of view—such bizarre ideas which will never replace them to advantage in any
respect and which especially will be entirely unable to fulfill the social role
that they claim as their own.
But let us return to the
question of reincarnation. This is not the place to demonstrate its
metaphysical impossibility, that is to say its absurdity; we have already
provided all the elements of this demonstration[89]
and will complete it in further studies. For the moment we must limit ourselves
to what its partisans themselves say, so that we may discover what, according
their understanding, might be the basis for this belief. The spiritists want
above all to demonstrate reincarnation‘experimentally’!?) by facts, and certain
occultists follow them in these attempts which naturally have not yet yielded
any convincing results, any more than has the ‘scientific demonstration of
immortality’. On the other hand, most Theosophists seem to see in the
reincarnationist theory only a sort of dogma or article of faith that must be
accepted for sentimental reasons, but for which it is impossible to give any
rational or perceptible proof.
We beg our readers to
excuse us if in what follows we are unable to give every reference precisely,
for there are people whom the truth would perhaps offend. But in order to
explain the reasoning by which some occultists try to prove reincarnation we
must first advise the reader that those to whom we allude are supporters of the
geocentric theory: they see the earth as the center of the universe, either
materially in terms of physical astronomy itself, like Auguste Strindberg and
others,[90]
or, if they do not go this far, at least by the privilege they accord the
nature of its inhabitants. For them the earth is in fact the only world where
there can be human beings, because the conditions of life on other planets or
in other solar systems are too different from those on Earth for a man to
adapt to them; from this it follows that by‘man’ they mean exclusively a corporeal
individual endowed with five physical senses, the corresponding faculties
(without forgetting spoken language... and even written), and all the organs
necessary for the different functions of
terrestrial human life.
They do not conceive that man exists in other forms of life,[91] or
with all the more reason, that he can exist in immaterial mode, informal,
extra-temporal, extra-spatial, and above all beyond and above life.[92] It
follows that humans can only be reincarnated on earth since there is no other
place in the universe where they can live. Let us note, moreover, that this is
contrary to several other ideas according to which man is‘incarnated’ on various
planets, as Louis Figuier holds,[93]
or in different worlds, either simultaneously, as Blanqui imagines,[94] or
successively, as Nietzsche’s theory of the ‘eternal return’ tends to imply.[95]
Some people have even gone so far as to claim that the human individual can
have several ‘material bodies’[96]
|s/c] living at the same time on different planets of the physical world.[97]
We must say further that
the occultists we mentioned add, as usual accompaniment to the geocentric
doctrine, a belief in the literal and popular interpretation of the
Scriptures, and lose no occasion to publicly mock the triple and sevenfold
meanings of the esoterists and Kabbalists.[98]
Thus, according to their theory, which
conforms to an exoteric
translation of the Bible, in the beginning man, ‘issuing from the hands of the
Creator’ (we think that no one can deny that this is anthropomorphism), was
placed on Earth to ‘cultivate his own garden’, that is, according to them, to
‘evolve physical matter,’ which they suppose to have been more subtle then
than today. By‘man’ must be understood the entire human collectivity, the
totality of the human species, so that ‘all men’ without any exception and in
an unknown but certainly very large multitude were initially incarnated on
Earth at the same time.[99] In
these conditions there obviously could be no birth since there was no man who
was not incarnated, and things remained this way as long as man did not die,
that is, until the‘fall’ understood in its exoteric sense as a historical
fact,-0 but which is nevertheless regarded as ‘being able to
represent a whole series of events that must have unfolded over the course of
several centuries.’ This somewhat broadens ordinary biblical chronology, which
finds it easy to place the whole history not only of the Earth but of the
World, from the creation to our days, into a total duration of something less
than six thousand years (some, however, go to nearly ten thousand).[100]
After the ‘fall’ physical matter became more gross, its properties were
modified, it became subject to corruption, and men, imprisoned in this matter,
began to die, to ‘disincarnate’; thereupon they also became subject to
birth, for these ‘disincarnated’ men who remain ‘in space’(?) in the ‘invisible
atmosphere’ of the Earth, would then ‘reincarnate’, that is, once again take on
earthly physical life in a new human body. Thus it is always the same human
beings (it must not be forgotten that this means the restricted corporeal
individuality)
that must be periodically
reborn from the beginning of terrestrial humanity to its end.[101]
As can be seen, this
reasoning is very simple and perfectly logical, but only on condition of first
admitting the starting-point, that is, the impossibility of the human being
existing in modalities other than the terrestrial corporeal form, which, let us
repeat, can in no way be reconciled with the most elementary notions of
metaphysics; and this seems to be the most solid argument that can be offered
to support the hypothesis of reincarnation!
Indeed, we cannot for an
instant take seriously the moral and sentimental arguments for this hypothesis,
which are based on an averred injustice in the inequality of human conditions.
This notion arises solely from always considering particular facts in isolation
from the whole of which they form a part, while if they are again situated in
this whole there can obviously be no injustice, or, to use a term that is both
more exact and broader in meaning, there is no disequilibrium,2-1
because these facts, like all the rest, are elements of the total harmony. We
have sufficiently explained our position on
this question elsewhere and
we have shown that evil has no reality whatsoever, that what is so called is
only a relativity considered analytically, and that beyond the special point
of view of the human mentality imperfection is necessarily illusory, for it
cannot exist except as an element of the Perfect which can obviously contain
nothing imperfect.[102]
It is easy to understand
that the diversity of human conditions arises from nothing else than the
differences in nature existing among individuals themselves, that it is
inherent in the individual nature of earthly human beings, and that it is no
more unjust or less necessary (being of the same order, although of a different
species) than the variety of plant or animal species, against which no one has
dreamed of protesting in the name of justice, which would be perfectly
ridiculous.[103]
The special conditions belonging to each individual work toward the perfection
of the total being of which this individual is a modality or particular state,
and in the totality of the being everything is joined and given equilibrium by
the harmonious linking of cause and effect.[104]
But once it is a matter of caus-ality, no one who possesses the least idea of
metaphysics can understand this to mean anything even remotely resembling the
mystico-reli- gious idea of reward and punishment,[105]
which, after having been applied to an extra-terrestrial 'future life' is
applied by the neo-spir- itualists to supposed 'successive lives’ on Earth, or
at least in the physical world.[106]
The spiritists,
especially, have exploited this wholly anthropomorphic idea and have drawn
from it conclusions that often reach the extreme of absurdity. Such is the well
known example of the victim who pursues vengeance against his murderer into
another existence; the victim then becomes murderer in his turn and the
murderer, now a victim, must avenge himself in a new existence, and so on
indefinitely. Another example of the same sort is the coachman who runs over a
pedestrian; as punishment, the coachman, who has become a pedestrian in the
next life, will be run over by the pedestrian who has become a coachman; but
logically this coachman must then suffer the same punishment, so that these two
unhappy individuals will be obliged to run each other over alternately until
the end of time, for there is obviously no reason why this should come to an
end.
But to be impartial we
must add that on this point certain occultists concede nothing to the
spiritists, for we have heard one occultist give the following account as an
example of the frightful consequences that can follow upon actions generally
considered indifferent.29 A student amuses himself by breaking a
pen, then throws it away; the molecules of metal will retain the memory of the
mischief committed against them by the child throughout all the transformations
they will undergo; finally, after several centuries, these molecules will
enter into the parts of some machine and, one day, there will be an accident
and a worker will be killed, crushed by this machine; it will turn out that the
worker is the student described earlier, who has been reincarnated to suffer
the punishment for his
the verbal root kri, 'to make'
(identical to the Latin creare), simply means ‘action" and nothing
else. The Westerners who use it thus have turned it from its true meaning, of
which they are ignorant, and they have done the same for a great number of
other Eastern terms.
29.
It goes without saying
that the purely individual (and imaginary) consequences in question here have
no connection with the metaphysical theory, of which we shall speak elsewhere,
that the most elementary gesture can have unlimited consequences in the
Universal by reverberating and amplifying throughout the indefinite series of
states of the being, both horizontally and vertically (see The Symbolism of
the Cross).
154
* MISCELLANEA
earlier act.[107]
It would surely be difficult to imagine anything more extravagant than such
fantastic tales, which suffice to give an accurate picture of the mentality of
those who invent them and especially of those who believe them.
An idea closely linked to
reincarnation, which also has many partisans among neo-spiritualists, is that
in the course of its evolution each being must pass successively through all
forms of life, terrestrial and otherwise.-” To this there is only one word in
response: such a theory is an impossibility for the simple reason that there
exist an indefinity of living forms through which a being could never pass
since these forms are occupied by other beings. It is therefore absurd to claim
that a being must traverse all possibilities considered individually in order
to reach the term of its evolution because this affirmation encloses an
impossibility; and here we can see a particular case of that entirely false
idea, so widespread in the West, that a synthesis can only be accomplished by
analysis, whereas on the contrary it is impossible to achieve it in this
fashion.-'[108]
Even if a being should have traversed an indefinity of possibilities, this
entire evolution could never be anything but rigorously zero with respect to
Perfection, for the indefinite proceeds from the finite; and since indefinity
is produced by the finite (as the generation of numbers clearly shows) and is
thus contained in it in potency, in the final analysis it is only the
development of the potentialities of the finite and in consequence obviously
cannot have any connection with the Infinite, which amounts to saying that,
considered from the standpoint of the Infinite (or from Perfection, which is
identical with the Infinite), it can be only zero.[109]
The analytic conception of evolution
Gnosis & the Spiritist
Schools * 155 js thus reduced to
adding zero to itself indefinitely by an indefinite number of successive and
distinct additions, the final result of which will always be zero. This sterile
succession of analytical operations can be transcended only by integration,
and this is accomplished at one stroke by a transcendent and immediate
synthesis that logically has no preceding analysis.34
Moreover, since, as we
have explained on various occasions, the entire physical world, with the
deployment of all the possibilities it contains, is only the domain of
manifestation of a single state of the individual being, this same state of the
being contains in itself a fortiori the potentialities for all the
modalities of terrestrial life, which represents only a very restricted portion
of the physical world. Thus, if the complete development of the actual
individuality, which extends indefinitely beyond the corporeal modality,
includes all the potentialities whose manifestation constitutes the sum of the
physical world, it includes in particular all those corresponding to the
different modalities of terrestrial life. This therefore renders useless the
supposition of a multiplicity of existences through which the being must
progressively raise itself from the lowest modality of life, the mineral, to
the human modality considered as the highest, passing successively through
plant and animal modalities, with all the multiplicity of degrees contained in
each of these kingdoms. In his integral extension the individual simultaneously
contains the possibilities that correspond to all these degrees; this
simultaneity is not expressed in temporal succession except in the development
of his corporeal modality, during which, as embryology shows, he passes through
all the corresponding stages from the unicellular form of the most elementary
organized beings, and, going back still further, even from the crystal (which
presents more than one analogy with
the development of each possibility
considered in isolation. It is therefore true of immortality (indefinite
extension of the possibility of life) which in consequence £an be
nothing but zero with regard to Eternity. On this point we shall have the
opportunity to explain ourselves more fully elsewhere (see also ‘Regarding the
('teat Architect of the Universe in Studies hi Freemasonry and the Compagnonnage).
34. For more details on the mathematical representation of the
totalization of ’he being by a double integration that realizes the universal
volume, see our study the Symbolism of the Cross.
these rudimentary beings),[110]
to the terrestrial human form. But for us these considerations are in no way a
proof of the ‘transformist’ theory, for we regard the so-called law that
‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’ as a pure hypothesis; for if the development
of the individual, or ontogeny, can be proved by direct observation, no one
would dare to claim that the same goes for the development of the species, or
phylogeny.[111]
Moreover, even in the restricted sense just noted, the point of view of
succession loses almost all its interest by the simple observation that the
seed, before any development, already contains in potency the complete being;
and this point of view must always remain subordinate to that of simultaneity,
to which the metaphysical theory of the multiple states of the being
necessarily leads us.
Thus, leaving to one side the
essentially relative question of the embryonic development of the body (which
we see only as indicating an analogy with the integral individuality), there
can be no question of anything but a purely logical (and not temporal) succession,
that is to say a hierarchization of these modalities or possibilities in the
extension of the individual state of the being in which they are not realized
corporeally, and this because of the simultaneous existence in the individual
of an indefinitude of vital modalities, or, what amounts to the same thing,
the corresponding possibilities. In this connection, and to show that these
ideas are not peculiar to us, we thought it would be interesting to reproduce
certain extracts from a chapter devoted to this question in the instruction
manuals of one of the rare serious initiatic Fraternities that still exist
today in the West:[112]
[n
the descent of life into outward conditions, the monad had to travel through
each of the states of the spiritual world, then the kingdoms of the astral
empire,58 in order to appear at last on the outward plane, the
lowest possible, that is to say the mineral plane. From that point we see it
successively penetrate the waves of mineral, plant, and animal life of the
planet. In virtue of the higher and most inward laws of its particular cycle,
its divine attributes always seek to unfold their imprisoned potentialities. As
soon as one form is provided and its capacities are exhausted39
another, new form of a higher degree is requisitioned; thus each in its turn
becomes more and more complex in structure, more and more diverse in function.
Thus we see the living monad begin with the mineral in the outward
world, then the great spiral of its evolutionary existence moves slowly
forward, imperceptibly but nevertheless always progressing.40 There
is no form too simple nor organism too complex for the faculty of adaptation (a
marvelous and inconceivable power) possessed by the human soul. And through the
entire cycle of Necessity the character of its genius, the degree of its
spiritual emanation, and the states to which it belonged at the beginning are
strictly preserved with a mathematical exactitude.41
During
the course of its involution the monad is not really incarnated in any form
whatever. The course of its descent through the various kingdoms comes about by
a gradual polarization of its divine powers due to its contact with the conditions
of gradual externalization of the descending and subjective arc of the spiral
cycle.
of Luxor, see The Spiritist
Fallacy, pt.i, chap. 2, and Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-' Religion,
chaps. 2 and 3); but we believed that it is nonetheless necessary to advise
that it is foreign to all occultist movements, although some of these have
judged it good to appropriate some of its teachings, distorting them completely
to adapt them to their own ideas.
38. That is, the various states of subtle manifestation divided
according to their correspondence with the elements.
39. That is to say that it has completely developed the entire
series of modifications of which it is capable.
40.
This is from the outward
point of view, of course.
41.
This indeed implies the coexistence
of all the vital modalities.
This is an absolute truth
expressed by the adept author of Ghost Land when he says that, as an
impersonal being, man lives in an indefinite number of worlds before
arriving in this one. In all these worlds, the soul develops its rudimentary
states until its cyclic progress makes it capable of attaining[113]
the special state whose glorious function is to confer consciousness on
this soul. It is only at this moment that it truly becomes a man; in every
other instant of its cosmic voyage it was but an embryonic being, a passing
form, an impersonal creature in which shines a part, but only a part, of the noii-individualized
human soul. Once the great stage of consciousness has been reached,
summit of the series of material manifestations, the soul will never again
enter into the matrix of matter, will never again undergo material
incarnation-, henceforth its rebirths are all in the kingdom of the
spirit. Those who maintain the strangely illogical doctrine of the
multiplicity of human births have surely never developed in themselves
the lucid state of spiritual consciousness; otherwise the theory’ of
reincarnation, asserted and maintained today by a great number of men and women
versed in ‘worldly wisdom’, would not be given the least credit. An outward
education is relatively worthless as a means of obtaining true
Knowledge.
No analogy favoring reincarnation is
found in nature, while on the other hand, many are found favoring the contrary.
The acorn becomes oak, the
coconut becomes palm; but let the oak produce myriads of other acorns, it will
never again become an acorn itself, nor will the palm once again become
coconut. The same for man: once the soul is manifested on the human plane and
has thus reached consciousness of outward life, it never again passes through
any of its rudimentary states.
A recent publication
asserts that ‘those who have led a noble life worthy of a king (be this in the
body of a beggar) in their last earthly existence will come to life again as
nobles, kings, or other persons of high rank’! But we know that kings and nobles
in
the past have been and in the present are often the worst specimens of humanity
that can be conceived from the spirit ual point of view. Such assertions serve
only to prove that their authors only speak under the inspiration of
sentimentality and that they lack Knowledge.
All
the alleged ‘re-awakening of latent memories’ by which some people try to
insure the recall of their past existences can be explained and even solely
explained by simple laws of affinity and of form. Each race of
human beings considered in itself is immortal; it is the same for each
cycle: the first cycle never becomes the second, but the beings of the first
cycle are (spiritually) the parents or generators of those of the
second.[114]
Thus each cycle includes a great family made up of the reunion of the different
groups of human souls, each condition being determined by the laws of its activity,
those of its form, and those of \ls affinity—a triad of laws.
This
is why man can be compared to the acorn and the oak: the embryonic soul, un-individualized,
becomes a man just as the acorn becomes an oak, and just as the oak gives birth
to an innumerable quantity of acorns, so man in his turn provides an indefinite
number of souls with the means to be born in the spiritual world. There is a complete
correspondence between the two, and it is for this reason that the ancient
Druids paid such great honors to this tree, which was honored above all the
others by the powerful Hierophants.
From this one can see how
far the Druids were from admitting ‘transmigration’ in the ordinary and
material sense of the word, and how little they dreamed of the theory—which, we
repeat, is wholly modern—of reincarnation.
We
have recently read in a foreign spiritist journal an article in which the
author criticizes with good reason the preposterous idea of those who announce
the impending‘second coming’ of Christ as necessarily being a reincarnation.[115]
But where things become rather amusing is when the same author declares that if
this thesis cannot be admitted, it is simply because according to him the
return of Christ is even now an accomplished fact... thanks Io spiritism!
'It has already happened,’ says
he,‘because in certain centers his communications are registered.’ One must
truly have a very robust faith in order to thus believe that Christ and his
Apostles reveal themselves in spiritist seances and speak through the
mouthpiece of mediums! If there are people for whom such a belief is necessary
(and this seems to be the case with the great majority of Westerners) we do not
hesitate to assert how much we still prefer the belief of the least enlightened
Catholic or even the faith of the sincere materialist, for this also exists.[116]
As we have already said, we think
that neo-spiritism in any form is absolutely incapable of replacing the ancient
religions in their social and moral roles, and nevertheless this is certainly
the goal it proposes in a more or less open way. Earlier we alluded in
particular to the claims of its promoters for education; in fact we just read a
speech on this subject by one of them. Whatever he may have said on the
subject, we find very little stability in the‘liberal spiritualism’ of those
‘aviators of the spirit’! ?!) who, seeing in the atmosphere ‘two colossal rain
clouds full to the jaws |stc] with contrary electricities’, ask‘how to avoid
the series of lightning flashes, the scales of thunder Js/c), the cataracts of
lighting, and who despite these threatening omens wish to brave the freedom of
education’ as others have ‘braved the freedom of space’. They nonetheless admit
that ‘education in the schools must remain neutral’ but on condition that this
‘neutrality’ lead to
‘spiritualist’ conclusions. It seems to us that this would only be an apparent
neutrality, not a real one, and whoever has the least sense of logic can hardly
think otherwise. But for them, on the contrary, this is'profound
neutrality’! A systematic mentality and preconceived ideas sometimes lead to
strange contradictions, and this is an example that we wished to
point out.[117]
As for us, who are far from aspiring to any social action, it is obvious that
this question of education thus posed cannot interest us in any way. The only
method that could have a real value would be'integral instruction’,[118]
and unfortunately, given the present mentality, it will no doubt be a long time
before the least application of this can be made in the West, particularly in
France, where the Protestant mentality so dear to certain ‘liberal
spiritualists’ reigns as the absolute master at all levels and in all branches
of government.
Recently the
author of the speech in question (we do not wish to name him here in order not
to wound his... modesty, and the circumstances do not matter) decided it was
good to reproach us for having said that we have ‘absolutely nothing in common
with him’ (no more than with the other neo-spiritualists of any sect or
school), and he objected that this must lead us to ‘reject comradeship,
virtue, to deny God, the immortality of the soul, and Christ’— a rather
disparate collection of things! Although we formally forbid ourselves any
polemics in this Journal we think that it would not be useless to reproduce
here our response to these objections, for a more complete enlightenment of our
readers and to mark more clearly and more precisely (at the risk of repeating
ourselves somewhat) certain profound differences which we cannot emphasize too
much.
First of all, whatever Mr
X may say..., his God is certainly not
ours, for he evidently believes, as do all modern Westerners, in a
‘personal’
(not to say individual) and rather anthropomorphic God who has ‘nothing in
common’ with the metaphysical Infinite.[119]
We will say as much of his idea of Christ, that is to say a unique Messiah who
is an ‘incarnation’ of the Divinity; we on the contrary recognize a plurality
(and even an indefinite number) of divine ‘manifestations’ which are not in any
way ‘incarnations’ for above all it is important to maintain the purity of
monotheism, which cannot agree with such a theory.
As
to the individualistic idea of the ‘immortality of the soul’, this is even
simpler, and Mr X... is strangely mistaken if he believes that we hesitate to
state that we reject it completely, both in the form of an extra-terrestrial
‘future life’, as well as in the surely much more ridiculous and all too well
known theory of‘reincarnation’. Questions of‘pre-existence’ and ‘post-existence’
obviously do not arise for anyone who envisages all things outside of time;
moreover, ‘immortality’ can only be an indefinite extension of life, and it
will never be otherwise than rigorously equivalent to zero in the face
of Eternity,[120]
which alone interests us, and which is above life as well as time and all the
other limitative conditions of individual existence. We know very well that
Westerners are attached above all to their ‘I’; but what value can a purely
sentimental tendency like this have? Too bad for those who prefer illusory
consolations to the Truth!
Finally,
‘fraternity’ and ‘virtue’ are manifestly nothing other than mere moral
concepts; and morality, which is wholly relative and concerns only the very
particular and restricted domain of social action,[121]
has absolutely nothing to do with Gnosis, which is exclusively metaphysical.
And we do not think we are ‘risking’ too much, as Mr X says, in asserting that
he is
entirely
ignorant of metaphysics; this being said, moreover, without reproaching him in
the least, for it is incontestably allowable to be ignorant of what one has
never had the occasion to study; no one is held to the impossible!
We said earlier, but
without dwelling on it, that there are people, spiritists and others, who
strive to prove the reincarnationist thesis ‘experimentally’.[122]
Such an attempt must appear so improbable to any person with the least amount
of common sense that one is tempted a priori to suppose it to be merely
a bad joke; but it seems that it is not. Indeed, an experimenter of serious
repute who has acquired a certain scientific esteem for his work on ‘psychism’[123]
but who, unfortunately for him, seems little by little to have been converted
almost entirely to the spiritist theories (it frequently happens that scholars
are not exempt from a certain... naivete),[124]
has quite recently published a work containing a description of his researches
into so called ‘successive lives’ by means of the phenomena of‘memory
regression’ which he believes he has seen in certain subjects of hypnosis or
magnetism.[125]
We say: ‘which he believes he has
seen’, for while we do not in any way wish to doubt his good faith, we think
that the facts that he interprets in this way by virtue of a preconceived
hypothesis are really explained in another, much simpler way. These facts can be
summed up as follows: The subject, being in a certain state, can be placed
mentally in conditions where he finds himself in a past age, and to be
thus‘situated’at some age or another about which he then speaks as if it were
the present, whence it is concluded that in this case there is no ‘remembrance’
but ‘memory regression’. This latter, by the way, is a contradiction in terms,
for there can obviously be no question of memory where there is no remembering;
but leaving this observation aside, it must first be asked if the possibility
of remembrance pure and simple is truly excluded for the sole reason that the
subject speaks of the past as if it were present to him again.
To this one can immediately respond
that memories as such are always mentally present;[126]
what marks them in our present consciousness as memories of past events is
their comparison with our present perceptions (we mean present as perceptions),
a comparison that only allows one to be distinguished from the other by the
establishment of a relationship (temporal, that is, of succession) between
outward events[127]
of which they are for us the respective mental representations. Jf for some
reason (either by the momentary suppression of every outward impression or in
some other way), this comparison comes to be impossible, memory, no longer
localized in time with respect to other psychological elements at present
different, loses its characteristic quality of past and preserves only its
quality of present. Now this is precisely what happens in the case we are
considering. The state in which the subject is
Gnosis & the Spiritist
Schools * 165 placed corresponds to a
modification of his present consciousness, implying an extension of the
individual faculties in a certain direction to the momentary detriment of the
development in another direction that these faculties possess in their normal
state. If therefore the subject is prevented in such a state from being
affected by present perceptions and if, further, all events after a certain
determinate moment are kept from his consciousness (conditions that are
perfectly attainable with the help of suggestion), they cannot be situated in
the past or considered in this aspect because in the present field of
consciousness there is no longer any element to which they can be related as
temporally past.
In all of this it is a
question of nothing more than a mental state implying a modification of the
conception of time (or better, of its comprehension) with respect to the normal
slate; moreover, these two states are both only two different modifications of
one and the same individuality.[128]
Indeed, there can be no question of higher and extra-individual states in which
the being is freed from the temporal condition, nor even of an extension of the
individuality implying such freedom in part, since on the contrary the subject
is placed in a determinate instant which essentially presupposes that his
present state is conditioned by time. Besides, on the one hand states like
those to which we have just alluded obviously cannot be reached by means that
remain entirely within the domain of the present and restricted individuality,
as every experimental process necessarily is; on the other hand, even if these
states should in some way be reached, they could never be discerned by this
individuality whose particular conditions of existence have no contact with
those of the higher states, and because, as a particular individuality, it is
necessarily incapable of assenting to, and a fortiori of expressing,
all that is above the limits of its own possibilities.[129]
As for really returning to
the past, this is something which is as we have said elsewhere manifestly just
as impossible for the human individual as is travel into the future;[130]
and we never would have thought that Wells’ 'time machine’[131]
could have been considered to be anything but pure fantasy, nor that anyone
would come to speak seriously about the ‘reversibility of time’. Space is
reversible, that is to say that after any one of its parts has been traversed
in a given direction it can thereafter be traversed in the opposite direction;
this is because it is a coordination of elements considered in present and
permanent mode; but time, on the contrary, is a coordination of elements
considered in successive and transitory mode and thus cannot be reversible, for
such a supposition would be the very negation of the point of view of
succession, or, in other words, it would amount precisely to the abolition of
the temporal condition.[132]
Nonetheless there are people who have conceived this singular—to say the
least —idea of the ‘reversibility of time’ and who have attempted to base it on
a ‘theorem of mechanics’(?) which we believe interesting enough to reproduce in
its entirety in order to show more clearly the origin of their fantastic
hypothesis.
The
complex series of all the successive states of a system of bodies being known,
and these states following and developing from each other in a determinate
order from the past, which serves as cause, to the future, which has the rank
of effect [sic], let us then
the planet Mars, without being
surprised that all that happened there should be so easily described in earthly
language!); there is nothing in all of this that requires the least
intervention of the higher states of the being, the existence of which the
‘psy- chists’ do not of course even suspect.
consider
one of these successive states, and without changing anything of the composing
masses or of the forces that act between these masses,[133]
or of the laws of these forces nor of the present situations of these masses in
space, let us replace each velocity by an equal and contrary velocity.[134]
We shall call this ‘reverting’ all the speeds; this change itself will take the
name of reversion, and we shall call its possibility reversibility of the
movement of the system.
Let us pause a moment
here, for it is precisely this possibility that we cannot admit even from the
point of view of movement, which is necessarily effected in time; in a new
series of successive states but in the opposite direction, the system under
consideration will regain the positions that it had earlier occupied in space,
but time will never be the same as before, and it is obviously sufficient for
one condition to change in order that the new states of the system be
completely unable to identify with the preceding ones. Moreover, in the
reasoning that we cited, it is explicitly supposed (although in rather dubious
French) that the relation of past to future is a relation of cause and effect,
while on the contrary the causal relationship essentially implies
simultaneity, whence the result that from this point of view the states
considered to follow each other cannot develop from one another.[135]
But let us continue:
Now when the reversion of
velocities in a system of bodies has
been effected,[136]
the complete series of future and past states for
this reverted system must
be found. Will this inquiry be any more difficult than the corresponding
problem for the successive states of a non-reverted system? Neither more nor
less,66 and the solution to one of these problem will give the
solution to the other by a very simple change, that in technical terms consists
in changing the algebraic sign for time, writing -t instead of +t, and
inversely.
This is indeed very simple
in theory, but leaving aside the fact that the notation of‘negative numbers’ is
only a wholly artificial process meant to simplify calculations and that it
does not correspond to any kind of reality, the author of this argument falls
into a serious error that is shared, moreover, by almost all mathematicians,
and in order to interpret the change of sign that he has just noted he
immediately adds:
That is to say that the
two complete series of successive states of the same system of bodies differ
only in that the future becomes past and the past becomes future.67
The same series of successive states will be traversed in the opposite
direction. The reversion of velocities simply reverses time; the original
series of successive states and the reverted series have at all corresponding
moments the same systemic figures with the same equal and contrary velocities [sic].
Unfortunately, the
reversion of velocities really only reverses the spatial situations and not
time; instead of being ‘the same series of successive states traversed in the
opposite direction’ there will be a second series inversely homologous to the
first with respect only to
is to be remembered that he himself
considers the so-called ‘reversion unrealizable, contrary to the hypothesis of
those who would like to apply his argument to memory regression’.
66. Evidently, since in both cases one examines a movement of
which all the elements are given; but in order for this investigation to
correspond to anything real or even possible one must not let oneself be fooled
by mere changes in notation! ill
67. This is certainly a peculiar phantasmagoria, and it must be
acknowledged that an operation as common as a mere change of algebraic sign is
endowed with a most strange and truly marvelous power... in the eyes of
mathematicians!
space. This will not make
the past become the future, and the future will not become the past except in
virtue of the normal and natural law of succession, as this occurs at every
instant. It is truly too easy to show the unconscious and multiple sophisms
hidden behind such arguments; yet this is all they can find to show us in
justification, ‘before science and philosophy', of a theory like that of so-
called ‘memory regressions’!
This being said, in order
to complete the psychological explanations mentioned at the beginning, we must
also point out that the claimed ‘return to the past’ (which is really only a
recalling to clear and distinct consciousness of memories preserved in a latent
stale in the subconscious memory of the subject) is facilitated from the psychological
point of view by the fact that every impression necessarily leaves a trace in
the organism that has experienced it. Here we do not have to investigate the
way in which this impression may be recorded in various nerve centers; this is
an investigation that belongs to experimental science pure and simple, which,
moreover, has already been able to ‘localize’ almost exactly the centers corresponding
to the different modalities of the memory.[137]
The action exerted on these centers, aided by the psychological factor of
suggestion, allows the subject to be placed in the desired conditions to
realize the experiences we discussed, at least as to their first part, that
relating to events in which he has really played a role or has witnessed at a
more or less remote period.[138]
But of course the
physiological correspondence that we just pointed out is possible only for
impressions that have really affected the subject’s organism; likewise from the
psychological point of view the individual consciousness of some being can
obviously not contain anything except elements that have some connection with
the actual individuality of this being. This should suffice to show that it is
useless to pursue experimental investigations beyond certain limits, that is,
in the present case, before the birth of the subject, or at least before the
beginning of his embryonic life; yet it is this that they claim to do on the
basis of the preconceived hypothesis of reincarnation (as we said), and they
think they are thus able to ‘revive’ the subject’s ‘anterior lives’ while in
the interval also studying‘what is taken to be the non-incarnated spirit’!
Here we are in complete
fantasy. How can one speak of the ‘anteriority of the living being’ when it is
a question of a time when this living being did not yet exist in the
individualized state; and how can one wish to take him back before his origin,
that is to say into conditions in which he never existed, thus conditions that
for him do not correspond to any reality? This amounts to creating an artificial
reality from scratch, if one may express oneself thus, that is to say a present
mental reality that is not the representation of any kind of sensible reality;
the suggestion given by the experimenter provides the starting-point for it,
and the imagination of the subject does the rest. The same thing, minus the
initial suggestion, happens in the state of ordinary dreams where the
‘individual soul creates a world that comes entirely from itself and whose
objects consist exclusively in mental images’70 without it being
possible to distinguish these images from perceptions originating from
outside, at least as long as no comparison is established between these two
kinds of psychological elements, which can only occur by a more or less clearly
conscious passage from the dream state to the state of waking.71
Thus an induced dream, a state similar in every respect to
in the organism, just as a
psychological tendency that does not manifest itself by an outward act is no
less real despite ihis.
70.
See Man and His
Incoming according to the Vedànta.
71.
But this comparison is
never possible in the case of a dream induced by suggestion since at his
wakening the subject preserves no memory of it in his normal consciousness.
those in which partially
or wholly imaginary perceptions are provoked in a subject by the appropriate
suggestions, but with this one difference that here the experimenter is himself
the dupe of his own suggestion and takes the mental creations of the subject
for the 'awakening of memories’[139]—behold
what the would-be 'exploration of successive lives’ is reduced to, the sole
‘experimental proof’ that the reincarnationists have been able to furnish in
favor of their theory.
That an attempt should be
made to apply suggestion to ‘psychotherapy’, to use it to heal drunkards or
maniacs or to develop the mentality of certain idiots, is an endeavor that does
not fail to be most praiseworthy, and whatever the results obtained, we shall
not change our opinion on the matter. But let this be the limit and let there
be an end to the use of phantasmagorias like those of which we have just
spoken. Nevertheless, people will still come forth to vaunt the‘clarity and
evidence of spiritism' and oppose it to the ‘obscurity of metaphysics’, which
they confuse with the most commonplace philosophy;[140]
peculiar evidence, at least if it is not evidence of absurdity! But all of
this does not surprise us in the least, for we know very well that the
spiritists and other‘psychists’ of different ilks are all like a certain
person with whom we recently had dealings; they are profoundly ignorant of what
metaphysics is, and we shall certainly not undertake to explain it to them. Sarcbbc
lavar la testa all' asino [Let them wash the head of a donkey],[141]
as they irreverently say in Italian.
a Mission to
Central Asia
At the
moment there is much talk of the discoveries that Paul Pélliot, a
former student of the French School of (he Far East, appears to have made
during a recent exploration of Central Asia. So many French and foreign
missions have succeeded one another in this region without any appreciable
results that one is permitted to be a little skeptical at first. No doubt,
explorers have brought back documents that are interesting from the
geographical point of view, especially photographs, as well as zoological,
botanical, and mineral specimens, but nothing more. But here is what Pélliot himself
relates about his expedition, first at a conference held at the Sorbonne on
December 11 ( 1909]and then in an article that appeared in Echo de Paris
on December 15 and 16. To learn of his archeological discoveries we can best
refer to his own account.
Near the village of Tumchuk in
Chinese Turkestan, he says he first found a group of ruins almost entirely
buried, from which he was able to extricate some Buddhist sculptures exhibiting
very clear traces of Hellenic influence. Then, at Kutchar, one of the principal
oases of Chinese Turkestan, he excavated ‘some artificial grottoes furnished as
Buddhist sanctuaries and decorated with murals’, as well as open air temples;
‘in the court of one of these there one day came to light a thick pile of manuscripts
all in confusion and mixed with sand and salt crystal,’ in short, in rather bad
shape.
'lb
separate the pages required much time and the attention of expert hands; thus
these documents have not been deciphered. All that can be said about them at the
moment is that they are written in the Hindu script called Brahmi but
translated for the most part into those mysterious Central Asian languages that
European philology has hardly begun to understand.
Thus Pélliot himself
recognizes that the philologists, of whom he is one, have only a very imperfect
knowledge of certain Asian languages; this is a point we shall return to
later. For the moment, let us note only that we have been assured that Pélliot ‘knows
the ancient Chinese, Brahmi, Uigur, and Tibetan languages perfectly’ {Echo
de Paris of December 10); it is true that it was not he himself who said
this, but he is doubtless too modest to do so.
However this may be, it certainly
seems that early in his exploration Pélliot, like his Russian, English,
German, and Japanese predecessors, was the only one to discover
preserved
by the sands of this desiccated country, the remains of an essentially Buddhist
civilization that had flourished there during the first two centuries of the
present era, and was abruptly destroyed around the year 1000 by Islam.
This is therefore not a
relatively recent civilization ‘where influences from India, Persia, Greece,
and the Far East’ mingled, and that simply came to be superimposed on earlier
civilizations dating back many thousands of years. Now Chinese Turkestan is not
far from Tibet; is Pélliot ignorant of the true age of Tibetan
civilization, and does he believe it also to be‘essentially Buddhist’ as many
of his peers have claimed? The reality is that Buddhism never had anything but
a completely superficial influence in these regions, and that in Tibet itself
it would be difficult to find any traces of it, unfortunately for those who
even now wish to make it the center of Buddhist religion. The ancient
civilizations to which we have just alluded must thus have been buried under
the sand, but to find them it would doubtless have been necessary to dig a bit
deeper; it is truly regrettable that no one should have thought of this.
After spending some time at Urumachi,
capital of Chinese Turkestan, Pélliot proceeded to Tuan Huang in
Western Kan Su, knowing ‘that about twenty kilometers from the city was a
sizeable group of Buddhist caves called Ts’ien-Fo-Tong or Caves of the Thousand
Buddhas.’ Here again it is thus a Buddhist civilization that is involved; it
would really seem that there were never any others in this country, or at least
that this was the first to have left any vestiges, and nonetheless everything
proves to us the contrary. One is obliged to think that there are things that,
while very apparent to some, are completely invisible to others. ‘We examined
these Buddhist caves for a long while,’ says Pélliot; ‘there
were almost five hundred dating from the sixth to the eleventh century, still
covered with the paintings and inscriptions with which the donors decorated
them.’ Thus, at Tuan Huang as in Turkestan, there is nothing prior to the Christian
era; all of this is almost modern, given that, on the admission of the
sinologists themselves, ‘a rigorously controlled chronology allows one to go as
far back in Chinese history as four thousand years,’ and these four thousand
years are nothing when compared with the period, considered legendary, that
preceded them.
But here is the most important
discovery. At Urumachi, Pélliot heard that ancient manuscripts had
been found a few years earlier in one of the caves at Tuan Huang.
In 1900 a monk, who was
clearing out one of the bigger caves, chanced upon a walled niche (hat, when
opened, was found to be filled with manuscripts and paintings.
It is rather strange that
all this remained in the same place from 1900 until 1908 without anyone being
told that these manuscripts and paintings might be of some interest; even
admitting that the monk was wholly illiterate, as Pélliot believes
(which would be very surprising), he would nonetheless not have gone without
announcing his find to people more capable of appreciating its value. But what
is even more surprising is that this monk allowed strangers to examine these
documents and to take away everything that they found interesting; never has
any explorer encountered such compliance among Easterners, who generally guard
everything that relates to the past and to the traditions of their country and
their race with
a jealous caulion. We
cannot cast doubt on Pélliot’s account, however, but we have to
think that not everyone attached the same importance to these documents as he,
or they would long since have been safely stored in some monastery—let us call
it Buddhist so as not to take from the sinologists all their illusions. No
doubt, Pélliot was
made to find these manuscripts just as curious travelers who visit Tibet are
made to see many things so that they will be satisfied and not extend their
investigations too far; it is both easier and more polite than to turn them
away abruptly, and, as to politeness, the Chinese are known not to yield
anything to any other people.
There was a bit of
everything in this niche at Tuan Huang:
texts
in Brahmi,Tibetan, Uigur, but also many in Chinese; Buddhist, and Taoist
manuscripts on paper or silk, a Nestorian Christian text, a Manichean fragment,
works of history, geography, philosophy, literature, the archetypes of the
classics [sic], the oldest prints in the Far East, sales records, leases,
financial records, accounts, many paintings on silk, and finally, xylographs
from the tenth and even the eighth centuries, the oldest in the world.
In this enumeration Taoist
manuscripts seem to be found there as if by chance, just as the Nestorian and Manichean
texts, of which the presence is rather surprising. On the other hand, since the
xylograph was known in China long before the Christian era, it is hardly
likely that the prints in question here are really‘the oldest in the world’ as Pélliot believes.
Pélliot, well
pleased by his discovery, which he himself proclaims‘the most extraordinary
that the history of the Far East has ever recorded,’ hastened to return to
China proper; the letters from Peking, which are too polite to permit any doubt
as to ihe value of the documents he describes, beg him to send them photographs
of the discoveries that would serve as the basis for a large publication.
Pélliot has now returned to France
with his collection of paintings, bronzes, ceramics, and sculptures collected
all along his route, and especially with manuscripts found at Kutchar and Tuan
Huang. While admitting that these manuscripts have all the value some wish to
attribute to them, we are left to wonder how the philologists
are going to go about
deciphering and translating them, and this task does not seem to be a very easy
one.
Despite all the scholars’ claims, the
much vaunted progress of philology seems to be rather dubious judging by how
oriental languages are still officially taught today. Concerning sinology in
particular, people still follow the path of the first translators and little
seems to have advanced in a half century. We can take the translations of Lao
Tzu, for example, of which the first, by G. Pauthier, is surely the most
deserving and conscientious, despite the inevitable imperfections. Even before
it was published, this translation was violently criticized by Stanislaus
Julien, who seems to have tried to deprecate it in favor of his own, which is
nonetheless much inferior and only dates from 1842 while Pauthier’s dates from
1833. In his introduction to the Tao Tc Ching, moreover, Stanislaus
Julien shares the views of the following statement by A. Rémusat in Un Mcmoire
sur Lao-tseu
which could still be repeated by modern sinologists.
The
text of the Tao is so full of obscurities, we have so few means to
acquire a perfect understanding of it, so little knowledge of the circumstances
to which the author alludes; in every respect we are so far from the ideas that
influenced his writing, that it would be foolhardy to claim to discover exactly
the meaning he had in mind.
Despite this admitted
incomprehension, the translation of Stanislaus Julien (we shall see shortly
what this is worth in itself) is still held to be authoritative and is the one
to which official sinologists most readily turn.
In reality, leaving aside the very
remarkable translation of the I Ching and its traditional commentaries
by M. Philastre, a
translation that is unfortunately very little understood by Western intellectuals,
it must be recognized that nothing truly serious was done in this regard until
the work of Matgioi. Before him, Chinese metaphysics was entirely unknown in
Europe; one could even say wholly unsuspected without risking the accusation of
exaggeration. Since the translations of the two books of the Tao and the
Tc by Matgioi have been seen and approved in the Far East by sages who
retain the heritage of Taoist Science, which for us guarantees their perfect
exactitude, Stanislaus
Julien’s translation must be compared to it. We shall be content to refer to
the eloquent notes accompanying the tradition of Thu and Tc published in
La Haute Science (2nd year, 1894) in which Matgioi presents a
number of mistranslations such as the following: ‘It is good to place a shelf
of jade in front of one and to mount a chariot of four horses,’ instead
of‘Joined together (hey go faster and more forcefully than a chariot of four
horses.’ We could cite at random a host of similar examples where a term signifying
‘the blink of an eye’ becomes ‘a rhinoceros horn’, or where money becomes ‘a
commoner’ and its true value ‘a wagon’ and so forth; but here is something even
more telling, that is, the appraisal of a native scholar reported in these
words by Matgioi:
Having
in hand (he French paraphrase by Julien, I then had the idea of re-translating
it literally into common Chinese for the doctor who was teaching me. He first
began to smile silently in the Eastern manner, then became indignant, and
finally declared, ‘The French must indeed be enemies of Asians if their
scholars amuse themselves by knowingly distorting the works of Chinese
philosophy and changing them into grotesque fabrications to be held up to the
ridicule of the French masses.’ I did not try to make my doctor believe that
Julien imagined his to be a respectable translation, for he would then have
questioned the worth of all our scholars. I preferred to let him doubt the
sincerity of Julien alone; and thus it is that the latter
has posthumously paid for (he indiscretion he committed while living by (adding
texts of which the meaning and import inevitably escaped him.
We think the example of
Stanislaus Julien, who was a member of the Institute, gives a good idea of the
value of philologists in general. Nonetheless there may be honorable exceptions
and we even prefer to believe that Pélliot is one; it is now up to
him to give us proof of it by accurately interpreting the texts he has brought
back from his expedition. However this may be, as regards Taoist texts, today
it should no longer be possible to demonstrate an ignorance of Chinese
metaphysics that might have been excusable up to a point in the time of Rémusat and
Stanislaus Julien, but that can no longer be so after (he work of Matgioi,
especially after the publication of his
two most important works
from this point of view, La Voie Meta- physiqtie and
La Voie Ratioticlle. But
official scholars, always disdainful of anything that does not come from one
of their own, are hardly capable of profiting from them precisely because of
their peculiar mentality. This is a great pity for them, and if we are permitted
to counsel Pélliot, we
urge him with all our strength not to follow the unfortunate errors of his
predecessors.
If we move from Chinese
manuscripts to texts written in the languages of Central Asia or even in the
sacred languages of India, we find ourselves in the presence of yet graver
difficulties, for as we observed above, Pélliot himself recognizes that
‘European philology has hardly begun to interpret these mysterious idioms.’ We
can go even further and say that among these languages, each of which has a
script of its own, without counting the cryptographic systems very much still
in use throughout the East, which in certain cases make deciphering completely
impossible (even in Europe one finds inscriptions of this kind which have never
been interpreted) among these languages, we say, there are a great number of
which everything, even the name, is and will long remain unknown by Western
scholars. In order to translate these texts they will probably turn to methods
that the Egyptologists and Assyriologists have already used in other branches
of philology; the interminable arguments that arise between them at every
moment, their inability to agree on the most essential points of their science,
as well as the obvious absurdities met with in all their interpretations,
sufficiently illustrate the minimal value of the results they achieve, of which
they are nonetheless so proud. The strangest thing is that these scholars
claim to understand the languages they study even better than those who spoke
and wrote them in the past; we do not exaggerate, for we have seen noted in
manuscripts so-called interpolations which according to them prove that the
copyist was mistaken about the meaning of the text he transcribed.
We are here far from the
cautious reserve of the first sinologists mentioned above; yet if the claims of
the philologists are always on the increase, their science is far from making a
similarly rapid progress. Thus Egyptologists still use Champoilion’s method,
their only fault being to apply it solely to inscriptions from the Greek and
Roman periods when
Egyptian writing had become purely phonetic following the degeneration of the
language, whereas earlier it had been hieroglyphic, that is to say ideographic
like Chinese writing. Moreover, the failing of all official philologists is to
want to interpret sacred languages, nearly all of which are ideographic, as
they do common languages, which are merely alphabetic or phonetic. Let us add
that there are languages that combine the ideographic and alphabetic systems;
biblical Hebrew is like this, as Eabre d’Olivet has shown in The Hebraic
Tongue Restored-, and we can note in passing that this is sufficient to make
it clear that the true meaning of the Bible has nothing in common with the
ridiculous interpretations that have been attributed to it from the
commentaries of Protestant as well as Catholic theologians—which moreover are
based on versions that are entirely erroneous—to the critiques of modern exe-
getes who are still at the point of asking how it happens that in Genesis there
are passages where God is called Cn^S and others where He is called ”1“’,
without seeing that these two terms, the first of which is a plural, have a
completely different meaning and that in reality neither has ever designated
God.
Furthermore, what makes
the translation of ideographic languages almost impossible is the multitude of
meanings belonging to the hierogrammatical characters, each of which
corresponds to a different if analogous idea according as it is related to one
level or another of the universe; from this it follows that three principal
meanings can always be distinguished, which are in turn subdivided into a great
number of secondary and more particular significations. This explains why one
cannot properly speaking translate the sacred books; one can only make a
paraphrase or a commentary, and this is what the philologists and exegetes
ought to resign themselves to, if only they could grasp the most outward
meaning; unfortunately, up to now they do not seem to have attained even this
modest result. Let us hope that Pelliot will be more fortunate than his
colleagues, and that the manuscripts he possesses will not remain for him a
dead letter, and let us wish him all courage in the arduous task he has
undertaken.
Profane
Science in Light of Traditional Doctrines
Although we
have often explained what ought to be the normal attitude toward profane
science on the part of anyone who represents or merely expounds a traditional
doctrine of any sort, it seems from certain remarks that have recently come to
us from various quarters, that everyone has not yet fully understood it. We
must admit that there is an excuse for this: the attitude in question is
difficult to conceive for those who have been affected to some degree by the
modern mentality, which is to say for the immense majority of our
contemporaries, at least in the West. Rare are those who succeed in fully
disencumbering themselves of the prejudices inherent in this mentality, and
which have been imposed on them by their education and by the very ambiance in
which they live. Now, among these prejudices one of the strongest is certainly
a belief in the value of modern science, which is really the same thing as
profane science, and as a result many have a more or less unconscious desire
not to admit that the real or supposed results of this science are something
that can be disregarded.
First of all we will
recall that in every order it is the profane point of view as such that is
illegitimate, and this point of view consists essentially in considering things
without a link to any transcendent principle and as if they were independent of
every principle, which it ignores purely and simply, even when it does not go
as far as to deny them outright. This definition applies equally to the domain
of action and to that of knowledge; in the latter it is evident that such
Profane Science in Light of Traditional
Doctrines * t8i is the case of modern science in
its entirely, and that as a consequence modern science has no righ t to be
considered as true knowledge since, even if it should happen to state things
that are true, its manner of presenting them is nonetheless illegitimate, and
it is in any case unable to give the reason for their truth which can only lie
in their dependence on principles. Of course, when we speak of knowledge this
does not concern the practical applications that can result from this science,
for these applications are completely independent of the value of the science
as such and consequently do not interest us here. Besides, scientists
themselves readily recognize that they make use of forces the nature of which
is completely unknown to them. This ignorance no doubt accounts for much of the
danger that these applications too often present, but this is another question
which we do not have to pursue at present.
It could be asked whether,
in spite of everything, such a science might not be legitimized by
re-establishing, for the part of truth it can contain of a relative order, the
link with principles which alone would permit this truth to be effectively
understood as such. Certainly this is not impossible in some cases, but then
it would not really be a question of the same science, since this would imply a
complete change of point of view, and a traditional point of view would thereby
be substituted for the profane point of view; and it must not be forgotten that
a science is not defined solely by its object but also by the point of view
from which it considers the object. If it were to happen, what could be
preserved would have to be most carefully distinguished from what on the
contrary would have to be eliminated, that is to say all the false ideas which
ignorance of principles has only too easily allowed to be introduced; and the
very formulation of truths would most often have to be corrected, for it is
almost always seriously influenced by the false ideas with which the truths in
question are associated in profane science. We ourselves, in one of our works,
have given some evidence of this in regard to certain aspects of modern
mathematics;[142]
and let no one come and say that in such an instance the correction of
terminology would have but little fundamental importance, or even that it
would not merit the effort
required, under the pretext that mathematicians are not themselves dupes of
the absurdities implied in the language they use. First of all, incorrect
language always presupposes some confusion in thought, and it is more serious
than might be thought to refuse to correct this error, and to treat it as something
negligible or indifferent. Next, even if professional mathematicians finally
realize the falsehood of certain ideas, nonetheless, by continuing to speak in
ways that reflect these same false ideas, they contribute to spreading or
maintaining them among those who in any measure receive their teaching,
directly or indirectly, and who cannot examine things as closely as they.
Finally, and most importantly, the fact of using terminology to which no
plausible significance is attached is nothing but another manifestation of the
growing tendency of modern science to become nothing more than an
empty‘conventionalism’, a tendency that is itself characteristic of the phase
of‘dissolution’ succeeding that of‘solidification’ in the last periods of the
cycle.[143]
It would be truly curious and moreover very worthy of an age of intellectual
disorder like ours, if, in wanting to prove that the objections we have
formulated against their science were not really applicable to them, people
were to advance precisely an argument that on the contrary only provided a
still more ample confirmation of it!
This leads us directly to a more
general consideration: we know that people sometimes reproach us for raising an
argument against modern scientific theories that are hardly accepted any longer
by scientists themselves, or concerning which they at least have reservations
not held by their predecessors. To take an example, it is true that
transformism has lost much ground in ‘scientific’ circles without it being
possible to go so far as to say that it has no more advocates, which would be
a manifest exaggeration. But it is no less true that it continues to spread as
before, and with the same ‘dogmatic’ assurance, in textbooks and in works of
popularization, that is to say in all that is in fact accessible to those who
are not ‘specialists’, so much so that as regards the influence it exercises on
the general mentality nothing has truly changed, and in this respect it still
Profane Science in
Light of Traditional Doctrines * 183
retains the same ’currency’. Moreover, it must be well understood that the
importance we attach to this fact, which can also be noted for other'out of
date’ or ‘outgrown’ theories (according to the fashionable expressions), is in
no way due to any particular interest we bear toward the ‘general public’. The
true reason is that these theories affect without distinction all those who,
as we just said, are not ‘specialists’, among whom there are surely some,
however few they may be, who, if not subjected to such influences, would
possess possibilities of comprehension that, on the contrary, would hardly be
expected among scientists irremediably enclosed in their ‘specialties’. In
truth, although for their part many of these scientists have renounced the
gross forms of transformism, we are not sure that it is not simply in order to
replace them with ideas which, even if more subtle, are worth no more
fundamentally and are perhaps even more dangerous. In any case, why do they
maintain a blameworthy equivocation, continuing to speak of‘evolution’ as they
always have, if what they now really mean by this term hardly has any
connection with what used to be designated by it? Must one see here, as well,
one of the manifestations of current scientific ‘conventionalism’, or simply
an example of the tendency that words have today, even in everyday usage, to
completely lose their normal meanings? However this may be, what is rather
strange is that while certain people reproach us for not sufficiently taking
into consideration what could be called scientific‘topicality’, in other
circles there are people who, on the contrary, certainly do not forgive us for
thinking and saying that materialism is no longer the only danger there is
reason to decry, nor even the principal or most formidable one. It is very
difficult to satisfy everyone, and we must add, moreover, that for our part
this is something that has never greatly preoccupied us.
Let us now return to the
question of the legitimation of the modern sciences. If, as we said, this
legitimation is possible for some, it is not so for all equally, for it is a
necessary condition that a science have an object that is legitimate in itself
even if, because of its profane character, its manner of considering it is not
legitimate. Now this condition is not fulfilled by (hose sciences—we ought
rather to say so-called sciences—which are really only specific products of the
modern deviation. A
typical case of this sort is psychoanalysis, and there is no good reason to
attempt to link to higher principles what is properly only an aberration due to
the action of the lowest psychic influences; one might as well try to
legitimize spiritism or‘surrealist’ divagations, which have a wholly similar
origin, the only difference being that these latter are not admitted into the
categories of‘official’ teaching. On the other hand, as regards those modern
sciences that have at least a legitimate object, it must not be forgotten that
for many of them one has to take into account their ‘residual’ character
regarding certain ancient sciences, as we have explained on other occasions, so
that legitimizing them would amount to a more or less integral restoration of
the traditional sciences to which they correspond and of which they are only
the degenerate vestiges resulting from the forgetting of principles. But this
restoration itself would not be without difficulty, for among these traditional
sciences are some, like astrology, the true ‘keys’ to which seem to have been
lost completely, and great care would have to be taken not to confuse them with
more or less recent deformations that one meets with today under the same name
and which themselves are very much affected by the profane point of view that
more and more encroaches on everything.
The question we have just been
considering has as yet only a ‘theoretical’ interest, as it were, for in fact
the legitimation in question has not yet been undertaken in any case, so that
when it is a question of modern science one is solely in the presence of profane
science. With respect to traditional doctrines this can only be considered to
be purely and simply non-existent; in other words, there is no need to
preoccupy oneself with knowing whether it agrees or disagrees with these
doctrines, with which, because of its lack of principles, it could have no
effective link. If there is disagreement one can be certain that the error is
necessarily on the part of the profane science, for traditional data cannot be
the object of any doubt for anyone who understands their true nature. If on the
contrary there is agreement, this is all the better for the science in question,
but only for it, for this shows that it has managed to arrive, albeit by very
roundabout and uncertain ways, at the truth about certain particular points.
This concurrence, which has only a wholly
Profane Science in
Light of Traditional Doctrines * 185 accidental character, is of no importance to
traditional doctrines, for these have no need of any outward ‘confirmation’.
Moreover, it would be a strange kind of confirmation made by appeals to a science
for which the truths in question, as all of its theories, can never be anything
except mere, more or less probable, hypotheses. For the same reasons there is
no additional reason to try to associate traditional data with ideas borrowed
from profane science or more or less directly inspired by it; this is a
perfectly vain undertaking which could only be the work of people like the
occultists, for example, who are completely ignorant of the true import of the
fragmentary elements they have taken from the little they know of different traditions.
We have often enough explained the inanity of this sort of ‘syncretistic’ and
hybrid construction for it to be unnecessary for us to enlarge on it again.
Furthermore, we have also
had occasion to point out the weakness, not to say more, of the attitude
customarily called ‘apologetic’, which consists in trying to defend a tradition
against attacks such as those by modern science, by disputing these arguments
on their own ground, something (hat almost always entails unfortunate concessions
and that in any case implies a misunderstanding of the transcendent character
of traditional doctrine. This is the usual attitude of exoterists, and it may
be thought that very often they are especially driven by the fear that numerous
adherents of their tradition will be led astray by scientific objections, or
what are so called, raised against it; but beside the fact that this
‘quantitative’ consideration is itself of a rather profane order, these
objections merit all the less having such importance attached to them since the
science that inspires them changes continually—and this should suffice to prove
what little soundness they have. When one sees theologians, for example,
preoccupied with ‘making the Bible agree with science’, it is only too easy to
see how illusory is such work, since it constantly has to be redone as
scientific theories change, this without counting the drawback of appearing to
link tradition to the present state of profane science, that is, to theories
that in a few years will perhaps no longer be accepted by anyone, if they have
not already been abandoned by scientists—for this also can happen, as the
objections that are challenged are more usually the work of popularizers than
of the scientists
themselves. Instead of clumsily reducing sacred scriptures to such a level,
these theologians would surely do much better to penetrate their true meaning
as far as possible and to expound them purely and simply for the benefit of
those who are able to understand and who, if they understood them effectively,
would thereby no longer be tempted to let themselves be influenced by the
hypotheses of profane science, any more than by the dissolving ‘critique’ of a
modernist and rationalist, that is, essentially anti- traditional, exegesis,
the alleged results of which no longer need to be taken into consideration by
those who are conscious of what tradition really is. Whoever expounds a traditional
doctrine, exoteric as well as esoteric, not only has the strictest right but
even the duty to refrain from the least compromise with the profane point of
view, whatever the domain in question. But in the West today, where are those
who still understand that this must be so? Perhaps some will say that, after
all, this is the business of theologians (since we have just taken them as an
example) and not our own. But we are not among those who think one can
dissociate oneself from attacks upon any tradition and who are even always
ready to congratulate themselves on attacks aimed at a tradition other than
their own, as if these were blows against ‘rivals’, and as if ultimately these
attacks did not always affect the traditional spirit itself. The type of‘apologetics’
we have discussed shows only too well to what degree these attacks have
succeeded in weakening the traditional spirit even among those who believe
themselves its defenders.
Now there is still a point that we
must clarify in order to avoid any misunderstanding. It certainly must not be
thought that anyone who intends to keep a rigorously traditional attitude must
thenceforth be forbidden to speak about the theories of profane science. On
the contrary, when there is reason, he can and must denounce their errors and
dangers, and this especially when he finds in them assertions clearly running
counter to the data of tradition. But he must do so in a way that never
constitutes a discussion ‘between equals’, which is only possible on the
condition that one place oneself on profane ground. Indeed, what is really at
issue is a judgment made in the name of a higher authority, that of traditional
doctrine, for of course it is this doctrine alone that counts here, while the
Profane Science in
Light of Traditional Doctrines * 187 individualities who express it have
not the slightest importance in themselves. Now as far as we know no one has
ever dared claim that a judgment could be assimilated to a discussion or to
'polemics’. If because of a prejudice due to incomprehension, the bad faith of
which is unhappily not always absent, those who misunderstand the authority of
tradition claim to see ‘polemics’ where there is no shadow of it, there is
obviously no way to prevent them from doing so, any more than one can prevent
an ignorant person or a fool from taking traditional doctrines for
‘philosophy’, but this is not worth the least attention. At least all those who
understand what tradition is and whose opinion alone countswill know perfectly
well what to think; as for us, if there are profane people who would like to
engage us in discussion, we shall warn them once for all that, since we will
never consent to descend to their level nor to place ourselves at their point
of view, their efforts will always fall into the void.
5. As an example of the first one
could cite that part of Christian theology related to angels (and in a general
way, moreover, exoterism can only take a theoretical point of view here), and
as an example of the second, the ‘practical Kabbalah’ in the Hebrew tradition.
6. Light is the traditional symbol of
the very nature of tlie spirit; we have remarked elsewhere that one also
encounters, in this regard, the expressions 'spiritual light’ and
'intelligible light’, as if they were in some way synonymous, which, again,
obviously implies an assimilation between the spirit anil intellect.
7. The last word, only
employed here as a result of habitual usage in European languages, is certainly
not exact if one wants to get to the heart of the matter, for in reality ‘God
the Creator’ can only be placed among the manifested aspects of the Divine.
8. In this connection, it
should be noted here that Plato's ‘geometer God’ is properly identified with
Apollo, who presides over all the arts; this, directly derived as it is from
Pythagorism, has a particular importance concerning the filiation of certain
traditional Hellenic doctrines and their connection with a ‘Hyperborean’ primal
origin.
9. This could even be
supported by various embryologies) considerations, but to say more on this now
would lead us too far from our present subject.
14. This characteristic is implied by
the presence of matter among the conditions of physical existence; but, in
order to realize measure, it is to space that we must link all the other
conditions, as we have here for time. We measure matter itself by division, and
it is divisible only insofar as it is extended, that is to say situated in
space (see further on for the demonstration of the absurdity of the atomist
theory).
15. In the mathematical sense of a
quantity that varies according lo the value of another quantity.
23. In the field of
manifestation considered, essence is represented as the center
(initial point), and substance
as the circumference (indefinite surface of terminal
43. We always add this
restriction so as not to limit in any way the indefinite possibilities for
combinations of the various contingent conditions of existence, and in
particular those of corporeal existence, which are found to be united in a
necessarily constant way only in the domain of this special modality.
20. On the esoteric and metaphysical interpretation of the
‘original Fall’ of man, see above, pt.i, chap. t,‘The Demiurge'.
23. See l.'Archâvnètre, 2nd year, no.i, pts,
>13. — In the social order what is called justice can only lie in
compensating injustices by other injustices, to use a Ear-Eastern formula (a
conception that does not suffer the introduction of mys- •ico-moral ideas such as
merit and demerit, reward and punishment, etc., any more than it does the
Western idea of moral and social progress). The sum of all these
"'justices, which together are in harmony and equilibrium, is the greatest
justice from the viewpoint of the human individual.
31. We speak only of'forms
of life’ because it must be clearly understood that those who hold such an
opinion can conceive nothing outside of life (and of life in a form) so that
for them this expression encloses all possibilities, while for us it represents
on the contrary only a very special possibility of manifestation.
[1] Guénon came back to the question of reincarnation in The Spiritist
Fallacy and Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion. F.n.
[2] There is ‘association’ as soon as it is admitted
that anything whatsoever outside of the Principle possesses its own proper
existence; naturally there are many degrees from this to polytheism properly so
called.
[3] When it is truly a question of the supreme
Principle, one should in all strictness speak of ‘non-duality’, since unity,
which is an immediate consequence thereof, is merely situated on the level of
Being. Although this distinction is of the greatest metaphysical importance, it
has no effect on what we have just said here: just as we can generalize the
sense of the term ‘monotheism’, we can also and «irrelatively just speak of
tire unity of the Principle.
[4] Cf. The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of
the Times, chap. 11. — Moreover, it is very difficult to understand how
some people can at the same time believe both in ‘primitive simplicity’ and in
original polytheism, yet so it is. T his is again a curious example of the
innumerable contradictions of the modern mentality.
[5] Previously we alluded to the links between
angelology and the sacred languages of the different traditions. This is a
characteristic example of what is here in question.
[6] Mysterium Magnum, viii, 1.
[7] De Signature Rerum, xvi, 5. — On the subject of tlie
fu st creation ‘going out from the mouth of God,’cf. Perspectives on
Initiation, chap. 47.
[8] ‘What is Civilization?', in Albert Schweitzer
festschrift [republished in What is Civilisation? {Great Barrington, MA:
Lindisfarne Press, 1989)]. — In this connection, Coomaraswamy also mentions
Philo's identification of the angels with the Platonic ‘Ideas’, that is, in
short, the ‘Eternal Reasons', contained in the divine understanding, or,
according to the language of Christian theology, in the Word considered as
the‘place of possibles’.
[9] The use of the term Piirushottama in the
Hindu tradition implies precisely the same transposition in relation to that
which Purtifha designates in its most common sense.
[10] It could even be said that generally this marks
the clearest and the most important distinction between these senses and the
illegitimate meanings which are too often attributed to this same word.
[11] This is also why in all strictness a man cannot
speak of'his spirit' as he speaks of‘his soul’ or 'his body’, the possessive
implying that it is a question of an element belonging properly to the
individual order. In the ternary division of the elements of the being, the
individual as such is composed of soul and body, while the spirit (without which
it could not exist in any manner) is transcendent in relation Io it.
[12] C(. The Great Triad, chap. 8, n 13.
[13] According to the Upanishadic formula, it is
'That by which everything is manifested, which is not itself manifested by
anything.'
[14] It might be of some interest to mention that the
'idea' or 'archetype', envisaged within the order of the supra-formal
manifestation, and with reference to
[15] We do not differentiate here between the domain
of Being and that which is beyond, for it is obvious that the possibilities of
manifestation, whether considered' especially as contained within Being or as
contained along with all others within Total Possibility, do not really differ.
The sole difference lies simply in the point of view or the 'level' from which things
are viewed, according to whether or not one considers the relation of these
possibilities with manifestation itself.
[16] See The Multiple Stales of the Heiug,
chap. a.
[17] See ‘Tlie Roots of Plants’, in Symbols of
Sacred Science, chap. 62. [See also chapter two of the present book. Ed. |
[18] Moreover, this ray will be single insofar as Huddhi
is envisaged at the Universal level (it is then the 'one foot of the sun' of
which the Hindu tradition also
[19] These are the rays which, according to the
symbolism that we explained elsewhere, realize manifestation through
‘measuring’ it by their actual extension from the sun (see The Reign of
Quantity and the Signs of the Times, chap. 3).
[20] In the terms of the Islamic tradition, al-hntpqnh,
or the ‘truth’ of every being whatsoever, lies in the Divine Principle inasmuch
as this Principle is itself al-tfaqq or the ‘Truth’ in the absolute
sense.
[21] This information is taken mainly from Paul
Coze’s work The Thunderbird, from which we also draw our quotations. The
author shows a remarkable sympathy for the Indians and their tradition, and the
only necessary reservation is that he seems rather strongly influenced by
'metapsychist' conceptions, which obviously affect some of his interpretations
and in particular sometimes lead him to a certain confusion between the psychic
and the spiritual. However, there is no room for such considerations in the
matter that we are dealing with here.
[22] It goes without saying that here, as always, we
mean initiation in its true sense, not in that of the ethnologists, who use
this word incorrectly to designate rites of admission to the tribe. (Ine should
take great care in making a clear distinction between these two things, both
of which in fact exist among the Indians.
[23] [11 the Indian tradition, these divine
manifestations seem usually to be distributed according to a quaternary
division, in accordance with a cosmological symbolism which applies
simultaneously to both the macrocosmic and the micro- cosmic points of view.
[24] See Perspectives on Initiation, chap. 24.
[25] In this connection, it is not without interest
that certain Islamic turuq. notably the Naqshbandl, also
practice silent dhikr.
[26] Charles Eastman, quoted by Paul Coze, was born a
Sioux and seems to have retained a clear awareness of his own tradition despite
a ‘white' education. We have moreover good reason to believe that in reality
such a case is far from being as exceptional as one might think if one stops at
certain wholly external appearances.
[27] See Perspectives on Initiation, chap. 17.
[28] The reason for this reservation is that in
certain cases the expression ‘Great Spirit’, or what one translates as such,
seems also to be the particular designation of one of tire divine manifestations.
[29] See Perspectives on Initiation, chap. 47
[30] There is hardly need to recall that the
principial non-distinction in question here has nothing in common with what can
also be designated by the same word in a lower sense, that is, the pure undifferentiated
potentiality of the materia prima.
[31] Cf. Mun and His becoming according to Vedânta, chap.
23.
[32] This word belongs specifically to the Iroquoian
language, but it has become customary in European works to use it generally in
place of all other terms bearing the same meaning that can be found among the
various Indian peoples. It designates the different modes of the psychic and
vital force. It is therefore almost the exact equivalent ofprilim in the
Hindu tradition and k’i in the Ear-Eastern tradition.
[33] Yeshua, the Hebrew form of 'Jesus'. E o.
[34] See The Symbolism of the Cross and The
Multiple States of the Heittg. Ei».
[35] The English cognate myriad has come to
combine both meanings. Ei>.
[36] See The Esoterism of Dante, chap. 2.
[37] See pt. 2, chap 1 above, 'Initiation and the
('.rails'.
[38] See ‘Cain and Abel’ in The Reign of Quantity
and The Signs of the Times, chap- 21, and also ‘Rite and Symbol' in Perspectives
on Initiation, chap. 16.
[39] ’t his is the Hindu notion of prafika,
which is no more an ‘idol’ than it is a work of imagination and individual
fantasy, bach of these two Western interpretations, opposed to a certain
extent, is as wrong as the other.
[40] The degeneration of certain symbols into
ornamental 'motifs’ because the meaning has ceased to be understood is one of
the characteristic features of the profane deviation.
[41] See 'The Language of the Birds' in Symbols of
Sacred Science, chap. 7.
[42] It is rather curious to note that modern
‘scholars' have come to an indiscriminate application of the word ‘literature’
to everything—even to the sacred scriptures, which they have the pretension to
study in the same way as the rest and by the same methods—and, when they speak
of‘biblical poems’ or of‘Vedic poems’, while completely misunderstanding what
poetry meant for the ancients, their intention is again to reduce everything to
something purely human.
[43] They can only be designated by analogy with the
different orders of sensible qualities, for it is only in this way that we can
know them (indirectly, in some of their particular effects) as long as we
belong, as individual and relative beings, to the world of manifestation.
[44] However, the five taninâtras cannot
be considered as being manifested by these conditions, any more than they can
by the elements and the perceptible qualities that correspond to them; on the
contrary, it is by the five laimiâiras (considered as principle, support, and end) that
all these things are manifested, followed by everything resulting from their
unlimited combinations.
[45] Each of these primitive elements is called bhüta, from bhii 'to be’,
more particularly in the sense of‘subsisting’; this term bhüta therefore implies a
substantial determination, which in fact corresponds well to the notion of the
corporeal element.
[46] The origin of ether and air. not mentioned in
the test of the Veda, where the genesis of the three other elements is
described (Chhândoÿya Upanishad), is indicated in another passage (Taiitirtya Upanishad).
[47] We cannot in any way consider such a concept as
that of the ideal figure imagined by Condillac in his Train' des Sensations.
[48] Notably the Jaituts, the flattddhas
and the Chërvâkas, with whom most of the Greek atomist philosophers are in accord on
this point; an exception must be made however for Empedocles, who admitted the
five elements but imagined them developing in the following order: ether, fire,
earth, water, and air. We will not insist on this, however, for we do not
intend to examine here the opinions of the different (>reek schools
of'physical philosophy’.
[49] The lack of adequate expressions in Western
languages is often a great difficulty for the exposition of metaphysical
ideas, as we have already noted on various occasions.
[50] "Ether, which is spread everywhere, enters
simultaneously both the exterior and interior of things’ (citation of Shankarâchârya, in The Demiurge’, pt. 1, chap. )
above.
[51] It also potentially possesses the other sensory
qualities as well, but indi- reclly since it can manifest them—that is, produce
them in act—only through different complex modifications (amplification being
on the contrary only a simple modification, the first of all).
[52] Moreover, this same sonorous quality belongs
equally to the other four elements. no longer as their own or characteristic
quality, but insofar as they all proceed from ether. Each element, proceeding
immediately from the one preceding it in the order of their successive
development, is perceptible to the same senses as the latter, and, in addition,
to another sense which corresponds to its own particular nature.
[53] This is the formula of velocity, of which we
have spoken earlier, and which, considered for each moment (that is to say, for
the infinitesimal variations of time and space), represents the derivative of
space in relation lo time.
[54] Cf. the dogma of the 'Immaculate Conception'
(see ‘Pages dedicated to Sahaïf Ataridiyah', by Abdul-Hadi, in La Cittose, January 1911.
P35).
[56] As we shall see, this differentiation implies
above all the idea of one or several specialized directions in space.
[57] The word Viiyu derives from the verbal
root vri, ’to go'. To move’ (which is still retained in the French il va, whereas the roots i
and gii, which are linked to the same idea, are found respectively in
(he l.atin ire and the Knglish to go). Analogically, the
atmospheric air, considered as milieu surrounding our body and affecting our
organism, is rendered perceptible to us by its displacement (kinetic and heterogeneous
state) before we perceive its pressure (static and homogenous state), l.et us
recall that Aer (from the rootTR, which is more especially related to
rectilinear movement) signifies 'that which gives to everything the principle
of movement,' according to Fabre d’Olivet.
expansion from this point); cf. the hieroglyphic
meaning of the Hebraic particle HR, formed of the two extreme letters of the
alphabet.
[59] In a wholly elementary way one can even take
account of the development of spatial potentialities contained in the point by
observing that the displacement ot the point engenders the line, as likewise
that of the line engenders the surface, and the surface in turn engenders
volume. However, this point of view presupposes the realization of extension,
and even of extension in three dimensions, for clearly each of the elements
considered successively can only produce the following one by moving in a
dimension that is actually exterior to it, and in relation to which it was
already situated. On the contrary, all these elements are realized
simultaneously— time then no longer intervening—in and through the original
deployment of the indefinite and unclosed spheroid we have considered, a
deployment that is effected not in actual space, whatever this may be, but in a
pure void deprived of all positive attribution, and which is in no way
productive by itself, but which, in passive
potential, is full of all that the point contains
in active potential (being thus, in a way, the negative aspect of that
of which the point is the positive aspect). This void, thus filled in an
originally homogenous and isotropic way with the virtualities of the principial
point, will be the milieu—or, if you will, the‘geometric place'—of all the
modifications and ulterior differentiations of the latter, thus being in
relation to universal manifestation what ether is particularly for our physical
world. Envisaged in this way, and in this plenitude that it bolds integrally
from the expansion (in exteriorizing mode) of the point’s active potentialities
( which are themselves all the elements of this plenitude), it is.
Without this plenitude it would not be, since the void can only be conceived as
‘non entity’, and thus it is entirely differentiated from the ‘universal void' (sarva
sluinya] of the Buddhists, who, moreover, attempting to identify it with
ether, regard the latter as ‘non-substantial’ and consequently do not count it
as one of the corporeal elements. Moreover, the I rue ‘universal void’ would
not be this void just considered, which is capable of containing all the possibilities
of Being (symbolized spatially by the virtualities of the point), but is, quite
to the contrary, everything outside of Being, where there can no longer in any
way be a question of‘essence’ or of‘substance’. This would then be Non-Being or
metaphysical zero, or, more exactly, an aspect of Non-Being, which, moreover,
is full of everything that in total Possibility is not subject to any
development in exterior or manifested mode, and which is thereby absolutely
inexpressible.
[60] Corporeal extension is the only one known to
astronomers, and even then they can only study a certain portion of it by their
methods of observation. Moreover, this is what produces for them the illusion
of the so-called ‘infinity of space’, for by the effect of a veritable
intellectual myopia that seems inherent to all analytical science, they are
induced to consider as ‘to infinity’ |jir| everything that exceeds the range of
their sensory experience, and which in relation Io them and the domain that
they study, is in reality no more than simple indefinite
[61] This localization already implies, moreover, a
first reflection preceding the one that we shall consider here but with which
the principial point identifies itself (by determining itself) in order to make
of it the effective center of extension in the process of realization, and from
which it is then rellected in all the other points (purely virtual in relation
to it) of this extension, which is its field of manifestation.
[62] The point is in fact ‘somewhere’ once it is
situated or determined in space (its potentiality in passive mode)—so as to
realize this space, that is—and in this very realization, which all movement,
even elementary movement, necessarily presupposes, to bring it from potency to
act.
[63] Leibnitz seems to have caught at least a glimpse
of this solution when he formulated his theory of'pre-established harmony’,
which has generally been very poorly understood by those who have tried to
interpret it.
[64] Leibnitz respectively defines time and space by
means of these two notions, which are wholly ideal when envisager! outside of this specialized point of
view, under which alone they are rendered perceptible.
[65] It is quite evident, in fact, that all these
positions coexist simultaneously insofar as they are places situated in one and
the same extension, of which they are only different portions (quantitatively
equivalent, moreover), all equally capable of being occupied by one and the
same body, which on the one hand must be envisaged statically in each of these
positions when considered in isolation in relation to the others, and also, on
the other hand, when all of them are considered as a whole outside the temporal
point of view.
[66] It is important to point out that 'dynamic' is
in no way synonymous with 'kinetic'; the movement may Ire considered as the
consequence of a certain action of force (thus rendering this action measurable
by means of a spatial translation permitting a definition of its ‘intensity’),
but it cannot be identified with this force itself. Furthermore, under other
modalities and in other conditions, the force (or the will) in action obviously
produces something completely different from movement, since, as we have iust
pointed out above, the latter constitutes only a particular case among the
indefinitude of possible modifications comprised in the exterior world, that
is, in the whole of universal manifestation.
[67] Moreover, this active power can be envisaged
under different aspects: as creative power, it is more particularly called Kriyd-Shakti.
whereas Jhitna-Shakii is the power of knowledge, Ichchhâ-Shakli the
power of desire, and so on, considering the unlimited multiplicity of attributes
manifested by Being in the exterior world, hut for all that without in any way
dividing the unity of Universal Potency in itself— which is necessarily
correlative with the essential unity of Being, and is implied by this very
unity—into the plurality of these aspects. — In the psychological order, this
active power is represented by P2R, ‘volitional facility’of O'S, the
'intellectual man’ (see Fabre d'Olivet, The Hebraic Tongue Restored).
[68] Universal Possibility, regarded in its integral
unity (but, of course, as to the possibilities of manifestation only), as the
feminine side of Being (of which the masculine side is Pnrusha, which is
Being itself in its supreme and 'non-acting' identity in itself), is thus
polarized here into active potency (Shakti) and passive potency (Prakriti).
[69] In this connection it must be noted that the
organs of touch are distributed over the whole surface (exterior and interior)
of our organism which finds itself in contact with the atmospheric medium.
[70] The contact can only be operated between
surfaces by reason of the impenetrability of physical matter (a property to
which we shall return later), so that the resulting perception can therefore
give, in an immediate way, only the notion of surface, in which just two
dimensions of extension occur.
[71] This explains why it is said that the directions
of space arc the ears of Vaish- vânara.
[72] [ The text ends here. Eo.|
[73] It is by an illusion of the same kind that
moderns, because they are driven above all by 'economic' motives, claim to
explain all historical events by linking them to causes of this order.
[74] Disappearance of these faculties as to their
effective exercise, of course, for in spite of everything they subsist in the
latent state in every human being; but this kind of atrophy can reach such a
degree that their manifestation becomes completely impossible, and this is
indeed what we notice in the great majority of our contemporaries.
[75] By a curious irony, the‘scientism’ of our time
insists above ail upon proclaiming itself‘secular’, without being aware that
this is, quite simply, the explicit avowal of that ignorance.
[76] tn order to avoid any ambiguity and any dispute,
let us explain that by'neo- Thomisf we mean an attempt to 'adapt' Thoniism;
this implies rather serious concessions to modernist ideas which sometimes
affect much more than one might think even those who readily proclaim
themselves 'anti-modern'; our age is full of such contradictions.
[77] Exod. 28:30. These two Hebrew words mean 'light’
and 'truth'.
[78] l.etter to Mr Howe, February 17, 1834.
[79] the revelation in question was published in the
official organ of the sect, the Millennium Star, in January 1853. The
other revelations that we alluded to above have all been taken from Doclrines
anil Alliances. We have not thought it necessary to show here an exact
reference for each.
[80]- Orson Pratt edited in 1853 a journal called The
Seer, from which we take most "f the following quotations.
[81] One must he careful to distinguish this
neo-spiritism from the spiritism that is called classical or eclectic, a
doctrine doubtless of very little interest and of no value from the
metaphysical point of view, but which at least offers itself as no more than a
philosophical system like any other; being wholly superficial, it owes its
success to this very lack of depth, which makes it especially convenient for
university instruction.
[82] Far more on this see 'Masonic Orthodoxy’ in Studies
in Freemasonry and the t'onipagnoitHage.
[83] A light that now, nearly nine decades after
these lines were written (hy the then twenty-three year old Guenon), it appears to have lost, at least as far
as Vatican II and the 'official' church are concerned, Vatican li having been
the great victory, at least in appearance, of modernism over the Catholic
church. Hu.
■*■ In this age rife with associations of every
kind and leagues against every I’lague, real or imagined, one might perhaps suggest
an 'Anti-occultist League’ that would appeal simply to all people of common
sense without any distinction oi Party or opinion.
[85] See in particular‘The Demiurge’, pt. >, chap,
t above, and also The Symbolism of the Cross and The Spiritist
Fallacy.
[86] See ‘Regarding the Great Architect of the
Universe’, in Studies on Freemasonry and the Compagnonnage.
[87] Of course this esoteric interpretation has
nothing in common with the actual ( atholic doctrine which is purely
exoteric. On this subject see The Symbolism of the Cross.
[88] The author takes care to warn us that 'this is
not a pleonasm’; but then we have to ask what it might be.
[89] See The Symbolism of the Cross and The
Spiritist T.rror.
ID. There are some who go so far as to deny the
real existence of the stars and to regard them as mere reflections, virtual
images or exhalations of the Barth, according to the opinion attributed,
doubtless falsely, to certain ancient philosophers such as Anaximander and
Anaximenes (see the translation of the PhiiosophumeiKt pages iz and 13);
we shall speak later of the astronomical ideas peculiar to some occultists.
[91] Moreover, we can note in passing that all
writers, astronomers or otherwise, who have put forth hypotheses about the
inhabitants of other planets have always, perhaps unconsciously, imagined them
in the more or less modified image of terrestrial human beings (see in
particular C. Flammarion, Lu Pluralité des Mondes habités and Les Mondes imaginaries at les Mondes réels).
[92] The existence of individual beings in the
physical world is subject to five conditions: space, time, matter, form, and
life, which can be considered as corresponding to the five bodily senses as
well as the five elements; we shall treat this very important question with all
the developments it implies in lite course of other studies.
[93] Ie Lendemain de la
Mort ou tn Vie future selon la Science, see
‘Regarding the 4 >reat Architect of the Universe’ in Studies
on Freemasonry and the Compagnonnage.
[94] L'Eternité des
Astres.
[95] See The Symbolism of the Cross.
[97] We have even heard the following assertion: Tf
you happen to dream that you have been killed, it is in most cases because you
have been on another planet'!
[98] This does not prevent them from sometimes
wanting to remake the Kabbalah in their own fashion; thus we have seen some
who count as many as 72 Sephi- roth; and it is they who dare accuse others
of‘fantasizing’!
[99] This is not the opinion of certain other schools
of occultism, which speak of 'the differences in age of human spirits' with
respect to terrestrial existence and even of methods to determine them. There
are also those who try to determine the number of successive incarnations.
[100] However, we shall not contradict the opinion
that assigns to the world a duration of ten thousand years if this number is no
longer taken in its literal sense but as designating numerical indemnity. (See
above, pt.i, chap. 2,‘On Mathematical Notation’,)
[101] This implies that earthly humanity has an end,
for there are schools which maintain that the goal is to regain 'physical' or
‘bodily’ immortality, and that each human individual will reincarnate upon
Earth until he has finally attained this result. — On the other hand, according
to the Theosophists, the series of each individual's incarnations in this
world is limited to the duration of a single earthly human 'race', after which
all men making up this ‘race’ will pass on to the 'sphere' determined by the ‘round’
they belong to. The Theosophists also maintain that as a general rule (but with
exceptions) Iwo consecutive incarnations are separated by a fixed interval of
time of 15 thousand years, while according to the spiritists one can sometimes
reincarnate almost immediately after death, if not while still alive(!) in
certain cases which, happily, are said to be very rare. — Another question that
provokes numerous and interminable controversies is to know if the same
individual must always and necessarily 'reincarnate' in the same sex or whether
the contrary hypothesis is possible; we may have occasion to return to this
point.
[102] See'The Demiurge’, pt. i, chap i above.
[103] On the question of the diversity of human
conditions considered as the basis of castes, see l.'Archéomttre, 2nd
year, no.i pp8 ff.
[104] This supposes the coexistence of all the
elements considered outside of time as well as outside of every other
contingent condition belonging to any specialized mode of existence. Let us
note once more that this coexistence obviously leaves no room for the idea of
progress.
[105] To this idea of religious sanctions belongs the
wholly Western theory of sacrifice and expiation, the inanity of which we
shall demonstrate.
[106] What the Theosophists most'incorrectly call Karma
is nothing other than the law of causality, which, moreover, they understand
very poorly and apply even less well. We say that they understand it badly,
that is to say incompletely, for they restrict it to the individual domain
instead of extending it to the indefinite multitude of states of the being. In
reality, the Sanskrit word Karma, which derives from
[107] There are occultists who go so far as to claim
that congenital infirmities are the result of accidents that occurred in
'earlier existences'.
[108] See'The Demiurge’, pt. i, chap, t above.
[109] What is generally true of the indefinite
considered in connection (or rather in its absence of connection} with the
Infinite remains true for each particular aspect of the indefinite or, if you
will, for the particular indefinite corresponding to
[110] Particularly in regard to growth; likewise for
reproduction by bipartition or twinning; on the question of the life of crystals, see in
particular the noteworthy works of J.C. Hose of Calcutta, which have in turn
inspired works by various European thinkers.
[111] We have already explained why the purely
scientific question of‘transform- ism’ has no interest for metaphysics (see
‘Scientific Conceptions and Masonic Ideal in Studies itt Freemasonry and the
Compagnonnage).
[112] We will not pause to point out the absurd
calumnies and inept talcs that ill- informed or ill-intentioned people have
wantonly spread about this Fraternity, which is designated by the initials'H Bof 1.’. (Regarding the Hermetic Brotherhood
[113] By the gradual extension of this development to
the point where it attains a determinate zone that corresponds to the
particular state here under consideration.
[114] This is why the Hindu tradition gives the name
of finis (fathers or ancestors) to the beings of the cycle preceding ours,
which is represented with regard to Mirs as corresponding to the Sphere of the
Moon. The Pitris make terrestrial humanity in their image and present
humanity plays in its turn the same role toward the following cycle. This causal
relation of one cycle to another necessarily Presupposes the coexistence of all
cycles, which are successive only from the point of view of their logical
sequence; if it were otherwise, such a relation could not exist (see Man and
Hif Becoming according to the Vedanta).
[115] This bizarre opinion, which for some years lias
found much credit among the Theosophists, is after all hardly more absurd than
the opinion that St John the Baptist was a reincarnation of the prophet Elijah;
we will say a few words later on about the different Gospel texts that some
people have endeavored to interpret in favor of the reincarnationist theory.
[116] See ‘Regarding the Great Architect of the
Universe’ in Studies in Freemasonry and the Compagnonnage.
[117] In this connection but in another order of ideas
we can recall the attitude of certain scholars who refuse to admit facts duly
proved simply because their theories cannot provide a satisfactory explanation
of them.
[118] See l'instruction
intégrale by our eminent
collaborator E Ch. Harlet.
[119] Moreover the word God [Dietl] itself is
so linked to the anthropomorphic conception [of the Divine) and has become so
incapable of corresponding to anything else, that we prefer to avoid using it
as much as possible, be this only to better mark the abyss that separates
metaphysics from the religions.
[120] See above, p 158, n jj.
[121] On this question of morality see ‘Scientific
Conceptions and Masonic Ideal, cited above.
[122] See The Spiritist Fallacy, chapter on
reincarnation [pt. 2, chap. 61.
[123] Lacking a less imperfect term we retain
'psychism', as vague and imprecise as it is, to designate all the studies of
which the object is itself hardly better defined. Someone (Dr Richet we believe) had the unfortunate idea of
substituting the word 'metapsychics’, which has the immense drawback of making
one think of something more or less analogous or parallel to metaphysics (and
in this case we do not see clearly what that could be if not metaphysics itself
under another name), while on the contrary this is an experimental science with
methods modeled as exactly as possible on those of the physical sciences.
[124] The case we allude to is not isolated and
similar ones exist of which many are well known. Elsewhere we cited the cases
of Crookes, Lobroso, Dr Richet, and Camille Flammarion ('Regarding
the Great Architect of the Universe') and we could have added that of William
lames and many others besides. Ail of this merely proves that an analytic
scholar, whatever his value as such and whatever his special domain, is not,
outside of this domain, necessarily much better off than the great mass of the
ignorant and credulous public who furnish the major part of the
spirito-occultist clientele.
[125] We shall not investigate here how far it is
possible to clearly distinguish hypnotism and magnetism; it could indeed be
that this distinction is more verbal than real and. in any case, it has no
importance to the question that now occupies us.
[126] It matters little whether these memories are
actually in the field of clear and distinct consciousness, or in that of the
‘subconscious' (taking this word in its most general sense), since normally
they can always pass from one to the other, which shows that this is only a
difference of degree and nothing more.
[127] Outward with respect to the point of view of our
individual consciousness, of course; this distinction between memory and
perception belongs to the most elementary psychology and, on the other hand, it
is independent of the question of the mode of perception of the objects regarded
as outward, or rather of their sensible qualities.
[128] The same goes for the states (spontaneous or
induced) corresponding to all the alterations of individual consciousness, the
most important of which are usually ranged under the improper and defective
name of'split personality’.
[129] Besides, all the cases we are considering
involve only physical events, and even, most often, terrestrial ones (although
another well known experimenter once published a detailed description of
supposed'earlier incarnations’ of his subject on
[130] For this and for what follows see our study on
'The Conditions of Corporeal Existence’.
[131] H.G. Wells, 1866-1946, English novelist with a
taste for science fiction and 'progress’. Eo.
[132] This abolition of the temporal condition is indeed
possible, but not in the cases we are considering here, since these cases
always presuppose time; and when speaking elsewhere of the 'eternal present’ we
have been very careful to point out that this can have nothing to do with a
return to the past or traveling into the future since it precisely abolishes
the past and the future by freeing us from the viewpoint of succession, that is
to say from what constitutes for our present being, the whole reality of the
temporal condition.
[133] ‘On these masses’ would have been more
comprehensible.
[134] A velocity contrary to another or indeed in a
different direction cannot be equal to it in the rigorous sense of the word, it
can only be equivalent to it in quantity; on the other hand, is it possible to
consider this 'reversal' as changing nothing of the laws of the movement under
consideration, given that, if these laws had continued to be followed
normally, it would not have been produced?
[135] Mun and His Becoming according to the
Vedanta, Consequently, if the memory of some impresston can be the cause
of other mental phenomena, this is as a present memory, but the past impression
cannot now be the cause of anything.
[136] The author of the argument had the prudence to
add parenthetically 'not in reality but in pure thought’; by this he completely
leaves the domain of mechanics and what he speaks of no longer has any
connection with 'a system of bodies'; but it
[137] This ‘localization’ is made possible especially
by observing different cases of ’paramnesia' (partial alterations of the
memory); and we can add that the sort of fractionating of the memory witnessed
in these cases allows one to explain a great number of the so-called ’double
personalities’ referred to earlier.
[138] ,\s strange as this might appear al first sight,
one could also speak of a correspondence, as much physiological as
psychological, with events not yet realized but the virtualities of which the
individual bears within himself. These virtualities are expressed by
predispositions and tendencies of various kinds that are like the present seed
of future events that concern the individual. Every diathesis is ultimately an
organic predisposition of this kind; an individual carries within himself, from
his origin (ab oro, one could say) this or that illness in a latent
stale, but this illness might not manifest itself except in circumstances
favorable to its development, for example, under the effect of some trauma or
any other cause that weakens the organism. If these circumstances are not met,
the illness will never develop
[139] Moreover, the subject could also consider them
to be memories, for a dream can include memories as well as present
impressions, without the two kinds of element being anything more than pure
mental creations. We are not of course speaking of waking memories that often
mingle with a dream, because the separation of the two states of consciousness
is rarely complete, at least with regard to ordinary sleep. They seem to be
much more separate in induced sleep, and this is what explains the complete
forgetting that follows the awakening of the subject.
[140] Some even go so far as to claim they have had
‘metaphysical experiences' without realizing that the juncture of these two
words constitutes a pure and simple ‘nonsense’.
[141] A close English equivalent would beT.et them try
to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.’ Er>.
[142] See The Metaphysical Principles of the In
finitesimal Calculus.
[143] See The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of
the Times.