¶7 In the 6th century before the Christian era, for whatever cause, considerable changes took place among nearly all peoples;1 these changes moreover presented different characteristics according to the country. In some cases, there occurred a re-adaptation of tradition to conditions other than those that had previously existed, a re-adaptation accomplished in a rigorously orthodox sense;2 this is what occurred notably in China, where the doctrine, originally constituted as a single whole, was then divided into two clearly distinct parts:3 Taoism, reserved for an elite and comprising pure metaphysics and the traditional sciences of a properly speculative order; and Confucianism, common to all without distinction, whose domain was practical and primarily social applications. Among the Persians, there seems also to have been a re-adaptation of Mazdaism, for this epoch was that of the last Zoroaster.4 In India, Buddhism was born at that time, and whatever its original character may have been, it was to lead, on the contrary, at least in certain of its branches, to a revolt against the traditional spirit, going as far as the negation of all authority, as far as a veritable anarchy, in the etymological sense of ‘absence of principle’, in the intellectual order and in the social order.5 What is rather curious is that one finds in India no monument dating back beyond this epoch, and the Orientalists, who wish to make everything begin with Buddhism and who singularly exaggerate its importance,6 have tried to turn this observation to the advantage of their thesis; the explanation of the fact is however very simple: all the earlier constructions were of wood, so that they have naturally disappeared without leaving any traces; but what is true is that such a change in the mode of construction necessarily corresponds to a profound modification of the general conditions of existence of the people among whom it occurred.7
←
→
intellectkali-yugaapauruṣeya

Summary

In the 6th century BCE, major changes occurred among nearly all peoples, with different characteristics depending on the country. In China, tradition was readapted in an orthodox manner: the original unified doctrine divided into Taoism for an elite (pure metaphysics and speculative sciences) and Confucianism for all (practical and social applications). Among the Persians, there was a readaptation of Mazdaism at the time of the last Zoroaster. In India, Buddhism appeared and led, in some branches, to a revolt against the traditional spirit, amounting to anarchy (absence of principle) in the intellectual and social order. Guénon notes that no Indian monuments predate this period. Orientalists have used this as an argument, but the explanation is simple: earlier constructions were of wood and disappeared. This change in building methods reflects a profound modification of conditions of existence.

General notes

  1. VIe siècle avant l’ère chrétienne — Rendered as '6th century before the Christian era'. Guénon identifies the 6th century BCE as a major cyclical turning point, marked simultaneously in China (the separation of Taoism and Confucianism), in Persia (the last Zoroaster), in India (the appearance of Buddhism), and in Greece (the first philosophers). For traditional doctrine, such simultaneity cannot be explained by ordinary historical causes (influences, migrations, chance); it belongs rather to a cyclical law connected to the advance of the Kali-Yuga and the need to adapt the transmission of truth to increasingly difficult human conditions. ↩︎
  2. réadaptation … rigoureusement orthodoxe — Rendered as 're-adaptation … rigorously orthodox'. Guénon distinguishes two types of response to the same cyclical situation. Orthodox re-adaptation (China, Persia) maintains the deposit of tradition intact while adapting it to new conditions, for example by separating esoteric teaching (reserved for an elite) from exoteric teaching (open to all). The word 'orthodox' here does not refer to any particular Church, but to fidelity to the universal metaphysical principles of the sophia perennis. Anti-traditional rupture (certain branches of Buddhism), on the contrary, rejects in whole or in part spiritual authority and transcendent principles. ↩︎
  3. division en deux parties — Rendered as 'divided into two clearly distinct parts'. Guénon refers here to a primordial Chinese doctrine anterior to Lǎozǐ and Kǒngzǐ, which would have contained both esoteric wisdom (Taoism) and the exoteric rule (Confucianism). This division, far from being a degeneration, represents a legitimate adaptation to the conditions of the Kali-Yuga: in a darkened age, pure metaphysics must be reserved for an elite, while practical applications (social, moral, ritual) may be taught to all. The same principle appears in Hinduism with the distinction between jnana (metaphysical knowledge) and karman (ritual and social action). Guénon writes 'Lao‑tseu' and 'Confucius'. ↩︎
  4. dernier Zoroastre — Rendered as 'last Zoroaster'. Guénon develops elsewhere the theory of multiple prophetic and legislative functions: the name 'Zoroaster' designates not a single individual but a function, exercised by several personages at different times. The 'last Zoroaster' would be the one who re-adapted Mazdaism (Zoroastrianism) to the conditions of the Kali-Yuga, probably in the 6th century BCE, although traditional dates for Zoroaster vary considerably (from several millennia down to the 6th century). Guénon writes 'Zoroastre'. ↩︎
  5. anarchie, au sens étymologique d’« absence de principe » — Rendered as 'anarchy, in the etymological sense of 'absence of principle''. Guénon plays here on the literal meaning of the Greek anarchia: not disorder or chaos, but 'absence of principle' (an- privative + archē, principle, beginning, command). Authentic anarchy is therefore not a mere contestation of political authority, but a refusal of every transcendent principle, whether metaphysical, intellectual or spiritual. This is precisely what Guénon reproaches in certain tendencies of Buddhism (especially those branches that evolved towards a radical nominalism and a negation of the ātman). Guénon does not condemn Buddhism as a whole; he criticises it for its anti-traditional consequences while recognising the sanctity of the historical Buddha and the value of certain schools, notably the Mahāyāna. Guénon writes 'Bouddhisme' and 'Bouddha'. ↩︎
  6. orientalistes … exagèrent l’importance du Bouddhisme — Rendered as 'Orientalists … singularly exaggerate its importance'. Guénon criticises here the tendency of certain Orientalists of the 19th and early 20th centuries (notably German and British) to make Buddhism the origin of all Indian civilisation, indeed of all Asian spirituality. This thesis, which sometimes served anti-Brahmanical polemics, ignores the antiquity of Vedism and the Upaniṣads, as well as the continuity of the Hindu tradition that survived Buddhism after having assimilated it. Guénon notes that the historical importance of Buddhism has been considerably inflated by Western scholars, often for ideological reasons (a preference for a 'godless' religion) or to minimise the contribution of Hinduism. Guénon writes 'orientalistes'. ↩︎
  7. changement dans le mode de construction — Rendered as 'change in the mode of construction'. Guénon is not content with a material explanation (wood disappears, stone endures). He sees in this change an indication of a deeper transformation: the passage from a civilisation founded on perishable materials to a civilisation of stone, linked to greater sedentarisation, to military concerns (fortifications) and to a desire to leave monuments for posterity. The argument also constitutes a critique of modern archaeology, which too often takes the absence of trace as proof of non-existence. ↩︎

Guénon’s footnotes

  • for this epoch was that of the last Zoroaster — It should be noted that the name Zoroaster designates in reality not a particular person but a function, at once prophetic and legislative; there were several Zoroasters, who lived in very different eras; and it is even probable that this function must have had a collective character, just like that of Vyāsa in India, and likewise in Egypt, what was attributed to Thoth or Hermes represents the work of the entire priestly caste.
  • In India, Buddhism was born at that time — The question of Buddhism is, in reality, far from being as simple as this brief overview might suggest; and it is interesting to note that, although the Hindus, from the point of view of their own tradition, have always condemned the Buddhists, many of them nonetheless profess great respect for the Buddha himself, some even going so far as to see in him the ninth Avatāra, while others identify him with Christ. On the other hand, with regard to Buddhism as it is known today, one must take care to distinguish between its two forms of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, or the “Great Vehicle” and the “Small Vehicle”; generally speaking, it can be said that Buddhism outside India differs notably from its original Indian form, which began to lose ground rapidly after the death of Aśoka and disappeared completely a few centuries later.
  • so that they have naturally disappeared without leaving any traces — This case is not peculiar to India and is also found in the West; it is exactly for the same reason that no trace is found of the Gallic cities, whose existence is nevertheless indisputable, being attested by contemporary testimonies; and there also, modern historians have taken advantage of this absence of monuments to depict the Gauls as savages living in the forests.