¶2 First of all, the most superficial point of view, the most external of all, is the one that consists of opposing pure and simple contemplation and action to each other, as two contraries in the proper sense of the word.1 The opposition, in effect, does exist in appearances, this is incontestable; and yet, if it were absolutely irreducible, there would be a complete incompatibility between contemplation and action, which thus could never be found united. Now, in fact, it is not so; there is no people, at least in normal cases, nor even perhaps any individual, that could be exclusively contemplative or exclusively active.2 What is true is that there are two tendencies here, one or the other of which almost necessarily dominates, in such a way that the development of the one appears to take place to the detriment of the other, for the simple reason that human activity, understood in its most general sense, cannot be exercised equally and simultaneously in all domains and in all directions.3 This is what gives the appearance of an opposition; but there must be a possible conciliation between these contraries or so-called contraries; and, moreover, the same could be said for all contraries, which cease to be such as soon as, to consider them, one rises above a certain level, that where their opposition has all its reality.4 He who says opposition or contrast says, by this very fact, disharmony or disequilibrium, that is to say, something which, as we have already sufficiently indicated, can only exist from a relative, particular and limited point of view.5
←
→

Summary

Guénon begins with the most external and superficial view, which simply opposes contemplation and action as two genuine contraries. He acknowledges that this opposition does exist in appearances, but argues that it cannot be absolute, since no normal people or individual is exclusively contemplative or exclusively active. The dominance of one tendency over the other creates the appearance of opposition, because human activity cannot be exercised equally in all directions at once. Guénon insists that a conciliation between these so-called contraries must be possible, since all opposition implies disharmony and can only exist from a relative, particular, and limited point of view.

General notes

  1. contraires au sens propre — Rendered as ‘contraries in the proper sense of the word’. In traditional philosophy, the term ‘contrary’ (Greek enantía, Sanskrit dvandva) designates a binary opposition on the same horizontal plane. Aristotle, in the Categories, distinguishes contraries (ta enantía) that cannot coexist in the same subject. Guénon surpasses this Aristotelian logic by showing that the opposition of contraries is merely relative and annuls itself in a higher principle. ↩︎
  2. cas normaux — Rendered as ‘normal cases’. Guénon here opposes the normal state (conforming to the traditional nature of man) to pathological or exceptional cases. In a normal traditional civilisation, the two tendencies coexist hierarchically. There is no exclusively contemplative society (as the myth of a ‘purely spiritual’ India would have it) nor exclusively active society (as the modern ideal of homo faber). The norm is subordination, not exclusion. ↩︎
  3. activité humaine — Rendered as ‘human activity’. Guénon uses this term in its broadest acceptation, including not only exterior physical action but also mental and psychical activities. The limitation of human activity stems from its very condition as manifested and individual: a finite being cannot simultaneously embrace all modes of action. This limitation is ontological, not accidental. This is why the ‘perfect balance’ between contemplation and action is a modern illusion. ↩︎
  4. niveau — Rendered as ‘level’. A technical Guénonian term designating a degree of being or of reality. Each opposition is valid only at a certain ontological level. By rising towards the supreme Principle (the Being or the metaphysical Non-Being), all oppositions resolve themselves into a transcendent unity. This is the traditional doctrine of the coincidentia oppositorum (Nicholas of Cusa), also known in Taoism (union of yin and yang in the Dao) and in Advaita Vedānta (the surpassing of all dvandva). ↩︎
  5. relatif, particulier et limité — Rendered as ‘relative, particular and limited’. Guénon qualifies in this way any non-absolute reality. The relative (apekshika in Sanskrit) is opposed to the absolute (pāramārthika). The particular (viśeṣa) is opposed to the universal (sāmānya). The limited (paricchinna) is opposed to the unlimited (aparicchinna). Every opposition belongs to these three characteristics: it has meaning only in the domain of manifestation, not in the transcendent Principle. ↩︎