¶3 In considering contemplation and action as complementary, one therefore places oneself at a point of view that is already deeper and truer than the preceding one, because the opposition is therein reconciled and resolved, these two terms balancing each other, as it were.1 It would then be a matter, it seems, of two equally necessary elements, which complement and support each other mutually, and which constitute the double activity, interior and exterior, of one and the same being, whether this be each man taken individually or humanity envisaged collectively.2 This conception is assuredly more harmonious and more satisfactory than the first; however, if one were to hold to it exclusively, one would be tempted, by virtue of the correlation thus established, to place contemplation and action on the same plane, so that there would be nothing left but to strive to keep the balance as equal as possible between them, without ever posing the question of any superiority whatsoever of the one over the other;3 and what shows clearly that such a point of view is still insufficient is that this question of superiority, on the contrary, effectively arises and has always arisen, regardless of the sense in which one has wished to resolve it.4
←
→

Summary

Guénon observes that seeing contemplation and action as complementary offers a deeper and truer perspective than mere opposition, since it reconciles the two terms as balancing each other. In this view, both appear as equally necessary elements that together form the interior and exterior activity of a single being, whether an individual or humanity as a whole. He acknowledges that this conception is more harmonious and satisfactory, but warns that holding to it exclusively would place contemplation and action on the same plane, seeking only an equal balance without asking whether one is superior to the other. Guénon notes that this question of superiority has always arisen and continues to arise, which proves that this complementary viewpoint remains insufficient.

General notes

  1. équilibrant — Rendered as ‘balancing’. Guénon uses this term with caution. Balance (Sanskrit sāmya, Greek isotes) is a concept relative to the domain of manifestation. In Oriental traditions, the balance between contrary forces (yin-yang, sattva-rajas-tamas) is never a static state but a dynamic adjustment subordinated to a transcendent principle. Guénon criticises the modern idea of a ‘perfect’ balance that would suppress all hierarchy. ↩︎
  2. être — Rendered as ‘being’. Guénon here distinguishes between the individual being (man as a distinct person) and collective humanity envisaged as a whole. Complementarity can apply to these two levels, but Guénon will show that it remains insufficient because it ignores the vertical metaphysical dimension. The ‘being’ in question is always a manifested being, not the transcendent Principle. ↩︎
  3. même plan — Rendered as ‘same plane’. The expression ‘same plane’ here means the same ontological level, without hierarchy. Guénon identifies this tendency with an illusion characteristic of modernity: egalitarianism which levels all distinctions of value. In the domain of knowledge, this leads to relativism; in the social domain, to democratism. For tradition, by contrast, every reality unfolds on a hierarchical scale of levels, from the lowest (matter) to the highest (pure Spirit). ↩︎
  4. s’est toujours posée — Rendered as ‘has always arisen’. Guénon here affirms the universal and permanent character of the hierarchical question between contemplation and action. All traditional civilisations have posed this question and have answered it by the subordination of action to contemplation (Hinduism, Buddhism, medieval Christendom, Islam). The only civilisation that has attempted to invert this hierarchy or to deny it is the modern Occident since the Renaissance. The fact that the question has ‘always’ arisen proves for Guénon its foundation in the very nature of the human intellect. ↩︎