¶5 One could say that the antithesis of the Orient and the Occident, in the present state of things, consists in this: that the Orient maintains the superiority of contemplation over action, whereas the modern Occident, on the contrary, affirms the superiority of action over contemplation.1 Here, it is no longer a matter, as when one spoke simply of opposition or complementarity (thus of a relationship of coordination between the two terms present), it is no longer, we say, a matter of points of view each of which can have its reason for existing and be accepted at least as the expression of a certain relative truth; a relationship of subordination being irreversible by its very nature, the two conceptions are truly contradictory, therefore mutually exclusive, so that necessarily, as soon as one admits that there is effectively subordination, one is true and the other false.2 Before going to the very heart of the question, let us further note this: whereas the spirit that has been maintained in the Orient is truly of all times, as we said above, the other spirit appeared only at a very recent epoch, which, apart from any other consideration, can already suggest that it is something abnormal.3 This impression is confirmed by the very exaggeration into which the modern Occidental spirit falls, following its own tendency, which, not content to proclaim on every occasion the superiority of action, has come to make of it its exclusive preoccupation and to deny all value to contemplation, whose true nature it entirely ignores or misapprehends.4 On the contrary, Oriental doctrines, while affirming as clearly as possible the superiority and even the transcendence of contemplation in relation to action, nonetheless accord to the latter its legitimate place and willingly recognise all its importance in the order of human contingencies.5
Summary
Guénon states that the present antithesis between Orient and Occident lies in the Orient maintaining the superiority of contemplation over action, while the modern Occident affirms the opposite. He explains that this is no longer a matter of coordination or relative truth, but of an irreversible subordination that makes the two conceptions contradictory and mutually exclusive. He notes that the Oriental spirit is timeless, whereas the Occidental spirit appeared only recently, which already suggests it is something abnormal. This abnormality is confirmed by the modern Occidental tendency to make action its exclusive preoccupation and deny all value to contemplation, whose true nature it ignores. By contrast, Guénon observes that Oriental doctrines, while affirming the transcendence of contemplation, nonetheless grant action its legitimate place within human contingencies.
General notes
- antithèse — Rendered as ‘antithesis’. Guénon employs this term in the strong rhetorical sense: a radical and reciprocal opposition. It is not a simple difference of degree but a complete inversion of hierarchy. The Orient affirms A > B (contemplation superior to action); the modern Occident affirms B > A. These two propositions are logically contradictory, not relativisable by a higher point of view that would reconcile them. This is why Guénon speaks of ‘antithesis’ rather than simple opposition. ↩︎
- irréversible — Rendered as ‘irreversible’. Subordination, unlike coordination (reversible, because A coordinated with B implies B coordinated with A) or opposition (symmetrical by definition), is an asymmetrical relation: if A is subordinated to B, B cannot be subordinated to A without logical contradiction. Guénon here applies a fundamental principle of traditional logic inherited from Aristotle (Metaphysics, Book Gamma): the relation of priority and posteriority is irreversible. The simultaneous affirmation of ‘contemplation superior to action’ and ‘action superior to contemplation’ is impossible within a coherent intellectual system. ↩︎
- anormal — Rendered as ‘abnormal’. Guénon uses this term in its etymological sense: that which deviates from the norm (nomos), that is to say, from the immutable traditional order. The modern Occident is not simply ‘different’ from the Orient; it is pathological. The chronological argument (the modern Occidental spirit is recent, the Oriental spirit is perpetual) serves to establish that the former is a contingent historical deviation, whereas the latter expresses the permanent nature of the human intellect. This argument is found in Plato (Laws), where the antiquity of a custom is a presumption of truth. ↩︎
- véritable nature — Rendered as ‘true nature’. Guénon distinguishes contemplation understood as mere psychological reverie (what the modern Occidental means when he uses the word) from metaphysical contemplation in the traditional sense. The latter is not mental passivity but the supreme act of the pure intellect, by which the intellect unites with its transcendent Principle. In the terminology of Vedānta, this is nididhyāsana (profound meditation on the identity of ātman and Brahman); in Christianity, the theoria of the Greek Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor). The modern ignores this reality because his psychologism reduces every interior experience to subjective states. ↩︎
- transcendance — Rendered as ‘transcendence’. Guénon carefully distinguishes superiority (hierarchical relation within the same domain) from transcendence (belonging to an ontologically distinct and superior order of reality). Contemplation is not only superior to action; it is transcendent to it, meaning that it belongs to a plane of reality where the categories of action (finality, efficacy, temporality) no longer obtain. Action obtains its ‘legitimate place’ in the order of contingencies: it is necessary for man as an incarnate being, but it is deprived of ultimate value in itself. This is the doctrine of karma-yoga in the Bhagavad-Gītā (chap. II, 47-48): action performed without attachment to its fruit, but subordinated to knowledge. ↩︎
Guénon’s footnotes
- nonetheless accord to the latter its legitimate place and willingly recognise all its importance in the order of human contingencies — Those who might doubt this very real, though relative, importance that the traditional doctrines of the East, and particularly that of India, accord to action, need only, to convince themselves, refer to the Bhagavad-Gītā, which is, moreover — and this should not be forgotten if one wishes to understand its meaning correctly — a book specially intended for the use of the Kṣatriyas.