¶13 The coexistence of the two roles that we have just indicated does not imply any contradiction or vicious circle, contrary to what those who envisage things only superficially might think; and this is another point on which we must insist somewhat.1 One could say that there are two points of view, one descending and the other ascending, of which the first corresponds to a development of knowledge starting from principles to go to applications ever more distant from these, and the second to a gradual acquisition of this same knowledge by proceeding from the inferior to the superior, or again, if one prefers, from the exterior to the interior.2 The question is therefore not whether the sciences must be constituted from bottom to top or from top to bottom, whether, for them to be possible, one must take as a starting point the knowledge of principles or, on the contrary, that of the sensible world; this question, which can arise from the point of view of ‘profane’ philosophy, and which seems to have been posed in fact in this domain, more or less explicitly, by Greek antiquity — this question, we say, does not exist for ‘sacred science’, which can only start from universal principles; and what removes from it here all reason for existing is the primary role of intellectual intuition, which is the most immediate of all knowledges, as well as the highest, and which is absolutely independent of the exercise of any faculty of the sensible or even the rational order.3 The sciences can be validly constituted, as ‘sacred sciences’, only by those who, before all else, fully possess principial knowledge, and who are thereby alone qualified to carry out, in conformity with the strictest traditional orthodoxy, all the adaptations required by the circumstances of time and place.4 Only, when the sciences are thus constituted, their teaching can follow the inverse order: they are, as it were, ‘illustrations’ of the pure doctrine, which can make it more easily accessible to certain minds; and, by the very fact that they concern the world of multiplicity, the almost indefinite diversity of their points of view can suit the no less great diversity of the individual aptitudes of these minds, whose horizon is still limited to this same world of multiplicity; the possible ways of attaining knowledge can be extremely different at the lowest degree, and they become more and more unified as one reaches higher stages.5 It is not that any of these preparatory degrees is an absolute necessity, since these are only contingent means without common measure with the goal to be attained; it may even be that some, among those in whom the contemplative tendency dominates, rise to true intellectual intuition all at once and without the aid of such means, but this is only a rather exceptional case, and, most habitually, there is what one might call a necessity of convenience to proceed in the ascending direction.6 One can also, to make this understood, use the traditional image of the ‘cosmic wheel’: the circumference exists in reality only by the centre; but the beings that are on the circumference must necessarily start from it, or more precisely from the point of it where they are placed, and follow the radius to arrive at the centre.7 Moreover, by virtue of the correspondence that exists between all orders of reality, the truths of an inferior order can be considered as a symbol of those of the superior orders, and, consequently, serve as a ‘support’ for arriving analogically at the knowledge of the latter; it is this that confers upon every science a superior or ‘anagogical’ sense, deeper than that which it possesses by itself, and that can give it the character of a true ‘sacred science’.8
←
→

Summary

Guénon argues that the descending and ascending roles of traditional sciences are neither contradictory nor circular. For ‘sacred science’, the question of whether to start from principles or from the sensible world does not arise, because intellectual intuition is the most immediate and highest knowledge, independent of sensible or rational faculties. Sciences can be validly constituted as ‘sacred sciences’ only by those who fully possess principial knowledge and are thus qualified to make necessary adaptations. When so constituted, their teaching can follow the ascending order, serving as illustrations of pure doctrine for different minds according to their aptitudes, with possible paths becoming more unified at higher stages. Guénon notes that preparatory degrees are not absolutely necessary, and some contemplative types may reach intellectual intuition directly, though this is exceptional. He uses the image of the ‘cosmic wheel’: the circumference exists by the centre, but beings on the circumference must follow the radius to reach the centre. Finally, he states that truths of a lower order can serve as symbols and supports for analogically attaining higher truths, conferring upon every science a deeper ‘anagogical’ sense and the character of true ‘sacred science’.

General notes

  1. contradiction / cercle vicieux — Rendered as ‘contradiction / vicious circle’. These terms belong to the vocabulary of formal logic. A ‘contradiction’ is the simultaneous affirmation of a proposition and its negation. A ‘vicious circle’ (petitio principii) is a reasoning that presupposes what it claims to demonstrate. Guénon shows that the apparent incompatibility between the two movements (from principles to applications, and from phenomena to principles) is only an illusion due to the confusion of planes. In the order of ‘sacred science’, the two perspectives are perfectly coherent because they are not situated on the same logical level. ↩︎
  2. point de vue descendant / ascendant — Rendered as ‘descending / ascending point of view’. Guénon here introduces a fundamental epistemological distinction. The ‘descending point of view’ is that of the exposition of the doctrine by one who already possesses intellectual intuition: it proceeds from universal principles to particular applications. The ‘ascending point of view’ is that of learning for one who is still in ignorance: it starts from exterior phenomena (the most accessible) and ascends to principles by analogy and symbolism. The one is the order of being, the other the order of knowledge. Far from contradicting each other, they complement each other. ↩︎
  3. intuition intellectuelle première — Rendered as ‘primary intellectual intuition’. Guénon reaffirms the ontological and epistemological priority of intellectual intuition. It is ‘primary’ not in time (for it is not the product of a learning process), but in the order of certainty and dignity. For one who possesses it, the debate between empiricists (who start from the senses) and rationalists (who start from reason) is without object, for intellectual intuition surpasses both. Guénon is alluding here to the controversies of Greek philosophy (Plato against Aristotle, then the sceptics) which, according to him, already announced decadence. ↩︎
  4. adaptations requises — Rendered as ‘required adaptations’. ‘Sacred science’ is not a rigid and dead deposit. It must adapt to the variable conditions of civilisations and epochs (languages, symbols, rites, institutions). But only the spiritual authority holding principial knowledge is qualified to make these adaptations without altering their essence. This is the distinction between the immutability of principles and the contingency of forms. Guénon is thinking here of the prophets, the founders of religions and the great initiates who cyclically renew tradition. ↩︎
  5. diversité des aptitudes — Rendered as ‘diversity of aptitudes’. Guénon recognises the principle of a differentiated pedagogy. Men are not equal in their intellectual or spiritual capacities. Tradition takes account of this natural inequality. At the lowest level (the sensible world), the paths are multiple: astrology, alchemy, mathematics, ritual, sacred art, etc. As one ascends towards the pure intellect, these paths converge. At the summit, there is only one truth. This conception opposes both modern egalitarian uniformity and relativism. ↩︎
  6. nécessité de convenance — Rendered as ‘necessity of convenience’. Guénon distinguishes absolute necessity (logical or ontological) from ‘necessity of convenience’ (adaptation to human conditions). It is not absolutely necessary to pass through the inferior sciences to attain intellectual intuition; some born contemplatives reach it directly, by grace or by an immediate inner effort. But for most men, engaged in the world of multiplicity, the ascending path (which uses symbols and preparatory disciplines) is a relative necessity, adapted to their state. Tradition does not impose it on everyone as a universal law, but recommends it as an ordinary means. ↩︎
  7. roue cosmique — Rendered as ‘cosmic wheel’. A universal traditional symbol. The centre represents the immutable Principle (God, Brahman, the universal Intellect). The circumference represents the multiplicity of manifested beings, each at a determined place. The radii are the paths that lead from the multiple to the one. The image teaches two complementary truths: (1) ontologically, the circumference depends on the centre (manifested existence proceeds from the Principle); (2) epistemologically, to reach the centre, one must start from one’s position on the circumference (there is no direct access to the Principle outside one’s own condition). This is why Guénon insists on the diversity of paths (each radius is unique) and on their final unity (all lead to the same centre). ↩︎
  8. sens anagogique / support — Rendered as ‘anagogical sense / support’. The term ‘anagogical’ (from Greek anagōgē, ‘elevation’) is borrowed from medieval Christian exegesis (the four senses of Scripture: literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical). Guénon extends it to every traditional science. The ‘support’ (upādhi in Vedānta) is the concrete, sensible element that serves as a starting point for analogical contemplation. For example, the law of the fall of bodies (physical phenomenon) can be the support for a meditation on the fall of the soul away from the Principle. Science then becomes ‘sacred’ because it does not stop at the letter, but rises by analogy to the spirit. This is the opposite of the positivist reduction that confines science to the material level alone. ↩︎

Guénon’s footnotes

  • rise to true intellectual intuition all at once and without the aid of such means — This is why, according to Hindu doctrine, the Brāhmaṇas must keep their minds constantly directed toward supreme knowledge, whereas the Kṣatriyas must rather apply themselves to the successive study of the various stages by which one attains it gradually.
  • and that can give it the character of a true ‘sacred science’ — This is the role played, for example, by astronomical symbolism so frequently employed in the various traditional doctrines; and what we say here may give a glimpse of the true nature of a science such as ancient astrology.