¶9 One might raise an objection here: would it not have been possible that, while separating from the Catholic organisation, Protestantism, by the very fact that it nevertheless admitted the Sacred Books, might have kept the traditional doctrine contained in them? It is the introduction of ‘free examination’1 that absolutely opposes such a hypothesis, since it permits all individual fantasies; the preservation of doctrine moreover presupposes an organised traditional teaching,2 by means of which the orthodox interpretation is maintained, and in fact, this teaching, in the Western world, was identified with Catholicism. Admittedly, there may be, in other civilisations, organisations of forms very different from this one to fulfil the corresponding function; but it is the Western civilisation, with its particular conditions, that is in question here. One cannot therefore argue that, for example, there exists in India no institution comparable to the Papacy;3 the case is entirely different, first because we are not dealing with a tradition of religious form in the Western sense of the word,4 so that the means by which it is preserved and transmitted cannot be the same, and secondly because, the Hindu spirit being entirely other than the European spirit, tradition may have by itself, in the former case, a power that it could not have in the latter without the support of an organisation much more strictly defined in its external constitution. We have already said that Western tradition, since Christianity, had necessarily to be clothed in a religious form;5 it would be too long to explain here all the reasons for this, which cannot be fully understood without appealing to rather complex considerations; but this is a state of fact that one cannot refuse to take into account and, consequently, one must also admit all the consequences that result from it with respect to the organisation appropriate to such a traditional form.
←
→

Summary

Guénon addresses a possible objection: could Protestantism, while separating from the Catholic Church, have preserved the traditional doctrine of the Sacred Books? He argues that the introduction of ‘free examination’ makes this impossible, as it permits all individual fantasies. The preservation of doctrine requires an organised traditional teaching to maintain orthodox interpretation, and in the Western world this teaching was identified with Catholicism. Other civilisations, such as India, have different forms of organisation because they are not dealing with a tradition of religious form in the Western sense, and the Hindu spirit allows tradition to have power by itself without the same external support. Western tradition since Christianity, however, must necessarily take a religious form, and one must therefore accept all the consequences for the organisation appropriate to such a traditional form.

General notes

  1. libre examen — Rendered as ‘free examination’ (or ‘private judgment’). Guénon designates by ‘free examination’ the Protestant principle according to which each individual is the sovereign judge of scriptural interpretation, without recourse to any external doctrinal authority. This principle radically opposes any preservation of an authentic traditional doctrine, for the latter requires a regular transmission (parampāra in Sanskrit, tawātur in Arabic) guaranteed by an unbroken chain of qualified masters. Free examination, by delivering the sacred text to the arbitrariness of each individual interpretation, necessarily dissolves the unity and stability of doctrine. ↩︎
  2. enseignement traditionnel organisé — Rendered as ‘organised traditional teaching’. Guénon insists on the crucial importance of external organisation for the preservation of tradition, particularly in the West. By ‘organised traditional teaching’, he means an institution endowed with a hierarchy, a codified method of transmission, and a legitimate authority for interpreting doctrine. In the Christian West, this function was fulfilled by the Catholic Church, with its magisterium, its councils, and its apostolic succession. Without such an organisation, doctrine cannot be protected against individual alterations and deviations. ↩︎
  3. Papauté — Rendered as ‘Papacy’. Guénon uses the Papacy as an example of the central hierarchical organisation proper to Western Christianity. In traditional India, there indeed exists no comparable institution, for the function of doctrinal preservation is assured by other means: direct transmission from master to disciple (guru-śiṣya-paramparā), the intrinsic stability of Hindu doctrine founded on the Veda as śruti (‘heard’ revelation), and the diffused authority of brāhmaṇas and sannyāsins. The absence of a papacy therefore does not mean the absence of doctrinal authority, but adaptation to a different spiritual genius. ↩︎
  4. tradition de forme religieuse au sens occidental de ce mot — Rendered as ‘tradition of religious form in the Western sense of the word’. Guénon distinguishes here between different modalities of tradition. The Western ‘religious form’, arising from Christianity, is characterised by a clear separation between the sacred and the profane, by a historical and personal revelation (God as a person), by a Church as a separate institution, and by an emphasis on faith and individual salvation. In India, the Hindu tradition does not correspond to this definition: it is simultaneously religious, metaphysical, social, and cosmological, without the same sharp distinction between orders. This difference conditions the modes of organisation necessary for the preservation of each tradition. ↩︎
  5. revêtue d’une forme religieuse — Rendered as ‘clothed in a religious form’. Guénon teaches that every tradition must be incarnated in contingent forms adapted to a given civilisation and epoch. For the West since the advent of Christianity, the necessary form has been the ‘religious form’, that is to say, the expression of transcendent truth through a theological framework, a historical revelation, a Church, and sacraments. This form is not universal: Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, or Judaism present other configurations. But once this form is adopted, the organisational consequences (doctrinal authority, hierarchy, liturgy) must be logically deduced from it, on pain of incoherence. ↩︎

Guénon’s footnotes

  • but this is a state of fact that one cannot refuse to take into account — This state must, moreover, continue, according to the Gospel word, until the “consummation of the age”, that is to say until the end of the present cycle.