¶5 Some of the expressions that we have just used will doubtless evoke, in the minds of certain people, the idea of what is called the ‘Last Judgment’, and, to tell the truth, this will not be mistaken; whether it is understood literally or symbolically, or in both ways at once, for they are by no means mutually exclusive in reality, matters little here, and this is not the place nor the time to explain ourselves fully on this point.1 In any case, this weighing of ‘pros’ and ‘cons’, this discrimination of positive and negative results of which we spoke just now, may certainly bring to mind the distribution of the ‘elect’ and the ‘damned’ into two immutably fixed groups henceforth;2 even if this is only an analogy, it must be recognised that it is at least a valid and well-founded analogy, in conformity with the very nature of things; and this calls for yet further explanations.3
←
→

Summary

Guénon notes that his expressions may evoke the idea of the ‘Last Judgment’, and he admits this association is not mistaken, whether understood literally, symbolically, or both. The weighing of pros and cons and the discrimination of positive and negative results suggest the distribution of the elect and the damned into two permanently fixed groups. Even if only an analogy, Guénon considers it valid and well-founded, in conformity with the nature of things, and this calls for further explanations.

General notes

  1. « jugement dernier » — Rendered as 'Last Judgment'. Guénon here alludes to the traditional doctrine of the final judgment, present in Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other traditions, but he interprets it in a non-literal and non-chronological sense. It is not necessarily a single event at the end of time, but a reality that is accomplished in each cycle, in each critical phase, in each moment when a separation takes place between what must survive and what must disappear. The expression 'Last Judgment' is a metaphor of the cyclical crisis, understood as a cosmic and spiritual discernment. Guénon distinguishes here between literal, symbolic and simultaneous meaning (the two are not mutually exclusive in traditional perspectives). He does not take a position, for a full explanation would go beyond the scope of this volume. ↩︎
  2. « élus » et « damnés » — Rendered as 'elect' and 'damned'. Guénon here uses Western theological vocabulary, but detaches it from its strictly confessional context. It is not a question of the arbitrariness of a divine will that would save or damn without cause, but of the natural consequence of an inner orientation. The 'elect' are those who, in the crisis, turn towards traditional principles, metaphysical truth, the spiritual order; the 'damned' are those who remain attached to the profane world, to materialist illusion, to individualism. 'Damnation' is not an external punishment, but the very state of the soul that has closed itself off to all transcendence. The distribution is 'immutable' because it corresponds to a nature that has become such; it is not an arbitrary sentence. ↩︎
  3. analogie valable et bien fondée — Rendered as 'valid and well-founded analogy'. Guénon justifies the use of theological language by the principle of analogy (Hermetic: 'as above, so below'). Spiritual and cyclical processes are reflected at all levels: the judgment of a civilisation, the judgment of a soul after death, the judgment of humanity at the end of a cycle are manifestations of the same reality at different orders of reality. Analogy is not a mere figure of rhetoric; it is grounded in the metaphysical structure of the universe. The modern crisis is, at its own scale, the equivalent of a collective 'Last Judgment'. ↩︎