2 THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN EAST AND WEST

One of the most noticeable features of the modern world is the unmistakable gulf between East and West; although we have dealt with this question more fully elsewhere, [1] we must come back to it here in order to clarify certain of its aspects and to remove some misunderstandings. It is true that there have always been many and varied civilizations, each of which has developed in a manner natural to it and in conformity with the aptitudes of this or that people or race; but distinction does not mean opposition, and there can be equivalence of a sort between civilizations with very different forms, so long as they are all based on the same fundamental principles-of which they only represent applications varying in accordance with varied circumstances. This is the case with all civilizations that can be called normal or traditional, which comes to the same thing; there is no essential opposition between them, and such divergences as may exist are merely outward and superficial. On the other hand, a civilization that recognizes no higher principle, but is in reality based only on a negation of principles, is by this very fact ruled out from all mutual understanding with other civilizations, for if such understanding is to be profound and effective it can only come from above, that is to say from the very factor that this abnormal and perverted civilization lacks. In the present state of the world then we have on the one hand all the civilizations that have remained faithful to the traditional standpoint-namely the civilizations of the East-and on the other a veritably anti-traditional civilization, namely that of the modern West. There are, it is true, those who have denied that the division of mankind into East and West corresponds to any real difference; but it seems beyond doubt that, in the present time at any rate, this difference actually does exist. In the first place, the existence of a Western civilization, common to Europe and America, is a fact that everyone must recognize, whatever opinion may be held as to its value. The question is less simple with regard to the East, for there are actually several Eastern civilizations, and not one only; the distinction, and even the opposition, between the East and the West is however fully justified by the fact that these civilizations have certain common features, such as characterize what we have called a traditional civilization, and that these features are lacking in that of the West. That this is so is due to the fact that all the Eastern civilizations are alike traditional in character. To give a more definite idea of these civilizations, we will repeat here the general division between them that we have already laid down elsewhere, and which, though possibly somewhat simplified for someone wishing to enter into detail, is nevertheless correct in its main outlines: the Far East is represented essentially by the Chinese civilization, the Middle East (that is, India) by the Hindu, and the Near East by the Islamic. It should be added that in many respects this last is to be regarded as occupying an intermediate position between East and West, and that it has many features in common with Western civilization as it was in the Middle Ages; if one considers Islam in relation to the modern West, however, one cannot but see that it is just as opposed to it as are the properly Eastern civilizations, with which, from this point of view, it must therefore be classed. The last remark raises an important point: there was no reason for opposition between East and West as long as there were traditional civilizations in the West as well as in the East; the opposition has meaning only as far as the modern West is concerned, for it is far more an opposition between two mentalities than between two more or less clearly defined geographical entities. In certain periods, of which the nearest to us is the medieval, the Western mentality was much more akin, in its more important features, to what is still the Eastern mentality than to what it has itself become in modern times; Western civilization was then comparable to the civilizations of the East in the same way as these are comparable to one another. During recent centuries there has occurred a great change that is far more serious than any of the deviations that may have occurred previously in periods of decadence, for it has proceeded to the point of an absolute reversal of the trend of human activity; and this change had its origin only in the West. When, therefore, in speaking of the world of today, we use the expression 'Western mentality', this means the same as the modern mentality; and since the other mentality has continued to exist only in the East, we can, also with reference to the present state of things, call it the Eastern mentality. These two terms, then, express nothing more than an actual fact; and, whereas one of the two mentalities has come into being during recent history and is in fact quite clearly Western, we do not wish to imply anything as to the source of the other, which was formerly common to East and West, for its origin must, if truth be told, merge with that of mankind itself, being the mentality that can be described as normal, if only for the reason that it has inspired more or less completely all the civilizations we know, with the exception of one only, that is to say, once again, the modern Western civilization. Some people, who have doubtless not taken the trouble to read our books, have felt it incumbent on them to reproach us for having said that all traditional doctrines had their origin in the East, and that Western antiquity itself has, at all periods, always received its traditions from the East; we have never said any such thing, or even anything else that might suggest such an opinion, for the simple reason that we know quite well that it is untrue. Indeed, the traditional data themselves distinctly contradict such a statement: the explicit assertion is to be found everywhere that the primordial tradition of the present cycle comes from the hyperborean region; at a later time there were several secondary currents corresponding to different periods, and one of the most important of these, at least among those whose traces are still discernible, undoubtedly flowed from West to East. All this, however, refers to very far off timessuch as are commonly called 'prehistoric'-with which we are not concerned here; what we do say is this: in the first place, the home of the primordial tradition has for a very long time now been in the East and it is there that the doctrinal forms that have issued most directly from it are to be found; secondly, in the present state of things, the true traditional spirit, with all that it implies, no longer has any authentic representatives except in the East. This explanation would be incomplete without a reference, however brief, to certain proposals that have seen the light in various contemporary circles for restoring a 'Western tradition'. The only real interest afforded by these ideas is to show that there are people whose minds have ceased to be content with modern negation, and who, feeling the need for something that our own period cannot offer, see the possibility of an escape from the present crisis only in one way: through a return to tradition in one form or another. Unfortunately, such 'traditionalism' is not the same as the real traditional outlook, for it may be no more than a tendency, a more or less vague aspiration presupposing no real knowledge; and it is unfortunately true that, in the mental confusion of our times, this aspiration usually gives rise to fantastic and imaginary conceptions devoid of any serious foundation. Finding no authentic tradition on which to ground themselves, those affected by this aspiration go so far as to imagine pseudo-traditions that have never existed and that are as lacking in principles as that for which they are to be substituted; the whole modern confusion is reflected in these attempts, and whatever may be the intentions of their authors, their only result is to add still more to the general disequilibrium. From among conceptions of this kind, we will allude only to the so-called 'Western tradition' fabricated by certain occultists out of the most incongruous elements and intended primarily to compete with a no less imaginary 'Eastern tradition'-that of the Theosophists; we have spoken of these matters at sufficient length elsewhere, and prefer to pass on without further delay to the examination of other theories more worthy of attention, which reveal at least a desire to refer to traditions that have had a real existence. We alluded above to the current of tradition that came from the West; accounts of Atlantis from ancient sources indicate its place of origin; after the disappearance of that continent in the last of the great cataclysms that have occurred in the past, there seems little doubt that the remnants of its tradition were carried into various regions, where they mingled with other already existing traditions, for the most part branches of the great Hyperborean tradition; and it is very possible that the doctrines of the Celts in particular were among the products of this fusion. We are far from disputing this; but let it not be forgotten that the real 'Atlantean' form disappeared thousands of years ago, together with the civilization to which it belonged and whose destruction can have come about only as the result of a perversion that may have been comparable in some respects to the one that confronts us today-with the important difference however that mankind had not yet entered upon the KaliYuga. Also, it should be remembered that the Atlantean tradition corresponded only to a secondary period in our cycle, and it would thus be a great mistake to seek to identify it with the primordial tradition out of which all the others have issued and which alone endures from the beginning to the end. It would be superfluous here to set forth all the data justifying these statements; we insist merely on the conclusion that it is impossible now to resuscitate an 'Atlantean' tradition, or to attach oneself more or less directly to it; there is a high degree of fantasy in attempts of this sort. It is nonetheless true that it may be of interest to investigate the origins of the elements that have come together to form later traditions, as long as, in so doing, all necessary precautions are taken to guard against illusion; but such investigations cannot lead to the resurrection of a tradition that is not adapted to any of the present conditions of our world. There are others who wish to attach themselves to Celtism, and, since the model they take is less remote from our time, their purpose may seem less impracticable. But where can one find 'Celtism' today in a pure state and with sufficient vitality to be able to serve as a basis? We are not speaking of archeological or merely 'literary' reconstructions, several of which have appeared; we have in mind something very different. It is true that clearly recognizable and still usable elements of 'Celtism' have come down to us through various intermediaries, but these elements are very far from constituting a complete tradition; moreover, strange to say, even in the countries where it formerly existed, this tradition is now more completely forgotten than those of many other civilizations that never had a home there. Is there not here matter for reflection, at any rate for such as are not completely under the sway of a preconceived idea? We will go further: in all cases of this kind, when it is a question of vestiges left by vanished civilizations, it is impossible really to understand these vestiges except by comparison with similar elements in still extant traditional civilizations; and the same applies even to the Middle Ages, in which there are so many things that have lost their meaning for the modern West. It is only by establishing contact with still living traditions that what is capable of being revived can be made to live again; and this, as we have so often pointed out, is one of the greatest services that the East can render the West. We do not deny that a certain Celtic spirit has survived and can still manifest itself under various forms, as it has done at different times in the past; but when anyone tells us that there still exist spiritual centers where the Druid tradition is preserved in its entirety, we require them to show proof, and until they do so we consider it very doubtful, if not altogether incredible. The truth is that the surviving Celtic elements were for the most part assimilated by Christianity in the Middle Ages; the legend of the 'Holy Grail', with all that it implies, is a particularly apt and significant example of this. Moreover, we think that if a Western tradition could be rebuilt it would be bound to take on a religious form in the strictest sense of this word, and that this form could only be Christian; for on the one hand the other possible forms have been too long foreign to the Western mentality, and on the other it is only in Christianity-and we can say still more definitely in Catholicism-that such remnants of a traditional spirit as still exist in the West are to be found. Every 'traditionalist' venture that ignores this fact is without foundation and therefore inevitably doomed to failure; it is self-evident that one can build only upon something that has a real existence, and that where there is lack of continuity, any reconstruction must be artificial and cannot endure. If it be objected that Christianity itself, in our time, is no longer understood in its profound meaning, we should reply that it has at least kept in its very form all that is needed to provide the foundation of which we have been speaking. The least fantastic venture, in fact the only one that does not come up against immediate impossibilities, would therefore be an attempt to restore something comparable to' what existed in the Middle Ages, with the differences demanded by modifications in the circumstances; and for all that has been completely lost in the West, it would be necessary to draw upon the traditions that have been preserved in their entirety, as we stated above, and, having done so, to undertake the task of adaptation, which could be the work only of a powerfully established intellectual elite. All this we have said before, but it is useful to insist on it again because too many inconsistent fantasies are given free rein at present, and also because it is important to have it understood that, if the Eastern traditions in their own special forms can certainly be assimilated by an elite-which by its very definition must be beyond all forms-they certainly cannot be so by the mass of Western people, for whom they were not made, unless some unforeseen transformation takes place. If a Western elite comes to be formed, real knowledge of the Eastern doctrines will, for the reason that we have just given, be essential to it in the fulfillment of its functions; but the remainder, the majority of people, whose lot it will be to reap the benefits of its work, can quite well remain unaware of this, receiving the influence from it unwittingly and in any case by means that will be beyond their perception, though nonetheless real and effective. We have never said anything different, but we thought it well to repeat it here as clearly as possible, because, if we must not expect always to be understood by all, we at least endeavor to avoid having intentions ascribed to us that are in no way our own. But it is the present state of things that concerns us most, so let us leave forecasts aside and dwell a moment longer on the suggestions that are at present to be met with for restoring a 'Western tradition'. There is one observation that would in itself suffice to show that these ideas are not in order: this is that they are almost always conceived from an attitude of more or less open hostility toward the East. It must be added that even those who wish to base themselves on Christianity are sometimes governed by this feeling: they seem set above all on finding points of opposition, which are really quite imaginary; and it is for this reason that we have encountered the absurd opinion that if the same things are found, expressed in almost identical form, in both Christianity and the Eastern doctrines, they nevertheless do not have the same meaning in the two cases, and have even contrary meanings! Those who make such assertions prove thereby that whatever may be their pretensions, they have not gotten very far in their understanding of the traditional doctrines, and have not perceived the fundamental identity underlying all the differences in outward form; and, even in cases where this identity is quite clear, they obstinately persist in not recognizing it. Also, the view they hold of Christianity itself is quite superficial, and could not correspond to the notion of a real traditional doctrine offering a complete synthesis that would embrace every domain; it is the basic principle that they lack, and in this they are affected far more than they may suppose by the modern outlook against which they wish to react; and when they have occasion to use the word 'tradition' they certainly do not give it the same meaning we do. In the mental confusion that marks our times, the word 'tradition' itself has come to be applied indifferently to all sorts of things, often quite insignificant-for example, to mere customs with no wider bearing and sometimes of quite recent origin; we have remarked elsewhere on an abuse of the same kind in the use of the word 'religion'. These perversions of language must be distrusted, as they reflect a sort of degeneracy of the corresponding ideas; and the fact that somebody calls himself a 'traditionalist' does not prove that he knows, even vaguely, what tradition is in the true sense of the word. For our part, we refuse absolutely to give this name to anything that is of a purely human order; it is not superfluous to state this outright at a time when expressions such as 'traditional philosophy', to take an example, crop up at every turn. A philosophy, even though it be all that it should be, has no right to this designation, since it is entirely of the rational order even when it does not deny all that goes beyond this order. It is no more than a structure raised by human individuals without revelation or inspiration of any sort, which means, to cut a long story short, that it is essentially 'profane'. Moreover, despite all the illusions that some seem to cherish, the mentality of a race and an epoch is certainly not going to be put right by any merely 'bookish' science, but only by something very different from philosophical speculation, which, even at the best of times, is condemned by its very nature to remain outward and much more verbal than real. The lost tradition can be restored and brought to life again only by contact with the living traditional spirit, and, as we have already said, it is only in the East that this spirit is still fully alive. It is nonetheless true that the first necessity is the existence in the West of an aspiration toward a return to the traditional outlook, but this could hardly be more than a mere aspiration. The various movements of 'anti-modern' reaction that have already arisen-all very incomplete in our opinion-can only strengthen us in this conviction for, while doubtless excellent on their negative and critical side, they are nevertheless far from constituting a restoration of true intellectuality, and flourish only within the limits of a rather narrow mental horizon. They are at least something, however, in that they point to a frame of mind of which it would have been hard to find a trace even a few years ago; if all Westerners are no longer unanimous in contenting themselves with the exclusively material development of modern civilization, this may be a sign that for them not all hope of salvation has yet vanished. Be this as it may, if the West should somehow return to its tradition, its opposition to the East would thereby be resolved and cease to exist, as it has its roots only in the Western deviation and is in reality nothing other than the opposition between the traditional and anti-traditional outlooks. Therefore, contrary to the views we have described above, one of the first results of a return to tradition would be to make an understanding with the East immediately feasible, such as is possible between all civilizations that possess comparable or equivalent elements-and only between such, since these elements form the only ground on which an effective understanding can be based. The real traditional outlook is always and everywhere essentially the same, whatever outward form it may take; the various forms that are specially suited to different mental conditions and different circumstances of time and place are merely expressions of one and the same truth; but this fundamental unity beneath apparent multiplicity can be grasped only by those who are able to take up a point of view that is truly intellectual. Moreover, it is in the intellectual realm that are to be found the principles from which everything else derives, either consequentially or by way of application; it is therefore on these principles that there must first of all be agreement if there is to be a really profound understanding, for they represent what is really essential; as soon as they are properly understood, agreement will come of itself. It should be added that knowledge of principles is essential knowledge, or metaphysical knowledge, in the true sense of the word, and is as universal as are the principles themselves; it is therefore entirely independent of all individual contingencies, which must on the contrary intervene as soon as one descends to applications; therefore this purely intellectual domain is the only one in which there is no need for the work of adaptation between different mentalities. Moreover, when the work has been done in this order, it remains only to develop its consequences, and agreement will also be reached in all other fields, since, as we have just said, it is on this that everything else, directly or indirectly, depends; on the other hand, agreement reached in any particular domain, outside the realm of principles, will always be unstable and precarious and much more like a diplomatic arrangement than a true understanding. This is why-we say again-a true understanding can come only from above and not from below; and this should be taken in a twofold sense: the work must begin from what is highest, that is, from principles, and descend gradually to the various orders of application, always keeping rigorously to the hierarchical dependence that exists between them; and it must also of necessity be the work of an elite in the truest and most complete meaning of this word: by this we mean exclusively an intellectual elite, and in reality, there can be no other. These few considerations should explain how much is lacking in modern Western civilization, not only with regard to the possibility of an effective understanding with the Eastern civilizations, but also in itself, for it to be a normal and complete civilization; indeed, these two questions are so closely connected that they really form only one, and we have just given the reasons why this is the case. We have now to show more fully in what the anti-traditional outlook, which is really the modern outlook, consists, and what are the consequences that it bears within itself and that we see unfolding with a pitiless logic in present events-but before we pass on to this, one further remark is necessary. To be resolutely 'anti-modern' is not to be in any way 'anti-Western'; on the contrary, it only means making an effort to save the West from its own confusion. In any case, no Easterner who is faithful to his own tradition would view matters differently, and it is certain that there are far fewer opponents of the West as such-an attitude that makes no sense-than of the West insofar as it has become identified with modern civilization. There are those today who speak of a 'defense' of the West, which is odd, to say the least, considering that it is the West, as we shall see later on, that is threatening to submerge the whole of mankind in the whirlpool of its own confused activity; odd, we say, and completely unjustified if they mean, as they seem to (despite certain reservations), that this defense is to be against the East, for the true East has no thought of attacking or dominating anybody, and asks no more than to be left in independence and tranquillity-surely a not unreasonable demand. Actually, the truth is that the West really is in great need of defense, but only against itself and its own tendencies, which, if they are pushed to their conclusion, will lead inevitably to its ruin and destruction; it is therefore 'reform' of the West that is called for, and if this reform were what it should be-that is to say, a restoration of tradition-it would entail as a natural consequence an understanding with the East. For our own part, we ask no more than to contribute, as far as our means permit, both to the reform and to the understanding, if indeed there is still time, and if any such result can be attained before the arrival of the final catastrophe toward which modern civilization is heading. But even if it were already too late to avoid this catastrophe, the work done to this end would not be useless, for it would serve in any case to prepare, however distantly, the 'discrimination' of which we spoke at the beginning, and thereby to assure the preservation of those elements that must escape the shipwreck of the present world to become the germs of the future world.