2 THE DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE & THE MODERN SPIRIT

We have already had more than one occasion to say what we think of the modern tendencies to 'propaganda' and 'popularization', and of the incomprehension of true knowledge that they imply; so we do not intend to return yet again to the many disadvantages presented generally by the unconsidered diffusion of an 'education' which is intended to be distributed equally to everyone under forms and by methods that are identical, and that can only result in a kind of levelling; here, as everywhere in our time, quality is sacrificed to quantity. Yet in a relative way this kind of activity is perhaps excusable in light of the very character of the secular education in question, which offers no knowledge in the true sense of the word, and contains absolutely nothing of a profound order. What makes it especially harmful is that it is taken for what it is not and tends to deny everything that is beyond itself, thus stifling all possibilities relating to a higher domain. But what is perhaps more serious still—and what we wish especially to call attention to here—is that some people believe they are able to expound traditional doctrines on the model as it were of this same profane education, applying considerations that take no account of the actual nature of these doctrines, and of the essential differences that exist between them and everything that is today designated by the terms 'science' and 'philosophy'. Here we see the modern spirit penetrating even into what is by very definition radically opposed, so that it is not difficult to understand what destructive consequences, may result from it, consequences unknown even to those who often in good faith and with no precise intention make themselves the instruments of such penetration.

We have recently had an example of this which is rather surprising in more than one respect: one cannot stifle a certain astonishment in hearing it asserted first of all that 'in India it has long been believed that certain aspects of the Vedantic teaching must be kept secret', that 'the popularization of certain truths was reputed to be dangerous', and that 'one was even forbidden to speak of it outside a small circle of initiates.' There is no call to cite any names here, since this case is of value only to 'illustrate' a certain mentality; but to account for our astonishment we must at least say that these assertions do not come from an orientalist or Theosophist, but from a native Hindu. Now, if there was ever a country where it has always been held that the theoretical aspect of doctrine (for of course there is no question here, of 'realization' and its proper means) could be expounded with no other reservation than that of their ultimate inexpressibility, it is precisely India. Given the actual constitution of traditional Hindu organization, one cannot imagine who could be qualified to prohibit anyone's speaking of this or that; in fact, such a situation can only occur where there is a clear distinction between esoterism and exoterism, which is not the case for India. Neither one say that the 'popularization' of doctrines is dangerous, but rather that, were it even possible, it would simply be useless, since in reality truths of this order resist all 'popularization' by their very nature. However clearly they may be presented, they will be understood only by those qualified to understand them, while for the rest the doctrines will be as if they do not exist. Our opinion of the 'secrets' so dear to pseudo-esoterists is known well enough: a reserve in the theoretical order can only be justified by considerations of simple expediency and thus on purely contingent grounds; ultimately, any outward secret can only have the value of a symbol, or sometimes also that of a 'discipline', which would not be without benefit... But the modern mentality is such that it cannot abide any secret or even any reserve; the import and significance of such things entirely escape it, and its incomprehension in their regard quite naturally engenders hostility; yet the truly monstrous character of a world in which everything would be made 'public' (we say 'would' for in spite of everything we have not yet come to such a pass) is such that it would merit a special study in itself. But this is not the moment to indulge in perhaps too facile 'anticipations', and we will simply say that we can only pity those who have fallen so low as to be able to live, literally as well as symbolically, in 'hives of glass'. But to continue with our citations: 'Today, one can no longer take these restrictions into account; the average level of culture has been raised and minds have been prepared to receive the complete teaching.' Here we see as clearly as possible the confusion of traditional teaching with profane education, designated by the term 'culture', which in our time has come to be one of its standard designations. But this is something that has not the least connection to traditional teaching or to the aptitude for receiving it; and in addition, since the so-called raising of the 'average level' has its inevitable counterpart in the disappearance of the intellectual elite, one can truly say that this 'culture' represents exactly the opposite of the preparation in question here. We wonder moreover how a Hindu can completely ignore our present position in the Kali-Yuga, and can go so far as to say that 'the time has come when the entire system of the Vedānta can be publicly expounded,' whereas the least knowledge of cyclical laws obliges one to say, on the contrary, that they are less favorable than ever; and if it has never been 'within the reach of the common man,' for whom it is not made, it certainly is not so today, for this 'common man' has never been so totally lacking in understanding. Besides, the truth is that for this very reason everything representing traditional knowledge of a truly profound order, and thus corresponding to what an 'integral teaching' must imply, is made increasingly difficult of access—and this everywhere. Faced with the invasive modern and profane spirit, it is all too obvious that it could not be otherwise; how then can one so misunderstand the reality as to affirm its complete opposite, and this with as much tranquillity as if one were expressing the most incontestable of truths? The reasons our author advances for his current interest in spreading the Vedāntic teaching are no less extraordinary. First, he highlights the 'development of social ideas and political institutions'; but even if there truly is a 'development' (and in any case he should specify what sense he intends), this is still something that has no more relation to the understanding of a metaphysical doctrine than has the diffusion of secular education. Moreover, it is enough to observe in any country of the East how political preoccupations hinder the knowledge of traditional truths wherever they have been introduced, for one to think it more justifiable to speak of an incompatibility (more or less of fact) than of a possible agreement between two such 'developments'. We do not really see what connection 'social life', in the purely profane sense as conceived by the moderns, could possibly have with spirituality; on the other hand, there was such a connection when social life was integrated into a traditional civilization. But it is precisely the modern spirit that has destroyed such civilizations, or aims to destroy them wherever they still exist; that being so, what can one really expect from a 'development' the most characteristic trait of which is its opposition to all spirituality? But he invokes yet another reason: 'Furthermore, for the Vedānta as for the truths of science, a scientific secrecy no longer exists today; science does not hesitate to publish the most recent discoveries.' In fact, this profane science is made only for the 'general public', and this is indeed its whole reason d'être; it is all too evident that science is really nothing more than it appears to be, since—we cannot say 'in principle', but rather 'in the absence of principle'—it restricts itself to the surface of things. Surely there is nothing in it worth the trouble to keep secret, or, to speak more precisely, that merits being reserved for the use of an elite; and besides, only an elite need do such a thing. What assimilation, then, can one possibly want to establish between the so-called truths of profane science and the teachings of a doctrine such as the Vedānta? It is always the same confusion, and one may well wonder just how deeply someone who commends it so insistently can understand the doctrine that he wishes to teach; in any event, assertions of this kind can only prevent this comprehension in those to whom it is addressed. Between the traditional spirit and the modern spirit there really can be no accommodation; every concession made to the second is necessarily at the expense of the first, and can only result in a weakening of the doctrine, even when its consequences do not go as far as their most extreme and also most logical outcome, that is, to the point of true deformation. It will be noted that in all this we do not adopt a point of view that includes the hypothetical dangers that a general diffusion of true knowledge could present; we only affirm the pure and simple impossibility of such a diffusion, especially in present conditions, for the world has never been further from true knowledge than it is today. If, however, one insists on speaking of dangers, we will say this: formerly, in explaining doctrinal truths exactly as they are, and without any ‘popularization’, one sometimes risked being misunderstood, but now the risk is simply that of not being understood at all, which perhaps is in fact less serious in a certain sense, although we do not really see what the partisans of diffusion have to gain thereby.