René Guénon
Chapter 33

CHAPTER XXX

FINAL REMARKS ON SPATIAL SYMBOLISM

So far, no attempt has been made to draw a distinction between what is meant by “space” and “extension”, respectively, and in many cases they have been used more or less as synonyms. The distinction between them, like that between “time” and “duration”, may lend itself to philosophical subtleties, and may even have some real value from a cosmological point of view, but pure metaphysic is not really concerned with it.[115] Besides, in a general way, it is better to keep clear of any complications of language that are not strictly needed for clearness and accuracy of exposition. To use words which are not ours but which we can fully endorse, “we are reluctant to burden metaphysic with a fresh terminology, remembering that terminologies are subjects of discussion, error and discredit; those who create them, for the apparent needs of their demonstrations, incomprehensibly damage their texts by them, and become so wedded to them that often these dry, useless terminologies end up by constituting the sole novelty of the proposed system”.[116]

Apart from these general reasons, if we have in fact often described as space that which is properly speaking only a particular three-dimensional extent, the reason is that, even at the highest degree of universalization of the spatial symbol that has been examined, we have not gone beyond the limits of that extent, which has been taken as giving a representation—necessarily imperfect—of the total being. Nevertheless, if one wished to keep to stricter phraseology, undoubtedly the word “space” should be used only to denote the sum total of all particular extensions. Thus, the spatial possibility, the “actualization” of which forms one of the special conditions of certain modalities of manifestation (such as our own corporeal modality, in particular) in the degree of existence that the human state belongs to, contains in its indefinite all possible extensions, each of which is itself indefinite in a lesser degree, and which can differ from one another by their number of dimensions or by other features; again, clearly, the space known as “Euclidian”, which is studied in ordinary geometry, is only a particular case of a three-dimensional extension, since it is not the only conceivable modality of it[115].

Despite this, the spatial possibility, even in all its generality, is still only one given possibility, indefinite no doubt, even indefinite to a multiple power, but none the less finite, because—as is shown in particular by the production of the series of numbers starting from unity—the indefinite proceeds from the finite, which means that the finite itself must potentially contain the indefinite. It is quite obvious that the greater cannot come out of the less, nor the Infinite out of the finite. Besides, were this not so, the coexistence of an indefinite of other possibilities, which are not included in the spatial possibility[116], and each of which is equally capable of an indefinite development, would be impossible. This consideration alone, even failing any other, would fully suffice to prove the absurdity of the “infinite space” about which one has heard so much[115], for nothing can be truly infinite except that which comprehends all, and outside of which there is absolutely nothing that can limit it in any way whatsoever; in other words, total and universal Possibility.[116]

This brings us to the end of the present study, and we must hold over for another occasion an examination of the metaphysical theory of the multiple states of the being considered independently of the geometrical symbolism arising from it. We need only add the following, by way of conclusion. Through consciousness of the permanent Identity of Being throughout all the indefinitely multiple modifications of Existence, there is manifested, at the very centre of our human state, as well as at the centre of all other states, the transcendent and formless, and hence unincarnated and unindividualized element which is called the “Heavenly Ray”. This consciousness is therefore higher than any formal faculty, which means that it is essentially supra-rational, and implies intuitive perception of the law of harmony which binds together and unites all things in the Universe; and for our individual being, but independently of it and of the conditions to which it is subject, this consciousness is no less than the “sense of eternity”.[117] The cross is a symbol met with almost everywhere, and from the remotest times; it is therefore far from belonging exclusively to the Christian tradition which, at any rate in its outward and generally known aspect, seems to have lost sight of its symbolic character and to regard it as but the sign of a historical event. Actually, these viewpoints are in no wise mutually exclusive for the cross, like any other symbol, can be regarded according to manifold senses. The object before us however is the metaphysical sense; all other applications are secondary and contingent. If we do consider some of these it will be to attach them to the metaphysical order, for this is what gives them their value.

—Condensed from the Preface

[It was Guénon’s task] to expound the universal metaphysical tradition that has been the essential foundation of every past culture, and which represents the indispensable basis for any civilization deserving to be so called.

—A.K. Coomaraswamy

Guénon felt only too clearly his isolation from the prevailing mentality, but he also knew still more clearly the inability of the ‘opposition’ to gain final ascendency over the Truth. “All that we shall do or say,” he wrote, “will amount to giving those who come afterwards facilities which we ourself were not given; hence, as everywhere else, it is the beginning of the work that is the most painful.”

—Whitall Perry, in Guénon’s Fundamental Symbols [The Universal Language of Sacred Science]

The light which Guénon throws on the ancient world is enough to dispel for ever the illusions about primitive man and religious progress. The illusions about primitive man and religious progress are the result of modern education.

—Martin Lings

Sophia Perennis et Universalis 343 Rte 21C Ghent, NY 12075

ISBN 0 900588 21 7

Footnotes

[115]And equally, for that matter, of the “infinite number”. In a general way, the alleged “quantitative infinite”, in all its forms, is not and cannot be anything but purely and simply the indefinite. With that, all the contradictions inherent in this so-called infinite, which so greatly embarrass mathematicians and philosophers, disappear.
[116]While it is impossible, as was said earlier, to admit the narrow viewpoint of geocentrism, habitually bound up as it is with anthropomorphism, one cannot on that account think any the more highly of the sort of scientific or pseudo-scientific lyricism which seems so dear to the hearts of certain astronomers, and which is for ever speaking of “infinite space” and “eternal time”. These expressions, let it be said again, are sheer absurdities, for the simple reason that nothing can be infinite but that which is independent of space and time. Ultimately what all this amounts to is another of the numerous attempts by the modern mind to restrict universal Possibility to the measure of its own capacities, which barely go beyond the bounds of the perceptible world.
[117]Needless to say, the word “sense” is not here taken in its proper meaning, but must be understood, by analogical transposition, to denote an intuitive faculty which grasps its object immediately, as sensation does in its order; but here there is all the difference which separates intellectual intuition from sense-intuition, the supra-rational from the infra-rational.
PreviousCh. 32: CHAPTER XXIX CENTRE AND CIRCUMFERENCE