Metaphysical terms in the works of René Guénon

"It may now be stated that metaphysics [...] is essentially the knowledge of the Universal, or, if preferred, the knowledge of the principles belonging to the universal order, which moreover alone can validly lay claim to the name of principles; but in making this statement, we are not really trying to propose a definition of metaphysics, for such a thing is a sheer impossibility by reason of that very universality which we look upon as the foremost of its characteristics, the one from which all the other are derived. In reality, only something that is limited is capable of definition, whereas by definition metaphysics is on the contrary by its very nature absolutely unlimited, and this plainly does not allow our enclosing it in a more or less narrow formula [...]."

"Metaphysics affirms the fundamental identity of knowing and being [...] and since this identity is essentially implied of the very nature of intellectual intuition, it not merely affirms it but realizes it as well."

"Today the esoteric or initiatic domain and the mystical domain – or, if one prefers, their respective points of view – are often confused [...]. it is currently the fashion so to speak among those with limited horizons to construe all Eastern doctrines as 'mystical', including those that lack even a semblance of the outward aspects that could justify such an attribution [...]. [...] in everything pertaining to initiation there is really nothing vague or nebulous, for on the contrary it is as precise and 'positive' as can be, so that initiation by its very nature is in fact incompatible with mysticism."

"[...] initiation is essentially the transmission of a spiritual influence, a transmission that can only take place through a regular, traditional organization, so that one cannot speak of initiation outside of an affiliation with an organization of this kind. We have explained that 'regularity' must be understood to exclude all pseudo-initiatic organizations, which, regardless of pretention and outward appearance, in no way possess any spiritual influence and thus are incapable of transmitting anything."

"The 'Self' is the transcendent and permanent principle of which the manifested being, the human being, for example, is only a transient and contingent modification, a modification which, moreover, can in no way affect the principle [...] The 'Self', as such, is never individualized and cannot become so, for since it must always be considered under the aspect of the eternity and immutability which are the necessary attributes of pure Being, it is obviously not susceptible of any particularization, which would cause it to be 'other that itself'. Immutable in its own nature, it develops the indefinite possibilities which it contains within itself, by a relative passing from potency to act through an indefinite series of degrees. Its essential permanence is not thereby affected, precisely because this process is only relative, and because this development is, strictly speaking, not a development at all, except from the point of view of manifestation, outside of which there is no question of succession, but only of perfect simultaneity, so that even what is virtual under one aspect, is found nevertheless to be realized in the 'eternal present'."

"[...] Previously, on the contrary [i.e. prior to the theosphists], even in the West, whenever any distinction has been made between these two terms ['individuality' or 'ego' and 'personality'] the personality has always been regarded as superior to individuality [...] The 'Self' [...] considered in relation to a being, is properly speaking the personality; it is true that one might restrict the use of this latter word to the 'Self' as principle of the manifested states, just as the 'Divine Personality', Ishwara, is the Principle of universal Manifestation; but one can also extend it analogically to the 'Self' as principle of all states of the being, both manifested and unmanifested. The personality is an immediate determination, primordial and non-particularized, of the principle which in Sanskrit is called Atmâ or Paramâtmâ, and which, in default of a better term, we may call the 'Universal Spirit', on the clear understanding, however, that in this use of the word 'spirit', nothing is implied that might recall Western philosophical conceptions, and, in particular, that is not turned into a correlative of 'matter', as the modern mind is inclined to do, being subject in this respect, even though unconsciously, to the influence of Cartesian dualism."

"The 'Self', in relation to any being whatsoever, is in reality identical with Atmâ, since it is essentially beyond all distinction and all particularization; and that is why, in Sanskrit, the same word âtman, in cases other than the nominative, replaces the reflexive pronoun 'itself'. The 'Self is not therefore really distinct from Atmâ, except when one considers it [...] in relation to a certain definite state of being, such as the human state [...]. In this case, moreover, the 'Self' does not really become distinct from Atmâ in any way, since [...] it [...] cannot be affected by the point of view from which we regard it [...]. What should be noted is that to the extent that we make this distinction, we are departing from the direct consideration of the 'Self' in order to consider its reflection in human individuality [...]. The reflection in question determines what may be called the center of this individuality; but if isolated from its principle, that is, from the 'Self', it can only enjoy a purely illusory existence, for it is from that principle that it derives all its reality, and it effectually possesses this reality only through participation in the nature of the 'Self', that is, insofar as it is identified therewith by universalization.

The personality [...] belongs essentially to the order of principles in the strictest sense of the word, that is, to the universal order [...]. [The] following table [...] sets forth the essential distinctions in this connection [...]:"

"[...] the Universal will [not only] consist solely of the unmanifested, but will also extend to the formless, comprising both the unmanifested and the supra-individual states of manifestation. As for the individual, it includes all degrees of formal manifestation, that is, all states in which beings are invested with forms, for what properly characterizes individuality and essentially constitutes it as such is precisely the presence of form among the limitative conditions which define and determine a given state of existence. We can now sum up these further considerations in the following table:"

"The "gross state" in fact is nothing else than the corporeal existence itself, to which [...] human individuality belongs by one of its modalities only, and not in its integral development. As to the "subtle state", it includes, in the first place, the extra-corporeal modalities of the human being, or of every other being situated in the same state of existence, and also, in the second place, all other individual states [...] It may be said, therefore, that the human being, considered in its integrality, comprises a certain sum of possibilities which constitute its corporeal or gross modality, and in addition, a multitude of other possibilities, which, extending in different directions beyond the corporeal modality, constitute its subtle modalities; but all these possibilities together represent, nonetheless, one and the same degree of universal Existence. It follows from this that human individuality is at once much more and much less than Westerners generally suppose it to be: much more, because they recognize in it scarcely anything except the corporeal modality, which includes but the smallest fraction of its possibilities; much less, however, because this individuality, far from really constituting the whole being, is but one state of that being among an indefinite multitude of other states. Moreover the sum of all these states is still nothing at all in relation to the personality, which alone is the true being, because it alone represents its permanent and unconditioned state, and because there is nothing else which can be considered as absolutely real."

"[...] let us also point out the impropriety of translating samâdhi as "ecstasy", this latter being all the more irksome as it is normally used in Western languages to designate mystical states, that is to say something of an altogether different order, with which it must not be confused; its etymological signification moreover is "to go out of oneself" (which suits very well the case of mystical states), whereas what the term samâdhi designates is quite to the contrary a "return" of the being into its own Self."

"Understood [...] with reference to particular beings, essence and substance are in effect the same as the "form and "matter" of the scholastic philosophers; but it is better to avoid the use of these latter terms because, doubtless owing to an imperfection of the Latin language in this connection, they only convey rather inaccurately the ideas they ought to express [...]"

"1 The Buddhists answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are an Advaitin and have a demon?” 2 Guénon answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honour Brahman the Atman, and you dishonour me. 3 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the Knower. 4 Verily, verily, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 5 The Buddhists said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Shankara died, as did the Jivanmuktas, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 6 Are you greater than our father Shankara, from whom we borrowed and changed his teaching, who died? And the Jivanmuktas died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 7 Guénon answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is Brahman who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is your God.’ 8 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 9 Your father Shankaracharya, peace be upon him, rejoiced that he would see my retroactive refutation. He saw it and was glad.” 10 So the Buddhists said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Shankara?” 11 Guénon said to them, “Verily, verily, I say to you, before Adi Shankaracharya was, I AM.” 12 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Guénon hid himself and went out of the Ashram."

"[...] the individuals of any one species all participate in a common nature, which is that of the species itself, and is in all of them equally; how then does it come about that, in spite of this community of nature, these individuals are distinct beings, or even that they are in any way distinguishable one from another ? [...] the question could [...] be formulated in this way: of what order is the determination which is added to specific nature so that individuals may become separate beings while remaining within the species ?It is this determination that the scholastics relate to "matter", that is to say ultimately to quantity [...] and thus "matter" or quantity appears distinctly as a principle of "separativity"."