classes ::: The Wherefore of the Worlds, Paul Richard, Arya, chapter,
children :::
branches :::
see also :::

bookmarks: Instances - Definitions - Quotes - Chapters - Wordnet - Webgen


object:1.05 - The Creative Principle
class:The Wherefore of the Worlds
author class:Paul Richard
magazine class:Arya
class:chapter

The Creative Principle
15th December 1914

By their mutual ignorance the various theories of the beginning of things only reveal their fundamental ignorance of the causes of existence. And one may class among these theories even those speculations which under the philosophic name of Agnosticism avow their ignorance and affirm it expressly as their point of departure. For if they do not pose the question of the wherefore of the worlds, it is because in reality they hold it to be solved. Under their Agnosticism their lurks, tacitly and ill-disguised, the postulate of an unknown First Principle. Some, even, perceive clearly that it is impossible to escape from the necessity of this postulate and affirm under the name of the Unknowable such a First Principle. But even those which confine themselves to the assertion of the empirical fact of evolution, those in whose view the universe is nothing but a perpetual motion without cause or finality, will be found always ready to assert that this motion reposes on the existence of an eternal force or an eternal substance. For many physicists nowadays the notion of ether as an absolute substratum of all phenomena takes the place of a creative Deity.

And, on the other hand, is not this formula of a creative God, which is the conclusion of the majority of the other theories, itself the most supremely agnostic of all formulas? Does it not unconsciously disguise in its appeal to the miracle, the mystery of the primal act, the very ignorance that the partisans of the Unknowable avow? Does not the affirmation of an eternal Being, creator of things, amount in fact to the statement of a principle of uncreated force or substance from which things must have arisen?

No doubt, in one of these points of view we find the elements of a psychological explanation of the world conceived as the result of a free act of will, of thought; in the other, on the contrary, are resumed all the data of a mechanical conception assuring the fact of evolution on the concrete base of a substantial realism, But, however contradictory all these theories may be in their form, they agree, in substance, in postulating as first fact an essential principle of existence, an absolute cause, personal or impersonal, a thing that is the mother of beings or a being that is the former of things.

They have, moreover, this feature in common that none of them explains how from this Absolute, whether thing or being, pure matter or pure spirit, there could have come into existence a world of relativities at once subjective and objective. Far from solving the problem each of them merely translates into its own particular formula one or other of these two mysterious terms.

It is, besides, a misunderstanding of the problem to suppose that it can once for all be eluded or elucidated by putting it back in the far distant and mysterious origin of things. It helps the mind not at all to resume the difficulties and relegate them in a block to the single fact of the beginning; for they return incessantly in detail in the constant fact of perpetual recommencement. At each instant and in each act of creative evolution the mind sees renewed before it the prodigy of creation. And these words, creation, evolution, over which the opposing doctrines have so long battled, tell us neither of them any thing very much more than the other. Already a certain religious philosophy attempts to reconcile them by consipering the creative act as the first act of evolution and evolution itself as a continuous creation. One may go even farther and show that these apparently hostile words can be reduced without difficulty to the same notion; for what is called creation is, not necessarily the first act of all, but only the first discernable act of the evolution made by its importance in this point of view to appear to us as if unique, essential and primordial, and what is called evolution is not only the uninterrupted reproduction of creative acts indiscernable by their continuity, but the very mode of their production and even more their procedure than their processus.

The idea of evolution throws light, then, on the idea of creation, but receives from it, in exchange, an equal service. And it is never without mutual detriment that they are separated in order to be opposed to each other.

When we speak of the evolutionary action with the idea that it excludes the act of creation it is because we forget to ask ourselves how that can appear which was not yet or at least was not in the form in which it now becomes, how from that which was can be born that which is, and how even the least transformation can take place without a veritable act of creation.

But, on the other hand, when we speak of an act of the creator with the idea that it explains the evolutionary action, we forget first to ask ourselves how this creator himself could reach such a point or how he could have produced anything at all without there taking place a veritable fact of evolution.

For in every act of creation, whatever otherwise may be its nature, there is always necessarily established that relation of antecedent and consequent which characterises the evolutionary action. The only difference is that in one case what appears derives from an antecedent more or less known and in the other from a principle of which we are ignorant, a reality without any visible relation with the phenomenon produced. The relation exists nevertheless between the two terms, whatever the first of them may be. All creation is a disguised evolution. What is creation? What is meant by this word suspected and equivocal by reason of the confusions to which it lends itself and the extent to which it has been, abused?

Certain of the senses given to it are, indeed, void of sense. If, for example, to create means to make something out of nothing, as well say that the word signifies nothing. If there is any appearance of a creator, it is always, though he should be deprived of all other resource, from himself and not from nothing that he evolves in reality what he creates.

But even if the creator were absent, if it were a question of a creative operation effected not only ex nihilo but a nihilo, by nothing and by nobody, that is to say without any creator but itself, it is not from nothing but still from something that it would evolve in passing thus, without any assistance, from all that it was not to that which it becomes, from non-being to being.

For by this nothing we mean without knowing it all or rather the all of which we know nothing. This nothing is only the symbol of our ignorance. And what we call non-being or nothingness is, in sum, only the beyond of all our limits of existence.

If creation means simply self-creation, as well say that nothing is created which was not already virtually in existence before its appearance. Everything creates itself which appears, evolves, takes form or changes form; and creation can then no longer be distinguished from the work of universal and progressive manifestation.

But it is not this ultimate sense which is generally given to the word, creation. Those who employ it, stop usually half way in their search after the primary fact. They furnish the creator with a propitious chaos all ready to be put in the form he chooses and from the concourse of these two they conceive the rise of the worlds of existence.

To create, then, means in their view to make something out of something else. And if the word keeps its value, it is because that other thing, in fact, could not give birth to aught without the power which sets it at work. It is in this sense that the word is applied to the production of the artist whose mastery has alone to be reckoned, since the only importance his material has for him is the obstacle it represents. Chaos can only discharge this negative role. But it is sufficient that it should be and that the creator should utilise it for the original act to appear as an act of formation or rather of transformation antilogous to those which voluntarily or involuntarily every being is at each moment accomplishing.

Certainly, it is quite possible that each great beginning has been the effect of an exceptional intervention of power or of will. In the great hierarchy of existence, there are formative beings who can thus create things. It is even possible that certain of them, before things took substantial form, drew from themselves the elements and the means of their creation. But does not man at each instant, by his word, by his thought, thus create without knowing it?

And if such beings are called gods, who is not in some sort a god in the infinite relativity? But whatever they be, great or little, all these formative gods are themselves only the effective forms assumed in the course of the evolution by the creative Principle.

Theology, when, in order to explain the beginning of things, it makes appeal to one of these, though it be the first of all, only pushes farther back the problem of the genesis. For this problem consists precisely in the inquiry how anything or anyone capable of movement or of will could arise from the immobility of the Non-Being or from the immutability of the unknowable Being.

Whatever be, indeed, the conceivable reality whose pre-existence is postulated, the very fact that it is connected with the manifested world makes it also enter into order of relativity whose first cause we seek. For the very idea of a creator contains under a form more concrete and familiar to the mind the whole enigma that has to be solved. It personifies the enigma, but it is only in appearance that it renders it less impenetrable.

Whether we consider the creator to be immanent or transcendent, alien to the world or one with it, whether we confound the idea of God with that of the universe, as in Pantheism, or identify the universe with the thought of God, as in Idealism, the question of the creator remains that of the creation itself. And the problem remains the same, whether it be of a first Being or of a first Thing. How could this being, if it is relative, rise out of the Absolute? And how if it is absolute, could it create the relative? Can the Absolute create anything that does not already exist? And if anything in the Absolute can create itself other than it is, how in so creating itself does it become the relative? Or more simply, how, by what mystery of evolution does it become?
***

Absolute, relative, these words return with an indefatigable monotony at the term of each view of the problem. For the problem, in whatever aspect we may envisage it, is precisely that of the relations between the Absolute and the relative. It cannot then be resolved by the simple affirmation of the eternal Being or of the eternal substance which are postulated by the various theories. It is not in the Absolute alone, under the form of person or thing, that we must seek for the principle of the relative, but in a sort of relation between the two, between that which is, if we may use the expression, most absolute in the relative and that which is most relative in the Absolute. This relation cannot, indeed, be one of dependence or causality. But nothing prevents us from conceiving it as allowing the pure spontaneities of the relative to find in the absolute realities their own possible conditions or, if you prefer, the pure possibilities of the Absolute to realise themselves as relative. Why should not the Absolute have the power of forgetting itself in the relative?

These two abstract terms, which appear to us so irreducible, are in fact exclusive only from one point of view, that of our own relative conceptions. There can be no exclusion in the Absolute. And here appears as something essentially distinctive and specific that character of exclusive affirmation which is assumed by the very principle of existence.

But if we must attri bute this form of relative affirmation to some power of primary activity and of creation, we may at least discover a preliminary and fundamental antecedent in the affirmation, also creative, of the Absolute itself in which all is included.

If this Absolute escapes our thought, it is because all our contradictories become indistinguishable in its identity. It is indivisible and indiscernable unity. And nevertheless it discerns in this very unity the infinite multiplicity. It is the non-manifest which manifests itself to itself. And in its eternal objectivisation at once conscient and substantial is contained the foundation of the principle of distinction, determination, differentiation, without which things and the idea of things could not be.

In order that from their absolute creation relative creations should come into existence, it suffices that to this principle of differentiation there should be added the principle of exclusive affirmation imposing as an absolute relativity that which was only a relative determination in the Absolute; or, rather, it is sufficient that from the infinity of being that which is to be the finite existence should exclude itself, should cut itself off by self-limitation.
***

One may thus place the origin of existences, their first cause, either in the profundities of the unconditioned which conditions them or in themselves, in their secret power of self-manifestation. It is this which explains the plurality of theories and the legitimacy of opposite points of view.

For to be in these worlds is to be thought, objectivised by the infinite Consciousness, willed by the eternal Will, formed in the image of the Eternal, but it is also to think oneself, to will oneself, to form oneself, to rise out of that which has no end nor beginning, no bound nor measure of Time or Space, from that which is without age and without limits and to enter into all that, to enchain oneself, subject oneself, and reduce oneself to all that; it is to make oneself a thought when one was the Thought and a movement when one is the Immobile.

The philosophical theories are therefore right, both those which place in the universe itself its immanent cause and those which seek its cause outside it in some transcendent beyond. And when their respective affirmations oppose and exclude each other, in that very opposition, unknown to them, lies the secret for which they seek. For if the wherefore of things is founded on the decree of the Eternity which includes them all, it resides also in the law of mutual exclusion which they impose on themselves. Participating in the infinite possibilities of the Being, they draw from its essence their power of becoming and from its pure liberty the bond of their future determinisms. Being, they make themselves. Children of the Uncreated, they create themselves, give birth to themselves, bring themselves into the world. From the play of the Absolute they pass into that which every relativity plays for itself. And their initial principle becomes by their own initiative that which affirms and manifests itself in every being, which becomes conscious in every ego as the desire to exist for oneself.

A thing in itself and a desire to exist for oneself, a cause without cause, eternal and incognizable, mother of beings and things, and the spontaneity of an effort evolving things towards being, is not this the double origin absolute and relative, the double reason for existence of all that is, the creative principle of the worlds?
***



questions, comments, suggestions/feedback, take-down requests, contribute, etc
contact me @ integralyogin@gmail.com or
join the integral discord server (chatrooms)
if the page you visited was empty, it may be noted and I will try to fill it out. cheers


OBJECT INSTANCES [0] - TOPICS - AUTHORS - BOOKS - CHAPTERS - CLASSES - SEE ALSO - SIMILAR TITLES

TOPICS
SEE ALSO


AUTH

BOOKS

IN CHAPTERS TITLE
1.05_-_The_Creative_Principle

IN CHAPTERS CLASSNAME

IN CHAPTERS TEXT
1.05_-_The_Creative_Principle

PRIMARY CLASS

chapter
The_Wherefore_of_the_Worlds
SIMILAR TITLES

DEFINITIONS



QUOTES [0 / 0 - 0 / 0]


KEYS (10k)


NEW FULL DB (2.4M)


*** NEWFULLDB 2.4M ***


IN CHAPTERS [0/0]









WORDNET


































IN WEBGEN [10000/54]

Wikipedia - Act Respecting the Oath to the Succession
Wikipedia - List of The Oath episodes -- Wikipedia list article
Wikipedia - The Oath (1921 film) -- 1921 film
Wikipedia - The Oath (2016 film) -- 2016 film
Wikipedia - The Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000 -- Pakistani law
Wikipedia - The Oath of Peter Hergatz -- 1921 film
Wikipedia - The Oath of Pierre -- 1913 film
Wikipedia - The Oath of Stephan Huller (1921 film) -- 1921 film
Wikipedia - The Oath of the Vayuputras -- 2013 novel by Amish Tripathi
Wikipedia - The Oath of Tsuru San -- 1913 film
Wikipedia - The Time of the Oath -- album by Helloween
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12820793-the-oath-of-the-vayuputras
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13331179-the-oath
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17154942-the-oathbound-wizard
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17319.The_Oath
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18867978-the-oath
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20187386-the-oath
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23006084-girl-takes-the-oath
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24685084-the-oathsworn-series-books-1-to-5
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24834119-take-the-oath
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/363876.The_Oathbound_Wizard
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/365006.The_Oath
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6093672-the-oath-book-1
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6193011-the-oath-book-2
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6905841-the-oath-book-3
https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Oath_More_Judaico#The_oath_as_a_Jewish_disability
Highlander: The Animated Series (1994 - 1995) - "seven centuries have passed since the earth plunged into darkness, seven centuries since the Jettatur swore to regain from man his lost knowledge and freedom, all the Immortals took the oath, all except one. Who dominates the world, but soon an Immortal will come to confront him, his name is Quenti...
The Oath(2018) - Ike Barinholtz makes his directorial debut as well as playing a starring role in this black comedy film that shows how even the greatest of division will still not be enough to drive a family apart. In the near future, American citizens are asked, though not required, to sign a legal document sweari...
https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/The_Oath_of_Light
https://isu.fandom.com/wiki/Ys:_The_Oath_in_Felghana
https://theamericans.fandom.com/wiki/The_Oath
https://walkingdead.fandom.com/wiki/The_Walking_Dead_Webisodes:_The_Oath
https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Ares_the_Oathbound
Act Respecting the Oath to the Succession
Don't Break the Oath
List of The Oath episodes
The Oath
The Oath (1976 TV series)
The Oath (2016 film)
The Oath (2018 film)
The Oath (American TV series)
The Oath of Black Blood
The Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000
The Oath of Peter Hergatz
The Oath of Stephan Huller
The Oath of Stephan Huller (1921 film)
The Oath of the Vayuputras
The Oath (Peretti novel)
The Oath (Singaporean TV series)
The Oath (The Americans)
The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court
The Oath (Wiesel novel)
The Time of the Oath
Ys: The Oath in Felghana


change font "color":
change "background-color":
change "font-family":
change "padding":
change "table font size":
last updated: 2022-02-04 13:50:37
234174 site hits