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

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


object:1.11 - The Second Genesis
class:The Wherefore of the Worlds
author class:Paul Richard
magazine class:Arya
class:chapter

The Second Genesis
15th June 1915

If the deepest analysis brings us to the desire to be as the supreme reason for the existence of the worlds, if all is reduced at its origin to the preference of each being and each thing for itself and its own way of existing, does that not give some depth and truth to the simplest of all reasons that each being gives spontaneously and without reflection for the least of his actions? Why does the child or the ignorant man do this rather than that? Because such is his desire and his preference. The understanding motives, the intellectual reasons come afterwards. Intelligence cultivates a cleverness in adorning every action with pretexts of good sense and education teaches everyone to justify in the name of principles called rational by our generally admitted conventions of thought what is at bottom nothing more than desire and preference.

All the true reasons and transcendent motives a man can assign for the way in which he acts, can be reduced to this simple formula, In that was my pleasure. So it is too with the wherefore of the worlds. The highest philosophy brings us no other reply; beings and worlds are because it was their pleasure to be.

But while it thus reveals to us the value of the most naive explanations, this fact should perhaps at the same time be a warning to us that all our philosophy, if it limited itself to such trenchantly simple data, would be only an ignorance concealed under a pomp of reasonings, ignorance unaware of itself.

Certainly, it is from a central standpoint that we discover the primary reason of existence to have been an original fact of desire. But this point of view can only be central if it succeeds in grouping around itself others that complete it. If it were exclusive of other standpoints, it would no longer be true. Truth is a mutual relation of things which at once becomes falsified if even one of them misunderstands the rest.

The desire to be, to exist distinct and separate from all that is not oneself, is evidently the essential cause of the world of forms and distinctions. If it is asked, What was the cause of the universe? we must reply, Itself. Who was the creator of the being? Itself: itself is its own object, itself alone its reason for existence.

The universal manifestation is only the theatre on which all that wills to be affirms itself and advertises its existence. To be, to live, to exist for oneself, to take on individual consciousness, to play ones own play of will, to exercise and increase ones powers of personal action and reaction, to become something which is no longer the All and is yet the centre of all, to oppose and impose oneself on all, to be in oneself apart and alone the Absolute, such is the first creative desire. And in this creation to take place, to come to light, to be born, that is to say, to appear and substitute itself for what was before it and hold henceforth its place in the environment at the expense of others on the great scene of the world, to occupy that stage the most largely and for the longest time possible, to enjoy the sport of its lights and to play among its decorations, to be in the face of the universe a distinct, original and willing ego whose image shall be reflected as in innumerable mirrors by other egos,such is the desire of all that is.

But if nothing but the spontaneity of desire can explain the principle and characteristics of the actual manifestation we observe, if, as we shall see, the very spectacle of its progressive evolution, the history of the cosmic epos, the memory of the dark abysses and brutal origins whence life was born, bear witness to and unceasingly confirm the truth that the first law was that of a blind and violent impulsion, yet can it not be affirmed that other laws and other principles have not combined with it and even been present in it to help in forming the worlds.
***

If the whole universe is needed to create a single grain of sand, the whole Absolute is needed to explain the smallest relativity and to allow of the existence of that grain of sand which is itself a universe,all the Absolute, for the very reason that the Absolute is the All, the One, the identical and indivisible whole.

Something of that Absolute may well think itself relative, that is to say, separated from the whole, something may well exclude itself from the whole in its desire to be for its own sake, in its will of individual affirmation, but the whole excludes nothing and everywhere where this relative something manifests itself, the entire Absolute is present along with it.

No doubt, in its form of egoistic manifestation nothing is manifest except that egoism. But the indissoluble unity which renders inseparable and identical in being all the principles of the identical One, creates even in that egoistic form all the possibilities of the integral manifestation; and as these possibilities come to be deployed in the progress of the becoming, each of those principles in its own turn comes also to be revealed.

That which leads most philosophies to recoil from the recognition of the egoism of desire as the one sufficient reason for the existence of the worlds, is the progress which the being has made from the point of its origin. The evolution of consciousness has long ago brought into sight the goal of the first impulsion. The being by the progressive elevation of his desire has, so to speak, put far from him his own origin. As it grows and bears fairer flowers and better fruits, the tree of Life has plunged its roots also more deeply towards the Unknown Divine. And because Love has to-day become a possible conscious reason for mans actions and seems as if it were the final cause of the worlds, it is in Love that the religions think to find its first efficient cause. Thus they have provided themselves with reasons which otherwise they would not have had for their adoration of the creative act.

But it is not in the beginning of things, it is before the beginning and outside of it, in the secret being of the Eternal that we can place what appears here only in the end. The birth to Love was for the being and is even to-day not its first but its second birth; its principle was foreign to the first act of creation, foreign at least for our distinctive categories; for in the Absolute all is one and it is by reason of that unity that in the relative the manifestation of any principle conditions that of all the rest and makes them enter into the becoming. Desire by affirming itself egoistically obliges Love to participate in its creations. And in this obligation upon Love to manifest we find the pre-creative justification of the beings coming into existence.

Moreover, however egoistic this desire itself may be, is it not made of the very stuff of love? Is it not a relative form of the absolute love of Being for itself, a love which retires into itself voluntarily limiting and rendering itself alien to all the possibles of the Infinite in order to concentrate on one of them? And whence does it draw this power of exclusive concentration, this right to absolute self-conscience if not from the power and the right of the Absolute itself?

Is not this withdrawal of the being upon itself, this egoism a sort of individualistic equivalent to the withdrawal of the infinite Existence into that state of total concentration which we have called the absolute repose? Is it not a means for the individual being to proceed by the way of egoism towards the non-being?

What a profound view opens to us here! It is in the state of infinite manifestation, in the absolute movement that are found the condition and the occasion for the relative to appear and for the individual being to enter into the contrary state-of concentration. It is from the absolute activity that is born the possibility of individual limitation and the extinction of the being in the inertia of Matter, while on the contrary from the withdrawal of the eternal existence into itself is born the possibility of resurrection for the ephemeral being out of the broken tomb of relative forms into the infinite consciousness.

The relative and the Absolute appear then like two poles of the Infinite which turn by turn become immerged in Being and in Non-being.
***

If the Absolute is there in all relativities, yet does each of them exclude it from its limited manifestation; if in egoism itself Love is there, yet does each individual abolish the consciousness of it in himself. Thus every being puts on a double character; he is a latent Absolute and he is a desire to be struggling to impose itself and maintain its limits in the All.

Each ego is in a constant state of resistance to the Infinite, as is each grain of a sandbank to the assault of the Ocean. And although the Absolute is present in it, the effort after the conservation of form and limit, the refusal to be transformed which the resistance of Matter represents, opposes to the Absolute the obstacle of the individual consciousness and the barrier of its categories of Space and Time. But these barriers and obstacles exist only for the individual and in him. It is he alone who, in order to exist, refuses to see in the very obscurity of all these successive and ephemeral forms the ever-present splendour of the Eternal. For the absolute consciousness the relative universe is not distinct from the infinite modes of existence. As the desire which creates it is only one of the numberless possibilities of the infinite, so is it itself in the bosom of the infinite only one of the forms, only one of the movements of the eternal activity.

Nothing, then, can break the bond of unity which attaches the possibilities of the manifested world in spite of their desire of exclusion to all unmanifested possibilities. And it is precisely because each ego, although indissolubly bound to all other egos, yet wishes to be isolated and thinks itself distinct, that the law of struggle becomes the law of existence; for in this world of desire their very tie of interdependence creates the causes of their hostility. In their attempt at exclusive affirmation inseparable forms become antagonistic, common and mutual needs become rivals and that which is called love takes the form of strife.

How could this love which in its primary forms is only a more passionate egoistic desire and in its origin appears no other than the need of a prey, change one day into the supreme gift, into self-sacrifice and self-forgetfulness, if the desire to be had alone formed the being and alone reigned over his becoming?

If desire had been the sole creator, it could only have created a chaos. And from this chaos how could anything better than itself have issued? From the disorder of blind forces how, without the intervention of another principle, could there have ever arisen the harmony of a world? How could light have been barn out of the darkness and out of egoism love?

Desire could, by blinding itself, break the first unity; it could tear to pieces, not the Absolute, but the consciousness of the Absolute in each being; it could, by shutting up that consciousness in the narrow limits of its categories, create Number, Time, Space, the very stuff of the relative; from it are born the inertia and the resistance out of which form has been carved, but it could not be the sole formative power; it could create the dust from which the worlds were born, but it has not created the worlds themselves. In order that its Matter might be fertilised, all that it has excluded must first be present in that Matter and over the chaos of its creation there must brood that which was other than it.

When That which had not desired to affirm itself in this Matter, manifested there, when That which was pure, eternal and unconditioned liberty voluntarily, bound itself in the chains of Necessity, in the determinism of the becoming in order to break their constraints, when the Absolute entered, not out of desire, but by a sacrifice into the obscure forms of the relative, then indeed the being was born and the universe was engendered. That was the second genesis, the birth by Love.
***



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
1.11_-_The_Second_Genesis

IN CHAPTERS CLASSNAME

IN CHAPTERS TEXT
1.11_-_The_Second_Genesis

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 [10000/1]

Wikipedia - Theological fiction -- Fiction dealing with religious belief


change font "color":
change "background-color":
change "font-family":
change "padding":
change "table font size":
last updated: 2022-02-04 13:53:03
292187 site hits