Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Ren Gunon

' Know Thyself '


The saying 'Know Thyself' is frequently cited, but its exact meaning is very often lost sight of. s for the !revailing confusion over this saying, two questions may be !osed" the first concerns its origin, and the second its real meaning and raison d'#tre. $ertain readers would li%e to believe that these two questions are entirely distinct and unrelated, but on reflection and after careful examination it becomes quite clear that they are in fact very closely connected. &f we as% students of Gree% !hiloso!hy who is the man who first uttered these words of wisdom, most of them will not hesitate to re!ly that it was 'ocrates, although some of them attem!t to lin% them to (lato and others to (ythagoras. )rom these contradictory views and divergences of o!inion we may rightfully conclude that none of these !hiloso!hers is the author of this !hrase and that one should not see% its origin with them. This o!inion seems !ermissible to us, as it will to the reader once he %nows that two of these !hiloso!hers, (ythagoras and 'ocrates, left no writings. s for (lato, whatever his !hiloso!hical com!etence might be, we are even unable to distinguish his own words from those of his master 'ocrates. *ost of 'ocrates' doctrine is %nown to us only through (lato, who, as is well %nown, garnered some of the %nowledge dis!layed in his Dialogues form the teachings of (ythagoras. &t is thus extremely difficult to determine what comes from each of the three !hiloso!hers" what is attributed to (lato is often attributed to 'ocrates as well, and, among the theories brought forward, some !redate both of them and come from the school of (ythagoras, or from (ythagoras himself. &n truth, the origin of the saying in question goes bac% much further than the three !hiloso!hers here mentioned+ better yet, it is older that the history of !hiloso!hy, even !assing beyond the domain of !hiloso!hy. &t is said that this saying was inscribed over the door of the Tem!le of !ollo at ,el!hi. &t was ado!ted by 'ocrates, and li%ewise by other !hiloso!hers, as one of the !rinci!les of their teaching, des!ite the difference existing between these various teachings and the ends !ursued by their authors. &t is !robable moreover that (ythagoras had em!loyed this ex!ression long before 'ocrates. -y this saying these !hiloso!hers intended to show that their teaching was not strictly !ersonal, that it came from an older starting. !oint, from a more elevated !oint of view re/oining the very source of its

original ins!iration, which was s!ontaneous and divine. 0e note that in this these !hiloso!hers differed greatly from modern !hiloso!hers, who ex!end all their efforts in ex!ressing things anew so as to !resent them as the ex!ression of their own thought, and to !ose as the sole authors of their o!inions, as if truth could be the !ro!erty of one man. 0e shall now see why the ancient !hiloso!hers wished to attach their teaching to this saying, or to a similar one, and why it can be said that this maxim is of an order su!erior to all !hiloso!hy. To re!ly to the second !art of this question, then, let us say that the answer is contained in the original and etymological meaning of the word '!hiloso!hy', which is said to have been used for the first time by (ythagoras. The word '!hiloso!hy' !ro!erly ex!resses the fact of loving Sophia, or wisdom, the as!iration toward it or the dis!osition required for acquiring it. This word has always been used to signify a !re!aration for this acquisition of wisdom, and es!ecially such studies as could hel! the philosophos, or the man who felt some inclination toward wisdom, to become a sophos 1 that is, a sage. 'o, /ust as the means cannot be ta%en as an end, the love of wisdom cannot constitute wisdom itself. nd since wisdom in itself is identical with their inner %nowledge, it can be said that !hiloso!hical %nowledge is only a su!erficial and outward %nowledge. 2ence it does not have an inde!endent value in itself or by itself+ it constitutes only a first degree on the !ath of the su!erior and veritable %nowledge which is wisdom. Those who have studies the ancient !hiloso!hers %now well that these latter had two %inds of teaching, one exoteric and the other esoteric. 0hat had been written down belonged only to the first. s for the second, it is im!ossible for us to %now its !recise nature, for on the one hand it was reserved for a few, and on the other hand it had a secret character. There would have been no reason for these two characteristic had there not existed something higher than mere !hiloso!hy. 3ne may at least surmise that this esoteric teaching had a close and direct connection with wisdom, and that it did not only a!!eal to reason or to logic, as is the case with !hiloso!hy, which for this reason has been called rational %nowledge 1 the !hiloso!hers of antiquity maintained that rational %nowledge, that is, !hiloso!hy, is not the highest degree of %nowledge, is not wisdom. &t is !ossible that wisdom could be taught in the same way that exterior %nowledge is taught, through s!eech or through boo%s4 This is in fact im!ossible, as we shall shortly see. -ut what we can already affirm now is that !hiloso!hical !re!aration was not enough, even as !re!aration, for it concerns only the limited faculty of reason, whereas wisdom concerns the reality of the whole being. 2ence there exists a !re!aration for wisdom which is higher than !hiloso!hy, which no longer addresses itself to reason,

but to the soul and to the s!irit, and which we may call inner !re!aration+ and it a!!ears to have been the characteristic of the highest levels of the school of (ythagoras. &ts influence extended through the school of (lato right u! to the 5eo!latonism of the lexandrian school, where it clearly a!!ears anew, as well as among the 5eo.(ythagoreans of the same !eriod. &f words were still made use of in this inner !re!aration, they could now only be ta%en as symbols for the !ur!ose of focusing inner contem!lation. Through this !re!aration, man was led to certain states which enabled him to go beyond the rational %nowledge that he had attained earlier, and since all of this lay beyond the level of reason, it was also beyond !hiloso!hy, for the name '!hiloso!hy' is in fact always used to designate something !ertaining to reason alone. &t is nonetheless sur!rising that the moderns should have come to consider !hiloso!hy, thus defined, as if it were com!lete in itself, thus forgetting what is higher and su!erior. 6soteric teaching had been %nown in the lands of the 6ast before s!reading to Greece, where it received the name of 'mysteries'. The first !hiloso!hers, (ythagoras in !articular, had lin%ed their teaching to it, considering it as no more than a new ex!ression of ancient ideas. There were several %inds of mysteries, of diverse origin. Those which ins!ired (ythagoras and (lato were connected with the cult of !ollo. The 'mysteries' always had a reserved and secret character 1 the word 'mystery' itself has the etymological meaning of 'total silence' 1 since they were in connection with things that could not be ex!ressed in words, but could only be taught by a way of silence. -ut the moderns, %nowing of no method other than one im!lying the use of words, and which we may call the method of exoteric teaching, for this reason falsely believed that these 'mysteries' conveyed no teaching at all. 0e can affirm that this silent teaching made use of figures, symbols, and other means the !ur!ose of which was to lead man to certain interior states that would allow him gradually to attain real %nowledge or wisdom. This was the essential and final !ur!ose of all the 'mysteries' and of similar things found elsewhere. s for the 'mysteries' s!ecially connected with the cult of !ollo and with !ollo himself, it must be remembered that his latter was the god of the sun and of light 1 light in its s!iritual sense being the source whence all %nowledge s!rings forth and all the sciences and the arts derive. &t is said that the rites of !ollo came from the north, and this refers to a very ancient tradition also found in sacred boo%s li%e the 2indu Veda and the (ersian Avesta. This northern origin was affirmed even more s!ecially for ,el!hi, which was %nown as a universal s!iritual center+ and in its tem!le was a stone called omphalos, which symboli7ed the center of the world. &t is thought that the story of (ythagoras and even the name of

(ythagoras have a certain lin% with the rites of !ollo. The latter was called Pythios, and it is said that (ytho was the original name of ,el!hi. The woman who received ins!iration from the gods in the tem!le was called (ythia+ the name of (ythagoras therefore signified 'the guide of (ythia', which was a!!lied to !ollo himself. &t is also said that it was the (ythia who had declared 'ocrates to be the wisest of men. )rom this it a!!ears that 'ocrates had a lin% with the s!iritual center of ,el!hi, as did (ythagoras himself. 8et us add that although all the sciences were attributed to !ollo, this was more !articularly so for geometry and medicine. &n the (ythagorean school, geometry and all the branches of mathematics were foremost in the !re!aration for higher %nowledge. 0ith regard to this %nowledge itself, these sciences were not then set aside, but on the contrary remained in use as symbols of s!iritual truth. (lato also considered geometry as indis!ensable !re!aration for every other teaching and had these words inscribed over the entrance of his school+ '8et no one enter who is not a geometrician.' The meaning of these words can be understood when they are lin%ed to another of (lato's ex!ressions, 'God always geometri7es', if we add that in s!ea%ing of a geometer God (lato was again alluding to !ollo. 3ne should thus not be astonished that the !hiloso!hers of antiquity made use of the saying inscribed over the entrance to the tem!le of ,el!hi, for we now %now what lin%s bound them to the rites and to the symbolism of !ollo. )rom all of this we can easily understand the real meaning of the saying under consideration, as well as the error of the moderns on this sub/ect. This error arises from the fact that they have viewed the !hrase as a sim!le saying of a !hiloso!her, whose thought they always assume to be com!arable to their own. -ut in reality ancient thought differed !rofoundly from modern thought. Thus many !eo!le im!ute a !sychological meaning to this !hrase, but what they call !sychology consists only in the study of mental !henomena, which are no more than external modifications 1 and not the essence 1 of the being. 3thers, !articularly among those who attribute the !hrase to 'ocrates, see in it a moral goal, the search for a law a!!licable to !ractical life. ll these external inter!retations, though not entirely false, do not /ustify the sacred character it had originally, and which im!lies a much more !rofound meaning than the one they would thus li%e to attribute to it. The saying signifies first and foremost that no exoteric teaching is ca!able of !roviding true %nowledge, which man must find only within himself, for in fact no %nowledge can be acquired exce!t through a !ersonal com!rehension. 0ithout this com!rehension, no teaching can lead to an

effective result, and the teaching that awa%ens no !ersonal resonance in the one who receives it cannot give any %ind of %nowledge. This is why (lato says that 'everything that a man learns is already within him'. ll the ex!eriences, all the external things that surround him, are only an occasion to hel! him become aware of what is within himself. This awa%ening he calls anamnesis, which signifies 'recollection'. &f this is true for any %ind of %nowledge, it is all the more so for a more exalted and !rofound %nowledge, and, when man advances toward this %nowledge, all external and !erce!tible means become increasingly insufficient, until they finally become useless. lthough they can assist to some degree in the a!!roach to wisdom, they are !owerless in actually attaining it. &n &ndia it is commonly said that the true guru or master is found within man himself and not in the external world, although in the beginning an external aid can be useful to !re!are man to find within himself and by himself that which cannot be found elsewhere, and es!ecially what is above the level of rational %nowledge. &n order to attain this, it is necessary to reali7e certain states which go ever dee!er within the being, toward the center symboli7ed by the heart, and whither man's consciousness must be transferred in order to ma%e him ca!able of attaining real %nowledge. These states, which were reali7ed in the ancient mysteries, are degrees on the !ath of this trans!osition from the mind to the heart. s we said, in the tem!le of ,el!hi there was a stone called omphalos, which re!resented the center of the human being as well as the center of the world, in accordance with the corres!ondence existing between the macrocosm and the microcosm 1 that is to say, man 1 so that everything that is in the one is directly related to what is in the other. vicenna said" '9ou believe yourself to be nothingness, yet the world abides within you.' &t is curious to note the wides!read belief in antiquity that the om!halos had fallen from the s%y, and an accurate idea of the sentiment of the Gree%s regarding this stone can be had by saying it was somewhat similar to the sentiment *uslims feel with regard to the sacred blac% stone of the Kaaba. The similarity which exists between the macrocosm and the microcosm is such that each is the image of the other, and the corres!ondence of the constitutive elements shows that man must first of all %now himself so that he may then %now all things, for in truth, he can find all things within himself. &t is for this reason that certain sciences, es!ecially those which were a !art of ancient %nowledge and are now almost un%nown to our contem!oraries, !ossess a double meaning. &n their outward a!!earance, these sciences are related to the macrocosm, and can

/ustly be considered from this !oint of view. -ut at the same time they have also a dee!er meaning, which is related to man himself and to the inner !ath through which he can reali7e %nowledge within himself, a reali7ation which is none other than the reali7ation of his own being. ristotle has said" 'the being is all that it %nows', so much so that, where there is real %nowledge, and not its a!!earance or its shadow, %nowledge and being are one and the same thing. The shadow, according to (lato, is %nowledge through the senses and even rational %nowledge which, although higher, has its source in the senses. s for real %nowledge, it is above the level of reason, and its reali7ation, or the reali7ation of the being itself, is similar to the formation of the world, according to the corres!ondence which we have mentioned above. That is why certain sciences can describe it under the a!!earance of this formation+ this double meaning was included in the ancient mysteries, as it is also to be met with in all %inds of teachings having the same goal among the !eo!les of the 6ast. &t seems that in the 0est, too, this teaching existed throughout the *iddle ges, even though today it may have com!letely disa!!eared to the !oint that most 0esterners have no idea of its nature or even of its existence. )rom all that has been said, we see that real %nowledge is not based on the !ath of reason, but on the s!irit and the whole being, for it is non other than the reali7ation of this being in all its states, which is the culmination of %nowledge and the attainment of su!reme wisdom. &n reality, what belongs to the soul, and even to the s!irit, re!resent only degrees on the !ath toward the intimate essence that is the true self+ this self can be found only when the being has reached its own center, all its !owers being united and concentrated as in the single !oint in which all things a!!ear to it, since they are contained in this !oint as in their first and unique !rinci!le+ thus the being is able to %now everything as in itself and of itself, as the totality of existence in the oneness of its own essence. &t is easy to see how far this is from !sychology in the modern sense of the word, and that it goes even further than a truer and more !rofound %nowledge of the soul, which can only be the first ste! on this !ath. &t is im!ortant to note that the meaning of the rabic word nafs should not be limited here to the soul, for this word is found in the rabic translation of the saying in question, while its Gree% equivalent psyche does not a!!ear in the original. Nafs should therefore not be ta%en in its usual sense, for it is certain that it has another much higher significance, which ma%es it similar to the word essence, and which refers to the Self or to the real being+ as !roof of this, we can cite what has been said in a adth that is li%e a com!lement of the Gree% saying" '2e who %nows himself, %nows his 8ord'.

0hen man %nows himself in his dee!est essence, that is, in the center of his being, then at the same time he %nows his 8ord. nd %nowing his 8ord, he at the same time %nows all things, which come from 2im and return to 2im. 2e %nows all things in the su!reme oneness of the ,ivine (rinci!le, outside of which, according to the words of *uyi 'd.,:n &bn al.' rab:, 'there is absolutely nothing which exists', for nothing can be outside of the &nfinite.
El-Ma'rifa 1931

*&KR3T263'

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen