19
The Limits of History and Geography
It has already been indicated that, because of the qualitative differences between different periods of time, for example between the various phases of a cycle such as our own Manvantara (it being obvious that outside the limits of the duration of the present humanity conditions must be still more different), changes come about in the cosmic environment generally, and more especially in the terrestrial environment that concerns us most directly; and also that profane science, with its horizon bounded by the modern world in which alone it had its birth, can form no sort of idea of these changes. The result is that, whatever epoch science may have in view, it pictures to itself a world in which conditions are assumed to be similar to those of today. We have seen that the psychologists imagine in the same way that man has always in the past had a mentality similar to that of today; and what is true in this respect of the psychologists is no less true of the historians, who assess the actions of the men of antiquity or of the Middle Ages exactly as they would assess those of their own contemporaries, attributing to each the same motives and the same intentions. Thus, whether man or his environment be in view, it is evident that those simplified and ‘uniformizing’ conceptions that correspond so well with present-day tendencies are being brought into play: as for knowing how this ‘uniformization’ of the past can be reconciled with the ‘progressivist’ and ‘evolutionist’ theories that are simultaneously adhered to by the same individuals, that is a problem the solution of which will certainly not be attempted here; it is no doubt only one more example of the endless contradictions of the modern mentality.
In speaking of changes in the environment, the intention is not to allude only to the more or less extensive cataclysms that in one way or another mark the ‘critical points’ of the cycle; these are abrupt changes corresponding to real ruptures of equilibrium, and even in cases where for example it is only a question of the disappearance of a single continent (and such events have in fact occurred in the course of the history of our present humanity), it is easy to see that the terrestrial environment in its entirety must nevertheless be affected by the repercussions of any such event, and that the ‘face of the world’, so to speak, must thereby be markedly changed. But there are in addition continuous and imperceptible modifications which, within a period free from any cataclysm, produce bit by bit results that in the end are scarcely less impressive; these are not of course only simple ‘geological’ modifications as understood by profane science, and it is incidentally an error to consider the cataclysms from this narrow point of view alone, since it is always restricted to whatever is most exterior; what is in view here is something much more profound, bearing on the conditions of the environment themselves in such a way that, even if no account were taken of geological phenomena as being no more than details of secondary importance, beings and things would nonetheless be really changed. As for the artificial modifications produced by man’s intervention, they are after all only consequential, because, as previously explained, nothing but the special conditions of this or that period could make them possible; if man can indeed act on his surroundings in some more profound way, it is rather psychically than corporally that he can do so, as may be well enough understood from what has been said about the effects of the materialistic attitude.
The explanations given hitherto make it easy now to understand the general direction in which such changes take place: this direction has been designated as that of the ‘solidification’ of the world, conferring on all things an aspect corresponding ever more closely (though never really corresponding exactly) to the way in which things appear according to quantitative, mechanistic, or materialistic conceptions; and this is why modern science succeeds in its practical applications, as indicated above, and also why the surrounding reality does not seem to give the lie to it too strikingly. Such could not have been the case in earlier periods, when the world was not so ‘solid’ as it has become today, and when the corporeal and subtle modalities of the individual domain were not as completely separated (although, as we shall see later, certain reservations must even in the present state of affairs be made with respect to that separation). It was not only that man, whose faculties were then much less narrowly limited, did not see the world with eyes that were the same as those of today, and perceived many things which since then have escaped him entirely; but also, and correlatively, the world itself, as a cosmic entity, was indeed qualitatively different, because possibilities of another order were reflected in the corporeal domain and in a sense ‘transfigured’ it; thus, for example, when certain ‘legends’ say that there was a time when precious stones were as common as the most ordinary pebbles are now, the statement need not perhaps be taken only in a purely symbolical sense. The symbolical sense is of course always there in such a case, but this does not imply that it is the only valid sense, for everything manifested is itself necessarily a symbol in relation to some superior reality; it seems unnecessary to insist on this point, which has been adequately explained elsewhere, both in a general way, and as it concerns particular cases such as the symbolic value of the facts of history and geography.
Before going any further, an objection that may arise in connection with the qualitative changes in the ‘face of the world’ must be met. It may perhaps be argued that, if things were so, the vestiges of bygone periods which are all the time being discovered ought to provide evidence of the fact, whereas, leaving ‘geological’ epochs out of consideration and keeping to matters that affect human history, archaeologists and even ‘prehistorians’ never find anything of the kind, however far their researches may be carried into the past. The answer is really very simple: first of all, these vestiges, in the state in which they are found today and inasmuch as they are consequently part of the existing environment, have inevitably participated, like everything else, in the ‘solidification’ of the world; if they had not done so their existence would no longer be compatible with the prevailing conditions and they would have completely disappeared, and this no doubt is what has happened to many things which have not left the smallest trace. Next, the archaeologists examine these vestiges with modern eyes, which only perceive the coarsest modality of manifestation, so that even if, in spite of all, something more subtle has remained attached to the vestiges, the archaeologists are certainly quite incapable of becoming aware of it; in short, they treat these things as the mechanical physicists treat the things they have to deal with, because their mentality is the same and their faculties are equally limited. It is said that when a treasure is sought for by a person for whom, for one reason or another, it is not destined, the gold and precious stones are changed for him into coal and common pebbles; modern lovers of excavations might well turn this particular ‘legend’ to their profit!