ALLTHE constituent elements of a rite have necessarily a symbolic sense, while on the other hand a symbol itself in its commonest acceptation, as a support for meditation, is destined essentially to give results that are exactly comparable to the results of rites. Let us add that when it is a matter of truly traditional rites and symbols (and ones that are not so do not deserve the name at all, but are really only counterfeits or even parodies), their origins in either case are equally "nonhuman"; thus the general impossibility of assigning them any definite author or inventor is not due to ignorance as profane historians may suppose, [NA: If for want of a better solution they are not driven to look on them as the product of a sort of "collective consciousness," which if it even existed would in any case be quite incapable of producing things of a transcendent order such as these.] but it is a natural consequence of these origins, which can be questioned only by people who are wholly unaware of the true nature of tradition and of everything that is integrally bound up with it, as both rites and symbols clearly are. Essays: Rites and Symbols