DIRECT CONTEMPLATION & REFLECTED CONTEMPLATION
Once again we must return to the essential differences between metaphysical or initiatic realization and mystical realization, for certain people have asked the following question on this subject: if, as we shall explain later, contemplation is the highest form of activity, much more active in reality than anything arising from outward action, and if, as is generally admitted, there is also contemplation in the case of mystical states, is this something incompatible with the character of passivity inherent in mysticism? Moreover, once one speaks of contemplation both in the metaphysical and in the mystical order, it might seem that the two coincide in this respect, at least in a certain measure; or, if this is not so, are there then two kinds of contemplation?
Before all else it is appropriate to recall in this regard that there are many different degrees of mysticism and that the lower forms are not in question here, for with these one cannot really speak of contemplation in the true sense of the word. From this point of view we must set aside all that has a clearly 'phenomenal' character, that is to say, in sum, all those states where one encounters what the theoreticians of mysticism designate as 'sensible visions' and 'imaginary visions' (although the imagination belongs equally among the sensible faculties taken in the widest sense), states which they themselves consider to be inferior and which indeed they consider only with a certain mistrust, and with good reason, for it is evident that it
is here that illusion can most easily be introduced. There is no mystical contemplation properly speaking except in the case of what is called 'intellectual vision', which is of a much more 'interior' order and which only what might be called the higher mystics attain, to the point that it seems that this is in a way the result and the very goal of their realization; but do these mystics thereby effectively transcend the individual domain? This is what the question comes down to, for leaving aside the differences in methods that respectively characterize the initiatic and mystical paths, it is this alone that might justify as regards their goal a certain assimilation like that just mentioned. Of course there is no question of diminishing the extent of the qualitative differences within mysticism itself; but it is no less true that, even for what is highest in mysticism, this assimilation implies a confusion that must be dispelled.
Clearly, there are really two kinds of contemplation, which could be called direct contemplation and reflected contemplation. Just as the sun can be looked at directly or only in its reflection in the water, so spiritual realities can likewise be contemplated as they are in themselves or in their reflection in the individual domain. In both cases, one can indeed speak of contemplation, and in a certain sense it is even the same realities that are contemplated, just as it is the same sun that is seen directly or in its reflection; but it is no less evident that there is a very great difference between them. There is an even greater difference than one might at first think from the comparison just given, for the direct contemplation of spiritual realities necessarily implies that one rise to their own domain as it were, which presupposes a certain degree of realization of supraindividual states, a realization that can never be anything but essentially active. On the contrary, reflected contemplation implies only that one 'open oneself' to what 'spontaneously' presents itself (and which may also not present itself, for this is something that in no way depends on the will or initiative of the contemplative), and this is why there is nothing here that is incompatible with mystical passivity. Naturally, this does not prevent contemplation from always being, at one degree or another, a true interior activity; and besides, a state that is purely passive cannot even be conceived, for in a certain respect even mere sensation has something active about it; in
fact, pure passivity belongs only to materia prima and can never be found anywhere in manifestation. But the passivity of the mystic consists properly in the fact that he is limited to receiving what comes to him, and this indeed cannot fail to awaken in him a certain interior activity, which precisely constitutes his contemplation; but he is passive because he does nothing to go toward the realities that are the object of this contemplation, and this entails as consequence that he does not leave his individual state. In order that these realities become accessible to him, it is thus necessary that they descend so to speak into the individual domain or, if one prefers, that they be reflected there, as we have just said. This last way of speaking is moreover the most exact because it allows one better to understand that these spiritual realities are in no way affected by their apparent 'descent', any more than is the sun by the existence of its reflection.
Another particularly important point, which is very closely related to the preceding, is that mystical contemplation, by the very fact that it is indirect, never implies an identification but on the contrary always leaves the duality between subject and object. To tell the truth, it is in a way necessary that it be thus, for this duality forms an integral part of the religious point of view as such and, as we have often had the occasion to say, all mysticism properly belongs to the religious domain.[1] What can lead to confusion on this point is that the mystics readily use the word 'union', and that the contemplation in question belongs even more precisely to what they call the 'unitive life'; but this 'union' does not at all have the same meaning as Yoga or its equivalents, so that there is only a wholly outward similarity. It is not illegitimate to use the same word, for even in current language one speaks of union between beings in many different cases where there is obviously no degree of
identification between them, but it is always necessary to take the greatest care not to confuse different things under the pretext that a single word is used to designate them both. Let us again emphasize that in mysticism there is never any question of identification with the Principle, nor even with one of its 'non-supreme' aspects (which in any case would manifestly transcend possibilities of an individual order); and further, the union that is considered as the very end of the mystical life is always related to a principial manifestation envisaged solely in the human domain or in relation to it.[2]
It must be clearly understood, on the other hand, that the contemplation attained in initiatic realization includes many different degrees, so that it assuredly does not always go as far as identification; but in such cases it is regarded only as a preliminary step, a stage in the course of realization, and never as the highest goal to which initiation ought finally lead.[3] This should suffice to show that the two paths do not really lead to the same end, for one of them stops at what for the other is but a secondary stage; furthermore, even at this degree there is the great difference that in one of the two cases it is a reflection that is contemplated in itself and for itself, as it were, while in the other this reflection is taken only as the end-point of rays that must be followed in order to re-ascend from there to the very source of the light.