The Three Ways & The Initiatic FORMS
Ir is known that the Hindu tradition distinguishes three 'paths' (mārgas), which are, respectively, those of Karma, Bhakti, and Jūāna. We shall not go into the definition of these terms, which we suppose are sufficiently known to our readers; but before all else we shall specify that, since these terms correspond to three forms of Yoga, this essentially implies that all have or are susceptible of having a properly initiatic meaning. [1] Furthermore, it must be clearly understood that every distinction of this kind inevitably has always a certain 'schematic' and somewhat theoretical character, for spiritual 'paths' in fact vary indefinitely to suit the diversity of individual natures; and even in a very general classification like this it can only be a question of a predominance of one element over the others, without the others ever being entirely excluded. This case is like that of the gunas; beings are classified according to the guna that predominates in them, but it goes without saying that the nature of every manifested being nonetheless includes all the gunas at once, although in different proportions, for it is impossible that it should be otherwise with everything that proceeds from Prakriti. Besides, the connection that we are making between these two cases is more
than a mere comparison, and is all the more justified in that there really is a certain correlation between the two. Jñāna-mārga is obviously the path appropriate to sattvic beings, while Bhakti-mārga and Karma-mārga suit those whose nature is chiefly 'rajasic', but with different nuances; in a certain sense one could say that in the last there is something closer to tamas than there is in the previous path, but we must not push this consideration too far, for it is quite clear that beings of 'tamasic' nature are in no way qualified to follow any initiatic path at all.
Whatever the case with this last reservation, it is no less true that a connection exists between the respective characters of the three märgas and the constitutive elements of the being divided according to the ternary 'spirit, soul, body'. [2] In itself, pure Knowledge is of an essentially supra-individual order, that is to say in the final analysis spiritual, like the transcendent intellect to which it belongs; the clearly psychic character of Bhakti is evident, while Karma in all its modalities necessarily includes a certain activity of a corporeal order and, whatever the transpositions of which these terms are susceptible, something of this original nature must inevitably be found there. This fully confirms what we said concerning the correspondence with the gunas. The jñānic path, in these conditions, is obviously suited only to beings in whom the ascending tendency of sattva predominates and who, by this very fact, are predisposed to aim directly at the realization of higher states instead of waiting for a detailed development of individual possibilities; the two other paths, on the contrary, begin by appealing to properly individual elements, if only to transform them finally into something belonging to a higher order, and this indeed conforms to the nature of rajas, which is the tendency producing the expansion of the being on the level of individuality, which, it must not be forgotten, is composed of the totality of psychic and bodily elements. An immediate consequence of this is that the jñānic path refers more particularly to the 'greater mysteries' and the bhaktic and karmic paths to the
lesser mysteries'; in other words, this shows once again that it is only by Jñāna that one can attain the final goal, while Bhakti and Karma have rather a 'preparatory' role, for the corresponding paths lead only to a certain point but make possible the attainment of Knowledge for those whose nature would not have the aptitude for it directly and without such a preparation. Moreover, it should be understood that even for the primary stages there could of course be no effective initiation without a degree of real knowledge, even when, in the methods used, the 'accent' is put above all on the bhaktic or karmic element. But what we wish to emphasize is that in any case, beyond the limits of the individual state, there can be only a single and unique path which is necessarily that of pure Knowledge. Another consequence that we must also note is that, because of the connection of the bhaktic and karmic paths with the domain of individual possibilities and with the 'lesser mysteries', the distinction between the two is much less clear-cut than that with the jnanic path, something which must naturally be reflected in the relationships between the corresponding initiatic forms; we shall have to return to this point later in our account.
These considerations lead us to consider yet another relationship, that existing generally between the three märgas and the three 'twice-born' castes. It is moreover easy to understand why there must be such a relationship, since the distinction of castes is nothing else in principle than a classification of human beings according to their individual natures, and it is precisely in conformity with the diversity of these natures that there exists a plurality of paths. The Brahmins, being of a sattvic nature, are particularly qualified for Jñāna-mārga, and it is expressly said that they must strive as directly as possible toward a possession of the higher states of being; moreover, their very function in traditional society is essentially and before all else a function of knowledge. The two other castes, whose nature is principally rajasic, exercise functions that in themselves do not transcend the individual level and are oriented toward outward activity; [3] those of the Kshatriyas correspond to what one might call
the 'psyche' of the collectivity and those of the Vaishyas have as their object the different necessities of the corporeal order. From this, given what we said earlier, it results that the Kshatriyas are especially qualified for Bhakti-mārga and the Vaishyas for Karma-mārga, and in fact it is just this that can be discerned generally in the initiatic forms respectively intended for them. However there is an important remark to be made in this connection: if Karma-mārga is understood in its widest sense, it is defined by svadharma, that is, by each being's accomplishment of the function that conforms to its proper nature; one could then envisage this as applied to all the castes, although the term would be manifestly inappropriate with regard to the Brahmins, whose function is really beyond the domain of action. But it can at least be applied to both Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, although with different modalities, and this is an example of the difficulty, as we said earlier, of separating in an entirely clear way what is appropriate to the one or the other; and it is known that the Bhagavad Gītā describes a Karma-Yoga that is particularly intended for Kshatriyas. Despite this, it still remains true that, if the words are taken in their strictest sense, the initiations of the Kshatriyas present in their totality a particularly 'bhaktic' character, while those of the Vaishyas have a chiefly 'karmic' one; and this will shortly become clearer by an example taken from the initiatic forms of the Western world itself.
Indeed, it goes without saying that when we speak of the castes as we do here, referring primarily to the Hindu tradition for the convenience of our explanation and because it furnishes us with the most adequate terminology in this regard, what we say of them applies equally to everything that elsewhere corresponds in one form or another to these castes, for the main categories among which the individual natures of human beings are divided are always and everywhere the same, for the very reason that reduced to their principle they are nothing but a result of the respective predominance of the different gunas, which obviously applies to all of humanity inasmuch as it is a particular case of a law that is valid for the totality of universal manifestation. The only notable difference is in the greater or lesser proportion, according to conditions of time and place, of men who belong to each of these categories, and
who, if they are qualified to receive initiation, are consequently capable of following one or the other of the corresponding paths; [4] in the most extreme case it can happen that one of these paths might practically cease to exist in a given milieu when the number of those suited to follow it becomes insufficient to maintain a distinct initiatic form. [5] This is what happened notably in the West where, at least for a very long while, the aptitudes for knowledge have steadily become much rarer and less developed than the tendency toward action, which amounts to saying that in the entirety of the Western world, even among those who form the 'elite', if only a relative one, rajas greatly outweighs sattva. In addition, even as early as the Middle Ages one does not find clear indications of the existence of strictly jīanic initiatic forms which normally should have corresponded to sacerdotal initiation, this to the point that even the initiatic organizations which were most particularly linked to certain religious orders had a very strongly accentuated bhaktic character, as far as one can judge from the manner of expression most often used by those members who left written records. On the other hand, at this period one finds both chivalric initiation, the dominant character of which is obviously bhaktic, [6] and the craft initiations, which were karmic in the strictest sense, since they were essentially based on the effective exercise of a craft. It goes without saying that the first was a Kshatriya initiation and that the second were Vaishya initiations, taking the caste designations in the general sense just now explained; additionally, the links that have almost always existed in fact between these two categories, as we have often
noted elsewhere, are a confirmation of what we said above about the impossibility of separating them completely. Later, the bhaktic forms disappeared, and the only initiations which continue to exist today in the West are the craft initiations, or what were such originally; even when, because of particular circumstances, the practice of a craft is no longer required as a necessary condition for initiation, which can only be regarded as a diminishment if not an actual degeneration, this changes nothing with regard to the essential character of these initiations.
Now, if the exclusive existence in the present-day West of initiatic forms that can be qualified as karmic is an incontestable fact, it still is necessary to say that the interpretations occasioned by this fact are not always exempt from ambiguities and confusions, and this from more than one point of view; this, then, is what remains to be examined in order for our exposition to be as complete as possible. First of all, some have imagined that, because of their karmic character, Western initiations are in some way opposed to those of the East, which, according to this point of view, would all be strictly jñānic. [7] This is wholly incorrect, for the truth is that in the East all categories of initiatic forms co-exist, as is sufficiently proved by the teaching of Hinduism on the three märgas; if in the West, on the contrary, there no longer exists more than one, it is because the possibilities of that order have been reduced to a minimum. That the more and more exclusive predominance of the tendency to outer action is one of the principal causes of this situation is not in doubt; but it is no less true that despite the aggravation of this tendency, an initiation of some sort still exists, and to claim the contrary implies a serious misunderstanding of the real significance of the karmic path, as we shall soon see more precisely. Moreover, it is not admissible to want to turn what is only the effect of a single contingent situation into a question of principle, and to envisage things as if every Western initiatic form must necessarily be of the karmic type merely because it is Western. We believe there is no need to dwell further on this, for given everything we have said, it should be clear enough that such a
view cannot correspond to reality, which is obviously much more complex than it seems to suppose.
Another important point is this: the word Karma, when applied to a path or to an initiatic form, must be understood above all in its technical sense of 'ritual action'. In this regard it is easy to see that in every initiation there must be a certain karmic aspect, since it always essentially implies the accomplishment of particular rites; this also corresponds to what we said about the impossibility of any of the three paths existing in a pure state. Besides, and apart from rites properly speaking, every action, in order to be truly 'normal', that is to say conformable with 'order', must be 'ritualized', and, as we have often explained, each is effectively 'ritualized' in an integrally traditional civilization. Even in cases that one could call 'mixed', that is, where a certain degeneration has led to the introduction of the profane point of view and has allowed it a greater or lesser role in human activity, this still remains true at least for every action related to initiation, and it is notably so for everything having to do with the practice of a craft in the case of craft initiations. [8] It can be seen that this is as far as possible from the idea of a karmic path held by those who think that, because an initiatic organization presents a karmic character, it must involve itself more or less directly with an outer and wholly profane activity, as are inevitably in particular all 'social' activities in the conditions of the modern world. The reason invoked to support their conception is generally that such an organization has the duty to contribute to the well-being and betterment of humanity as a whole; this intention may be very praiseworthy in itself, but the way its realization is viewed remains no less erroneous, even if shorn of the 'progressivist' illusions too often associated with it. This is certainly not to say that an initiatic organization cannot propose for itself a secondary goal like those they have in mind, 'in addition' as it were, and on the condition that it never be confused with what constitutes its proper and essential goal; but then, to exercise an influence on its outer milieu without ceasing to be
what it must truly be, the organization must come up with wholly different means than those which such people doubtless believe to be the only ones possible, means that are much more 'subtle' but thereby only more efficacious. To claim the contrary is basically to misunderstand completely the value of what we have sometimes called an 'action of presence'; and this misunderstanding in the initiatic order is comparable to that regarding the role of the contemplative orders in the exoteric and religious framework also so widespread in our time; in the final analysis, both cases are a consequence of the same specifically modern mentality, for which everything that does not appear outwardly and that does not come under the senses is as if non-existent.
While we are on this subject, we shall add that there are also many misunderstandings on the nature of the two other paths, especially the bhaktic path, for, as regards the jñanic path, it is too difficult to confuse pure Knowledge, or even the traditional sciences that depend on it and that belong more properly to the domain of the 'lesser mysteries', with the speculations of philosophy and of profane science. By reason of its more strictly transcendent character, it is much easier to ignore this path completely than to denature it by false conceptions; and even the 'philosophical' travesties of certain orientalists, which retain absolutely nothing essential and reduce everything to the vain shadow-play of 'abstractions', are equivalent in fact to pure and simple ignorance and are too far removed from the truth to be able to give anyone the least notion of anything initiatic. As for Bhakti, the case is rather different, and here errors arise above all from a confusion of the initiatic sense of this term with its exoteric sense, which almost necessarily acquires in Western eyes a specifically religious and more or less 'mystical' aspect that it could never have in the Eastern traditions. This surely has nothing in common with initiation, and if it were really a question of nothing else, it is obvious that it could not constitute Bhakti-Yoga; but this leads us again to the question of mysticism and its essential differences with initiation.