Is the Spirit IN THE Body OR THE Body IN THE SPIRIT?
The ordinary conception according to which the spirit is considered to be housed within the body cannot fail to seem very strange to anyone who possesses even the most elementary metaphysical knowledge, not only because the spirit cannot truly be 'localized', but because, even if this is only a more or less symbolic 'manner of speaking', it seems at first glance to imply a manifest illogicality and a reversal of normal relationships. Indeed, the spirit is no other than Ātmā, which is the principle of all states of the being, at all degrees of its manifestation. Now all things are necessarily contained in their principle, and they can in no way depart from it or enclose it within their own limits; it is therefore all the states of the being, and consequently also the body-which is merely a modality of one of these states-that must finally be contained in the spirit, and not the reverse. The 'lesser' cannot contain the 'greater', any more than it can produce it; and this principle is applicable at different levels, moreover, as we shall see later; but for the moment we are considering the most extreme case, that which concerns the relationship between the very principle of the being and the most restricted modality of its individual human manifestation. One might be tempted to conclude immediately that the current conception arises only from the ignorance of the great majority of men and merely corresponds to a simple error of language, which everyone repeats by force of habit and without reflection; but the
question is in fact not so simple, and this error, if it is one, has other causes which are much more profound than one might at first believe.
Of course, it must first of all be understood that the spatial image of 'container' and 'content' must never be taken literally, since only one of the two terms under consideration, the body, really possesses a spatial character, space itself being neither more nor less than one of the conditions proper to corporeal existence. The use of such spatial, as well as temporal, symbolism is nonetheless, as we have many times explained, not only legitimate but even inevitable, since we must use a language that belongs to corporeal man and is therefore itself subject to the conditions determining the existence of the latter as such; it suffices to never forget that anything not belonging to the corporeal world could by this very fact be neither in space nor in time.
On the other hand, it is of little importance to us that philosophers should have felt obliged to discuss such a question as that of the 'seat of the soul', apparently taking this in a completely literal sense; moreover, given the habitual confusion of modern Western language in this respect, what they call 'soul' could really be the spirit, at least to the degree that they conceive of this. It goes without saying that for us profane philosophers are certainly in no way distinct from the common run of people, and that their theories have no more value than mere public opinion; and so it is assuredly not their so-called 'problems' that could lead us to think that some sort of 'localization' of the spirit in the body could be anything other than a pure and simple error; but the traditional doctrines themselves show the insufficiency of leaving it at that, and the need for examining this subject more deeply.
Indeed, according to Hindu doctrine we know that jīvātmā, which is really Ātmā itself considered more particularly in relation to the human individuality, resides at the center of this individuality, and is designated symbolically as the heart. This is not of course to say that it is enclosed in the corporeal organ bearing this name, or even in the corresponding subtle organ, but it no less truly implies that it is in some way situated within the individuality, and even more precisely within its centermost part. Ātmā can in truth
be neither manifested nor individualized, nor, with all the more reason, can it be embodied; as jīvātmā, however, it appears to be individualized and embodied, an appearance that can obviously be only illusory with respect to Ātmā but nonetheless does exist from a certain point of view-the very point of view from which jīvātmā seems distinct from Ātmā, which is that of individual human manifestation. From this point of view, then, it can be said that the spirit is situated in the individual; and from the more particular point of view of the corporeal modality of the latter it can also be said that it is even situated in the body, on condition that this not be taken as a literal 'localization'. This manner of speaking is therefore not strictly an error but only the expression of an illusion that, although being such with respect to absolute reality, still corresponds to a certain degree of reality, that of the states of manifestation to which it relates; it only becomes an error when one tries to apply it to the total being, as if the principle of the latter could itself be affected or modified by one of its contingent states.
We have just made a distinction between the integral individuality and its corporeal modality, the former including all the subtle modalities as well; and in this regard we might add an observation that, although only accessory, will no doubt help with an understanding of what we chiefly have in view. For the ordinary man, whose consciousness is as it were 'awake' only in the corporeal modality, what is more or less dimly perceived of the subtle modalities appears to be contained within the body, this perception corresponding effectively only to their connections with the body and not to what they are in themselves. In reality, however, they cannot be thus contained in the body, and as it were confined by its limits, first of all because they are the immediate principle of the corporeal modality, and then again because they are susceptible of an incomparably greater extension by the very nature of the possibilities they comprise. Thus, when these modalities are effectively developed, they appear as 'prolongations' extending in all directions beyond the corporeal modality, which is thus as if entirely enveloped by them; for the one who has realized his integral individuality there is then a kind of 'reversal' in this regard, as compared with the point of view of the ordinary man. In the case we are considering, individual limitations have moreover not yet been surpassed, which is why we
spoke earlier of a possible application at different levels; by analogy it can now be understood that a 'reversal' also occurs in another order when the being passes to supra-individual realization. As long as the being has only attained Ātmā in its connection with the individuality, that is, as jīvātmā, Ātmā appears to be enclosed in this individuality, and cannot even appear otherwise to the individuality since the latter is incapable of passing beyond the limits of the individual condition; but when Ātmā is attained directly and as it is in itself, this same individuality, along with all the other states, individual or supra-individual, now appear on the contrary as contained in Ātmā-as in fact they are from the point of view of absolute reality, since they are nothing other than the very possibilities of Ātmā, outside of which nothing can truly be in any mode whatsoever.
In the preceding we explained the limits within which, from a relative point of view, it is true to say that the spirit is contained in the human individuality, or even in the body; and we also indicated the reason why this is so, a reason that in the final analysis inheres in the very condition of the being for which this point of view is legitimate and valid. But this is still not all, and it must be pointed out that the spirit is envisaged as located not only in the individuality generally, but at its central point, to which the heart corresponds in the corporeal order. This requires further explanations, which will allow us to link together the apparently opposing points of view that relate respectively to the relative and contingent reality of the individual, and the absolute reality of Ātmā. It is easy to understand that these considerations must rest essentially on the application of analogical inversion, an application that at the same time illustrates in a particularly clear way the precautions required in transposing spatial symbolism, since, contrary to what holds in the corporeal order, that is to say in space understood in its strict and literal sense, in the spiritual order it is the interior that envelops the exterior, and the center that contains all things.
One of the best 'illustrations' of analogical inversion is provided by the representation of the different heavens corresponding to the superior states of the being, by as many circles or concentric spheres, as is found in Dante for example. In this representation it seems at first that if the heavens are greater-that is, less limited-to the extent that they are higher, they are also more 'exterior' in the
sense that they are further from the center, the latter being constituted by the terrestrial world. This is the point of view of human individuality, represented precisely by the earth, and this point of view is true in a relative way insofar as this individuality is real in its own order and constitutes the starting-point from which the being must begin its ascent to higher states. But when the individuality is transcended, the 'reversal' we spoke of (and which is really a 'rectification' of the being) takes place, and the entire symbolic representation is as it were turned inside out: then the highest of all heavens is at the same time the most central since the universal center itself resides in it, and on the contrary it is now the terrestrial world that is located at the outermost periphery. In addition, it must be noted that in this 'reversal' of situation the circle corresponding to the highest heaven must nonetheless remain the greatest and must envelop all the others (as, according to Islamic tradition, the divine 'Throne' envelops all the worlds); it must be so, since in absolute reality it is the center that contains all. The impossibility of materially representing this point of view, where the greatest is at the same time the centermost, only illustrates the inevitable limitations to which geometrical symbolism is subject due to the fact that it is only a language borrowed from the spatial condition, that is, from one of the conditions proper to our corporeal world, and consequently linked exclusively to the other point of view, that of human individuality.
As concerns the center, it is clear from the inverse relationship between the true center (which is either that of the total being or of the Universe, depending on whether it is regarded from the 'microcosmic' or 'macrocosmic' point of view) and the center of the individuality or of its particular domain of existence how, as we have explained on other occasions, what is first and greatest in the principial order becomes in a certain way (without however being in any way altered or modified in itself) the last and the least in the order of appearances. [1] Continuing our use of spatial symbolism, this is finally the relationship of the geometrical point to what might be
called analogically the metaphysical point. This latter is the true primordial center, which contains within itself all possibilities, and is therefore what is greatest; having no 'location', because nothing can contain or limit it, all things are on the contrary located with respect to it (and it goes without saying that this again must be understood symbolically, since it is not a question of spatial possibilities alone). As for the geometrical point, which is located in space, it is evidently even in the literal sense the smallest of things since it is without dimension, that is, strictly speaking occupies no extension at all; but this spatial 'naught' corresponds directly to the metaphysical 'all', and it could be said that these are the two extreme aspects of indivisibility, envisaged respectively in the principle and in manifestation. As concerns the 'first' and the 'last', it suffices to recall here what we explained earlier, that the highest point has its direct reflection in the lowest; and to this spatial symbolism can be added a temporal symbolism, according to which the first in the principial domain, and consequently in 'no-time', appears as the last in the development of manifestation. [2]
It is easy to apply all this to what we considered at the outset: it is indeed the spirit (Ātmā) that is truly the universal center containing all things; [3] but when reflected in human manifestation it thereby appears as 'localized' at the center of the individuality, and even, more precisely, at the center of its corporeal modality, for this latter is the terminus of human manifestation and is therefore also its 'central' modality, so that with respect to the individuality this center is indeed the direct reflection and representation of the universal
center. This reflection is assuredly only an appearance, as is individual manifestation itself; but as long as a being is limited by individual conditions, this appearance is reality for it, and it cannot be otherwise since this reality is of exactly the same order as its present consciousness. It is only when a being has gone beyond these limits that the other point of view becomes real for it, just as it is (and always has been) absolutely; its center is thenceforth in the universal, and the individuality (and even more so the body) is only one of the possibilities contained in this center; and by the 'reversal' so effected, the true relationships among things are re-established, such as they never ceased to be for the principial being.
We will add that this 'reversal' is closely connected with what kabbalistic symbolism calls the 'displacement of lights', and also with the saying that Islamic tradition puts in the mouth of the awliya: 'Our bodies are our spirits and our spirits are our bodies' (ajsāmnā arwāhnā, wa arwāhnā ajsmānā), which indicates not only that all the elements of the being are wholly unified in the 'Supreme Identity', but also that the 'hidden' has become the 'visible', and inversely. Also, according to Islamic tradition, the being that has passed to the other side of the barzakh is in some way the opposite of ordinary beings (and this again is a strict application of inversion analogous to that of Universal Man and individual man): 'If he walks on sand he leaves no trace; if he walks on rock his feet leave their imprint. [4] If he stands in the sun he projects no shadow; in darkness a light emanates from him. [5]