Ascending & Descending Realization
In the total realization of the being, there is good reason to look at the union of the two aspects which, in a way, correspond to two phases of this realization, one 'ascending' and the other 'descending'. Consideration of the first phase in which a being, starting from a certain state of manifestation, ascends to identification with its unmanifested principle, cannot raise any difficulty, since it is universally and expressly indicated as the process and essential goal of all initiation, this latter ending at the 'emergence from the cosmos', as we have explained in previous articles, and, consequently, to liberation from the limiting conditions of every particular state of existence. On the contrary, concerning the second phase of 'redescent' into the manifested, it seems that it is rarely spoken of, and in most cases in a less explicit way, sometimes even with a certain hesitancy and reserve which the explanations given below will allow one to understand. Doubtless this is why misunderstandings easily arise, so that one either wrongly regards this way of envisaging things as more or less exceptional, or is mistaken as to the real character of the 'redescent' involved.
First of all we will consider what could be called the question of principle, that is, the very reason why every traditional doctrine, provided that it is presented in a truly complete form, cannot, in reality, view things otherwise, and this can be understood without difficulty if one refers back to the teaching of the Vedānta on the four states of Ātmā, as they are specifically described particularly in
the Mändūkya Upanishad. [1] Indeed, it is not only the three states represented in the human being by wakefulness, dream, and deep sleep, that correspond respectively to corporeal manifestation, subtle manifestation, and the unmanifested itself; but beyond the three states, therefore beyond the unmanifested, is a fourth, which may be called 'neither manifested nor unmanifested', since it is the principle of both, but which also, because of that, includes both the manifested and the unmanifested. Now, although the being really attains its own 'Self' in the third state, that of the unmanifested, the ultimate end is not this state, but the fourth, in which alone the 'Supreme Identity' is fully realized, for Brahma is at once both 'being and non-being' (sadasat), 'manifested and non-manifested' (vyaktāvyaktah), 'sound and silence' (shabdāshabda), without which It would not truly be absolute Totality; and if realization were to stop at the third state, it would involve only the second of the two aspects, that which language can express only in a negative form. Thus, as A.K. Coomaraswamy said in a recent study:
While one must have gone beyond the Manifested (Sun) [which is represented by the passage 'beyond the Sun'] to reach the unmanifested (Darkness [understood in its higher sense]), the Person and last end lies beyond the Unmanifested; one has not reached the end of the road until one knows Him [Ātmā] as Manifested and Unmanifested (vyaktāvyaktah), [2]
so that to reach this end, it is necessary to pass 'beyond the darkness', or, as expressed in certain texts, 'to see the other aspect of darkness'. Otherwise, Ātmā can 'shine' in itself, but does not 'radiate'; it is identical to Brahma, but in a single nature, not in the double nature which is included in His unique essence. [3]
Here it is necessary to anticipate a possible objection: it could be pointed out that there is no common measure between the manifested and the unmanifested, so that the first is as nothing beside the second, and, moreover, that the unmanifested, already being in
itself the principle of the manifested, must consequently contain it in some way. All of this is perfectly true, but it is no less true that the manifested and the unmanifested, so long as they are envisaged thus, still appear in a way as two terms between which there exists an opposition, and this opposition, even if it is only illusory (as moreover all opposition basically is) must nonetheless ultimately be resolved; now it cannot be so except by passing beyond one or other of its two limits. Furthermore, if the manifested cannot be called real in the absolute sense of the word, it nevertheless possesses within itself a certain reality, relative and contingent no doubt, but a reality to some degree, since it is not pure nothingness, which would after all be inconceivable, for that would exclude it from universal Possibility. Therefore one cannot finally say that the manifested is strictly negligible, although it may seem so with respect to the unmanifested, and that this may even be one of the reasons why what relates to it in realization can sometimes be less conspicuous, as if expelled to the darkness. Finally, if the manifested is in principle included in the unmanifested, it is as the totality of the possibilities of manifestation, but not as the effectively manifested. In order that manifestation also be included in this last respect, we must, as we said, return to the principle common to the manifested and the unmanifested, which is truly the supreme Principle from which everything proceeds and within which everything is reconciled; and as will be more plainly seen in what follows, this has to be so for there to be full and total realization of the 'Universal Man'.
Another question now arises: from what we have just said, it is a case of different stages in the course of one and the same way, or more accurately, of one stage and of the final end of that way, and it is quite evident that it must indeed be so, since it is the realization which is thereby carried on to its ultimate conclusion. But in all this how can we speak, as we did at first, of an 'ascending' phase and a 'descending' phase? It goes without saying that if both representations are legitimate they must relate to different points of view in order not to be contradictory. However, before seeing how they can effectively be reconciled, we can already note that in any case, reconciliation is possible only on condition that the 'redescent' is not in any way conceived as a sort of 'regression' or 'turning back', which
would moreover also be incompatible with the fact that everything acquired by the being in the course of initiatic realization is so in a permanent and definitive way. Thus, there is nothing here comparable to what happens in the case of transitory 'mystical states' such as 'ecstasy', after which the being again finds itself purely and simply in terrestrial human existence, with all the individual limitations that condition it, and in its present consciousness, retaining only an indirect and always more or less imperfect reflection of these states. [4] It is hardly necessary to say that the 'redescent' in question is not comparable to what is designated as the 'descent into Hell'. The latter, as is known, takes place prior to the beginning of the actual initiatic process, and in exhausting certain inferior possibilities of the being, it plays a 'purifying' role which would manifestly no longer have any raison d'être later on, especially on the level referred to in the present discussion. So as not to pass over in silence any possible misunderstanding, let us further add that there is absolutely nothing in common there with what could be called a 'backwards realization', which would have meaning only if it took this 'descending' direction starting from the human state, but the direction of which would then be properly 'infernal' or 'satanic', and consequently could only arise from the domain of the 'counter-initiation. [5]
That said, it becomes easy to understand that the point of view from which the realization in its entirety appears as the traversing of a way that is so to speak 'rectilinear' is that of the very being that is accomplishing it, since for that being there could never be any question of going backwards and returning to the conditions of one of
the states it has already surpassed. As for the point of view from which this same realization takes on the aspect of the 'ascending' and 'descending' phases, it is merely that from which the realization can appear to other beings who view it while themselves remaining in the conditions of the manifested world. However, it may still be asked how a continuous movement can thus take on, even outwardly, the appearance of a unity of two movements succeeding one another in opposite directions. Now there exists a geometric representation which allows one to get as clear an idea of this as possible: if we consider a circle placed vertically, the course of one of the halves of the circumference will be 'ascending', and that of the other half 'descending', without the movement ever ceasing to be continuous. Moreover, in the course of that movement there is no 'turning back', since it does not again pass through the part of the circumference which it has already traversed. Here we have a complete cycle, but if we remember that truly closed cycles cannot exist, as we have explained on other occasions, we realize by that very fact that it is only in appearance that the end-point coincides with the startingpoint or, in other words, that the being returns to the manifested state from which it had started (an appearance which exists for others, but which is in no way the 'reality' of this being). Moreover, this consideration of the cycle is all the more natural here in that what is involved has its exact 'macrocosmic' correspondence in the two phases of 'inhalation' and 'exhalation' of universal manifestation. Finally, it can be noted that a straight line is the 'limit', in the mathematical sense of the word, of a circumference which increases indefinitely. The distance traversed in the realization (or rather what is represented by a distance when spatial symbolism is used) being truly beyond all assignable measure, there is in reality no difference in the length of the circumference of which we spoke previously and that of an axis which remains vertical in all its successive parts; and this completes the reconciliation of the representations corresponding respectively to the 'interior' and 'exterior' points of view which have been differentiated.
By these diverse considerations, it may now be thought possible to understand sufficiently the true character of the apparently descending phase; but regarding the initiatic hierarchy, the question
still remains as to what the difference can be between the realization arrested at the 'ascending' phase and that which in addition includes the 'descending' phase; it is this above all which will have to be examined in what follows.
While the being remaining in the unmanifested has accomplished realization solely 'for itself', the one that later 'redescends' in the sense previously made clear, has from then on, with respect to manifestation, a role that expresses the symbolism of the solar 'radiation' by which all things are illuminated. In the first case, as we have already said, Ātmā 'shines' without 'radiating'. However, here it is necessary to dispel yet another misunderstanding. In this regard we speak too frequently of an 'egoistical' realization, which is veritable nonsense, since there is no longer any ego, that is, individuality, the limitations constituting the latter having necessarily been abolished in definitive fashion, in order that the being may be able to 'establish itself' in the unmanifested. Such a misunderstanding evidently implies a gross confusion between the Self and the 'ego'. We said that this being has achieved realization 'for itself', and not 'for himself', and this is not a simple question of language, but a distinction that is altogether essential as to the very root of what is in question. That said, there nonetheless remains a difference between the two cases, the true importance of which can be better understood by referring to the way in which various traditions envisage the states that correspond to each, for even if the 'descending' realization as a phase of the initiatic process is generally indicated only in a more or less veiled way, one can nevertheless easily find examples where it is clearly taken for granted without any possible doubt.
First of all, to take perhaps the best known if not generally the best understood example, the difference in question is finally that which exists between the Pratyēka-Buddha and the Bodhisattva. [6] In this regard, it is particularly important to note that the way which has the first of these two states as its end is designated as a 'small way' or, if one wishes, a 'lesser way' (hinayāna), thus implying that it is not exempt from a certain restrictive character, whereas the one
leading to the second state is considered to be truly the 'greater way' (mahāyāna), and therefore the one that is complete and perfect in all respects. This allows us to answer the objection which could arise from the fact that in a general way the state of Buddha is regarded as superior to that of Bodhisattva. In the case of the Pratyēka-Buddha, that superiority can only be apparent, and it is due above all to the character of 'impassiveness' which, apparently, the Bodhisattva does not have; we say 'apparently' because it is necessary to differentiate between the 'reality' of the being and the role it has to play with respect to the manifested world, or in other words, between what it is in itself and what it appears to be for ordinary beings. Moreover, we will find the same distinction to be made in cases belonging to other traditions. It is true that, exoterically, the Bodhisattva is represented as having yet one last stage to cross in order to attain the state of a perfect Buddha, but if we say exoterically, it is precisely because it corresponds to the way things appear when they are viewed from the outside. It is necessary that it should be so in order that the Bodhisattva may fulfill his function insofar as this is to show the way to other beings: he is 'the one who went this way' (tathā-gata), and this is the way they must go who, like him, are able to attain the supreme goal. Thus it is necessary that in order to be truly 'exemplary', the very existence in which he accomplishes his 'mission' should be presented in some manner as a recapitulation of the way. As for claiming that it is really a case of a still imperfect state or of a lesser degree of realization, this is to lose sight entirely of the 'transcendent' aspect of the being of the Bodhisattva. This is perhaps in conformity with certain current 'rational' interpretations, but it renders perfectly incomprehensible all the symbolism concerning the life of the Bodhisattva which confers upon him from his very beginning a properly 'avataric' character, that is, shows it effectively as a 'descent' (this is the correct meaning of the word avatāra) by which a principle, or a being representing the latter because identified with it, is manifested in the exterior world, which obviously is in no way able to alter the immutability of the principle as such. [7]
[7]
What we have said above has to a very large extent its equivalent in the Islamic tradition, taking into account the difference in the points of view which are naturally proper to each of the diverse traditional forms; and this equivalent is found in the distinction made between the case of the walī [saint] and that of the nabī [prophet]. A being can be a walī only 'for himself', if one is thus permitted to express oneself, without manifesting anything of it on the exterior, while a nabī, on the contrary, is only such because he has a function to fulfill with regard to other beings; and this is true for all the more reason of the rasūl, who is also a nabī, but whose function bears a character of universality, while that of the simple nabī can be more or less limited in respect of its extent and proper goal. [8] It could even seem that the apparent ambiguity that we saw just now regarding the Bodhisattva should not exist here since the superiority of the nabī with respect to the walī is generally admitted and even regarded as evident; and yet, it has sometimes been maintained that the 'station' (maqām) of the walī is, in itself, higher than that of the nabī, because it essentially implies a state of 'divine proximity', whereas the nabī, by his very function, is necessarily turned toward creation. Here again, this is to see only one of the two faces of the reality, the exterior, and not to understand that it represents one aspect which is added to the other without in any way destroying or
even really affecting it. [9] Indeed, the condition of the nabī implies first of all in itself that of the walī, but it is at the same time something more; thus in the case of the walī there is a sort of 'lack' in a certain respect, not as to his intimate nature, but as to what could be called his degree of universalization, a 'lack' which corresponds to what we said concerning the being that stops at the stage of the unmanifested without 'redescending' toward manifestation. The universality attains its effective plenitude in the rasūl, who is thus truly and totally 'Universal Man'.
In cases such as those just cited, one can see clearly that with regard to manifestation the being that 'redescends' has a function of which the somewhat exceptional character clearly shows that it does not find itself back in a condition comparable to that of ordinary beings. Thus these cases are those of beings whom one could describe as charged with a 'mission' in the true sense of the word. In a certain sense, one can also say that every manifested being has its 'mission', if by this one simply understands that it must occupy its proper place in the world and that it is thus a necessary element of the totality of which it is a part; but it goes without saying that it is not understood in this way here, but rather as a 'mission' of an altogether different scope, proceeding directly from a principial and transcendent order and expressing something of that same order in the manifested world. As the 'redescent' presupposes the previous ascent, such a 'mission' necessarily presupposes perfect inner realization. It is useful to emphasize this, especially at a time when many people too easily imagine themselves to have more or less extraordinary 'missions', which, lacking this essential condition, can only be pure illusions.
Even after all the considerations put forward so far, we must still discuss one aspect of the 'redescent' which in many cases seems to
explain the fact that this subject is passed over in silence or surrounded by reticence, as if there were something there of which one were loathe to speak clearly: what is involved is what could be called its 'sacrificial' aspect. It must be clearly understood that here the word 'sacrifice' is not used in the simply 'moral' sense commonly given to it, and which is only one of the examples of the degeneration of modern language, diminishing and misrepresenting all things in order to reduce them to a purely human level and make them fit within the conventional frameworks of 'ordinary life'. On the contrary, we take this word in its true and original sense, with all that it includes that is effectively and even essentially 'technical'. Indeed, it goes without saying that the role of beings such as those in the case previously cited could not have anything in common with 'altruism', 'humanitarianism', 'philanthropy', and other 'ideal' platitudes extolled by moralists, which are not only too evidently lacking in any transcendent or supra-human character, but are even perfectly within reach of any profane person who comes along. [10]
The being having realized its identity with Ātmā and its 'redescent' into manifestation (or what appears as such from the point of view of the latter, but which is effectively only the full universalization of that very identity), is then none other than 'Ātmā incorporated into the worlds'. This amounts to saying that for it the 'redescent' is in reality nothing different from the very process of universal manifestation. Now, this process is often traditionally described as a 'sacrifice'; in the Vedic symbol, it is the sacrifice of Mahāpurusha, that is of 'Universal Man', with whom, according to what we have already said, the being in question is effectively identical. Not only must this primordial sacrifice be understood in the
strictly ritual sense, and not in a more or less vaguely 'metaphorical' sense, but it is essentially the very prototype of every sacrificial rite. [11]
The one charged with a 'mission', in the sense we gave this word previously, is thus literally a 'victim'; moreover, it is clearly understood that generally speaking this in no way implies that his life must end by a violent death, since in reality it is that same life in its entirety which is already the consequence of sacrifice. [12] It can immediately be noted that here we have the profound explanation of the hesitations and 'temptations' which in all traditional accounts, whatever the more particular form they assume according to the case, are attributed to Prophets, and even to Avatāras, when they are in some way brought face to face with the 'mission' they have to accomplish. Fundamentally, these hesitations are none other than those of Agni to accept becoming the driver of the 'cosmic chariot, [13] as Coomaraswamy says in the study already cited, thus linking all these cases to that of the 'eternal Avatāra' with whom they are but one in their most inner 'truth'; and assuredly, the temptation to remain in the 'night' of the unmanifested can be understood
without any difficulty, for none would contest that in this superior sense, 'night is better than day'. [14] With good reason, Coomaraswamy thereby also explains the fact that Shankarāchārya always visibly strives to avoid consideration of the 'redescent', even when commenting on texts where it is clearly implied. Indeed, in a case like this it would be absurd to attribute such an attitude to a lack of knowledge or to an incomprehension of the doctrine; and therefore it can only be understood as a sort of recoiling before the perspective of 'sacrifice', and consequently, as a conscious desire not to lift the veil which conceals 'the other face of darkness'; and to generalize from what we were just saying, this is the principal reason for the customary discretion on this question. [15] Moreover, one can add as a secondary reason the danger that this poorly-understood idea might serve as a pretext for some people who, by deluding themselves as to its true nature, justify a desire to 'remain in the world'; but in reality it is not a matter of remaining there, but, what is completely different, of returning to it after having already left it, and this previous 'going out' is possible only for the being in whom there no longer subsists any desire, nor any other individual attachment whatsoever. One must be very careful not to be mistaken on this essential point, for otherwise there is the risk of seeing no difference between ultimate realization and a simple beginning of realization arrested at a stage that has not even surpassed the limits of individuality.
Now, to return to the idea of sacrifice, we must add that it includes yet another aspect, the very one directly expressed by the
etymology of the word, which is properly sacrum facere, that is, 'to render sacred' the object of the sacrifice. This aspect is no less appropriate here than is the one considered more ordinarily, which is the aspect we had in view at the beginning when we spoke of the 'victim' as such. Indeed, it is the sacrifice that confers a 'sacred' character, in the most complete sense of the term, upon those invested with a 'mission'. Not only is this character evidently inherent to the function of which their sacrifice is truly the investiture; but morefor this is also implied in the original sense of the word 'sacred'-it is what makes of them beings 'set apart', that is, essentially different both from the generality of manifested beings and from those which, having attained realization of the 'Self', remain purely and simply in the unmanifested. Their action, even when outwardly similar to that of ordinary beings, in reality has no connection with them going beyond simple outward appearance; in its 'truth' it is necessarily incomprehensible to individual faculties, for it proceeds directly from the inexpressible. This character again clearly shows that, as has already been said, it is a question of exceptional cases, and in fact those in the human state invested with a 'mission' are assuredly only a tiny minority with respect to the immense multitude of beings who could not lay claim to such a role. On the other hand, since the states of being are of an indefinite multiplicity, what reason can there be which would prevent admitting that, in one state or another, every being has the possibility of reaching this supreme degree of the spiritual hierarchy?