22 FINAL DELIVERANCE
'Deliverance' (Moksha or Mukti), that is to say that final liberation of the being of which we have just spoken and which is the ultimate goal toward which the being tends, differs absolutely from all states which that being may have passed through in order to reach it, since it is the attainment of the supreme and unconditioned state, whereas all the other states, no matter how exalted, are still conditioned, that is to say subject to certain limitations which define them, making them to be what they are and characterizing them as determinate states. These remarks apply to the supra-individual states as well as to the individual states, in spite of the differences in their respective conditions; and even the degree of pure Being itself, although it is beyond all existence in the strict sense of the word, namely beyond all manifestation both formless and formal, still implies a determination, which, though primordial and principial, is nonetheless already a limitation. It is through Being that all things in every mode of universal existence subsist, and Being subsists through itself; it determines all the states of which it is the principle and is only determined by itself; but to determine oneself is nonetheless to be determined and therefore limited in some respect, so that Infinity cannot be attributed to Being, which must under no circumstances be regarded as the Supreme Principle. It is here that one may observe the metaphysical incompleteness of the Western doctrines, even of those, it must be admitted, in which some degree of true metaphysics is nevertheless present: [1] stopping
short at Being, they remain incomplete even theoretically (without referring to realization, which they leave out of account altogether), and, as usually happens in such cases, they exhibit an undesirable tendency to deny that which lies outside their sphere and which, from the viewpoint of pure metaphysics, is precisely the most important part of all.
The acquisition or, to speak more accurately, the taking possession of higher states, whatever their nature, is thus only a partial, secondary, and contingent result; and although this result may appear immense by comparison with the individual human state (and above all by comparison with the corporeal state, the only one effectively possessed by ordinary people during their earthly existence), it is nonetheless true that, in itself, it amounts strictly to nothing in relation to the supreme state, since the finite, while becoming indefinite through the extensions of which it is capable, that is to say through the development of its own possibilities, always remains nothing in comparison with the Infinite. Ultimately, therefore, a result of this kind is only of value by way of preparation for 'Union', that is to say it is still only a means and not an end; to mistake it for the end is to continue in illusion, since all the states in question, up to and including Being, are themselves illusory in the sense we have attributed to that word from the beginning. Besides, in any state where some form of distinction remains, that is to say in all the degrees of Existence, including those not belonging to the individual order, it is impossible for the universalization of the being to become effective; and even union with Universal Being, according to the mode in which it is accomplished in the condition
[0]
of metaphysics; and the above statement is as true of conceptions of a pseudometaphysical stamp as of those in which the negation is frankly expressed. Naturally, our present remarks only apply to doctrines that are known to the 'profane' world, and do not refer to the esoteric traditions of the West, which, so long at least as they possessed a character that was genuinely and fully 'initiatic', could not be limited in this way, but must on the contrary have been metaphysically complete under the twofold heading of theory and realization; these traditions however have never been known to any but an elite far more restricted in numbers than in the Eastern countries.
of Prājña (or in the posthumous state corresponding to that condition), is not 'Union' in the full sense of the word; were it so, the return to a cycle of manifestation, even in the formless order, would no longer be possible. It is true that Being is beyond all distinction, since the first distinction is that of 'essence' and 'substance' or of Purusha and Prakriti; nevertheless, Brahma, as Ishvara or Universal Being, is described as savishesha, that is to say as 'implying distinction', since He is the immediate determining principle of distinction: only the unconditioned state of Ātmā, which is beyond Being, is prapancha-upashama, 'without any trace of the development of manifestation'. Being is one, or rather it is metaphysical Unity itself; but Unity embraces multiplicity within itself, since it produces it by the mere extension of its possibilities; it is for this reason that even in Being itself a multiplicity of aspects may be conceived, which constitute so many attributes or qualifications of it, although these aspects are not effectually distinguished in it, except insofar as we conceive them as such: yet at the same time they must be in some way distinguishable for us to be able so to conceive them. It might be said that every aspect is distinguishable from the others in a certain respect, although none of them is really distinguishable from Being, and that all are Being Itself; [2] we therefore find here a kind of principial distinction, which is not a distinction in the sense in which the word applies in the sphere of manifestation, but which is its analogical transposition. In manifestation, distinction implies separation; but that separation has nothing really positive about it, since it is only a mode of limitation; [3] pure Being, on the contrary, is beyond 'separateness'. That which exists at the level of pure Being is therefore 'non-distinguished', if distinction (vishesha) be taken in the sense applicable within the manifested states; and yet, in another sense there is still present an element that is 'distinguished'
[0]: of metaphysics; and the above statement is as true of conceptions of a pseudometaphysical stamp as of those in which the negation is frankly expressed. Naturally, our present remarks only apply to doctrines that are known to the 'profane' world, and do not refer to the esoteric traditions of the West, which, so long at least as they possessed a character that was genuinely and fully 'initiatic', could not be limited in this way, but must on the contrary have been metaphysically complete under the twofold heading of theory and realization; these traditions however have never been known to any but an elite far more restricted in numbers than in the Eastern countries.
2. This can be applied, in Christian theology, to the conception of the Trinity: each Divine Person is God, but is not the other Persons. In Scholastic philosophy the same might also be said of the 'transcendentals', each one of which is coextensive with Being.
3. In the individual states, separation is determined by the presence of form; in the non-individual states, it must be determined by some other condition, since these states are formless.
(vishishta): in Being all beings (meaning thereby their personalities) are 'one' without being confused and distinct without being separated. [4] Beyond Being one cannot speak of distinction of any kind, even principial, although at the same time it cannot be said that there is confusion either; one is beyond multiplicity and beyond Unity as well; in the absolute transcendence of this supreme state none of these expressions can any longer be applied even by analogical transposition, and that is why recourse must be had to a term of negative form, namely to 'non-duality' (advaita), as we have already explained; even the word Union is undoubtedly imperfect, because it evokes the idea of Unity, but we are obliged nevertheless to make use of it for the translation of the term Yoga, since the Western languages have no alternative to offer.
Deliverance, together with the faculties and powers which it implies, so to speak, 'by superaddition' (because all states with all their possibilities are necessarily comprised in the absolute totalization of the being), but which, we repeat, must only be considered as accessory and even 'accidental' results and in no wise as constituting a final goal in themselves-Deliverance, we say, can be obtained by the yogi (or rather by him who becomes such in virtue of obtaining it), with the help of the observances indicated in the Yoga-Shāstra of Patañjali. It can also be favored by the practice of certain rites, [5] as well as of various particular styles of meditation (hārda-vidyā or dahara-vidyā); [6] but it must be understood that all such means are only preparatory and have nothing essential about them, for
man can acquire true Divine Knowledge even without observing the rites prescribed [for each of the different human categories, in conformity with their respective natures, and especially for the
4. In this is to be found the chief difference separating the point of view of Rāmānuja, who maintains the principial distinction, from that of Shankarāchārya, who transcends it.
5. These rites are in every respect comparable to those classed by the Muslims under the general denomination of dhikr; they are mostly based, as we have already mentioned, on the science of rhythm and its correspondences in all the various orders. Such are also the rites called vrata ('vow') and dvāra ('gate') in the otherwise partially heterodox doctrine of the Pāshupatas; under different forms all this is fundamentally the same as Hatha-Yoga, or at least equivalent to it.
6. Chhāndogya Upanishad 1.
different āshramas or regular stages of life]; [7] and indeed many examples are to be met with in the Veda of persons who have neglected to carry out such rites [the function of which is compared in the Veda to that of a saddle-horse, which helps a man to reach his destination more easily and more rapidly, but without which he is able to reach it all the same], or who have been prevented from doing so, and yet, by maintaining their attention perpetually concentrated and fixed on the Supreme Brahma [in which consists the one and only really indispensable preparation], have acquired true Knowledge concerning It [Knowledge which, for that reason, is, likewise called 'supreme']. [8]
Deliverance, then, is only effective insofar as it essentially implies perfect Knowledge of Brahma; and, inversely, that Knowledge, to be perfect, presupposes of necessity the realization of what we have already termed the 'Supreme Identity'. Thus, Deliverance and total and absolute Knowledge are truly but one and the same thing; if it be said that Knowledge is the means of Deliverance, it must be added that in this case means and end are inseparable, for Knowledge, unlike action, carries its own fruit within itself; [9] and moreover, within this sphere a distinction such as that of means and end can amount to no more than a mere figure of speech, unavoidable no doubt when one wishes to express these things, insofar as they are expressible, in human language. If therefore Deliverance is looked upon as a consequence of Knowledge, it must be specified that it is a strict and immediate consequence. This is most clearly affirmed by Shankarāchārya in the following terms:
There is no other means of obtaining complete and final Deliverance excepting Knowledge; it alone loosens the bonds of passion
7. Furthermore, the man who has reached a certain degree of realization is called ativarnāshrami, that is to say beyond caste (varna) and beyond the stages of earthly existence (āshramas); none of the usual distinctions any longer apply to such a being from the moment that he has effectively transcended the limits of individuality, even though he has not yet arrived at the final goal.
8. Brahma-Sūtras III.4.36-38.
9. Besides, both action and its fruits are equally transient and 'momentary'; whereas on the contrary Knowledge is permanent and final, and the same applies to its fruit, which is not distinct from Knowledge itself.
[and of all other contingencies to which the individual being is subjected]; without Knowledge, Beatitude [Ānanda] cannot be obtained. Action [karma, whether understood in its general sense or as applied specially to the performance of rites], not being opposed to ignorance [avidyā], [10] cannot remove it; but Knowledge disperses ignorance as light disperses darkness. As soon as the ignorance born of earthly affections [and other analogous bonds] is banished [and every illusion with it], the 'Self' [Ātmā], by its own splendor, shines afar [through every degree of existence] in an undivided state [penetrating all and illuminating the totality of the being], as the sun spreads its brightness abroad when the clouds have scattered. [11]
A most important point to note is the following: action, no matter of what sort, cannot under any circumstances liberate from action; in other words, it can only bear fruit within its own domain, which is that of human individuality. Thus it is not through action that it is possible to transcend individuality, taking individuality here, moreover, in its integral extension, for we do not for a moment pretend that the consequences of action are limited to the corporeal modality only; our previous remarks on the subject of life, which is in fact inseparable from action, will be found applicable in this instance. Hence it follows immediately that 'Salvation' in the religious sense given to the word by Western people, being the fruit of certain actions, [12] cannot be identified with 'Deliverance'; and it is all the more urgent to state this explicitly since orientalists constantly confuse the two together. [13] 'Salvation' is properly speaking the attainment of the Brahma-Loka; and we will further specify that by Brahma-Loka must here be understood exclusively the abode of
10. Some would like to translate avidyā or ajñanna as 'nescience' rather than 'ignorance'; we confess that we cannot clearly see the need for this subtlety.
11. Ātma-Bodha ('Knowledge of the Self').
12. The common expression 'to work out one's salvation' is therefore perfectly accurate.
13. Thus Oltramare, for example, translates Moksha by the word 'salvation' from beginning to end in his works, without seeming to suspect, we will not say the real difference which has been explained here, but even the mere possibility of inaccuracy in this identification.
Hiranyagarbha, since any more exalted aspect of the 'Non-Supreme' lies outside individual possibilities. This accords perfectly with the Western conception of 'immortality', which is simply an indefinite prolongation of individual life transposed into the subtle order and extending to the pralaya. All this, as we have already explained, represents but one stage in the process of krama-mukti; moreover, the possibility of a return into a state of manifestation (supra-individual, however) is not definitely excluded for the being that has not passed beyond this stage. To go further and to free oneself entirely from the conditions of life and duration which are inherent to individuality, there is no other path but that of Knowledge, either 'nonsupreme' and leading to Ishvara, [14] or 'supreme' and conferring immediate Deliverance. In the latter case there is no longer even occasion to consider a passage at death through various higher, though still transitory and conditioned states:
The Self [Ātmā, since there can be no further question of jīvātma, all distinction and all 'separateness' having disappeared] of him who has attained the perfection of Divine Knowledge [Brahma Vidyā] and who has consequently obtained final Deliverance, ascends, on quitting its bodily form [and without passing through any intermediate stages], to the Supreme [spiritual] Light which is Brahma, and identifies itself with It, in an undivided and conformable manner, just as pure water, mingling itself with the clear lake [without however losing itself in it in any way] conforms itself in every respect therewith. [15]
14. It is hardly necessary to point out that theology, even if it comprised a realization rendering it truly effective, instead of remaining simply theoretical as is in practice the case (unless the 'mystical states' can be said to represent such a realization, which is only partially and in certain respects true), would always be included in its entirety in this 'non-supreme' Knowledge.
15. Brahma-Sūtras iv.4.1-4.