23 Sacraments & Initiatic Rites
We said earlier that religious rites and initiatic rites are of essentially different orders and that they cannot have the same goal, this being a necessary result of the distinction between the exoteric and csoteric domains to which they respectively belong. If confusions arise between them in some minds, they are due above all to a misunderstanding of this distinction, and perhaps in part to similarities that in spite of everything exist between these rites, at least in their outward forms, which can deceive those who observe things only 'from outside'. Nonetheless, the distinction is perfectly cleat once it is a question of strictly religious rites, which are exoteric by definition and consequently brook no doubt; however, it must be said that doubts may arise in other cases, as in a tradition where there is no division between an exoterism and an esoterism, constituting as it were two separate aspects of the tradition, but only between different degrees of knowledge, where the transition from one to another can be almost imperceptible, as with the Hindu tradition in particular. This gradual transition will naturally show itself in the corresponding rites, so that in certain respects some of them may have a somewhat mixed or intermediate character.
It is precisely in the Hindu tradition that one finds rites concerning which one can legitimately ask whether or not they are initiatic; we mean the upanayana, that is, the rite by which an individual is effectively joined to one of the three higher castes, to which, before this rite is accomplished, he belongs only in what can be called an altogether potential fashion. This case in fact merits close examination, and for this it will be necessary in the first place to understand
exactly what is intended by the word samskära, usually translated as 'sacrament'. This translation seems to us far from satisfactory, for according to a tendency too common among Westerners it affirms an identity between things that, if comparable in certain respects, are nonetheless very different in fact. It is true that it is not the etymological meaning itself of the word 'sacrament' that occasions this objection, for in both cases it is cvidently a question of something 'sacred'; moreover this meaning is much too broad to permit us to draw from it an idea that is at all precise, and if we were to leave things here, any rite at all could indifferently be called a 'sacrament'. But in fact this word has become inseparable from its specifically religious and narrowly-defined usage in the Christian tradition, where it designates something the exact equivalent of which is not found elsewhere. In order to avoid any ambiguity it is thus much better to accept this usage and to reserve the name 'sacrament' to a certain category of religious rites peculiar to the Christian traditional form; it is then the idea of 'sacrament' that is included in that of samskära as a particular case, and not the reverse. In other words, one can say that the Christian sacraments are samskäras, but not that the Hindu samskäras are sacraments, for according to the most clementary logic the name of a genus belongs to each of the species it includes, but the name of one of these species cannot validly be applied either to another species or to the entire genus.
A samskära is essentially a rite of 'admission' to a traditional community; and as one can immediately see, this definition is entirely independent of the particular form, religious or otherwise, assumed by the tradition under consideration. In Christianity this function is fulfilled by the sacraments, as it is elsewherre by samskäras of different kinds. We must nevertheless say that the word 'admission', which we have just used, lacks some precision and even exactness, and this for two reasons. First, if one limits oneself strictly to its proper meaning, it seems to designate the actual attachment to the tradition, in which case it should apply only to a single rite, that by which this attachment is effectively accomplished, whereas in reality there are in one and the same tradition a number of samskäras, from which it follows that the 'admission' in question includes many degrees or modalities, which generally correspond to the
principal phases of an individual's life; on the other hand, this same word 'admission' can convey the idea of a relationship that remains in a sense outward, as if it were simply a matter of joining a 'group' or a 'society', whereas what is involved is of an entirely different order and implies an assimilation that could be called 'organic', for it involves a true 'transmutation' (abhisambhava) of the subtle elements of the individuality. For samskāra, A.K. Coomaraswamy has proposed the word 'integration', which seems to us preferable to 'admission' from both points of view, for it exactly translates the idea of assimilation; besides, it is easy to understand that an 'integration' can be more or less deep and complete and that, consequently, it could be accomplished by degrees, which accounts for the multiplicity of samskäras within one and the same tradition.
It should be noted that a 'transmutation' such as that just spoken of takes place not only in the samskäras but also in initiatic rites (dikshā); this is one of the characteristics that both share and which allows them to be compared in certain respects, whatever their essential differences may be. In both cases there is the transmission or communication of a spiritual influence, and it is this influence, 'infused' so to speak by the rite, that produces in the individual the 'transmutation' in question. But it goes without saying that the effects can be limited to this or that domain, depending on the particular goal of the rite being considered; and it is precisely by their goal, and so also by the domain or order of possibilities in which they operate, that initiatic rites differ profoundly from all others.
On the other hand, the most apparent outward difference, and thus the one that ought to be most easily recognized, even by those
observing 'from the outside', is that the samskäras are common to all the individuals belonging to a tradition, that is to say, in the final analysis, to all those belonging to a given 'milieu', something that gives these rites what can properly be called a 'social' aspect, whereas initiatic rites on the contrary require certain particular qualifications and are reserved for a more or less restricted elite. From this one can see the error of ethnologists and sociologists who unthinkingly apply the term 'initiation' (the true meaning and real implications of which they evidently have no grasp) to rites that all the members of a tribe or people have access to at any moment of their existence, and in particular when it is a matter of so-called primitive societies. In reality, these rites have no initiatic character at all but are true samskäras. Naturally, the same societies can also have authentically initiatic rites, even if these are degenerate to some degree (and perhaps they are so less often than one might be tempted to suppose); but, here as everywhere, these are accessible only to certain individuals to the exclusion of others, and this, even without examining things more deeply, ought to suffice to make any confusion impossible.
We now come to the special case we mentioned at the outset, that of the Hindu rite of upanayana, which is essentially the investiture with the brahmanic thread (pavitra or upavita) and normally gives access to the study of sacred scriptures. Is this an initiation? It appears that the question could be resolved by the sole fact that this rite is a samskära and not a dikshä, for this implies that it is not considered to be initiatic from the point of view of the Hindu tradition, which obviously must be given authority here; but again one can ask why this is so despite certain appearances to the contrary. We have already indicated that this rite is reserved for the members of the three primary castes, but this restriction is inherent to the very constitution of traditional Hindu society, and so it does not suffice to allow one to speak of initiation, any more, for example, than the fact that certain rites are reserved for men to the exclusion of womenor inversely-lets one attribute to them an initiatic character (to convince oneself of this one need only refer to the case of Christian ordination, which even requires other more particular qualifications, yet belongs no less incontestably to the exoteric order).
Besides the one qualification we have just noted (designated by the term ärys), no other is required for upanayana; this rite is therefore common to all the members of the three primary castes without exception, and it is even more an obligation than a right; now this obligatory character, which is directly linked to what we have called the 'social' aspect of the samskäras, could not exist for an initiatic rite. A social milieu, however deeply traditional it may be, cannot impose on any of its members, whatever their qualifications, the obligation to enter an initiatic organization. This is something that by its very nature cannot depend on any outward constraint, not even the mere 'moral' constraint customarily termed 'public opinion', which, moreover, can obviously adopt no other legitimate attitude than to ignore purely and simply all that relates to initiation since this is an order of reality that by definition is closed to the collectivity as such. As regards upanayana, it can be said that caste is only virtual or even potential as long as this rite has not been accomplished (the only qualification required being the natural aptitude to belong to that caste), so that this rite is necessary in order for the individual to occupy a place and a given function in the social organization; for if his function must before all else conform to his own nature, it is still necessary for this nature to be 'realized' in order for it to be validly fulfilled and not remain merely an undeveloped aptitude. It is thus perfectly understandable and normal that the non-accomplishment of this rite within the prescribed period entails an exclusion from the community, or more exactly still, that it implies in itself this exclusion.
There is however yet another particularly important point to consider, for it is perhaps this above all that can lead to confusion. The upanayana confers the quality of dvija or 'twice born'; it is thus explicitly called a 'second birth', an expression that also applies in a very precise way to initiation. It is true that Christian baptism, although very different from upanayana in every other respect, is also a 'second birth', and it is only too evident that this rite has nothing in common with an initiation. But how can the same 'technical' term apply at once to the samskatas (including the sacraments) and to initiation? The truth is that the 'second birth' in itself and in its
general meaning is strictly a psychic regeneration (note well that it is to the psychic domain that this directly refers, and not to the spiritual, for this would then be a 'third birth'); but this regeneration can have effects that are solely psychic, that is, limited to a more or less special order of individual possibilities, or it can be the point of departure for a 'realization' of a higher order. It is only in this last case that it will have a properly initiatic scope, whereas in the first it will belong to the most 'outward' side of the different traditional forms, namely to that in which all participate without distinction. [2]
The allusion we just made to baptism raises another question that is not without interest. Apart from its character as a 'second birth', baptism also resembles certain initiatic rites by its very form; one can also note that this form belongs to the rites of purification by the elements (a subject we shall return to later), a very general category of rites that can obviously be applied in very different domains. But perhaps there is something more to consider here. Indeed, there is nothing astonishing in the fact that exoteric rites are modeled after esoteric or initiatic rites; if the degrees of outward teaching in a traditional society can be closely modeled on those of initiation, as we shall explain later, then with all the more reason a similar 'exteriorization' can take place in a higher though still exoteric order, that is to say with religious rites. [3] In all of this the hicrarchy of normal relationships is strictly respected, for according to these relationships, applications of a lower or more outward order must proceed from those of a more principial character. Thus, if we consider such things as the 'second birth' or purification by the elements, to limit ourselves only to these examples, it is their initiatic signification that
is really primary, and their other applications must be derived more or less directly from this, for in any traditional form there can be nothing more principial than initiation and its proper domain, and it is in this 'interior' aspect that the true spirit of every tradition resides.