Initiatic Trials
We shall now consider what are called initiatic 'trials', which fundamentally are only a particular case of initiatic rites though important enough to merit separate treatment, all the more so in that they are the occasion for many errors. The very word 'trials', which is used in many senses, is perhaps partly responsible for these ambiguities, unless some of its current meanings already derive from earlier confusions, which is equally possible. Indeed, it is not at all clear why every troublesome event is commonly called a 'trial', or why it is said of someone who suffers that he is 'tried'; it is difficult to see anything here but a mere abuse of language, the origin of which, moreover, it may not be without interest to investigate. However this may be, the common idea of the 'trials of life' does exist even if it does not correspond to anything very clearly defined, and it is this above all that has given rise to false assimilations concerning initiatic trials, to the point where some have come to sec in these nothing but a symbolic image of the former, which by a strange reversal of things would lead one to suppose that it is the facts of outward human life that have an effective value and truly count from the initiatic point of view itself. It would certainly be too simple if this were the case, and all men would thus doubtless be candidates for initiation; it would suffice that each had gone through some difficult circumstance, which happens more or less to everyone, in order to achieve initiation, and one would find it difficult to say by whom and in the name of what it would be conferred. We think we have already said enough about the true nature of initiation that we need not dwell on the absurdity of such notions as these, for the truth is that 'ordinary life' as it is understood today has absolutely nothing to do with the initiatic order since it corresponds
to an entirely profane understanding of life; and if on the contrary one were to envisage human life according to a traditional and normal understanding, one could say that it is this that can be taken as a symbol, and not the reverse.
It is worth pausing for a moment at this last point. The symbol must always be of an order inferior to what is symbolized (which, let us note in passing, suffices to dismiss all the 'naturalist' interpretations the modernists may imagine); the realities of the corporeal domain, being of the lowest and most narrowly-delimited order, thus cannot be symbolized by anything at all; and they have moreover no need of being symbolized since they are directly and immediately comprehensible to cveryone. On the other hand, because of the correspondence that exists between all orders of reality, every event or phenomenon, however insignificant it may be, can always be taken as a symbol of a higher reality of which it is as it were a sensible expression by the very fact that it derives from it as a consequence derives from its principle; and in this respect, however lacking in value and interest it may be in itself, the event or phenomenon can have a profound significance for one who is able to see beyond immediate appearances. Here we have a transposition the result of which will obviously have nothing in common with 'ordinary life' or even with outward life howsoever considered, since this latter has merely supplied the support that allows a being endowed with special aptitudes to escape from its limitations. And this support, let us emphasize, can be anything whatsoever, since everything here depends on the nature of the being that uses it. Consequently, and this brings us back to the common idea of 'trials', it is not impossible that in certain particular cases suffering should be the occasion or support for a development of latent possibilities exactly as anything else could be in other cases; it is the occasion, we say, and nothing else, and this does not permit one to attribute to suffering in itself any special or privileged virtue, despite all the usual pronouncements on the subject. Let us also note that the entirely contingent and accidental role of suffering, even thus reduced to its proper proportions, is certainly more restricted in the initiatic order than in certain other much more exterior 'realizations'; it is especially among the mystics that it has become in a way
habitual and seems to have acquired an importance capable of fostering illusions (and first of all among these mystics themselves), which is no doubt explained at least in part by considerations of a specifically religious nature. [1] It must also be added that profane psychology has certainly helped in good measure to spread over all of this the most confused and erroneous ideas; but in any case, whether it be a matter of mere psychology or of mysticism, all these things have absolutely nothing in common with initiation.
Having settled this, we must still explain a fact that could give rise to an objection. Although, as we were just saying, difficult or painful circumstances are certainly common to the lives of all men, it fiequently happens that those who follow an initiatic way find them unusually multiplied. This fact is due simply to a sort of unconscious hostility in the environment, to which we have already had occasion to refer; it seems that the world, by which we mean the totality of beings and things that constitute the domain of individual existence, tries by all means to hold back one who is on the verge of escaping it; such reactions are perfectly normal and understandable and, unpleasant as they may be, there is certainly no cause to be astonished at them. This is therefore strictly a question of obstacles raised by adverse forces, and not, as people sometimes wrongly imagine, of 'trials' willed and imposed by the powers that preside over initiation. It is necessary to have done once and for all with such fables, which are surcly much closer to occultist dreams than to initiatic realities.
What are called initiatic trials are something altogether different, and a single observation should suffice to cut short every ambiguity. These trials are essentially rites, which the so-called 'trials of life' never are, and they could not exist without this ritual character or be replaced by anything that does not possess this same character. By this it can immediately be seen that the most generally emphasized aspects of these trials are really wholly secondary; if they were intended to show whether a candidate for initiation possessed the
requisite qualifications, as the most 'simplistic' notion would have it, it would have to be admitted that they are very ineffectual, and it could be understood why those who so look at things are tempted to regard them as without value. But normally one who is permitted to undergo these trials already ought to have been recognized as 'well and duly qualified' by other more adequate means; and thus there must be something completely different involved here. It can therefore be said that these trials are a teaching given under a symbolic form and meant to be meditated upon later; this is very true, but as much could be said of any other rite, for, as we said earlier, all rites have an equally symbolic character and thus a meaning that each individual must fathom according to the measure of his own capacity. The essential purpose of a rite, as we explained at the beginning, is the efficacy inherent to it; it goes without saying that this efficacy is closely related to the symbolic meaning of its form, but it is entirely independent of the actual understanding of those who participate in it. One must therefore first place oneself at the point of view of the direct efficacy of the rite; the rest, whatever its importance, can only come second, and all that we have said till now is sufficiently explicit on this point so that we can dispense with dwelling on it further.
To be more precise, we will say that trials are rites preliminary or preparatory to the initiation itself; they form its necessary preamble, so that the initiation itself is like their conclusion or their immediate result. It should be noted that urials often take the form of symbolic 'voyages', a point we note only in passing for we cannot enlarge here on the symbolism of the voyage in general; we will only say that in this regard they appear as a 'search' (or better, as a 'quest', as was said in the Middle Ages) leading the being from the 'darkness' of the profane world to the initiatic 'light'. But this form, which can be understood on its own, is still only accessory, however appropriate it may be for what is under discussion. At root, trials are essentially rites of purification, and it is this that provides the true explanation of the very word 'trials', which here has a clearly 'alchemical' meaning and not the common meaning that has given rise to the misunderstandings we have pointed out. Now, in order to understand the fundamental principle of the rite, it is important to note that purification
is effected by the 'elements' in the cosmological meaning of this word, and the reason for this can be stated in a few words. To say 'element' is to say simple, and to say simple is to say incorruptible. 'Thus ritual purification will always have as its material 'support' bodies that symbolize the clements and that are named after them (for it must be understood that the elements themselves are not the so-called 'simple' bodies, which is indeed a contradiction, but rather that from which all bodies are formed), or at least one of these bodies. And this applies equally in the traditional exoteric order, particularly in religious rites where this mode of purification is used not only for humans but also for other living things, for inanimate objects, and for places or buildings. If water seems to play a preponderant role here with regard to other bodies representative of the elements, it must nonetheless be said that its role is not exclusive; this preponderance can perhaps be explained by noting that in all traditions water is also more particularly the symbol of 'universal substance'. However this may be, there is hardly need to say that the rites in question (lustrations, ablutions, and others, including the Christian rite of baptism, which we have already said comes into this category) as well as fasts and the proscription of certain foods, which are equally ritualistic in character, have absolutely nothing to do with hygienic prescriptions or bodily cleanliness, according to the silly idea of certain modernists who, out of prejudice, wish to reduce everything to a purely human explanation and seem to take pleasure in always choosing the crudest interpretation imaginable. Indeed, ultimately the so-called 'psychological' explanations are equally worthless, even if they have a subtler veneer; for they all similarly neglect the only thing that really counts, that is, that the effective action of the rites is not a 'belief' or a theory, but a positive fact.
It can now be understood why, when these trials take the form of successive 'voyages', these latter are related respectively to the different elements; and it only remains for us now to indicate in what sense the word 'purification' itself must be understood from the initiatic point of view. What is involved is to bring the being back to a state of undifferentiated simplicity comparable, as we have said, to that of materia prima (understood here in a relative sense of course) so that it be enabled to receive the vibration of the initiatic Fiat Lux.
The spiritual influence the transmission of which will give him this first 'illumination' must not meet in him any obstacle due to disharmonious 'preformations' arising from the profane world; [2] and this is why he must first be reduced to this state of materia prima, which, if one would carefully reflect on it for a moment, clearly shows that the initiatic process and the Hermetic 'Great Work' are really one and the same thing: the conquest of the divine Light that is the unique essence of all spirituality.