30 Effective & Virtual Initiation

Although the distinction between effective initiation and virtual initiation may already be sufficiently understood from the preceding considerations, it seems important enough that we ought to try to clarify it a bit more. We will note first of all that among the conditions for initiation that we stated earlier, attachment to a regular traditional [1] organization (presupposing, naturally, the necessary qualification) suffices for virtual initiation, whereas the interior work that comes afterward properly pertains to effective initiation, which in the final analysis is, in all its degrees, the development 'in act' of the possibilities to which virtual initiation gives access. Virtual initiation is therefore initiation understood in the strictest sense of the word, that is, as an 'entering' or a 'beginning'; this of course is by no means to say that it can be regarded as something sufficient unto itself, but only that it is the necessary starting-point for all the rest. Having started on a path, one has still to follow it and, if one can, even follow it to its end. This can be summed up in a few words: entering on the path is virtual initiation; following the path is effective initiation; but unfortunately many in fact remain on the threshold, not always because they are incapable of going further but also, especially in the present conditions of the Western world, because of the degeneration of certain organizations which, having become solely 'speculative' as we have just explained, cannot on this account help them in any way with the 'operative' work, even in the most elementary stages, and furnish nothing that could lead them to suspect the existence of any sort of 'realization'. Nevertheless, even in these organizations there is still talk of the initiatic 'wolk', or at least of something that is considered to be such; but one can then legitimately ask the question: in what sense and in what measure does this still correspond to any reality? To answer this question we will recall that initiation is essentially a transmission, adding that this can be understood in two different senses: on the one hand, transmission of a spiritual influence, and on the other transmission of a traditional teaching. It is the transmission of the spiritual influence that must be considered first, not only because it must logically precede any teaching, which is quite evident once one has understood the need for a traditional affiliation, but also and above all because it is this that essentially constitutes initiation in the strict sense, so much so that if it is only a question of virtual initiation, everything could stop here, without there being a need to add any teaching subsequently. Indeed, initiatic teaching, the particular character of which we will specify later, cannot be anything other than an outward aid brought to the inner work of realization in order to support and guide it as much as possible. This indecd is its unique purpose and it is in this alone that the outward and collective side of a true initiatic 'work' consists if this be truly understood in its legitimate and normal sense. Now, what makes the question a bit more complex is that the two kinds of transmission we have just pointed out can never be wholly separated from each other even though they are in fact distinct by their very nature, something requiring still further explanation although we already dealt with this point implicitly when we spoke of the close connection between rite and symbol. Indeed, rites are cssentially and above all the vehicle of spiritual influences, which cannot be transmitted in any way without them; but at the same time, by the very fact that all their constituent elements possess a symbolic character, they also necessarily embody a teaching, since, as we said, symbols are precisely the sole language really suitable for the expression of truths of the initiatic order. Inverscly, symbols are essentially a means of teaching, and not only of outward teaching but of something more insofar as they serve above all as 'supports' for meditation, which is at the very least the beginning of inner work. But as the constituent elements of rites, and by reason of their 'non-human' character, these same symbols are also 'supports' for the spiritual influence itself. Moreover, if one reflects that the inner work would be ineffective without the action, or, if one prefers, without the collaboration of this spiritual influence, it will be understood that under certain conditions meditation on the symbols would itself take on the character of a true rite, a rite now conferring not only virtual initiation but permitting the attainment of a more or less advanced degree of effective initiation. Rather than using symbols in this way, one can on the contrary limit oneself to 'speculating' about them without intending anything further, by which we certainly do not wish to say that it is illegitimate to explain symbols in the measure that this is possible, and to seek to develop by appropriate commentaries the different meanings they contain (on condition of avoiding all 'systematization', which is incompatible with the very essence of symbolism); but we do wish to say that this would always have to be regarded as a mere preparation for something else, and it is just this something else that by definition escapes the 'speculative' point of view as such. This latter point of view is limited to an outward study of symbols, which obviously cannot allow those who pursue it to pass from a virtual to an effective initiation; besides, they usually stop at the most superficial meanings since to penetrate further already requires a degree of comprehension that in reality presupposes something altogether different from mere 'erudition'. And one must even be considered fortunate not to go more or less completely astray in these 'peripheral' considerations, as, for example, in finding in these symbols the pretext for 'moralizing', or in drawing from them social or even political applications that would certainly have nothing initiatic or even traditional about them. In this last case the boundary has already been crossed at which the 'work' of certain organizations ceases entirely to be initiatic, even in a wholly 'speculative' way, and falls squarely into the profane point of view; this boundary naturally separates also simple degeneration from deviation, and it is only too easy to understand how 'speculation' taken as an end in itself unfortunately allows one to slip easily from the one to the other in an almost imperceptible way. We are now able to conclude this question. Mere 'speculation', even when it remains at the initiatic point of view and does not deviate from it in one way or another, leads as it were to a dead end, for by its means one can in no way go beyond virtual initiation; and besides, virtual initiation would exist even without any 'speculation' at all, since it is the immediate consequence of the transmission of the spiritual influence. The effect of the rite by which this transmission is carried out is 'deferred', as we said above, and remains in a latent and 'shrouded' state so long as it has not passed from the 'speculative' to the 'opcrative', which is to say that theoretical considerations have no real value as properly initiatic work except as preparation for 'realization'; they are in fact a necessary preparation for it, but this is something that the 'speculative' point of view itself is incapable of recognizing and consequently of bringing to the consciousness of those who limit their horizon thereto.