Against Mixing Traditional Forms
As we have said clsewhere, according to the Hindu tradition there are two ways of being outside caste, one higher and the other lower. [1] One can be 'without caste' (avarna) in the 'privative' sense, that is below it, or, on the contrary, one can be 'beyond caste' (ativarna), that is above it, although this second case is incomparably more rare than the first, especially in the conditions of the present age. [2] In a similar way, one can be beneath or beyond traditional forms: the man 'without religion' for example, as found today in the modern West, is unquestionably in the first situation; the second, on the contrary, applies exclusively to those who have obtained an effective understanding of the fundamental unity and identity of all traditions; and here again this latter situation can only be very exceptional at present. It must be understood, however, that in speaking of an effective understanding we mean that merely theoretical notions of this unity and this identity, while surely far from negligible, are altogether insufficient for someone to consider himself beyond the need of adhering and strictly conforming to a given form. This does not mean, of course, that such a person must not try to understand other forms as completely and profoundly as possible, but only that, practically speaking, he must not use ritual or other means that belong to different forms, which as we said above
would not only be useless and vain but harmful and dangerous in various respects. [3]
Traditional forms may be compared to paths that, though they lead to the same goal, [4] are nonetheless distinct. One obviously cannot follow several at once, and once one has been taken it ought to be followed without detour to its end, for passing from one to another is the surest way to impede one's progress and even risk losing one's way completely. Only someone who has persevered to the path's end can by that very fact stand above all paths, because he no longer needs to follow them; he is thenceforth able, should the need arise, to practice all the forms impartially, but this is precisely because he has gone beyond them and because, for him, they are now united in their common principle. Moreover, he will generally continue to confine himself outwardly to a given form even if only as an 'example' to those around him who have not yet reached the same point; but if particular circumstances should require it, he could just as well follow other forms since from his standpoint there is no longer any real difference among them. Furthermore, once these forms are thus unified for him, mingling or confusion of any kind is no longer possible since this presupposes the existence of diversity as such, and, once again, we are speaking only of someone who is effectively above this diversity. For him forms no longer have the character of paths or means, for which he has no further use, and remain only as expressions of the one Truth, expressions of which it is just as legitimate to make use, should circumstances require it, as it is to speak different languages in order to make oneself understood by those to whom one is speaking. [5]
In brief, between the situation above and that of an illegitimate mingling of traditional forms there is all the difference that we have noted as existing in a general way between synthesis and syncretism, which is why it was necessary to clarify this distinction at the outset. Indeed, anyone who considers all forms in the very unity of their principle thereby has, as we have just said, a view that is essentially synthetic in the most rigorous sense; he is within all forms equally, and we ought even to say at the most interior point of all, since this point is truly their common center. To return to the simile just used, all paths start from different points but gradually converge, always remaining distinct until they reach this unique center; [6] but seen from the center itself they are really only so many radii emanating from it and linking it with the many points on the circumference. [7] These two opposite points of view on the same paths correspond exactly to those respectively of one who is 'on the way' toward the center and one who has arrived there, states often described in traditional symbolism as those of the 'traveler' and of the 'sedentary', the latter also being compared to someone standing at the summit of a mountain who, without having to move, likewise sees all its slopes, whereas the one climbing the same mountain only sees the part nearest him; and it is quite obvious that only the view of the first can be called synthetic.
On the other hand, the one who is not at the center is perforce always in a more or less 'exterior' position even with regard to his own traditional form, all the more so with regard to the others; if he then should wish to perform rites belonging to many different forms, claiming to use them concurrently as means and 'supports' of his spiritual development, he will not really be able to combine them except 'from the outside', which amounts to saying that what he accomplishes will be nothing else than syncretism, which consists precisely in this kind of mingling of disparate elements that nothing
really unifies. All that we have said against syncretism in general, therefore, applies in this particular situation, and, one could say, even more so in certain respects: as long as it is only a question of theories this sort of mingling can indeed be relatively inoffensive, even if it is to no purpose; but in the case under consideration, because of the direct contact with deeper realities implied, it risks leading the one who so acts to a deviation or an arresting of that interior development for which, on the contrary, he believed quite wrongly that he would thereby procure the greatest facility. This situation is similar to that of somcone who, hoping to secure his health the more cffectively, makes use at one and the same time of many different medicines the cffects of which neutralize and destroy each other and sometimes even provoke unforeseen reactions harmful to his organism. There are things that are efficacious when used separately but that are nonetheless radically incompatible.
This leads us to clarify another point. Besides the properly doctrinal reason for denying the validity of any mingling of traditional forms there is one consideration that, while more contingent, is no less important from what one might call the 'technical' point of view. Suppose that someone finds himself in the conditions requited for accomplishing the rites belonging to several forms in such a way that they have real effects, which naturally implies that he has at least some effective link with each of these forms. It could happen-indeed, it is almost inevitable in most cases-that these rites usher in not only spiritual influences but also, and even first and foremost, psychic influences that, not being in harmony among themselves, will clash and provoke a state of disorder and disequilibrium more or less seriously affecting the one who has imprudently aroused them, clearly a kind of danger to which one should not expose oneself carelessly. Moreover, the clash of psychic influences is more especially to be feared when these latter are the result of using the most outward rites, that is, those belonging to the exoteric side of the different traditions, since it is obviously these above all that exclude each other, the different paths diverging all the more the further they move from the center. On the other hand, although this may seem paradoxical to someone who has not reflected on it sufficiently, the opposition is then all the more violent as the traditions
to which they belong have more in common, as for example with those exoterisms that assume a religious form in the strict sense of the word, for things that are very different enter into conflict only with difficulty by reason of this very difference. In this domain as in every other there can be conflict only on condition that similar ground be occupied. We will not dwell further on this, but it is to be hoped that this warning suffices for those who might be tempted to set such discordant methods in motion. Let them not forget that only in the purely spiritual domain is one safe from all harm because it is there alone that opposition itself has no more meaning, and that as long as the psychic domain has not been completely and definitively surpassed the worst mishaps always remain possible, even, and perhaps we should say especially, for those who so resolutely profess not to believe in them.