63 § The Chain of the Worlds
In the Bhagavad Gītā it is said: 'All this [1] is threaded on Me, as rows of pearls on a string'. [2] This is the symbolism of the sütrātmā of which we have spoken on other occasions: it is Ātmā who, like a thread (sütra), penetrates and joins together all the worlds, while at the same time being also the 'breath' which, according to other texts, sustains them and keeps them in existence, and without which they could not have the least reality nor exist in any way whatsoever. We speak here of the worlds, adopting the macrocosmic point of view; but it must be clearly understood that one could just as well consider the states of manifestation of a single being from the microcosmic perspective, and that the symbolism would be exactly the same in both of these applications.
Each world, or each state of existence, can be represented here by a sphere through which the thread passes diametrically in such a way as to form the
axis joining the two poles of this sphere. Thus, it can be seen that the axis of this world is, strictly speaking, only a portion of the axis of universal manifestation itself in its entirety, and it is in this way that the actual continuity of all states included in manifestation is established. Before going further in the examination of this symbolism, we must first dispel an unfortunate confusion relating to what, in such a representation, is to be considered as 'up' and 'down'. In the domain of physical appearances, if one starts from any point on the surface of a sphere, downwards is always the direction towards the centre of this sphere. It has however been noted that this direction does not stop at the centre, but continues down towards the opposite point on the surface of the sphere, then beyond the sphere itself; and some have thought that the descent itself could be said to continue in like manner, whence they have concluded that not only would there be a 'descent towards matter', that is to say, as regards our world, towards what is most gross in the corporeal order, but also a 'descent towards the spirit', [3] so that-if such a conception were admitted-the spirit itself would have a malefic aspect. In reality, things must be considered in a completely different way. In such a figuration, it is the centre that is the lowest point, [4] and beyond this one can only ascend again, as Dante reascended from Hell, continuing to follow the same direction by which his descent had first been accomplished, or at least what appears geometrically to be the same direction, [5] inasmuch as the mountain of the Earthly Paradise, according to its spatial symbolism, is at the antipodes of Jerusalem. [6] Besides, a moment's reflection is enough to show that otherwise the representation could not be coherent, for it would in no way agree with the symbolism of weight, the consideration of which is particularly important here. And how could that which is lowest for one point on the sphere at the same time be the highest for the point diametrically opposite to it? And how could these things have been visualised if on the contrary one had set out from this last point? [7] The only truth in all this confusion is that the stopping point of the descent is not situated in the corporeal order, for there are, in all reality, 'infra-corporeal'
components in the prolongations of our world; but this 'infracorporeal' is the lower psychic domain which, far from being assimilable to anything spiritual whatsoever, is precisely what is furthest from all spirituality, to the point that it would appear to be its contrary in all respects, if indeed the spirit could be said to have a contrary. This confusion is nothing other than a particular case of the all too widespread confusion between the psychic and the spiritual. [8]
To what we have just said it could be objected that since the states of manifested existence are in hierarchy, some being higher than others, there must be also, on the very 'thread' which unites them, a direction going upwards and an opposite direction going downwards. This is true in a certain sense, but it must be added, first of all, that this distinction in no way affects the süträtmä, which is everywhere and always identical with itself, whatever the nature of the quality of the states which it penetrates and sustains. Secondly, this objection concerns the concatenation of the worlds and not each of these worlds taken by itself and considered in isolation from the others. In fact, any one of these worlds, in all its possible extension, is no more than an infinitesimal element in the totality of universal manifestation, so that in all rigour it could only be represented by a point. It would thus be possible to make use of the geometrical symbolism of the vertical and horizontal directions and to represent the worlds by an indefinite series of horizontal discs strung on a vertical axis. [9] This at least makes it clear that within the limits of each world, the axis can really be reached only at a single point, so that it is only outside these limits that there can be any question of an up and down, or a descending direction.
According to another symbolism which has already been mentioned, the axis in question can be assimilated to the 'seventh ray' of the sun. If a world is represented by a sphere, this axis could not then be any of the sphere's diameters, since as to the three diameters that form, at right angles to each other, the axes of a three-dimensional coordinate system, the six mutually opposed directions that they determine can only be the six other rays of the sun. The 'seventh ray' must be equally perpendicular to all of them, for it alone, as axis of universal manifestation, is what could be called the absolute vertical, in relation to which the axes of the coordinates of the world in
question are all relatively horizontal. Obviously, this cannot be represented geometrically, [10] which shows that every representation is necessarily inadequate. In any event, the 'seventh ray' cannot really be represented except by a single point which coincides with the very centre of the sphere, so that for every being enclosed within the limits of a given world, that is, within the special conditions of a determined state of existence, the axis itself is in truth 'invisible', and the only thing that can be perceived of it is the point which is its 'trace' in that world. It goes without saying, moreover, that this last observation, which is necessary in order that the symbolism of the axis and of its relations with the worlds it links together might be understood as completely as possible, in no way prevents the 'chain of the worlds' being most commonly represented, as we mentioned at the outset, by a series of spheres [11] strung like the pearls of a necklace. [12]
What it is important to note also is that the 'chain' cannot in reality be traversed except in one direction, corresponding to what we have called the ascending direction of the axis. This is particularly clear when a temporal symbolism is used, assimilating the worlds or the states of existence to successive cycles, so that with respect to a given state the previous cycles represent lower states and the subsequent cycles the higher states, which implies that their series must be conceived as irreversible. Moreover, this irreversibility is also implicit in the conception of this same chain as having a strictly 'causal' character, even though such a concatenation essentially supposes simultaneity and not succession, for in a relation between cause and effect, the two terms can never be inverted; and basically, this notion of a causal series constitutes the true meaning of what is expressed symbolically by the appearances of a cyclic succession, the perspective of simultaneity always corresponding to a deeper order of reality than that of succession.
The 'chain of the worlds' is generally represented in a circular form, [13] for if each world is considered as a cycle and symbolised as such by a circular or spherical figure, manifestation in its entirety, that is, the totality of all the worlds, will itself appear as a kind of 'cycle of cycles'. Thus, not only can
the chain be transited continuously from beginning to end, but then it can be traversed again, always in the same direction, which in the deployment of manifestation corresponds to a level other than that wherein the simple passage from one world to another is situated; [14] and since this traversal can be made indefinitely, the very indefinity of manifestation itself is thereby expressed all the more clearly. It is essential to add, however, that if the chain is closed, [15] the very point at which it closes is in no way comparable to its other points, for it does not belong to the series of manifested states. The beginning and the end meet and coincide, or rather they are one and the same thing in reality, but this can only be so because they are situated not at just any level of manifestation but beyond it and in the Principle itself. [16]
In the different traditional forms the most common symbol of the 'chain of the worlds' is the rosary; and with regard to this we will say first of all, in connection with what we said at the outset about the 'breath' which sustains the worlds, that the formula pronounced on each bead corresponds, at least in principle if not always in fact, to one respiration, the two phases of which, the out-breath and the in-breath, symbolise respectively the production of a world and its reabsorption. The interval between two respirations naturally corresponds to the passage from one bead to another, as well as to an instant of silence, and it thus represents a pralaya. The general sense of this symbolism is, therefore, clear enough, whatever may be the particular forms in which it may be clothed as the case may have it. It must be noted also that the most essential element is, in reality, the thread which links the beads to each other; this may seem perfectly obvious as there can be no rosary if there is not first this thread on which the beads are then strung, 'as the pearls on a necklace'. If, however, it is necessary to draw attention to this, it is because from an outward point of view, it is the beads that are seen rather than the thread; and this itself is also very significant, as it is the beads that represent manifestation, while the sūtrātmā, represented by the thread, is itself unmanifested.
In India, the rosary is called aksha-mālā, or 'garland of akshas' (and also aksha-sūtra). But what exactly must be understood by aksha? This question
is, in fact, somewhat complex; [17] the verbal root aksh, from which this word is derived, means to attain, to penetrate, to pass through, whence, for aksha, the primary sense of 'axis'. Moreover, this word, and the word 'axis' itself are manifestly identical. Referring to the considerations we have already given, one can see there at once a direct connection with the essentially 'axial' meaning of the sūtrātmā. But how is it that aksha has come to denote no longer the thread of the rosary but the beads themselves? In order to understand this, it must be realised that in most of its secondary applications, this designation has in a way been transferred (by a passage, it might be said, from the active to the passive sense) from the axis itself to what it traverses and, more particularly, to its point of penetration. It is thus, for example, that the aksha is the 'eye' of a wheel, that is, its nave; [18] and the idea of the 'eye' (a sense that the word aksha has quite frequently in its composites) leads us back to the symbolic conception of the axis as 'solar rays', illuminating the worlds even as it penetrates them. Aksha is also a die to be thrown, apparently because of the 'eyes' or points with which its different faces are marked; [19] and it is also the name of a kind of seed from which rosaries are commonly made, because the perforation of the rosary beads is also an 'eye', destined precisely to allow the passage of the axial thread. [20] That further confirms what we said just now about the primordial importance of the thread in the symbol of the 'chain of the worlds', for it is from it that the beads which compose the chain receive secondarily their designation, just as the worlds, one could say, are not really 'worlds' except insofar as they are penetrated by the sūtrātmā. [21]
The number of the beads of the rosary varies according to the traditions, and even according to certain more specialised applications. But in the Oriental forms, at least, it is always a cyclic number. Thus in India and Tibet for example, the most common number is 108. In reality, the states which constitute universal manifestation are indefinitely multitudinous, but it is obvious that this multitude could not be adequately represented in a symbol of the sensible order such as that which is in question here, and it is necessary that the beads be definite in number. [22] This being the case, a cyclic number is naturally quite fitting for a circular figure such as we have in view here and which itself represents a cycle, or rather, as we said previously, a 'cycle of cycles'.
In the Islamic tradition, the number of beads is 99 , a number which is likewise 'circular' by its factor of 9 and which here, beyond that, refers to the divine Names. [23] As each seed represents a world, this may also be related to the angels considered as 'rectors of the spheres', [24] each angel representing or somehow expressing a divine attribute, [25] to which that world of which it is the 'spirit' will be more particularly related. On the other hand, it is said that a bead is lacking to complete the hundred (which is the equivalent of bringing multiplicity back to unity), for 99=100-1, and that this bead which is that of the 'Name of the Essence' (Ismu dh-Dhāt) can be found only in Paradise. [26] This is a point that demands several further explanations.
The number 100 , like 10 of which it is the square, normally can refer only to a rectilinear measure, and not to a circular one, [27] so that it cannot be counted on the circumference of the 'chain of the worlds'; but the missing unity corresponds precisely to what we have called the point of junction of the extremities of this chain, a point which, we repeat, does not pertain to the series of manifested states. In geometric symbolism, this point, instead of being on the circumference which represents the whole of manifestation, will be at the very centre of this circumference, the return to the Principle always being represented as a return to the centre. [28] The Principle, in fact, cannot appear in manifestation except by its attributes, that is, according to Hindu idiom, except by its 'non-supreme' aspects which are, to revert to our initial symbol the forms donned by the süträtmä in relation to the different worlds that it traverses (even though, in reality, the süträtmä is not in any way affected by these forms which are, in fact, only appearances due to manifestation itself). But the Principle in itself, that is, the Supreme Self (Paramätmä and no longer süträtmä), or the Essence considered as absolutely independent of any attribution or determination whatever, could not be considered as entering into relation with manifestation, even in illusory mode, although manifestation proceeds from it and depends entirely upon it in all that it is-otherwise it would not be real in any degree whatsoever. [29]
The circumference exists only through the centre; but the centre does not depend upon the circumference in any way or in any respect. The return to the centre, furthermore, can be conceived at two different levels, and the symbolism of Paradise of which we just spoke is equally applicable to both. If one considers first only the multiple modalities of a certain state of existence, such as the human state, the integration of these modalities will converge on the centre of this state, which is in fact Paradise (al-Jannah) understood in its most immediate and most literal acceptation; but this is still only a relative meaning and, if the totality of manifestation is in question, it is necessary, in order to be freed from it without the least trace of conditional existence, to bring about a transposition from the centre of a single state to the centre of the total being, which is what is designated by analogy as the 'Paradise of the Essence' (Jannatu-dh-Dhāt). Let us add that in this latter case the 'hundredth bead' of the rosary is, in truth, the only one that subsists, all the others being finally reabsorbed into it. In the Absolute Reality, indeed, there is no further place for any of the Names which express 'distinctively' the multiplicity of the attributes; there is no longer even Allāhumma (the Name equivalent to the Hebrew Elohim) which synthesizes this multiplicity of attributes in the unity of the Essence. There is nothing other than Allāh, exalted 'ammā yaṣifūn, that is, beyond all attributes, which are only the refracted aspects of the divine Truth which contingent beings as such are capable of conceiving and expressing.