65 § The Symbolism of the Bridge
THOUGH we have already spoken of the symbolism of the bridge on different occasions, we will add some further considerations in connection with a study by Doña Luisa Coomaraswamy on this subject [1] in which she emphasises particularly a point that shows the close connection of this symbolism with the doctrine of the süträtmä. What is involved is the original meaning of the word setu which is the oldest of the different Sanskrit terms for bridge and the only one found in the Rig Veda. This word, derived from the root si, 'to attach', means strictly a bond or a tie; and, in fact, the bridge thrown over a river is indeed what links one bank to the other; but over and above this very general remark there is in addition, in what is implied by this term, something much more precise. The bridge must be thought of as primitively constituted by lines or cords, which are its most orthodox natural model, or by a rope fastened in the same way as these, for example, to trees growing on the two banks, so that the banks are seen to be actually 'attached' to each other by the rope. Since the two banks symbolically represent two different states of the being, it is obvious that the rope plays the same part here as the thread which unites all these states, that is, the süträtmä itself. The quality of such a bond, both slender and strong, is also an adequate image of its spiritual nature; and this is why the bridge, which is also assimilated to a ray of light, is often described traditionally as being as narrow as the edge of a sword, or again, if it is made of wood, as formed from a single beam or a single tree trunk. [2] This narrowness brings out the peril of the way in question which, moreover, is the only way possible, but which all do not succeed in traversing and which very few indeed can pass over unaided, by their own means, [3]
for there is always a certain danger in the passage from one state to another; but this danger relates especially to the double sense, 'benefic' and 'malefic', which the bridge has in common with so many other symbols, and to which we shall have to return shortly.
The two worlds represented by the two shores are, in the most general sense, heaven and earth which at the beginning were united but which were separated by the fact of manifestation, the entire domain of which is then assimilated to a river or to a sea that lies between them. [4] The bridge, therefore, is the exact equivalent of the axial pillar that links heaven and earth even while holding them apart; and it is because of this meaning that it must be conceived of as essentially vertical [5] like all the other symbols of the 'World Axis'-for example, the axle of the 'cosmic chariot' when its two wheels represent heaven and earth. [6] This establishes also the fundamental identity of the symbolism of the bridge with that of the ladder which was the theme of an earlier chapter. [7] Crossing the bridge is thus nothing other than the passage along the axis which alone truly unites the different states one to another. The bank from which the bridge extends is, in fact, this world, that is, the state in which the being who has to traverse the axis actually is; and the bank to which it ultimately leads, after having passed through the other states of manifestation, is the principial world. One of the two banks is the domain of death, where everything is subject to change, and the other is the domain of immortality. [8]
We recalled just now that the axis both links and separates heaven and earth. Similarly, though the bridge is really the way that unites the two shores and allows the passage from one to the other, it may none the less be, in a sense, like an obstacle placed between them, which brings us once again to its 'perilous' nature. This is itself implied, moreover, in the meaning of the word sētu, which is a bond in the two senses in which it can be understood: on the one hand, that which connects two things to each other, but also, on the other hand, a fetter in which the being finds itself caught. A rope can serve equally well for either of these two purposes, and the bridge will appear likewise under one or the other aspect, that is, as benefic or malefic, according to whether the being is successful or not in freeing itself from it. It can be noted that the double symbolic sense of the bridge results also from the fact that it can be traversed in the two opposite directions, while nevertheless it must be crossed in only one direction, that going from 'this shore' towards the 'other', any turning back constituting a danger to be avoided, [9] except in the case of the being who, already freed from conditioned existence, can henceforth 'move at will' through all the worlds and for whom such a reversal is moreover only a purely illusory appearance. In every other case but this, the part of a bridge that has already been traversed must normally be 'lost from view' and become as if it no longer existed, just as the symbolic ladder is always regarded as having its feet in the very domain where the climber actually finds himself, the lower part of the ladder disappearing for him insofar as his ascent has been accomplished. [10] So long as the being has not reached the principial world, from which he may re-descend into manifestation without being affected in any way, realisation cannot in fact be accomplished except in an ascending direction; and for anyone who should attach himself to the way for its own sake, thus taking the means for the end, that way would become veritably an obstacle instead of leading him effectively to liberation. This implies that he must continue to destroy the ties that bind him to the stages he has already traversed, until the axis is finally reduced to a single point which contains all and is the centre of the total being.