I Spiritus, Anima, Corpus
A ternary division is the most common and also the most basic way of defining the constitution of a living being, and in particular the constitution of man. The Cartesian dualism of 'spirit' and 'body' which has managed to infiltrate all of modern Western thought has no basis whatever in reality; we have laboured this point often enough elsewhere and there is no need to go into the matter yet again.
On the other hand, the triple division into spirit, soul and body has been unanimously accepted by all the traditional doctrines of the West, both in antiquity and in the Middle Ages. The fact that at a later age people came to forget it so completely that they began treating 'spirit' and 'soul' as little more than rather vague synonyms and using the terms interchangeably, even though they refer to realities of a totally different order, is perhaps one of the most striking examples one could give of the confusion that is so typical of the modern mentality. Unfortunately the consequences of this error are not all purely theoretical, and this makes it even more potentially dangerous. [1] However, this is a question that does not immediately concern us here, and our aim in this chapter will be purely to draw attention to a few aspects of the traditional ternary division that are directly relevant to the theme of this study.
The distinction made between spirit, soul and body has been applied to the 'macrocosm' as well as to the 'microcosm'. This is hardly surprising if we consider that the constitution of the one is by definition analogous to the constitution of the other, meaning that we are bound to come across elements in either 'macrocosm' or 'microcosm' which correspond exactly to elements in the other. Among the Greeks this kind of thinking is chiefly to be found in
the cosmological doctrine of the Pythagoreans, who were in fact only 're-adapting' teachings that were much more ancient. Plato took much of his inspiration from this doctrine and adhered to it far more closely than is generally believed. It was partly through him as intermediary that something of this teaching was transmitted to later philosophers such as the Stoics, although the approach of the Stoics was much more exoteric and this resulted only too frequently in the ideas being mutilated and distorted.
To return to the Pythagoreans: their basic conception was of a quaternary consisting first of all of the Principle, which relative to the Cosmos is transcendent, then of universal Spirit and universal Soul, and finally of primordial Hyle, or Matter. [2] It is important to note that because this final term represents pure potentiality, it cannot simply be equated with the body: it would be more to the point to compare it with the 'Earth' of the Great Triad than with the 'Earth' of the Tribhuvana. On the other hand, universal Spirit and universal Soul clearly correspond to the Tribhuvana's other two terms. As for the transcendent Principle, in some respects it is equivalent to the 'Heaven' of the Great Triad; and yet there is also a sense in which it is identical to Being or metaphysical Unity-T'ai Chi. No clear distinction seems to be made here, but this was perhaps hardly necessary given the perspective which gave rise to the quaternary, which was much more cosmological than metaphysical. One thing which is quite certain is that as soon as this teaching fell into the hands of the Stoics it was distorted by being placed in a 'naturalistic' framework. The transcendent Principle lapsed into oblivion, leaving behind only an immanent 'God' whom the Stoics simply identified with the Spiritus Mundi. We say with the Spiritus Mundi and not with the Anima Mundi, as certain modern interpreters who have been misled by the contemporary confusion between spirit and soul would seem to believe. In fact both for the Stoics as well as for those who were more faithful to the traditional doctrine, the Anima Mundi has never had any other than a purely 'demiurgic' role (using the word
'demiurgic' in its strictest sense), in the elaboration of the Cosmos out of the primordial Hyle.
We have just spoken of the elaboration of the Cosmos, but perhaps it would be more accurate - for two reasons - to speak of the formation of the Corpus Mundi. The first reason is that the 'demiurgic' function is strictly a 'formative' one; [3] the second, that in a sense universal Spirit and universal Soul are themselves parts of the Cosmos. We say 'in a sense', because universal Spirit and Soul can actually be considered from two different viewpoints comparable to what in our last chapter we referred to as the 'genetic' and the 'static'. From the first of these points of view they are 'principles', although in a strictly relative sense; from the second they are themselves constituent 'elements' of the 'macrocosm', the reason being that in manifested Existence we are 'this side' of the distinction between Essence and Substance. From the 'essential' point of view, Spirit and Soul are 'reflections' at different levels of the Principle of manifestation itself. But from the 'substantial' point of view they appear as 'productions' drawn from the materia prima, although they themselves will determine its subsequent productions in a descending order. [4] The reason for this is that if universal Spirit and universal Soul are to have an effective role in manifested existence they must necessarily become an integral part of universal manifestation themselves. The interrelationship between these two different perspectives can be depicted symbolically in terms of the complementary relationship between a ray of light and the plane of its reflection. Both are needed to produce an image, for on the one hand the image will be a true reflection of the source of light itself, and on the other hand it will be situated at the level of reality corresponding to the plane of reflection. [5] Using the terminology of the
Far-Eastern tradition, the ray of light will correspond to celestial influences and the plane of reflection to terrestrial influences, and this brings us back once more to the distinction between the 'essential' and 'substantial' aspects of manifestation. [6]
It goes without saying that these remarks apply not only to the 'macrocosm' but also to the location and function of spirit and soul in the 'microcosm'. It is only the body which can never be truly considered a 'principle' because, as the end-point or final term of manifestation (at least as far as our world or our state of existence is concerned), it is solely a 'product' and is in no way capable of becoming a 'producer'. Through this characteristic, the body is the fullest expression possible in the sphere of manifestation of the passivity of substance. But at the same time this characteristic very clearly distinguishes it from Substance itself, which as a 'maternal' principle co-operates in the production of manifestation.
From what has been said it can be seen that the ternary spirit-soul-body is different from ternaries which consist of two complementary-and as it were symmetrical-terms plus a product of these terms occupying an intermediate position between them. In the case of the spirit-soul-body ternary (as, of course, in the case of the Tribhuvana which it corresponds to exactly), the first two terms are both situated on the same side relative to the third term. As to the third term itself, even though it can still in a broad sense be considered the product of the other two terms, those two terms no longer play a symmetrical role in producing it. The body has its immediate principle in the soul, but it only derives from the spirit indirectly and through the intermediary of the soul. Only when we view the being as fully constituted - that is, from what we earlier called a 'static' viewpoint-are we able to equate its 'essential' aspect with the spirit and its 'substantial' aspect with the body, and so discover a symmetry. But it will be noted that this symmetry is not between the first two terms of the ternary, but between the first and the third: in other words soul
is here the intermediary between spirit and body, and this justifies its designation as a 'mediating' principle which we mentioned earlier. Even so, however, as the second term it is necessarily prior to the third, [7] which means that it cannot possibly be regarded as a product or resultant of the other two terms at either extreme.
A further question is likely to be raised here. How can it be that in spite of this lack of symmetry between spirit and soul, the two terms are still sometimes thought of as in a sense complementary, spirit being regarded as a masculine principle and soul as a feminine one? The answer is that because the spirit is closer than anything else in manifestation to the pole of essence, the soul when considered in relationship to it will become identified with substance: in relation to each other spirit will be yang and soul will be yin, which is why we often find spirit symbolised by the Sun and soul by the Moon-an analogy which is further corroborated when we consider spirit as the light that emanates directly from the Principle, while soul presents no more than a reflection of this light. It is worth adding that the 'intermediary world', which can also be called the 'animic' domain, is the sphere in which forms are elaborated, and this elaboration is essentially a 'substantial' or 'maternal' function. It is carried out through the action, or rather the influence, of the spirit, which therefore plays here an 'essential' or 'paternal' role - although it must of course be stressed that this action or influence of spirit is solely an 'action of presence' which imitates the 'actionless' action of Heaven. [8]
While on this particular subject we will touch briefly on the
principal symbols used to represent the Anima Mundi. One of the most common is the serpent, and the reason for this will be readily appreciated if we remember that the animic world is the domain of cosmic forces, and that although these forces also act in the
Figure 15
corporeal world they themselves belong to the subtle realm. This links up with what was said earlier about the symbolism of the double spiral and of the caduceus. One further detail worth mentioning here is that the dual aspect of cosmic force corresponds closely to the intermediate nature of this animic world, which makes it a meeting place for both celestial and terrestrial influences.
When used as a symbol of the Anima Mundi, the serpent is most commonly depicted in the circular form of the Uroboros. In fact this form is a very appropriate way of depicting the animic principle: for when viewed from the corporeal world this principle is on the side of essence, whereas when viewed from the spiritual world it is on the side of substance. In other words it may take on the attributes of either essence or substance, depending on the viewpoint from which it is being considered, and this so to speak gives it an apparently dual nature.
The combination of these two aspects recurs in a quite remarkable way in another symbol of the Anima Mundi which was used in medieval Hermetism (figure 15). This is the figure of a circle within an 'animated' square - that is, a square standing on one of its corners to suggest the idea of movement, as opposed to the
stability expressed by a square resting on its base. [9] What makes this figure especially interesting from our particular point of view is that the circular and square shapes which it is composed of have exactly the same meaning as they have in the Far-Eastern tradition. [10]