2 | Different Types of Ternary
What we have just said has in fact already established how the Triad is to be understood, and at the same time it has also demonstrated how necessary it is to make a clear distinction between ternaries of different types. These various types of ternary could certainly be multiplied almost indefinitely, because it is obvious that three terms can be grouped together in all kinds of different relationships.
However that may be, we shall be focussing in what follows only on the two principal types of ternary. This is not just because these are the ones that present the most general features, but also because among all the different types of ternary they have the most direct bearing on the particular subject of this study. And furthermore, the observations they give rise to will in addition allow us to rule out of court once and for all the crass error committed by those who have claimed to discover a 'dualism' in the Far-Eastern tradition.
Of the two types of ternary we are referring to, one consists of a first principle-that is, first in at least a relative sense-which gives rise to two opposite or mutually opposing terms. To be more
Figure I
correct it would be better to say 'complementary' rather than 'opposite', because wherever appearances present us with an opposition-which will be valid at a certain level or in a certain domain-there we always find that complementarity corresponds to a point of view which is more profound and consequently more truly in accord with the real
nature of the phenomenon in question. A ternary of this type can be depicted in the form of a triangle with its apex situated at the top (figure I).
The other type of ternary, as mentioned earlier, consists of two complementary terms plus their product or resultant. It is to this type of ternary that the FarEastern Triad belongs. In direct contrast to the first type, it can be depicted in the form of a triangle with its base at the top (figure 2). [1]
If we compare these two triangles it becomes apparent that the second is as it were a reflection of the first. This points to the existence
Figure 2
between the two ternaries of an analogy in the true sense of the word-that is, one that has to be applied inversely. And indeed if we start off with the two complementary terms-which are necessarily in a symmetrical relationship to each other-we see that in the first case the ternary is brought to completion by their originating principle and in the second case it is brought to completion by their resultant. This means that the two complementary terms occur respectively after and before this other term which, being of an altogether different order, stands as it were in isolation from them. [2] At any rate it is quite clear that this third term is the factor that gives the ternary its meaning and significance.
Now there is one fact that we need to have a clear grasp of before we can proceed any further. This is that there can be no
question of 'dualism' in any doctrine unless two opposed or complementary terms (and they would naturally tend to be conceived of as opposed rather than complementary) are posited at the very outset, and are regarded as ultimate, irreducible and not capable in any way of being derived from a common principle. Clearly this excludes any ternary of the first type, which means that only ternaries of the second type could be found in such a doctrine. Yet, as we have already pointed out, ternaries of this second type never have any application outside of the domain of manifestation, and this makes it immediately evident that any 'dualism' is of necessity also a 'naturalism'.
However, the mere fact of acknowledging the existence of a duality and situating it where it truly belongs is in no way tantamount to 'dualism', so long as the two terms of this duality derive from a single principle belonging as such to a higher order of reality. And this is precisely the case with, first and foremost, the primary duality of all, namely that of Essence and universal Substance. These derive from a polarisation of Being, or original Unity, and through their interaction all manifestation is produced. In Hindu tradition the two terms of this primary duality are called Purusha and Prakriti; in Far-Eastern tradition, Heaven (T'ien) and Earth (Ti). And yet in using these terms neither of these traditions, any more than any other orthodox tradition, ever loses sight of the higher principle from which they both derive.
We have on other occasions fully explained the facts as far as the Hindu tradition is concerned. As for the Far-Eastern tradition, it is no less explicit in its postulate of a common origin of Heaven and Earth, [3] which it calls the 'Great Extreme' (T'ai Chi). In it Heaven and Earth are indissolubly united in the state of 'non-separation' and 'non-distinction' [4] prior to all differentiation. [5] It is pure Being, and as such is identical to the 'Great
Unity' (T'ai I). [6] And this is not the end of the matter: T'ai Chi, transcendental Being or Unity, itself presupposes another principle-Wu Chi, Non-Being or the metaphysical Nought. [7] But it is impossible for this principle to enter into relationship with anything besides itself in such a way as to become the first term of a ternary, for no relationship of this sort could possibly exist prior to the affirmation of Being or Unity. [8]
To sum up: we have first of all a ternary of the first type, consisting of T'ai Chi, T'ien and Ti, and only then do we have a ternary of the second type, consisting of T'ien, Ti and Man. It is this second ternary that people have become accustomed to refer to as the 'Great Triad'. These being the facts of the matter, one is completely at a loss to understand how certain people could possibly believe themselves justified in ascribing a 'dualistic' nature to the Far-Eastern tradition.
Consideration of two ternaries such as the ones we have just been discussing, both of them sharing in common the same two complementary principles, leads us on to several other important observations.
The two inverted triangles that represent the two ternaries can be regarded as having the same base. Now if we imagine them joined together by this common base we perceive two things. Firstly, the combination of the two ternaries creates a quaternary, for two of the terms are the same in both ternaries and this means that in fact we are only dealing with four distinct terms. Secondly, the final term of the quaternary is located on the vertical descending from the first term, and as it occupies a position exactly symmetrical to this first term from the point of view of the base, it
Figure 3
can therefore be regarded as a reflection of the first term. The plane of this reflection is the base itself, which is simply the
median plane connecting the two complementary terms that originate from the first term and in turn produce the last (figure 3). [9]
This is basically quite easy to understand. On the one hand the two complementary terms are contained within the first term qua their principle; accordingly their different natures, even when seemingly opposed to each other, are really just the result of a differentiation of the nature of that principle. On the other hand the final term, qua product of the two complementary terms, participates in the nature of both. This amounts to saying that in a sense it combines within itself the nature of both of them and is consequently, at its own particular level, a kind of mirror image of the first term.
In ancient English Operative Freemasonry, the total number of degrees of these two circumferences (360 x 2=720) supplied the answer to the question concerning the length of the 'cable-tow', a peculiar word which by virtue of its phonetics possesses a double meaning: by assimilation to the Arabic qabiltu it is suggestive of the initiatory commitment, and consequently could be said to convey the idea of a 'bond' in every sense of the word.
On the basis of these considerations we can proceed to an even more exact formulation of the relationship existing between the different terms. We have just seen how the two terms of the quaternary that are furthest apart from each other are the first term of the first ternary and the last term of the second, and we have also seen how both of these terms by their very nature play a fundamentally mediatory role between the two others. This they do for opposite reasons in each case: both of them combine and reconcile within themselves the elements of the complementarity, but one does this qua principle, the other qua resultant.
To make this intermediary role more tangible we can arrange the terms of each ternary in a linear form. [10] In the first case, the first term now occupies the central place on the line joining the two other terms, and from here gives rise to those other terms simultaneously through a centrifugal movement that proceeds in both directions. This can be called its polarisation (figure 4). In the second case the two complementary terms are sources of a
Figure 4
Figure 5
centripetal movement which originates from them both simultaneously to produce a resultant-the final term; and this too occupies the middle of the line uniting the complementaries (figure 5). So principle and resultant both occupy a central position in relation to the two complementary terms, and this fact is especially worth bearing in mind in view of the observations we shall be making later.
One other thing needs mentioning here. As we have already explained elsewhere, [11] two opposed or complementary terms (and they will always be found at bottom to be complementary in their essential reality rather than opposed) can, as the case may be, stand in opposition to each other either horizontally (opposition between right and left) or vertically (opposition between higher
Figure 6
and lower). Horizontal opposition occurs between two terms which share the same degree of reality and are, so to speak, symmetrical in every respect. Vertical opposition indicates, on the contrary, a hierarchical relationship between the two terms. Although still symmetrical in the sense of being complementary, they are related in such a way that one of them must be considered to be higher, or superior, and the otherlower, or inferior.
It is important to notice that in a vertical opposition the first term of a ternary of the first type cannot be placed between the two complementaries or in the middle of the line that joins them: this can only be done with the third term of a ternary of the second type. The reason is that a principle can never be situated at a lower level than one of the two terms that derive from it; it is necessarily higher than, or superior to, them both. The resultant, on the other hand, is a true intermediary in this respect as well. As this is the case with the FarEastern Triad, we can re-arrange it in the form of a vertical line (figure 6). [12] It is indeed a fact that Essence and universal Substance are, respectively, the upper and the lower pole of manifestation, and to describe the former as being above all existence and the other as below all existence
is quite accurate. Further, when we call them by their names Heaven and Earth, this even translates itself with the greatest of precision into the sensory appearances that serve as their symbols. [13]
All manifestation, then, occurs between these two poles; and naturally the same applies to Man. For not only is he a part of this manifestation: symbolically he represents its very centre, which means that he is a synthesis of all that it contains. So, situated as he is between Heaven and Earth, Man must in the first instance be viewed as the product or resultant of their reciprocal influences. But then, by virtue of the dual nature he inherits from both, he becomes the median term or 'mediator' which unites them: using a symbolism we shall return to later, he is as it were the 'bridge' passing from the one to the other.
These two different viewpoints can be expressed by simply modifying the sequence in which the terms of the Triad are enumerated. If we present the Triad in the sequence 'Heaven, Earth, Man', Man assumes the guise of Son of Heaven and Earth. But if we present it in the sequence 'Heaven, Man, Earth', he assumes the role of Mediator between Heaven on the one hand and Earth on the other.