PRINCIPLES OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE STATES OF BEING
Up to this point, in what has more particularly concerned the human being, we have above all considered the extension of individual possibility, which alone constitutes the properly human state; but the being that possesses this state also possesses all the other states, at least virtually, for without them there could be no question of the total being. If one considers all these states in their relation to the individual human state, one can class them as 'prehuman' and 'post-human', but without thereby suggesting any idea of temporal succession, there being no question here of 'before' or 'after' except in an altogether symbolic sense. [1] In the various cycles of the being's development, the order of consequence is purely logical, or rather both logical and ontological, since metaphysically, that is to say from the principial point of view, all these cycles are essentially simultaneous and can only become successive accidentally, as it were, with regard to certain special conditions of manifestation.
We must once again emphasize that the temporal condition, conceived in however generalized a way, is applicable only to certain cycles or to certain particular states such as the human, or even only to certain modalities of these states, such as the corporeal modality (certain of the prolongations of the human individuality being capable of escaping time, without thereby leaving the order of individual possibilities), and can in no way intervene in the totalization of the being. [2] It is exactly the same in the case of the spatial condition, moreover, or of any other condition to which we are currently subject as individual beings, as well as of those conditions to which all the other states of manifestation included in the whole of the domain of universal Existence are subject.
It is assuredly legitimate to establish a distinction within the totality of the states of the being by relating them to the human state (as we have just done), whether one calls them logically anterior and posterior, or even superior or inferior to this state, and from the outset we have given reasons that justify such a distinction; but in truth this is only a very particular point of view, and the fact that it is currently ours should not give us any illusions in this regard; in addition, in all cases where it is not indispensable to place oneself at this point of view, it is better to have recourse to a principle of distinction of a more general order and which presents a more fundamental character, without, however, forgetting that all distinction is necessarily contingent. The most principial distinction of all, if one may put it so, and the one susceptible of the most universal application, is that which divides the states of manifestation from the states of non-manifestation, which, because it is of capital importance for the whole theory of the multiple states, we actually posed before any other at the beginning of the present study. Nevertheless, one sometimes has occasion to envisage more restricted distinctions. One such example is the distinction one could establish when one is no
longer referring to universal manifestation in its integrality, but simply to one or another of the general or special conditions of existence known to us; one could also divide the states of being into two categories, according to whether or not they were subject to the condition in question, and in all cases the states of non-manifestation, being unconditioned, will necessarily belong to the second category, of which the determination is purely negative. Thus, we will have on the one hand the states included within a certain determined domain of greater or lesser extension, and on the other hand all the rest, that is, all the states that lie outside this same domain; there will consequently be a certain asymmetry and a sort of disproportion between these two categories, of which only the first is delimited in reality, whatever may be the characteristic element serving to determine it. [3] To represent this geometrically, one could consider any closed curve traced on a plane as dividing the whole plane into two regions, one situated inside the curve, which envelops and defines it, and the other extending to everything lying outside that same curve; the first of these regions will be definite, the second indefinite. The same considerations apply to a closed surface within the threedimensional extension which we have taken to symbolize the totality of the being; but it is important to note that in this case, too, one of the regions is strictly defined as soon as the surface is closed, although it nonetheless contains an indefinitude of points, whereas, in the division of the states of the being, the category susceptible of a positive determination and thus of an effective delimitation nevertheless comprises possibilities of indefinite development, however restricted one may suppose this to be in relation to the totality. To obviate this imperfection in the geometrical representation, one need only remove the restriction we imposed by considering a closed surface to the exclusion of an open one: any line or surface whatsoever, in approaching the limits of the indefinite, is in effect always reducible to a closed curve or surface, [4] so that one can say
that it divides the plane or the volume into two regions, both of which can be indefinite in extension, but only one of which, as in the preceding, is conditioned by a positive determination resulting from the properties of the curve or surface under consideration.
In the case where one establishes a distinction by relating the totality of states to any single state, whether human or any other, the determining principle is of an order different from the one we have just indicated, for it is no longer reducible purely and simply to the affirmation and negation of a certain condition. [5] Geometrically, one must then consider the volume as divided in two by the plane representing the state taken as a basis or term of comparison, what is situated on either side of the envisaged plane then presenting a sort of symmetry or equivalence lacking in the previous case. This is the distinction that we have set forth elsewhere, in its most general form, in connection with the Hindu theory of the three gunas; [6] the plane serving as a basis is in principle indeterminate, and can represent any conditioned state whatsoever, so that it is only secondarily, when choosing to place oneself at the point of view of that particular state, that one may define it as representing the human state.
Furthermore, to facilitate correct applications of this analogy, it may be advantageous to extend the last representation to all cases, even to those to which it does not seem directly suitable, given the preceding considerations. To this end we need only envisage the base plane as that by which one determines the distinction in question, whatever may be its principle; the extended part lying below this plane will represent what is subject to the determination concerned, while the part above will then represent what is not subject to that same determination. The only drawback in such a representation is that the two regions of the overall extension seem to be equally indefinite, and indefinite in the same way; but one can efface this symmetry by regarding their plane of separation as the
limit of a sphere of which the center is indefinitely distant in a downward direction, which in reality brings us back to the first mode of representation, for this is only a particular instance of that reduction to a closed surface to which we have just alluded. In sum, it suffices to keep in mind that the appearance of symmetry in such a case is only due to a certain imperfection in the symbol employed; moreover, one can always pass from one representation to another when one finds another more convenient or in some way more advantageous, since by very reason of that imperfection, in the nature of things inevitable, as we have often had occasion to point out, any single representation is generally insufficient to fully render a conception of the order concerned here (and this is leaving aside what is inexpressible).
Although the states of being may be divided into two categories in various ways, it goes without saying that in none of these divisions is there any trace whatsoever of dualism, for the division is effected by means of a single principle, such as a certain condition of existence, and thus, in reality, there is only a single determination, but which is envisaged both positively and negatively at the same time. Besides, to dismiss all suspicion of dualism, however unjustified it may be, it suffices to observe that all these distinctions, far from being irreducible, exist only from the very relative point of view through which they are established, and even that they acquire this contingent existence, the only existence of which they are capable, solely in the measure in which we ourselves bestow it by our conception. The point of view of manifestation in its entirety, although obviously more universal than others, like them remains altogether relative, since manifestation itself is purely contingent; and this observation applies even to the distinction we considered between the most fundamental and the closest to the principial order, that between the states of manifestation and non-manifestation, as we already took care to point out when speaking of Being and Non-Being.