THE SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES
Only the hierarchization of the multiple states in the effective realization of the total being enables us to understand how, from the point of view of pure metaphysics, one must envisage the 'spiritual hierarchies', as they are generally called. This term is usually understood to mean hierarchies of beings differing from man and from each other, as if each degree were occupied by special beings, respectively limited to corresponding states; but the concept of the multiple states manifestly exempts us from having to adopt this point of view which, though legitimate enough for theology or for other sciences or particular speculations, has nothing metaphysical about it. Fundamentally, the existence of extra-human, or supra-human, beings, which may assuredly include an indefinitude of types, is of little importance to us, whatever may be the names by which they are designated; even if we have every reason to admit their existence, since we see non-human beings in the world around us and consequently conclude that in other states there must be beings that do not pass through human manifestation (even if it be only those that are represented here by these non-human individualities), we nevertheless have no motive for occupying ourselves especially with them, any more than with the infra-human beings, which also exist and could be envisaged in the same fashion. No one would dream of making the detailed classification of the non-human beings of the terrestrial world the subject of a metaphysical study, or one so called; why then should it be otherwise for beings that happen to exist in other worlds, that is, that occupy other states, which, however superior they may be in relation to our own, are nonetheless,
and by the same token, part of the domain of universal manifestation? It is easy to see that those philosophers who wished to limit the being to a single state, considering man in his more or less extended individuality as constituting a complete whole unto himself, although led nevertheless for some reason to postulate vaguely that there are other degrees within universal Existence, have only construed these degrees as the domains of beings that are completely alien to us, except in what they have in common with all beings; and, at the same time, an anthropomorphic tendency has often inclined them to exaggerate such a commonality of nature by attributing to these beings faculties not simply analogous, but similar or even identical, to those belonging properly to individual man. [1] In reality, the states concerned are incomparably more different from the human state than any modern Western philosopher has ever been able to conceive even remotely; nonetheless, whatever the beings currently occupying them, these states can equally well be realized by all other beings, including a being that is simultaneously a human being in another state of manifestation, for otherwise, as we have already said, there could not be any question of the totality of any being, since to be effective, that totality must necessarily include all states both of manifestation (formal and non-formal) as well as of non-manifestation, each according to the mode in which the being under consideration is capable of realizing it. We have noted elsewhere that nearly all that has been said theologically of the angels can be said metaphysically of the superior states of the being, [2] just as in the astrological symbolism of the Middle Ages the 'heavens', that is to say the various planetary and stellar spheres, represent these same states and also the initiatic degrees to which their realization corresponds; [3] and like the 'heavens' and 'hells', the Devas
and Asuras in the Hindu tradition, represent respectively the superior and inferior states in relation to the human state. [4] All this does not of course exclude any modes of realization that may be proper to other beings, just as there are modes peculiar to the human being to the extent that his individual state is taken as a starting-point and as a basis for realization; but these modes that are foreign to us are no more important to us than are all the forms that we will never be called upon to realize, such as the animal, vegetable, and mineral forms of the corporeal world, because they are already realized by other beings in the order of universal manifestation, of which the indefinitude excludes all repetition. [5]
It follows from what we have just said that by 'spiritual hierarchies' we cannot properly mean anything other than the totality of the states of being that are superior to human individuality, and more especially of the non-formal or supra-individual states, states that we must regard as realizable for the being starting from the human state, even in the course of its corporeal and terrestrial existence. This realization is essentially implied in the totalization of the being, and thus in the 'Deliverance' (Moksha or Mukti) by which the being is freed from the ties of every special condition of existence, and which, not being susceptible of differing degrees, is as complete and perfect when it is obtained as 'liberation in life' (jivan-mukti) as it is in the case of 'liberation beyond form' (videha-mukti), as we have already set forth elsewhere. [6] Moreover there can be no spiritual degree superior to that of the Yogi, for the latter, having attained that 'Deliverance' which is at the same time 'Union' (Yoga) or 'Supreme Identity', has nothing further to attain; but though the goal to be reached is the same for all beings, each, of course, must reach it according to its 'personal way', and hence by modalities susceptible of indefinite variations. One will understand therefore that in the course of this realization there may be multiple and various stages, which, moreover, may be traversed successively or simultaneously as the case may be, and which, since they still refer to determinate
states, must never be confused with the total liberation that is their supreme outcome and conclusion; [7] and here we have just as many degrees as can be envisaged in the 'spiritual hierarchies', whatever more or less general classification one establishes according to need, in the indefinitude of their possible modalities, the classification naturally depending on the particular point of view one chooses to adopt. [8]
At this point it is essential to note that the degrees of which we speak, representing as they do states that are still contingent and conditioned, are of no metaphysical importance in themselves but are so only in view of the unique goal to which they all tend, and precisely to the extent that they are regarded as degrees; of this goal they merely constitute a sort of preparation. Moreover, there is no common measure between any particular state, however elevated, and the total and unconditioned state; and one must never lose sight of the fact that since from the standpoint of the Infinite the entirety of manifestation is strictly nil, the differences between its component states must obviously be so as well, however considerable these differences may be in themselves when one envisages only the various conditioned states separating them from each other. If the passage to certain superior states in some way constitutes a progress toward 'Deliverance' relative to the state taken as a point of departure, it must nevertheless be understood that when the latter is realized, it will always imply a discontinuity with respect to the immediately preceding state of the being that achieves it, and that the discontinuity will be neither more nor less profound whatever this state may be, since in all cases there is between the 'undelivered' and the 'delivered' being no relation such as exists between the different conditioned states. [9]
By reason of the equivalence of all the states vis-à-vis the Absolute, when the final goal is attained from any degree the being need not previously have traversed all other degrees since thenceforward it already possesses them all into the bargain, so to speak, because they are integral elements of its totalization. On the other hand, when there is reason to do so, the being that possesses all the states can obviously always be considered in relation to one of these states more particularly, and as if 'situated' effectively therein, although in reality it is beyond all states, and, so far from being contained in any of them, contains them all within itself. One could say that in such a case the states will simply be various aspects constituting as many 'functions' of the being, without its being at all affected by their conditions, conditions that exist for it only in illusory mode, since, insofar as it is truly the 'Self', its state is essentially unconditioned. It is thus that its appearance in respect of form, even its corporeal appearance, can subsist for a being that is 'delivered in life' (jīvanmukta), and that 'during its residence in the body it is not affected by its properties, just as the sky is not affected by what floats upon its bosom'; [10] and it remains equally 'unaffected' by all other contingencies, whatever the state, individual or supra-individual, that is, formal or non-formal, to which they refer in the order of manifestation, which in the final analysis is only itself the sum of all contingencies.