75 § The Ether in the Heart

We have aluded previously to what the Hindu doctrine symbolically calls 'the Ether in the heart', pointing out that what is thus designated is really the divine Principle which dwells, virtually at least, at the centre of every being. The heart here, as in all traditional doctrines, is indeed considered as representing the vital centre of the being in the fullest conceivable sense, for it is not only a matter of the corporeal organ and its physiological function, but this notion applies also, by analogical transposition, to every standpoint and in every domain within the scope of the being under consideration—of the human being, for example, as this case, by the very fact that it is our own, is obviously the one that interests us in the most direct way. Still more precisely, the vital centre is considered as corresponding to the smallest ventricle of the heart; and it is clear that this (where we again find the idea of smallness, of which we have spoken in connection with the mustard seed) acquires an entirely symbolic significance when it is transposed beyond the corporeal domain; but it must be clearly understood that, like all true and authentically tradi-tional symbolism, it is based on reality, by an actual relationship existing between the centre, taken in a higher or spiritual sense, and the determined point of the organism which serves to represent it.

To return to the 'Ether in the heart', here is one of the fundamental texts that pertain to it: 'In this abode of Brahma (that is, in the vital centre just mentioned) there is a small lotus flower, a dwelling place in which there is a small cavity (_dahara_), occupied by Ether (_Akāsha_); one must seek what is in this place, and one will know it'.^[3] That which thus resides in the centre of the being is not simply the ethereal element, principle of the four other sensible elements, as those might believe who would stop short at the most outward meaning, that is, the one that refers only to the corporeal world in which this element does indeed play the part of principle. It is from Ether, by differentiation of complementary qualities (which become opposed in appearance in their outward manifestation), and by the rupture of the primordial equilibrium wherein these qualities were contained in an undiffer-entiated state, that all things in this world are produced and developed.^[4] But this is only a relative principle, just as this world itself is relative, being only a particular mode of universal manifestation. It is no less true, however, that this function of Ether, insofar as it is the first of the elements, is what makes possible the required transposition. Every relative principle, by the fact that it is no less truly a principle in its own order, is a natural though more or less distant image and as it were a reflection of the absolute and supreme Principle. Indeed, it is only as a 'support' for this transposition that Ether is designated here, as the end of the text cited above expressly indicates; for if it were not a question of anything but what the text expresses literally and immediately, obviously there would be nothing to seek. What must be sought is the spiritual reality which corresponds analogically to Ether and of which Ether is, so to speak, the expression in relation to the sensible world. The result of this search is what is called the 'knowledge of the heart' (_hārda-vidyā_) and this is at the same time the 'knowledge of the cavity' (_dahara-vidyā_), an equivalence which in Sanskrit is conveyed by the fact that the corresponding words (_hārda_ and _dahara_) are formed with the same letters which are simply placed in a different order. In other words, it is the knowledge of what is most profound and most inward in the being.^[5]

Just as with the designation Ether, terms such as 'lotus' and 'cavity' must also be taken symbolically. Once one goes beyond the sensible order there can no longer be any question of localisation in the strict sense of the word, inasmuch as the things in question are no longer subject to spatial con-ditions. Expressions relating to space and also to time then acquire the value of pure symbols; and this kind of symbolism is natural and inevitable once it becomes necessary to make use of a mode of expression adapted to the individual and terrestrial human state, a language which is that of beings actually living in space and in time. Thus these two forms, spatial and temporal, which are complementary in certain respects, are very generally and almost constantly used, either together in the same representation, or to give two different representations of the same reality which, neverthe-less, in itself, is beyond space and time. When, for example, it is said that the intelligence dwells in the heart, it goes without saying that there is no question of localising the intelligence, of assigning it 'dimensions' and a deter-mined position in space. It was left to modern and purely profane philosophy, with Descartes, to raise the question, contradictory in its very terms, of a 'set-ting for the soul', and to claim to situate it in a certain region of the brain. Ancient traditional doctrines have assuredly never given way to such con-fusions, and their authorised interpreters have always known perfectly well what is to be interpreted symbolically, in full awareness of the correspondence between the diverse orders of reality, without merging one into another, and strictly observing the hierarchical division of these orders according to the degrees of universal existence. All these considerations seem moreover so obvious that we might be tempted to apologise for insisting on them so much. If we do insist, nevertheless, it is because we know only too well what the orientalists, in their ignorance of the most elementary data of symbolism, have come to make of the doctrines they study from without, never seeking to acquire a direct knowledge of them, and how, taking everything in the most grossly material sense, they deform these doctrines to the point of offer-ing sometimes no more than a veritable caricature of them; and it is also because we know that the attitude of these orientalists is not something exceptional but, on the contrary, that it proceeds from a mentality which is, at least in the West, that of the great majority of our contemporaries and which is in fact nothing other than the specifically modern mentality itself.

The lotus has a symbolism of many aspects, and we have already spoken of some of them elsewhere. In one of these aspects, the one referred to in the above quoted text, it is used to represent the different centres, even secondary centres, of the human being, either physiological (for example, the solar plexus) or, especially, the psychic centres (corresponding to the bodily plexuses in virtue of the link existing between the corporeal state and the subtle state in the composite which strictly constitutes the human individuality). These centres are called 'lotuses' in the Hindu tradition, and they are represented with different numbers of petals which likewise have a symbolic meaning, as have also the colours that are attached to them (not to speak of certain corresponding sounds, which are the mantras relating to various vibratory modalities in harmony with the particular faculties that are respectively governed by these centres and which in a way proceed from their irradiation, figured by the unfolding of the lotus petals). These centres are also called 'wheels' (_chakras_) which, let us note in passing, still further confirms the very close relationship which (as we have noted elsewhere) exists in a general way between the symbolism of the wheel and that of flowers such as the lotus and the rose.

Another remark is called for before going any further: in this case as in all others of the same kind, it would be altogether wrong to believe that the consideration of the higher meanings is incompatible with the admission of the literal sense, that it annuls or destroys what is literal, or that it makes it somehow false. The superposition of a plurality of meanings which, far from excluding one another, on the contrary harmonise and complete each other, is a very general characteristic of genuine symbolism, as we have often explained already. If one limits oneself to consideration of the corporeal world, it is truly Ether, as first of the sensible elements, that plays the 'central' part that has to be recognised in everything that is a principle in any order whatsoever. Its state of homogeneity and perfect equilibrium can be represented by the neutral and primordial point that is prior to all the distinctions and oppositions that emanate from it and finally return to it, in the double movement of alternative expansion and concentration, expiration and inhalation, diastole and systole, of which the two complementary phases of every process of manifestation essentially consist. This is to be found moreover very precisely in the ancient cosmological conceptions of the West, where the four differentiated elements were represented at the extremities of the four branches of a cross, thus forming two opposite pairs: fire and water, air and earth, according to their participation in the corresponding pairs of fundamental qualities: hot and cold, dry and humid, in conformity with the Aristotelian theory; and in certain of these figurations, what the ^{[7] [8]} alchemists called the 'quintessence' (_quinta essentia_), that is, the fifth element, which is nothing other than Ether (first in the order of the development of manifestation, but last in the inverse order which is that of reabsorption or of the return to the primordial homogeneity), appears at the centre of the cross in the form of a five-petalled rose which, as a symbolic flower, obviously brings to mind the lotus of oriental traditions (the centre of the cross corre- sponding here to the 'cavity' of the heart, whether this symbolism be applied from the macrocosmic or microcosmic point of view), while on the other hand, the geometrical schema on which it is drawn is nothing other than the pentagrammatic star or the Pythagorean _pentalpha_.^[9] This is a particular application of the symbolism of the cross and of its centre, in perfect confor- mity with its general signification as we have explained it elsewhere.^[10] At the same time, what has been said here about Ether must naturally be compared also with the cosmogonic theory which is to be found in the Hebrew Kabbala as regards the _Avir_, and which we have already mentioned.^[12]

But in the traditional doctrines, a physical theory (in the ancient sense of this expression) can never be considered as self-sufficient; it is only a point of departure, a 'support' which makes it possible to rise up to the knowledge of higher orders by means of analogical correspondences. Moreover, this is one of the essential differences existing between the standpoint of sacred or traditional science and that of profane science as conceived today. That which dwells in the heart, therefore, is not only Ether in the literal sense of the word; in so far as the heart is the centre of the human being considered in its integrality and not in its corporeal modality alone, what is in this centre is the 'living soul' (_jīvātmā_), containing in principle all the possibilities which are to be developed in the course of individual existence, just as the Ether contains in principle all the possibilities of corporeal or sensible manifes- tation. It is very remarkable, with regard to the concordances between the Eastern and Western traditions, that Dante also speaks of the 'spirit of life, which dwells in the most secret chamber of the heart', ^[13] precisely in this same cavity of which the Hindu doctrine speaks; and what is perhaps most worthy of note is that the expression which he uses here, _spiritu della vita_, is as literal a translation as possible of the Sanskrit term _jīvātmā_, though it is most unlikely that he should have had any means of knowing this.

This is not all: that which relates to the 'living soul' as dwelling in the heart only concerns, at least directly, an intermediary domain, constituting what may rightly be called the psychic order (in the original sense of the Greek word _psuchē_), and which does not go beyond the consideration of the human individuality as such. It is necessary, therefore, to rise again from this to a higher meaning, that is, the purely spiritual or metaphysical meaning; and it need scarcely be said that the superposition of these three meanings corre-sponds exactly to the hierarchy of the 'three worlds'. Thus, what resides in the heart, from a first point of view, is the ethereal element, but not this alone. From a second point of view it is the 'living soul', but not this alone either, for what is represented by the heart is essentially the point of contact of the individual with the universal, or in other words, of the human with the Divine, a point of contact naturally identified with the very centre of the individuality. Consequently, it is necessary to introduce here a third point of view, which may be called 'supra-individual' because, by expressing the relationship of the human being with the Principle, it thereby goes beyond the limits of the individual condition, and it is from this point of view that it can at last be said that what resides in the heart is Brahma itself, the divine Principle from which proceeds all existence and on which it entirely depends, and which, from within, penetrates, sustains and illumines all things. Ether also, in the corporeal world, can be considered as producing all and penetrat-ing all, and this is why the sacred texts of India and their authorised commen-taries offer it as a symbol for Brahma.^[14] That which is designated as the 'Ether in the heart', in the most exalted sense, is therefore Brahma, and consequently 'heart knowledge', when it attains its most profound degree, is truly identical with the 'divine knowledge' (_Brahma-vidyā_).^[15]

The divine Principle, moreover, is considered as somehow dwelling at the centre of every being, which agrees with what St John says when he speaks of 'the true Light which enlightens every man coming into this world'. But this 'divine presence', assimilable to the Hebrew _Shekinah_, may be only virtual, in the sense that the being may not actually be conscious of it. It becomes fully actualized for that being only when he has become conscious of it and has 'realised' it by 'Union', understood in the sense of the Sanskrit _yoga_. The being then knows by the most real and the most immediate of all knowl-edge, that the '_Ātmā_ which dwells in the heart' is not simply the _jīvātmā_, the individual and human soul, but is also the absolute and unconditioned _Ātmā_, the divine and universal Spirit, and that the one and the other, in this central point, are in an indissoluble and inexpressible contact; for in truth they are but one, just as, according to the saying of Christ, 'my Father and I are one'. He who has actually reached this knowledge has truly attained the centre and not only his own centre, but thereby also the centre of all