THE 'POPULAR' MASK

AS WE PREVIOUSLY noted, the ‘_Immortals_' of Taoism are described under appearances that combine extravagance and vulgarity. The union of these two aspects can also be found elsewhere, notably in the _majdhūb_ and the 'juggler', and consequently in those who borrow their outward appearance, all of whom while appearing to be 'mad' evidently also present a certain 'popular' character. These two aspects, however, are not necessarily linked, and it can also happen that the one called either 'vulgar' or 'popular' (these two words being basically synonymous) serves by itself as an initiatic 'mask'; that is, initiates, and especially those of the highest orders, can thereby easily hide themselves among the people, acting so as to avoid being outwardly noticeable. This is the most precise and complete application of the Rosicrucian precept that at all times one adopt the language and costume of the people among whom one is living, and wholly conform to their ways of acting, thereby making it possible to pass unnoticed among the profane, something not without importance in many respects, though there are other more profound reasons for such behavior.

This merits our close attention, for what is involved in such a case is always the people, and not what in the West is called the 'middle class' (or what more or less corresponds to it elsewhere); this is true to such a degree that in Islamic countries it is said that when a _Qutb_ is to manifest himself among ordinary men, he will often take on the appearance of a beggar or a peddler. Moreover, the same people—and this is certainly not an accidental conjunction—are entrusted with the preservation of truths of an esoteric order that would otherwise risk being lost; and since they are doubtless not capable of understanding them, such truths are thus transmitted all the more faithfully, even if in these circumstances they too must be concealed by a more or less crude mask (this being, in brief, the real origin and the true _raison d'être_ of all 'folklore', especially of so-called popular tales). One may well ask how in this milieu—to which some do not hesitate to apply the pejorative 'lower classes'—the elite, and even the uppermost segment of the elite and thus in a sense the very opposite of the former, is able to find its best refuge, both for itself and for the truths of which it is the normal repository; but, although this seems paradoxical if not actually contradictory, we shall soon see that this is not at all the case in reality.

As long as the people have not suffered a 'deviation'—and as an eminently 'plastic' mass, corresponding to the 'substantial' side of what may be called the social entity, they could in no way be responsible for this—they bear within themselves, by virtue of this 'plasticity', the very possibilities that the 'middle class' lacks; and although these are assuredly only indistinct and latent possibilities—virtualities if you wish—they nonetheless exist, and given favorable conditions, are always capable of being developed. Contrary to current views, the people neither act spontaneously nor produce anything on their own; rather, they are like a 'reservoir' from which anything can be drawn, the best as well as the worst, according to the nature of the influences acting upon them. As to what can be expected from the 'middle class', this is all too easily determined if we reflect on the fact that it characterizes itself essentially by that narrowly limited 'common sense' that finds its most perfect expression in the concept of 'ordinary life', and that the most typical products of its mentality are the rationalism and materialism of the modern era, these latter giving the most exact measure of its possibilities, since such are the results when these possibilities are allowed to develop freely. We in no way deny that the middle class has been influenced by certain suggestions, for it too is 'passive', at least relatively speaking; but since it is no less true that this is where the above conceptions took form, thus where these suggestions met with fertile ground, this inevitably implies some correspondence to their own tendencies. And finally, if one is justified in calling it 'middle', is this not above all on condition that the word be invested with the sense of 'mediocrity'?

But there is yet something else, which completes our previous explanation and shows its full significance: the elite, by the very fact that the people is its extreme opposite, truly finds therein its most direct reflection (just as in all things the highest point is directly reflected not at any intermediate point but at the lowest point). Admittedly, it is an obscure and inverse reflection, as with the body with respect to the spirit, but it nonetheless offers the possibility of a 'rectification' comparable to that which takes place at the end of a cycle; for only when the descending movement has reached its limit, and thus its lowest point, can all things be immediately restored to the highest point in order to begin a new cycle. This is why it is correct to say that 'extremes meet', or, rather, that they rejoin. The analogy of the people to the body, to which we have just alluded, is further justified by the characteristics of the 'substantial' element that both present in the social and individual orders respectively, whereas the mental element, above all in its aspect of 'rationality', corresponds instead to the 'middle class'. Thus it follows that the elite, in descending as it were to the people, thereby discovers all the advantages of 'embodiment', insofar as this is necessary for the constitution of a truly complete being in our state of existence; and the multitude is for the elite a 'support' and a 'base', as is the body for the spirit in human individuality.^[1]Moreover, it is particularly important to note that the 'popular' appearance adopted by initiates constitutes, at all degrees, a kind of image of 'descending realization';^[4] this is why the state of the _Malāmatiyah_ is said to 'resemble that of the Prophet, who was elevated to the highest degrees of the divine Proximity,' but who, 'when he returned to the people, spoke with them of external things only,' so that, 'from his intimate conversation with God, no trace appeared on his person.' If it is added that 'this state is superior to that of Moses, upon whose face no one could look after he had spoken with God,' this again refers to the idea of totality as explained above; it is basically an application of the axiom that 'the whole is more than any of its parts',^[5] whatever the part may be, even if it be the most eminent of all. In the case of Moses the 'redescent' is not in fact completely effected, if one may so put it, and does not fully integrate all the inferior levels, but extends only to the level symbolized by the outward appearance of common men, so that these latter may participate in transcendent truth in the measure of their respective possibilities. In a way this is the inverse aspect of what we envisaged when we spoke of the people as a 'support' for the elite; it is also, of course, the complementary aspect, for to be effective this same role of 'support' necessarily requires a certain participation, so that each point of view implies the other reciprocally.^[7]

Needless to say, the precept of avoiding any outward distinction from the multitude, while in reality differing from them most profoundly, is also found expressly in Taoism, and is formulated repeatedly by Lao Tzu himself;^[8] here moreover it is very closely linked to a certain aspect of the symbolism of water, which always collects in the lowest places,^[9] and, although nothing is weaker than it, yet it is able to overcome the strongest and most powerful of things.^[10] Insofar as it is an image of the 'substantial' principle, water can, in the social order, also be a symbol of the people, and this corresponds well to its inferior position; thus the sage, in imitating the nature or character of water, becomes seemingly indistinguishable from the people; but this very fact, more than any other, allows him, not only to influence the entire multitude through his 'action of presence', but also to preserve intact and sheltered from all attack that by which he is inwardly superior to other men, and which moreover constitutes the only true superiority.

We have indicated only the main aspects of this very complex question, and will conclude with one last remark that relates more particularly to the Western esoteric traditions. It is said that those Templars who escaped the destruction of their Order concealed themselves among builders. Even though some are unwilling to see in this anything but a 'legend', the event is no less significant for its symbolism; and it is undeniable that at least some Hermeticists, especially those connected with the Rosicrucian current, acted in this way.^[11] In this connection we may further recall that among the initiatic organizations based on the practice of a craft, those that remained purely ‘artisanal' underwent less of a degeneration than those affected by the intrusion of elements belonging mostly to the 'bourgeoisie'; and, apart from other reasons for this which we have given elsewhere, can we not see in this an example of that faculty of 'popular' conservation belonging to esoterism, of which 'folklore' is another manifestation?

sufficiently explained on other occasions, and that what we have in view goes back much earlier than the beginning of the eighteenth century.