7 BUDDHI OR THE HIGHER INTELLECT

THE FIRST DEGREE OF THE MANIFESTATION of _Ātmā_, taking this expression in the sense explained in the last chapter, is the higher intellect (_Buddhi_), which, as we have seen above, is also called _Mahat_ or the 'great principle'; it is the second of the twenty-five principles of the _Sāņkhya_ and the first therefore of all the productions of _Prakriti_. This principle still pertains to the universal order, since it is formless; we must not, however, forget that it already belongs to manifestation, and therefore proceeds from _Prakriti_, for all manifestation, at whatever degree we take it, necessarily implies the two correlative and complementary terms, _Purusha_ and. _Prakriti_, ‘essence' and 'substance'. It is nonetheless true that _Buddhi_ transcends the domain not only of human individuality but of every individual state whatsoever, and it is this which justifies its other name of _Mahat_: it is never really individualized, therefore, and it is not until the next stage, that of the particular (or rather ‘particularist') consciousness of the 'ego', that we shall find individuality realized.

_Buddhi_, considered in relation to the human individuality or to any other individual state, is, then, its immediate but transcendent principle, just as, from the point of view of universal Existence, formless manifestation is the principle of formal manifestation; and it is at the same time what may be called the expression of the personality in manifestation, therefore that which unifies the being throughout the indefinite multiplicity of its individual states (the human state, in its utmost extension, being but one state among all the rest). In other words, if we view the ‘Self' (_Ātmā_) or personality, as the Spiritual Sun^[1] which shines at the center of the entire being, _Buddhi_ will be the ray directly emanating from this Sun and illuminating in its entirety the particular individual state that more especially concerns us, while at the same time linking it to the other individual states of the same being, or rather, more generally still, to all the manifested states (individual or non-individual) of that being, and, beyond these, to the center itself. Further, it should be remarked, without however going into the question so far as to interrupt the course of our exposition, that, owing to the fundamental unity of the being in all its states, the center of each state, where this spiritual ray is projected, should be regarded as virtually, if not effectively, identified with the center of the entire being; and it is for this reason that any state whatsoever, the human state as well as any other, can be taken as a basis for the realization of the Supreme Identity. It is precisely in this sense, and in virtue of this identification, that one may say, as we did in the first place, that _Purusha_ itself dwells at the center of the human individuality, that is to say at the point where the intersection of the spiritual ray with the realm of the vital possibilities determines the ‘living soul’ (_jīvātmā_). ^[2]

Furthermore, _Buddhi_, like everything that proceeds from the potentialities of _Prakriti_, participates in the three _guṇas_; that explains why, when viewed from the standpoint of distinctive knowledge (_vijñāna_), it is regarded as ternary, and, in the sphere of universal Existence, it is then identified with the divine _Trimurti_;

_Mahat_ is conceived distinctively as three Gods [in the sense of three aspects of the intelligible Light, for this is the real meaning of the Sanskrit word Deva, of which the Latin word Deus is, moreover, etymologically the exact equivalent],^[3] through the influence of the three _guṇas_, being one single manifestation [mūrti] in three Gods. In the universal order, it is the Divinity [Ishvara, not in himself, but under his three principal aspects as Brahmā, Vishnu, and Shiva, constituting the Trimurti, or 'triple manifestation']; but regarded distributively [under the aspect of 'separativity', which is, moreover, purely contingent] it belongs [without however being itself individualized] to individual beings [to whom it communicates the possibility of participating in the divine attributes, that is to say in the very nature of Universal Being, the Principle of all existence]. ^[4] It is easy to see that _Buddhi_ is here considered in its respective relations with the first two of the three _Purushas_ which are spoken of in the _Bhagavad-Gītā_: in the ‘macrocosmic' order the ‘_immutable_’ _Purusha_ is _Ishvara_ himself, of whom the _Trimurti_ is the expression in manifested mode (we are speaking, of course, of formless manifestation, for there is nothing individual about it); and it is stated that the other _Purusha_ is ‘_disseminated among all beings_’. Similarly, in the ‘_microcosmic_’ order, _Buddhi_ may be viewed relatively to the personality (_Atmā_) and relatively the ‘_living soul_’ (_jīvātmā_), the latter moreover only being the reflection of the personality in the individual human state, a reflection which could not exist without the mediation of _Buddhi_. To recall here the symbol of the sun and its reflected image in the water, _Buddhi_ is, as we have stated, the ray which determines the formation of the image and at the same time unites it with its luminous source.

It is in virtue of the twofold relationship which has just been indicated, and of this function of intermediary between the personality and the individuality, that we may regard the intellect, in spite of the inevitable inadequacy of such a way of speaking, as passing in some sort from the state of universal potentiality to the individualized state, but without really ceasing to be such as it was, since this apparent passage only comes about through its intersection with the particular domain constituted by certain conditions of existence defining the individuality in question; it then produces as a resultant of this intersection the individual consciousness (_ahaņkāra_), implied in the ‘_living soul_’ (_jīvātmā_) in which it is inherent. As we have already pointed out, this consciousness, which is the third principle of the _Sankhya_, gives rise to the notion of the ‘_ego_’ (_aham_, whence the name _ahaņkāra_, literally ‘that which makes the _me_’), since its proper function is to establish the individual conviction (_abhimāna_), that is to say precisely the notion that the ‘_I am_’ is concerned with external (_bāhya_) and internal (_abhyantara_) objects, which are respectively the objects of perception (_pratyaksha_) and contemplation (_dhyāna_); and the sum total of these objects is described by the term _idam_, ‘_this_’, when conceived as in opposition to _aham_ or ‘_me_’, a purely relative opposition, however, and for that reason quite different from that which modern philosophers claim to establish between ‘_subject_’ and ‘_object_’ or between ‘_mind_’ and ‘_things_’. Thus the individual consciousness proceeds directly, but simply as a conditioned modality, from the intellectual principle, and, in its turn, produces all the other principles or elements specially attaching to the human individuality. These elements we shall now consider in greater detail.