Payload Website Template

AT THIS STAGE WE NEED TO EMPHASIZE a point of fundamental importance. All the principles or elements we have been speaking about, which are described as distinct, are indeed so when viewed from the individual standpoint, but only from that standpoint, for in reality they merely constitute so many manifested modalities of the 'Universal Spirit' (_Ātmā_). In other words, although accidental and contingent insofar as they are manifested, they serve as the expression of certain essential possibilities of _Ātmā_ (those which, from their very nature, are possibilities of manifestation); and these possibilities, in principle and in their basic reality, are in no wise distinct from _Ātmā_. This is why they must be considered, in the Universal (and no longer in relation to individual beings), as being in reality _Brahma_ itself, which is 'without duality', and outside of which there is nothing, either manifested or unmanifested.^[1] Besides, anything which leaves something outside itself cannot be infinite, being limited by that very thing which it excludes; and thus the World, taking this expression as meaning the whole of universal manifestation, is only distinguishable from _Brahma_ in an illusory manner, while on the contrary _Brahma_ is absolutely 'distinct from that which It pervades',^[2] that is, from the World, since we cannot apply any of the determinative attributes to It which pertain to the World, and since universal manifestation in its entirety is rigorously nil in relation to Its Infinity.

As we have already pointed out elsewhere, this irreciprocity of relationship entails the formal condemnation of 'pantheism', as well as of 'immanentism' of any sort; and the _Bhagavad-Gītā_ also asserts the same thing very clearly in the following terms: ‘All beings are in Me and I am not Myself in them.... My Being upholds beings and, without being Itself in them, it is through It that they exist.'^[3] Again, one may say that _Brahma_ is the absolute Whole for the very reason that it is infinite, while, on the other hand, though all things are in _Brahma_, they are not _Brahma_ when viewed from the standpoint of distinction, that is to say in their quality of relative and conditioned things, their existence as such being moreover nothing but an illusion from the standpoint of supreme Reality. That which is asserted of things and which cannot apply to _Brahma_ is but an expression of relativity, and at the same time, this relativity being illusory, all distinction is equally illusory, because one of its terms vanishes when brought into the presence of the other, nothing being capable of entering into correlation with the Infinite. It is solely in principle that all things are _Brahma_, but also it is that alone which constitutes their fundamental reality; this it is that must never be lost sight of if there is to be a proper understanding of what is to follow.^[4]No distinction [bearing upon contingent modifications, such as the distinction between the agent, the act, and the end or the result of that act] invalidates the essential unity and identity of _Brahma_ as cause [kārana] and effect [kārya].^[5] The sea is the same as its waters, and does not differ (in nature) in any way from them, although the waves, the foam, the spray, the drops, and other accidental modifications which these waters undergo exist apart or conjointly as different from one another [when considered distinctively, either under the aspect of succession or of simultaneity, but without their nature ceasing on that account to be the same].^[6] An effect is not other [in essence] than its cause [although the cause, on the contrary, is more than the effect]; _Brahma_ is one [as Being] and without duality [as Supreme Principle]; Itself, It is not separated [by any limitations] from Its modifications [formal as well as formless] ; It is _Ātmā_ [in every possible state], and _Ātmā_ [in itself, in the unconditioned state] is It [and not other than It].^[7] The same earth yields diamonds and other precious minerals, crystal rocks and common worthless stones; the same soil produces a diversity of plants offering the greatest variety of leaves, flowers, and fruits; the same nutriment is converted in the organism into blood, flesh, and various excrescences, such as hair and nails. As milk is spontaneously changed into curds and water into ice [but without this conversion from one state into another implying any change of nature], so Brahma modifies Itself in diverse ways [in the indefinite multiplicity of universal manifestation], without the aid of instruments or external means of any kind whatever [and without Its unity and identity being affected thereby, without it being possible to say, therefore, that It is modified in reality, although all things only exist in effect as Its modifications].^[8]

Thus the spider spins its web out of its own substance, subtle beings take diverse [incorporeal] forms, and the lotus grows from marsh to marsh without organs of locomotion. That Brahma is indivisible and without parts [as It is], is no objection [to this conception of universal multiplicity in Its unity, or rather in Its 'nonduality']; it is not Its totality [eternally immutable] which is modified in the appearances of the World [nor any of Its parts, since It has none], but it is Itself viewed under the special aspect of distinction or of differentiation, that is, as _saguna_ or _savishesha_: and, if It can be viewed thus, that is because It comprises all possibilities within Itself, without their being in any sense parts of Itself.^[9]

Diverse changes [of condition and modes of existence] are presented to the same [individual] soul while dreaming [and in this state perceiving internal objects which belong to the domain of subtle manifestation];^[10] diverse illusory forms [corresponding to different modalities of formal manifestation, other than the corporeal modality] are assumed by this same subtle being without in any respect altering its unity [such illusory forms, māyāvirūpa being considered purely accidental and not belonging, of themselves, to the being who assumes them, so that the latter must be regarded as unaffected by this merely apparent modification].^[11] Brahma is almighty [since It contains all things in principle], capable of every activity [although ‘actionless', or rather on that very account], without organ or instrument of action of any sort; therefore no motive or special end [such as pertains to an individual act] other than Its own will [which is indistinguishable from Its omnipotence]^[12] must be assigned to the determination of the Universe. No accidental differentiation must be imputed to It [as in the case of a particular cause], because each individual being is modified [while developing its possibilities] in conformity with its own nature;^[13] thus the raincloud distributes rain with impartiality [without regard to the special results which arise from secondary circumstances], and this same fertilizing rain causes different seeds to grow in various ways, producing a variety of plants according to their species [by reason of the different potentialities proper to these seeds respectively].^[14] Every attribute of a first cause is (in principle) in Brahma, which [in Itself] is nevertheless devoid of every [distinct] quality. ^[15]

That which was, that which is and that which will be, truly all is _Omkāra_ [the Universe principially identified with Brahma, and, as such, symbolized by the sacred monosyllable Om] ; and all else which is not subjected to threefold time [trikāla, that is to say the temporal condition viewed under its three modalities of past, present, and future] is also truly _Omkāra_. Assuredly, this _Ātmā_ [of which all things are but the manifestation] is Brahma, and this _Ātmā_ [relatively to the various states of the being] has four conditions [pādas, a word signifying literally 'feet']; in truth, all this is Brahma.^[16]

'All this', (as moreover the continuation of this latter text, which we shall give later on, clearly shows), must be understood as referring to the different modalities of the individual being regarded in its integrality, as well as to the non-individual states of the total being; that is what is meant here by the conditions of _Ātmā_, although, in itself, _Ātmā_ is truly unconditioned and never ceases to be so.

Footnotes

[1]Muhyi 'd-Dīn ibn al-'Arabī, in his _Treatise on Unity_ (_Risālat-al-Ahadiyah_), says in the same sense: ‘Allah—may He be exalted—is exempt from all comparison as well as from every rival, contrast, or opposition.' There is moreover perfect agreement in this respect also between the _Vedānta_ and Islamic esoterism.

[2]See the text of the treatise on the _Knowledge of the Self_ (_Ātmā-Bodha_) of _Shankarāchārya_, which will be quoted further on.

[3]_Bhagavad-Gītā_ IX. 4 and 5.

[4]We will here quote a Taoist text in which the same ideas are expressed: ‘Do not inquire whether the Principle is in this or in that; It is in all beings. That is why It is given the epithet of great, supreme, entire, universal, total.... That which caused beings to be beings is not Itself subject to the same laws as beings. That which caused all beings to be limited, is Itself limitless, infinite.... As for manifestation, the Principle produces the succession of its phases, but is not that succession [nor involved in that succession]. It is the author of causes and of effects [the prime cause], but is not the causes and effects [particular and manifested], It is the author of condensations and dissipations [births and deaths, changes of state], but is not Itself condensation or dissipation. Everything proceeds from It and is modified by and under Its influence. It is in all beings, by the determining of a norm; but It is not identical with beings, being neither differentiated nor limited.' (Chuang Tzu, chap. 22; French translation by Father Wieger, PP395–396).

[5]It is as _nirguna_ that **Brahma** is _kārana_, and as _saguna_ that it is _kārya_; the former is the ‘Supreme' or **Para-Brahma** and the latter is the ‘Non-Supreme’ or **Apara-Brahma** (who is **Īshvara**); but it in no wise follows that **Brahma** ceases in any way to be 'without duality' (_Advaita_), for the 'Non-Supreme' Itself is but illusory insofar as It is distinguished from the 'Supreme', just as the effect is not truly and essentially different from the cause. It should be noted that **Para-Brahma** and **Apara-Brahma** ought never to be translated respectively as ‘superior Brahma' and ‘inferior Brahma', for such expressions presuppose a comparison or a correlation which cannot possibly exist.

[6]This comparison with the sea and its waters shows that **Brahma** is here envisaged as **Universal Possibility**, which is the absolute totality of particular possibilities.

[7]This is the very formula of the 'Supreme Identity', in the most concise form that it is possible to give to it.

[8]It must not be forgotten, in order to resolve this apparent difficulty, that we are here well beyond the distinction of **Purusha** and **Prakriti** and that both these two, being already unified in **Being**, are with all the more reason included in the **Supreme Brahma**, and hence appear as two complementary aspects of the Principle, if one is permitted to use such an expression, for it is indeed relative to our own conception only that they constitute two aspects: insofar as It is modified, that is the aspect analogous to **Prakriti**; insofar, however, as It is unmodified, that is the aspect analogous to **Purusha**; and it will be noticed that the latter answers more profoundly and more adequately than the former to the supreme Reality in its changelessness. That is why **Brahma** Itself is **Purushottama**, whereas **Prakriti** only represents, in relation to manifestation, Its **Shakti**, that is to say Its 'productive Will', which is properly speaking Its ‘Omnipotence' (‘actionless' activity as regards the Principle, becoming passivity as regards the manifestation). It should be added that when this conception is thus transposed beyond **Being**, it is no longer with ‘essence' and 'substance' that we are dealing, but rather with the **Infinite** and **Possibility**, as we hope to explain on another occasion; it is also what the Far-Eastern tradition calls 'active perfection' (_Khien_) and 'passive perfection' (_Khouen_) which moreover coincide in **Perfection** in the absolute sense.

[9]In Islamic esoterism also, **Unity**, considered insofar as it contains all the aspects of Divinity (_Asrār Rabbāniyah_ or the ‘Dominical mysteries'), ‘is the reverberating surface of the Absolute with its innumerable facets, which magnifies every creature that is mirrored directly in it.' This surface is likewise **Maya** taken in its highest sense, as the **Shakti** of **Brahma**, that is to say the 'Omnipotence' of the **Supreme Principle**. Again in an exactly similar way, in the Jewish Kabbalah, **Kether** (the first of the ten **Sephiroth**) is the 'garment' of **Ain-Soph** (the **Infinite** or the **Absolute**).

[10]The modifications produced in a dream offer one of the most striking analogies that it is possible to put forward in illustration of the multiplicity of the states of the being; we shall therefore have occasion to speak of it again if, as we intend, we one day set forth this metaphysical theory more completely. [Guénon carried out this project in *The Multiple States of the Being*. ED.]

[11]In connection with this point an interesting comparison can be made with the teaching of Catholic theologians, and especially of Saint Thomas Aquinas, on the subject of the forms that angels are able to assume; the similarity is all the more remarkable in that the points of view are naturally very different. We will likewise recall in passing what we have already had occasion to point out elsewhere, namely that almost everything that is said theologically of the angels can also be said meta-physically of the higher states of the being.

[12]It is Its _Shakti_, which we have spoken of in previous footnotes, and it is also Itself insofar as It is considered as Universal Possibility; moreover, in itself, the _Shakti_ can only be an aspect of the Principle, and, if it is distinguished from the Principle in order to be 'separatively' considered, it is then nothing but the 'Great Illusion' (_Mahā-Mohā_), that is to say _Māyā_ in its inferior and exclusively cosmic sense.

[13]This is precisely the idea of _Dharma_, conceived as ‘conformity to the essential nature of beings', applied to the entire order of universal Existence.

[14]'O Principle! Thou who bestowest on all beings that which befits them, Thou hast never claimed to be called equitable. Thou whose benefits extend to all times, Thou hast never claimed to be called charitable. Thou who wast before the beginning, and who dost not claim to be called venerable; Thou who enfoldest and supportest the Universe, producing all its forms, without claiming to be called skilful; it is in Thee that I move . . . .' (_Chuang Tzu_, chap. 6; Father Wieger's French translation, p 261). 'It can be said of the Principle only that It is the origin of everything and that It influences all while remaining indifferent. (idem. chap. 22; ibid., p391). 'The Principle, indifferent, impartial, lets all things follow their course without influencing them. It claims no title [no qualification or attribution whatsoever]. It acts not. Doing nothing, there is nothing It does not do (id., chap. 25; ibid. p 437).

[15]_Brahma-Sūtras_ II.1.13–37. Cf. _Bhagavad-Gītā_ ix.4–8: 'It is I, devoid of every sensible form, who have developed all this Universe.... Immutable in my productive power [*Shakti*, who here is called *Prakriti* because it is considered in relation to manifestation], I produce and reproduce [throughout all the cycles] the multitude of beings, without a determinate aim, and by the sole virtue of that productive power.'

[16]_Māņdūkya Upanishad_ I.1-2.

ESSENTIAL UNITY AND IDENTITY OF THE 'SELF' IN ALL THE STATES OF THE BEING

Footnotes