Payload Website Template

ACCORDING to the _Bhagavad-Gītā_,

there are in the world two _Purushas_, the one destructible and the other indestructible; the first is distributed among all beings; the second is immutable. But there is another _Purusha_, the highest [uttama], which is called _Paramātmā_, and which, as imperishable Lord, pervades and sustains three worlds [the earth, the air, and the heavens, representing the three fundamental degrees between which all the modes of manifestation are distributed]. As I transcend the destructible and even the indestructible [being the supreme Principle of the one and of the other], I am extolled in the world and in the _Veda_ under the name of _Purushottama_.^[1]

Of the first two _Purushas_, the destructible is _jīvātmā_, whose separate existence is in fact transitory and contingent like that of the individuality itself; and the 'indestructible' is _Ātmā_ considered as the personality, permanent principle of the being through all its states of manifestation;^[2] as for the third, it is _Paramātmā_ as the text explicitly declares, the personality of which is a primordial determination, in accordance with the explanation we have previously given. True as it is to say that the personality is really beyond the realm of multiplicity, we may nevertheless, in a certain sense, speak of a personality for each being (we refer, naturally, to the being as a whole, and not to one of its states viewed in isolation). That is why the Sāņkhya, the point of view of which does not attain to _Purushottama_, often describes _Purusha_ as multiple; but it should be noticed that, even in this case, its name is always employed in the singular, so as to emphasize its essential unity. The _Sāņkhya_ has nothing in common, therefore, with any ‘monadism' of the kind associated with the name of Leibnitz, where, moreover, it is the 'individual substance' which is regarded as a complete whole, forming a sort of closed system, a conception incompatible with any notion of a truly meta-physical order.

_Purusha_, considered as identical with the personality, ‘is, so to speak, ^[3] a portion [ansha] of the Supreme Ruler [who, however, is really without parts, being absolutely indivisible and 'without duality'], as a spark is a portion of the fire [the nature of which is wholly present in every spark].'^[4] It is not subject to the conditions which determine the individuality, and even in its relations therewith it remains unaffected by individual modifications (such as pleasure and pain, for example), which are purely contingent and accidental, and not essential to the being, since they all proceed from the plastic principle, _Prakriti_ or _Pradhāna_, as from a single root. It is from this substance, containing all the possibilities of manifestation potentially, that modifications are produced in the manifested sphere, by the actual development of these possibilities, or, to use the Aristotelian expression, by their passage from potency to act. 'All modification [parināma],' says _Vijñāna-Bhikshu_, 'from the original production of the world [that is to say, of each cycle of existence] to its final dissolution, proceeds exclusively from _Prakriti_ and her derivatives,' that is to say from the twenty-four _tattvas_ of the _Sāņkhya_.

_Purusha_ is, however, the essential principle of all things, since it is _Purusha_ which determines the development of the possibilities of _Prakriti_; but it never itself enters manifestation, so that all things, insofar as they are viewed distinctively, are different from it, and nothing which concerns them in their distinctive development (that is to say, in 'becoming') can affect its immutability.

Thus the solar or lunar light [capable of manifold modifications] appears identical with that which gives birth to it [the luminous source, considered as immutable itself], but nevertheless it is distinct therefrom [in external manifestation; likewise modifications or manifested qualities are, as such, distinct from their essential principle, in that they can in no manner affect it]. As the image of the sun reflected in water quivers and fluctuates in accordance with the undulations of the water, yet without affecting the other images reflected therein, much less the solar orb itself, so the modifications of one individual leave other individuals unaffected and, so much the more so, the Supreme Ruler Himself, ^[5]

who is _Purushottama_, and with whom the Personality is in reality identical in its essence, just as all sparks are identical with fire considered as indivisible in its innermost nature.

It is the 'living soul' (_jīvātmā_) which is here compared to the image of the sun in water, as being the reflection (_ābhāsa_) in the individual realm, and relative to each individual, of the Light, principially one, of the 'Universal Spirit' (_Atmā_); and the luminous ray which confers existence upon this image, connecting it with its source, is, as we shall see later on, the higher intellect (_Buddhi_), belonging to the realm of formless manifestation.^[6] As for the water, which reflects the solar light, it is habitually regarded as the symbol of the plastic principle (_Prakriti_), the image of 'universal passivity'; this symbol, moreover, bearing the same meaning, is common to all traditional doctrines.^[7] Here, however, a limitation must be imposed on its general sense, since _Buddhi_, although formless and supra-individual, is nonetheless manifested, and consequently derives from _Prakriti_, of which it is the first production: the water can therefore only represent here the potential sum of formal possibilities, or in other words, the realm of manifestation in the individual mode, and thus it leaves outside itself those formless possibilities which, while corresponding with states of manifestation, must nonetheless be referred to the Universal.^[8]

Footnotes

[1]_Bhagavad-Gītā_, xv. 16–18.

[2]They are the 'two birds who dwell on the same tree', according to the text of the Upanishads mentioned in an earlier note. Moreover, there is also reference to a tree in the _Katha Upanishad_ II.6.1, but in this case the application of the symbol is no longer 'microcosmic' but 'macrocosmic': ‘The world is like an everlasting fig-tree [*Ashvattha sanātana*] the roots of which point upward into the air, while the branches grow downward into the earth, and the hymns of the _Veda_ are its leaves; whosoever knows it, the same knows the _Veda_.' The root is above because it stands for the Principle, and the branches are below because they represent the deploying of manifestation; if the figure of tree is thus seen upside-down, it is because analogy, here as everywhere else, must be applied in an inverse sense. In both cases the tree is described as the sacred fig (ashvattha or pippala); in this form or in others, the symbolism of the ‘World Tree' is far from being confined to India: the oak among the Celts, the lime-tree among the Germans, the ash among the Scandinavians, all play exactly the same part.

[3]The word _iva_ indicates that there is question of a comparison (_upamā_) or of a manner of speech intended to facilitate understanding but which is not to be taken literally. Here is a Taoist text expressing a similar idea: ‘Norms of every sort, such as that which makes one body of several organs [or one being of several states] are so many participations in the Universal Ruler. These participations neither increase Him nor decrease Him, for they are communicated by Him, not detached from Him' (_Chuang Tzu_, chapter 2, French translation by Father Wieger, p 217).

[4]_Brahma-Sūtras_ II.3.43. We would remind the reader that in our interpretation we are chiefly following the commentary of Shankārchārya.

[5]_Brahma-Sūtras_, II. 3.46–53.

[6]It must be pointed out that the ray presupposes a medium of propagation (manifestation in non-individualized mode), and that the image implies a plane of reflection (individualization under the conditions of a certain state of existence).

[7]In this connection one can in particular refer to the opening passage of _Genesis_ (1:2): ‘And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.' This passage contains a very clear indication of the two complementary principles we are discussing here, the Spirit corresponding to _Purusha_ and the Waters to _Prakriti_. From a different point of view but nevertheless analogically connected with the preceding one, _Ruahh Elohim_ of the Hebrew text can also be assimilated with _Hamsa_, the symbolic swan, the vehicle of _Brahmā_, which sits on the _Brahmānda_, the 'World Egg' that is contained in the primordial Waters; and it must also be noted that _Hamsa_ is at the same time the 'breath' (_spiritus_), which is the first meaning of _Ruahh_ in Hebrew. Lastly, if one adopts the particular point of view of the constitution of the corporeal world, _Ruahh_ is Air (_Vāyu_); and, but for the fact that it would imply too long a digression, it would be possible to show that a perfect concordance exists between the Bible and the Veda in respect of the development of the sensible elements. In any case, one can discern in the examples already given an indication of three superposed meanings, referring respectively to the three fundamental degrees of manifestation (formless, subtle, and gross) which are described as the ‘three worlds' (_Tribhuvana_) by the Hindu tradition. These three worlds also figure in the Hebrew _Kabbalah_ under the names of _Beriah_, _Yetsirah_, and _Asiah_; over them is _Atsiluth_, which is the principial state of non-manifestation.

[8]If the symbol of water is taken in its usual sense, then the sum of formal possibilities is described as the 'lower waters' and that of the formless possibilities as the 'upper waters'. From the point of view of cosmogony, the parting of the 'lower waters' from the 'upper waters' is also described in _Genesis_ 1, 6, and 7; it is also worth noting that the word _Maim_, which means 'water' in Hebrew, has the grammatical form of the dual number, which allows of its conveying, among other meanings, the idea of the ‘double chaos' of the formal and formless possibilities in the potential state. The primordial waters, before their separation, are the totality of the possibilities of manifestation, insofar as the latter constitutes the potential aspect of Universal Being, which is properly speaking _Prakriti_. But there is also another and superior meaning to the same symbolism, which appears when it is carried over beyond Being itself: the waters then represent Universal Possibility, conceived in an absolutely total manner, that is to say insofar as it embraces at the same time in its Infinity the domains of manifestation and non-manifestation alike. This last meaning is the highest of all; at the degree immediately below it, in the original polarization of Being, we have _Prakriti_, with which we have still only reached the Principle of manifestation. After that, continuing downward, the three fundamental degrees of manifestation can be considered as we have done previously: we then have, in the first two cases, the ‘double chaos' before mentioned, and lastly, in the corporeal world, water as a sensible element (_Ap_), in which capacity it is already included implicitly, like all things that pertain to gross manifestation, in the realm of the 'lower waters', for the subtle manifestation plays the part of immediate principle relative to this gross manifestation. Though the above explanations are somewhat lengthy, we believe they will have served a good purpose in making it easier, by means of the examples given, to understand how a plurality of meanings and applications can be extracted from the traditional texts.

PURUSHA UNAFFECTED BY INDIVIDUAL MODIFICATIONS

Footnotes