THE VITAL CENTER OF THE HUMAN BEING: SEAT OF BRAHMA

THE 'Self', as we have seen in the last chapter, must not be regarded as distinct from _Ātmā_, and, moreover, _Ātmā_ is identical with _Brahma_ itself. This is what may be called the 'Supreme Identity', according to an expression borrowed from Islamic esoterism, where the doctrine on this and on many other points is fundamentally the same as in the Hindu tradition, in spite of great differences of form. The realization of this identity is brought about through _Yoga_, that is to say, through the intimate and essential union of the being with the Divine Principle, or, if it is preferred, with the Universal. The exact meaning of this word _Yoga_ is in fact 'union', neither more nor less,^[1] despite the numerous interpretations, each more fanciful than the last, which orientalists and Theosophists have suggested. It should be noted that this realization ought not strictly speaking to be considered as an 'achievement', or as 'the production of a non-pre-existing result', according to Shankarāchārya's expression, for the union in question, even though not actually realized in the sense here intended, exists nonetheless potentially, or rather virtually: it is simply a matter of the individual (for it is only in respect of the individual that one can speak of realization) becoming effectively conscious of what really is from all eternity.

That is why it is said that it is _Brahma_ which dwells in the vital center of the human being; this is true of every human being, not only of one who is actually 'united' or 'delivered'—these two words denoting the same thing viewed under two different aspects, the first in relation to the Principle, the second in relation to manifested or conditioned existence. This vital center is considered as corresponding analogically with the smaller ventricle (_guhā_) of the heart (_hridaya_); but it must not be confused with the heart in the ordinary sense of the word, that is to say with the physiological organ bearing that name, since it is in reality the center not only of the corporeal individuality, but of the integral individuality, capable of indefinite extension in its own sphere (which occupies, moreover, but one degree of existence), and of which the corporeal modality constitutes only a portion, and indeed, as we have already stated, only a very limited portion. The heart is regarded as the center of life, and in fact, from the physiological point of view, it is so by reason of its connection with the circulation of the blood, with which vitality itself is essentially linked in a very special way, as all traditions are unanimous in recognizing; but it is further considered as a center on a higher plane and in a more symbolical sense, through its connection with the universal Intelligence (in the sense of the Arabic term _Al-Aqlu_) as related to the individual. It should be noted in this connection that the Greeks themselves, and Aristotle among others, assigned the same part to the heart, also making it the seat of intelligence, if one may so express it, and not of feeling as the moderns commonly do; the brain, in actual fact, is only the instrument of the mental faculty, that is, of thought in its reflective and discursive mode: and thus, in accordance with a symbolism which we have previously mentioned, the heart corresponds to the sun and the brain to the moon. It goes without saying, moreover, that in describing the center of the integral individuality as the heart, the greatest care should be taken not to regard what is merely an analogy as an identification; between the two there is strictly speaking a correspondence only, in which, it may be added, there is nothing arbitrary, but which is perfectly valid, although our contemporaries no doubt may be led by their habits of thought to disregard the profound reasons for such a thing.

> 'In this seat of Brahma [Brahma-pura],' that is to say, in the vital center of which we have just been speaking, 'there is a small lotus, a place in which is a small cavity [dahara] occupied by Ether [Ākāsha] ; we must seek That which is in this place, and we shall know It.^[2]'

That which, in fact, dwells at the center of the individuality is not merely the etheric element, the principle of the four other sensible elements, as might be supposed by those who confine themselves to its most external meaning, that relating to the corporeal world only. In the latter world, this element does in fact play the part of a principle, but in a wholly relative sense, inasmuch as this world is eminently relative, and it is precisely this acceptation which has to be analogically transposed. It is indeed only in the capacity of a 'support' for this transposition that Ether is mentioned here; the conclusion of the text expressly denotes this, since, if nothing more were really being referred to, there would obviously be nothing to seek. And it may further be added that the lotus and the cavity in question must also be regarded symbolically, for such a ‘localization' is in no wise to be conceived literally once the point of view of corporeal individuality has been transcended, the other modalities being no longer subject to the spatial condition.

Nor is what we are at present considering merely the 'living soul' (_jīvātmā_), that is, the particularized manifestation of the ‘Self' in life (_jīva_) and consequently in the human individual, viewed here more especially under the vital aspect which is one of the conditions of existence specifically determining the human individual state, and which applies moreover to the sum-total of modalities comprised in that state. Metaphysically, in fact, this manifestation should not be regarded separately from its Principle, which is the 'Self'; and although this appears as _jīva_ in the sphere of individual existence, in illusory mode therefore, it is _Ātmā_ in its supreme Reality.

This _Ātmā_, which dwells in the heart, is smaller than a grain of rice, smaller than a grain of barley, smaller than a grain of mustard, smaller than a grain of millet, smaller than the germ which is in the grain of millet; this _Ātmā_, which dwells in the heart, is also greater than the earth [the sphere of gross manifestation], greater than the atmosphere [the sphere of subtle manifestation], greater than the sky [the sphere of formless manifestation], greater than all the worlds together [that is, beyond all manifestation, being the unconditioned].^[3]

This is so, in fact, because analogy is necessarily applied in an inverse sense, as we have already pointed out, and just as the image of an object is inverted relative to that object, that which is first or greatest in the principial order is, apparently at any rate, last and smallest in the order of manifestation.^[4] To make a comparison with mathematics by way of clarification, it is thus that the geometrical point is quantitatively nil and does not occupy any space, though it is the principle by which space in its entirety is produced, since space is but the development of its intrinsic virtualities.^[5] Similarly, though arithmetical unity is the smallest of numbers if one regards it as situated in the midst of their multiplicity, yet in principle it is the greatest, since it virtually contains them all and produces the whole series simply by the indefinite repetition of itself. The ‘_Self_' is only potentially in the individual so long as '_Union_' is not achieved,^[6] and this is why it is comparable to a grain or a germ; but the individual, and manifestation in its entirety, exist through it alone and have no reality except through participation in its essence; while it immensely transcends all existence, being the sole Principle of all things.

When we say that the ‘_Self_' is potentially in the individual, and that '_Union_' exists only virtually before its realization, it goes without saying that this must be understood only from the point of view of the individual himself. In point of fact, the '_Self_' is not affected by any contingency, since it is essentially unconditioned; it is immutable in its '_permanent actuality_', and therefore there cannot be anything potential about it. Moreover, it is important to distinguish very carefully between '_potentiality_' and '_possibility_'. The first of these two words implies aptitude for a certain development; it presupposes a possible '_actualization_' and can only be applied therefore in respect of '_becoming_' or of manifestation; possibilities, on the contrary, viewed in the principial and unmanifested state, which excludes all '_becoming_', can in no way be regarded as potential. To the individual, however, all possibilities which transcend him appear as potential, since so long as he regards himself in separative mode, deriving his own being seemingly from himself, whatever he attains is strictly speaking but a reflection and not those possibilities themselves; and although this is only an illusion, we may say that for the individual they always remain potential, since it is not as an individual that he can attain them, for, once they are realized, no individuality really exists any longer, as we shall explain more fully when we come to speak of ‘_Deliverance_'. Here, however, we need to place ourselves outside the individual point of view, although, even while declaring it illusory, we nonetheless recognize in it that degree of reality which belongs to it within its own order; even when we do come to consider the individual, it can only be in virtue of his essential dependence upon the Principle, sole basis of that reality, and insofar as, virtually and effectively, he is integrated with the whole being; metaphysically, all must ultimately be related to the Principle, which is the 'Self'.

Thus, the dweller in the vital center is, from the physical point of view, ether; from the psychic point of view, it is the 'living soul', and thus far we have not transcended the realm of individual possibilities; but also, and from the metaphysical point of view, above all, it is the principial and unconditioned ‘Self'. It is therefore, in the truest sense, the 'Universal Spirit' (_Atmā_), which is in reality _Brahma_ Itself, the 'Supreme Ruler'; and thus the description of this center as _Brahma-pura_ is found to be fully justified. But _Brahma_, considered in this manner as within man (and one might consider It in like manner in relation to every other state of the being) is called _Purusha_, because It rests or dwells in the individuality (we are dealing, let us repeat once more, with the integral individuality, and not merely with individuality restricted to its corporeal modality) as in a city (_puri-shaya_), for _pura_, in its proper and literal sense, signifies ‘city'.^[7]

In the vital center, dwelling of _Purusha_,

the sun shines not, nor the moon, nor the stars; still less this visible fire [the igneous sensible element, or Tejas, of which visibility is the peculiar quality]. All shines by the radiance of _Purusha_ [by reflecting its brightness]; it is by its splendor that this whole [the integral individuality regarded as ‘microcosm'] is illuminated.^[8]

So, too, we read in the _Bhagavad-Gītā_:^[9]

One must seek the place [symbolizing a state] whence there is no return [to manifestation] and take refuge in the primordial _Purusha_ from whom hath issued the original impulse [of universal manifestation].... This place neither sun, nor moon, nor fire illumines; it is there I have my supreme abode.^[10]

_Purusha_ is represented as light (_jyotis_), because light symbolizes Knowledge: and it is the source of all other light, which is but its reflection, no relative knowledge being able to exist save by participation, however indirect or remote, in the essence of supreme Knowledge. In the light of this Knowledge all things are in perfect simultaneity, for, principially, there cannot be anything but an 'eternal present', since immutability excludes all succession; and it is only in the sphere of the manifested that the relations of possibilities which, in themselves, are eternally contained in the Principle, are transposed in terms of succession.

This Purusha, of the size of a thumb [angushtha-mātra, an expression which must not be taken literally as denoting a spatial dimension, but which refers to the same idea as the comparison with a grain], ^[11] is of a clear luminosity like a smokeless fire [without any admixture of obscurity or ignorance] ; it is the Lord of the past and of the future [being eternal, therefore omnipresent, in such wise that it contains in its permanent actuality all that appears as past or future relatively to any given moment of manifestation, a relationship that is, moreover, capable of transference beyond that particular mode of succession which is time proper]; it is today [in the actual state which constitutes the human individuality] and it will be tomorrow [and in all cycles or states of existence] such as it is [in itself, principially, to all eternity].^[12]