4 THE CONDITIONS OF CORPOREAL EXISTENCE

According to the Sāṅkhya of Kapila, there are five tanmātras or elementary essences, ideally perceptible (or rather ‘conceptible’), but incomprehensible and imperceptible under any mode of universal manifestation, because themselves unmanifested; for just this reason it is impossible to attribute to them particular designations, for they cannot be defined by any formal representation.^[1] These tanmātras are potential principles, or, to use an expression recalling the doctrine of Plato, the ‘ideas-archetypes’ of the five elements of the physical material world, and thus, of course, of an indefinitude of other modalities of manifested existence corresponding analogically to these elements in the multiple degrees of this existence. According to the same correspondence, these principial ideas also potentially imply, respectively, the five conditions the combinations of which constitute the determinations of this particular possibility of manifestation that we call corporeal existence. Thus, the five tanmātras or principial ideas are the ‘essential’ elements, primordial causes of the five ‘substantial’ elements of physical manifestation, which are only particular determinations of exterior modifications. Under this physical modality, they are expressed in the five conditions according to which the laws of corporeal existence are formulated;^[2] the law, intermediate between the principle and the consequence, expresses the relation of cause and effect (relation in which the cause can be regarded as active and the effect as passive), or of the essence to the substance, considered as the ℵ and the π, the two extreme points of the modality of manifestation that are envisaged (and which, in the universality of their extension, are the same for each modality). But in themselves neither essence nor substance belong to the domain of this manifestation, any more than the two extremities of yin-yang are contained in the plane of the cyclic curve; they are on either side of this plane, and this is why, in reality, the curve of existence is never closed. The five elements of the physical world^[3] are, as we know, ether (ākāśa), air (vāyu), fire (tejas), water (apa), and earth (pṛthvī); the order in which they are enumerated is that of their development, in accordance with the teaching of the Veda.^[4] The effort has often been made to assimilate the elements to the different states or degrees of condensation of physical matter, starting with primordial homogenous ether, which fills the whole expanse, thus uniting between them all the parts of the corporeal world; from this point of view, proceeding from the densest to the most subtle, that is, in the inverse order of their differentiation, the earth is made to correspond to the solid state, water to the liquid state, air to the gaseous state, and fire to a still more rarefied state rather similar to the ‘radiant state’ recently discovered by the physicists and currently under investigation with the help of their special methods of observation and experimentation. This point of view undoubtedly contains a portion of truth, but it is too systematic, that is, too strictly particularized, and the order it establishes in the elements differs from the preceding on one point, for it places fire before air and immediately after ether, as if it were the first element to differentiate itself within the original cosmic milieu. On the contrary, according to the teaching that conforms to orthodox doctrine, air is the first element, and air, a neutral element (only potentially containing the active-passive duality), differentiating itself through polarization (bringing about this duality from potency to act), produces in itself fire, an active element, and water, a passive element (one could also say 'reactive', that is, acting in reflective mode, correlatively to action in spontaneous mode of the complementary element). The reciprocal action and reaction of fire and water gives birth (through a sort of crystallization or residual precipitation) to earth, the 'terminating and final element' of corporeal manifestation. More justifiably, we could consider the elements as different vibratory modalities of physical matter, modalities under which it makes itself perceptible successively (in purely logical succession, naturally)^[5] to each of the senses of our corporeal individuality; moreover, all of this will be sufficiently explained and justified through the considerations we will bring out later in this study. Above all, we must establish that ether and air are distinct elements, contrary to what is maintained by some heterodox schools;^[6] but to make what we are going to say on this point more comprehensible, let us first recall that the five conditions taken together, to which corporeal existence is subject are space, time, matter, form, and life. Consequently, in order to set forth these five conditions in a single definition, it can be said that a body is 'a material form living in time and space'; let us add that when we use the expression 'physical world', it is always as a synonym of 'domain of corporeal manifestation'.^[7] It is only provisionally that we have enumerated these conditions in the preceding order, without prejudgment of relations between them, until in the course of our exposition we determine their respective correspondences with the five senses and the five elements, which, moreover, are all likewise subject to this set of five conditions.

[1] Akāsha, ether, considered as the most subtle element and the one from which all the others proceed (forming, in relation to its primordial unity, a quaternary of manifestation), occupies all physical space, as we have said;^[8] however, it is not immediately through the ether that this space is perceived, its particular quality not being extension, but sound; this requires some explanation. In fact, ether, envisaged in itself, is originally homogenous; its differentiation, which engenders the other elements (beginning with air), takes its start from an elementary movement, originating at any point whatsoever, in this indeterminate cosmic milieu. This elementary movement is the prototype of the vibratory movement of physical matter. From the spatial point of view, it is propagated around its starting-point in isotropic mode, that is to say through concentric waves, in a helicoidal vortex along all the directions of space, forming the unclosed figure of an indeterminate sphere. To mark the connections which already link together the different conditions of corporeal existence as enumerated above, we will add that this spherical form is the prototype of all forms; it contains them all potentially, and its first differentiation in polarized mode can be represented by the figuration of yin-yang, which is easy to see if one refers back to the symbolic conception of Plato's Androgyne.^[9] Movement, even when elementary, necessarily presupposes space, just as it does time, and one can even say that in a way it is the result of these two conditions, since it necessarily depends on them as the effect depends on the cause (in which it is implied potentially);^[10] but it is not the elementary movement itself that gives us the direct perception of space (or more exactly of extension). In fact, it is important to note clearly that when we speak of movement produced in the ether at the origin of all differentiation, it is exclusively a question of elementary movement, a movement that we can call undulatory, or simple vibratory movement (the wave-length and the infinitesimal period) in order to indicate its mode of propagation, which is uniform in space and time, or rather the geometric representation of the latter. Only in considering the other elements will we be able to envisage complex modifications of this vibratory movement, modifications which correspond for us to various orders of sensations. This last point is all the more important in that on it lies the entire fundamental distinction between the characteristic qualities of ether and those of air. We must now ask which among the corporeal sensations presents the perceptible exemplar of vibratory movement, which we perceive directly without its passing through one or another of the various modifications to which it is subject. Now, elementary physics itself teaches us that these conditions are fulfilled by sonorous vibrations, of which the wavelength, just as the speed of propagation,^[11] falls within the limits of our sensory perception; one can thus say that it is the sense of hearing which directly perceives vibratory movement. It will doubtless be objected at this juncture that it is not the etheric vibration that is thus perceived in sonorous mode, but rather the vibration of a gaseous, liquid, or solid medium. It is no less true that it is ether that forms the original medium of propagation of vibratory movement, which, in order to enter within the limits of perceptibility corresponding to the range of our auditive faculty, must be amplified only by its propagation through a denser medium (ponderable matter), without for all that losing its characteristic of simple vibratory movement (in this case, however, its wavelength and frequency are no longer infinitesimal). In order thus to manifest the sonorous quality, it is necessary that this movement already possess it potentially (directly)^[12] in its original medium, ether, of which consequently this quality, in its potential state (of primordial indifferentiation), really constitutes its characteristic nature in relation to our corporeal sensibility.^[13] On the other hand, if one investigates by which of the five senses time is more particularly manifested to us, it is easy to see that it is the sense of hearing; moreover, this is a fact that can be verified experimentally by all those who are accustomed to examining the respective origins of their various perceptions. The reason is as follows: for time to be perceived materially (that is, for it be in contact with matter, particularly as regards our corporeal organism), it must be measurable, for in the physical world this is a general characteristic of all perceptible quality (when considered as such).^[14] Now, for us it is not direct because it is not in itself divisible, and we only conceive the measure through division, at least in the usual and perceptible way (for one can conceive of other modes of measure, such as integration for example). Time will therefore be rendered measurable only insofar as it expresses itself according to a divisible variable, and as we shall see further on, this variable can only be space, divisibility being a quality essentially inherent to the latter. Consequently, in order to measure time it will be necessary to envisage it insofar as it enters into contact with space, as it is combined therewith, as it were, and the result of this combination is the movement by which space is traversed, which, being the sum of a series of elementary displacements envisaged in successive mode (that is, precisely under the temporal condition), is a function^[15] of the time elapsed to traverse it. The relation existing between this space and this time expresses the law of movement under consideration.^[16] Conversely, time will then likewise be expressed in relation to space, by reversing the previously considered relation between these two conditions in a determined movement; this amounts to considering this movement as a spatial representation of time. The most natural representation will be that which represents it numerically by the simplest function; it will therefore be a uniform oscillatory movement (rectilinear or circular), one, that is, with a constant velocity or oscillatory period, which can be regarded as no more than a sort of amplification (implying moreover a differentiation in relation to the directions of space) of the elementary vibratory movement. But since this is also the characteristic of sonorous vibration, we see immediately by this that it is hearing which, among the senses, particularly gives us the perception of time. We must now observe that even if space and time are the necessary conditions of movement, they are not its first causes; they are themselves the effects by means of which is manifested movement, itself another effect (secondary in relation to the preceding ones, which can be regarded in this sense as its immediate causes since it is conditioned by them) of the same essential causes, causes which potentially contain the integrality of all their effects, and are synthesized in the total and supreme Cause conceived as the unlimited and unconditioned Universal Power.^[17] On the other hand, for movement to actually occur, there must be something which is moved, in other words a substance (in the etymological sense of the word)^[18] on which it is exercised; that which is moved is matter, which thus does not intervene in the production of movement except as a purely passive condition. The reactions of matter are subject to movement (since passivity always implies a reaction) and develop in matter the different perceptible qualities, which, as we have already said, correspond to the elements the combinations of which constitute this modality of matter (considered as object, not of perception, but of pure conception)^[19] that we know as the 'substratum' of physical manifestation. In this domain, activity is therefore neither inherent nor spontaneous in matter, but belongs to it in a reflexive fashion insofar as this matter coexists with space and time; and it is this activity of matter in movement which constitutes, not life in itself, but the manifestation of life in the domain that we are considering. The first effect of this activity is to give form to this matter, for it is necessarily formless so long as it is in a homogenous and undifferentiated state, which is that of primordial ether; it is only capable of taking on all the forms potentially contained within the integral extension of its particular possibility.^[20] It can thus be said that it is also movement that determines the manifestation of form in physical or corporeal mode; and, just as all form proceeds from the spherical primordial form by differentiation, so all movement can be reduced to a set of elements each of which is a vibratory helicoidal movement differing from the elementary spherical vortex only in that space will no longer be envisaged as isotropic. We have already had occasion to consider the five conditions of corporeal existence taken as a whole, and we will have to return to this subject from different points of view as we consider each of the four elements the respective characteristics of which remain to be studied.

[2] Vāyu is air, and more particularly air in movement (or considered as principle of differentiated movement^[21] since in its original meaning this word really means breath or wind); mobility is thus considered as the characteristic nature of this element,^[22] which is the first to be differentiated from the primordial ether (and which, like ether, is still neutral, the exterior polarization appearing by duality as the complementarity Fire and Water, and not before). In fact, this first differentiation necessitates a complex movement, constituted by a series (combination or coordination) of elementary vibratory movements, and determining a rupture of the homogeneity of the cosmic milieu by propagating itself according to certain particular and determined directions from its point of origin. Once this differentiation takes place, space must no longer be regarded as isotropic; on the contrary, it can then be related to a complex of several defined directions taken as axes of coordinates, and which, serving to measure it in any portion of its extension—and even, theoretically, in the totality of the latter—are what one calls the dimensions of space. These coordinate axes (at least according to the ordinary idea of so-called 'Euclidean' space, which corresponds directly to the sensible perception of corporeal extension) will be three orthogonal diameters of the indeterminate spheroid that comprise the full extension of its deployment, and their center can be any point of this extension, which latter will then be considered as the product of the development of all spatial virtualities contained in this point (principially indeterminate). It is important to note that the point in itself is not contained in space and cannot in any way be conditioned by it, because on the contrary it is the point that creates out of its own 'ipseity' redoubled or polarized into essence and substance,^[23] which amounts to saying that it contains space potentially. It is space that proceeds from the point, and not the point that is determined by space; but secondarily (all manifestation or exterior modification being only contingent and accidental in relation to its ‘intimate nature’), the point determines itself in space in order to realize the actual extension of its potentialities of unlimited multiplication (of itself by itself). Again, one can say that this primordial and principal point fills all of space by the deployment of its possibilities (envisaged in active mode in the point itself dynamically ‘effecting’ the extension, and in passive mode in this same extension realized statically). It is situated in space only when it is considered in each particular position that it is able to occupy, that is to say in each of its modifications corresponding precisely to each of its special possibilities. Thus extension already exists in the potential state in the point itself; it starts to exist in the actual state only when this point, in its first manifestation, is in a way doubled in order to stand face to face with itself, for one can then speak of the elementary distance between two points (although in principle and in essence the latter are only one and the same point), whereas, when one considers only a single point (or rather when one considers the point only under the aspect of principial unity), it could obviously not be a question of distance. However, one must point out that the elementary distance is only what corresponds to this doubling in the domain of spatial or geometric representation (which only has the character of symbol for us). Metaphysically, the point is considered to represent Being in its unity and its principal identity, that is to say Ātmā outside of any special condition (or determination) and all differentiation; this point itself, its exteriorization (which can be considered as its image, in which it is reflected) and the distance that joins them while at the same time separating them, and that marks the relationship existing between both (a relationship that implies causality, indicated geometrically by the direction of the distance, envisaged as a ‘directed’ segment, and going from point-cause to point-effect), corresponds respectively to the three terms of the ternary that we have distinguished in Being considered as knowing itself (that is to say in Buddhi), terms which, outside this point of view, are perfectly identical among themselves, and which are designated Sat, Chit, and Ānanda.

We say that the point is the symbol of Being in its Unity; this latter can in fact be conceived in the following way: if the extension of a dimension, or a line, is measured quantitatively by a number a, the quantitative measure of the extension in two dimensions, or of the surface, will be of the form a², and that of the extension in three dimensions, or of volume, will be of the form a³. Thus, adding a dimension to the extension is equivalent to raising by one the exponent of the corresponding quantity (which is the measure of this extension), and, conversely, to take away a dimension from the extension is equivalent to diminishing this very exponent by one. If the last dimension, that of the line (and, consequently, the final unity of the exponent), is removed, it remains the point geometrically, and numerically it remains a⁰, that is, from the algebraic point of view, unity itself, which identifies quantitatively the point of this unity. It is therefore an error to believe, as some do, that the point can only correspond numerically to zero, for it is already an affirmation, that of Being pure and simple (in all its universality). No doubt it has no dimension, because in itself it is not situated in space, which latter contains, as we have said, only the indefinitude of its manifestations (or of its particular determinations); since it is without dimension, it obviously no longer has any form; but to say that it is non-formal is by no means to say that it is nothing (zero is considered thus by those who assimilate the point to it), and moreover, although without form, it contains space potentially, which, realized in actuality, will in its turn be the container of all forms, at least in the physical world.^[24] We have said that extension exists in actuality once the point has manifested itself by its self-exteriorization, since it is by this very act that the point realizes space. It should not be thought that this assigns a temporal beginning to space, however, for it is a question of a purely logical starting-point only, of an ideal principle of space understood in the fullness of its extension, and not limited to corporeal extension alone.^[25] Time intervenes only when the two positions of the point are envisaged as successive, while on the other hand the relation of causality that exists between them implies their simultaneity; and it is also insofar as this first differentiation is envisaged under the aspect of succession, that is, in temporal mode, that the resulting distance (as intermediary between the principal point and its exterior reflection, the first by implication being immediately situated in relation to the second)^[26] can be regarded as measuring the amplitude of elementary vibratory movement, of which we have spoken previously. However, without the coexistence of simultaneity with succession, movement itself would not be possible, for then the mobile point (or at least considered as such in the course of its process of modification) would be there where it is not, which is absurd, or it would not be anywhere, which amounts to saying that there would not actually be any space where movement can in fact occur.^[27] Ultimately all the arguments that have been raised against the possibility of movement, notably by certain Greek philosophers, amount to this, and it is this question, moreover, that most embarrasses academicians and modern philosophers. Its solution is very simple, however, and as we have already indicated elsewhere, lies precisely in the coexistence of succession and simultaneity, succession in the modalities of manifestation, in the actual state, but simultaneity in principle, in the potential state, making possible the logical linking of causes and effects (every effect being implied and contained potentially in its cause, which is in no way affected or modified by the actualization of this effect).^[28] From the physical point of view, the idea of succession is tied to the temporal condition and the idea of simultaneity to the spatial condition;^[29] movement, in its passage from potency to act, results from the union or the combination of these two conditions, and reconciles (or balances) the two corresponding ideas, by making a body coexist with itself in simultaneous mode from the purely spatial point of view (which is essentially static), identity thus being conserved through all its modifications, contrary to the Buddhist theory of ‘total dissolubility’. This coexistence underlies an indefinite series of positions (which are so many modifications of this same body, and are accidental and contingent in relation to what constitutes its intimate reality, in substance as in essence), positions which are successive from the temporal point of view (kinetic in its relation with the spatial point of view).^[30]

On the other hand, since actual movement supposes time and its coexistence with space, we are led to the following formulation: a body can move according to one or another of the three dimensions of physical space, or following a direction that is a combination of these three dimensions, for whatever the direction (fixed or variable) of its movement, it can always be reduced to a more or less complex series of components related to the three axes of the coordinates to which is linked the space under consideration; but in every case this body moves always and necessarily in time. As a result, time will become another dimension of space if one changes succession into simultaneity; in other words, to suppress the temporal condition amounts to adding a supplementary dimension to physical space, of which the new space thus obtained constitutes a prolongation or extension. This fourth dimension thus corresponds to ‘omnipresence’ in the domain considered, and it is through this transposition in ‘non-time’ that we can conceive the ‘permanent actuality’ of the manifested Universe. While noting that all modification is not assimilable to movement, which is only an exterior modification of a special order, this also explains all the phenomena commonly regarded as miraculous or supernatural^[31]—quite mistakenly, since they still belong to the domain of our present individuality in one or the other of its multiple modalities, for the corporeal individuality constitutes only a very small part thereof, a domain in which the conception of ‘fixed time’ allows us to embrace fully all indefinitude.^[32] Let us return to our conception of the point filling all of space through the indefinite of its manifestations, that is to say of its multiple and contingent modifications. From the dynamic point of view^[33] the latter must be considered in space (of which they are all the points) as so many centers of force (of which each is potentially the very center of space), and force is nothing other than the affirmation in manifested mode of the will of Being, symbolized by the point. In the universal sense, this will is the active power or 'productive energy' (Shakti)^[34] of Being indissolubly united to itself, and exerted on the actional domain of Being, that is to say, using the same symbolism, on space itself envisaged passively, that is, from the static point of view (as the field of action of any one of these centers of force).^[35] Thus, in all its manifestations and in each of them, the point can be regarded in relation to these manifestations as being polarized in active and passive mode, or, if one prefers, direct and reflected mode;^[36] the dynamic, active, or direct point of view corresponds to essence, and the static, passive, or reflective point of view corresponds to substance;^[37] but of course the consideration of these two complementary points of view in every modality of the manifestation in no way alters the unity of the principal point (any more than of Being, of which it is the symbol), and this allows one clearly to conceive the fundamental identity of the essence and the substance, which, as we said at the beginning of this study, are the two poles of universal manifestation. Extension, considered from the substantial point of view, is not distinct as regards our physical world from the primordial ether (ākāsha), so long as it does not produce therein a complex movement determining a formal differentiation; but the indefinitude of possible combinations of movements then gives birth in this extension to the indefinitude of forms, all differentiating themselves, as we have just shown, starting from the original spherical form. From the physical point of view, movement is the necessary factor in all differentiation, and thus the condition of all formal manifestations, and also, simultaneously, of all vital manifestations, both in the domain considered, being equally subject to time and space, and presupposing, on the other hand, a material 'substratum' on which this activity is physically exercised through movement. It is important to note that every corporeal form is necessarily living, since life as well as form is a condition of all physical existence.^[38] Moreover, this physical life consists of an indefinitude of degrees, its most general divisions corresponding to the three kingdoms mineral, vegetable, and animal, at least from our terrestrial point of view, but without the distinctions between these kingdoms having more than a wholly relative value.^[39] It follows that in this domain any form is always in a state of movement or activity, manifesting the life proper to it, and that it can be envisaged statically, that is to say at rest, only through a conceptual abstraction.^[40]

It is through mobility that form manifests itself physically and is rendered perceptible to us, and, just as mobility is the characteristic nature of air (vāyu), touch is the sense which corresponds properly to form, for it is by touch that we generally perceive form. But owing to its limited mode of perception which operates exclusively through contact,^[41] this sense still cannot directly and immediately give us the full idea of corporeal extension in three dimensions,^[42] which belongs only to the sense of sight; but here the actual existence of this extension is already assumed through that of form, since it conditions the manifestation of this latter, at least in the physical world.^[43]

Moreover, insofar as air proceeds from ether, sound is also perceptible therein; since, as we have established above, differentiated movement implies the distinction of the directions of space, the role of air in the perception of sound, apart from its quality of medium in which the etheric vibrations are amplified, will consist principally in enabling us to recognize the direction according to which this sound is produced in relation to the actual situation of our body. In the physiological organs of hearing, the part corresponding to this perception of direction (a perception which, moreover, effectively becomes complete only with and through the notion of extension in three dimensions) constitutes what are known as the 'semi-circular canals', which are precisely oriented according to the three dimensions of physical space.^[44]

Finally, to a point of view other than that of the perceptible qualities, air is the substantial medium whence the vital breath (prāṇa) proceeds. This is why the five phases of respiration and assimilation, which are modalities or aspects of prāṇa, are identified as a whole with vāyu. This is the particular role of air with regard to life; hence we see that, just as we had foreseen for this element as for ether, we have really had to consider the totality of the five conditions of corporeal existence and their relations. The same will hold true for each of the other three elements, which proceed from the first two, and which we shall now discuss.^[45]

Footnotes

[1]They can only be designated by analogy with the different orders of sensible qualities, for it is only in this way that we can know them (indirectly, in some of their particular effects) as long as we belong, as individual and relative beings, to the world of manifestation.

[2]However, the five tanmātras cannot be considered as being manifested by these conditions, any more than they can by the elements and the perceptible qualities that correspond to them; on the contrary, it is by the five tanmātras (considered as principle, support, and end) that all these things are manifested, followed by everything resulting from their unlimited combinations.

[3]Each of these primitive elements is called bhūta, from bhū ‘to be’, more particularly in the sense of ‘subsisting’; this term bhūta therefore implies a substantial determination, which in fact corresponds well to the notion of the corporeal element.

[4]The origin of ether and air, not mentioned in the text of the Veda, where the genesis of the three other elements is described (Chhāndogya Upaniṣad), is indicated in another passage (Taittirīya Upaniṣad).

[5]We cannot in any way consider such a concept as that of the ideal figure imagined by Condillac in his Traité des Sensations.

[6]Notably the Jainas, the Bauddhas and the Chārvākas, with whom most of the Greek atomist philosophers are in accord on this point; an exception must be made however for Empedocles, who admitted the five elements but imagined them developing in the following order: ether, fire, earth, water, and air. We will not insist on this, however, for we do not intend to examine here the opinions of the different Greek schools of 'physical philosophy'.

[7]The lack of adequate expressions in Western languages is often a great difficulty for the exposition of metaphysical ideas, as we have already noted on various occasions.

[8]'Ether, which is spread everywhere, enters simultaneously both the exterior and interior of things' (citation of Shankarāchārya, in 'The Demiurge', pt. 1, chap. 1 above.

[9]This could even be supported by various embryological considerations, but to say more on this now would lead us too far from our present subject.

[10]However, it is clear that in the spatial and temporal conditions which make its production possible, movement can only commence under the action (exteriorized activity, in reflective mode) of a principial cause, which is independent of these conditions (see further on).

[11]Velocity in any movement is the relation at any given moment between the space traversed and the time elapsed in traversing it; and, in its general formulation, this relation (constant or variable according to whether the movement is uniform or not) expresses the law governing the movement under consideration (see below).

[12]It also potentially possesses the other sensory qualities as well, but indirectly, since it can manifest them—that is, produce them in act—only through different complex modifications (amplification being on the contrary only a simple modification, the first of all).

[13]Moreover, this same sonorous quality belongs equally to the other four elements, no longer as their own or characteristic quality, but insofar as they all proceed from ether. Each element, proceeding immediately from the one preceding it in the order of their successive development, is perceptible to the same senses as the latter, and, in addition, to another sense which corresponds to its own particular nature.

[14]This characteristic is implied by the presence of matter among the conditions of physical existence; but, in order to realize measure, it is to space that we must link all the other conditions, as we have here for time. We measure matter itself by division, and it is divisible only insofar as it is extended, that is to say situated in space (see further on for the demonstration of the absurdity of the atomist theory).

[15]In the mathematical sense of a quantity that varies according to the value of another quantity.

[16]This is the formula of velocity, of which we have spoken earlier, and which, considered for each moment (that is to say, for the infinitesimal variations of time and space), represents the derivative of space in relation to time.

[17]This is clearly expressed in biblical symbolism: as regards the special cosmogonic application to the physical world, Cain ('the strong and powerful transformer, the one who centralizes, seizes and assimilates to himself') corresponds to time, Abel ('the gentle and peaceful liberator, the one who withdraws and calms, who vanishes, who flees the center'), to space, and Seth ('the base and the basis of things') to movement (see the works of Fabre d'Olivet [esp. Cain (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1923)], Ed). The birth of Cain precedes that of Abel, which is to say that the perceptible manifestation of time precedes (logically) that of space, just as sound is the perceptible quality which develops first; the murder of Abel by Cain represents then the apparent destruction—in the exteriority of things—of simultaneity by succession. The birth of Seth is consecutive to this murder, as conditioned by what it represents, but Seth, or movement, does not proceed in itself from Cain and Abel, or from time and space, although its manifestation is a consequence of the action of one on the other (hence regarding space as passive in relation to time); but, like them, he is born from Adam himself, that is, that he proceeds as directly as do they from the exteriorization of the powers of Universal Man, who has, as Fabre d'Olivet says, 'generated, in the midst of its integrating faculty, its reflective shadow.' Time, under its three aspects of past, present, and future, unites between them all the modifications—considered as successive—of each of the beings that it leads through the Current of Forms toward the final Transformation; thus Shiva, under the aspect of Mahādeva, having three eyes and holding the trishūla (trident), keeps to the center of the Wheel of Things. Space, product of the expansion of the potentialities of a principal and central point, makes the multiplicity of things coexist in its unity; now these things, considered (exteriorly and analytically) as simultaneous, are all contained in it and penetrated by ether, which entirely fills space. Likewise, Vishnu under the aspect of Vāsudeva, manifests things, penetrating them in their intimate essence through multiple modifications distributed along the circumference of the Wheel of Things, without the Unity of its Supreme Essence being altered (cf. Bhagavad Gītā, 10). Finally, movement, or better, 'mutation', is the law of all modification or diversification in the manifested order, a cyclic and evolutive law, which manifests Prajāpati or Brahmā considered as 'Lord of the Creatures' at the same time that it is 'the Provider of Substance [Substanteur] and organic Sustainer'.

[18]But not in the sense understood by Spinoza.

[19]Cf. the dogma of the 'Immaculate Conception' (see 'Pages dedicated to Sahaïf Ataridiyah', by Abdul-Hâdi, in La Gnose, January 1911, p35).

[20]See 'The Demiurge', pt. 1, chap. 1 (citation from the Veda).

[21]As we shall see, this differentiation implies above all the idea of one or several specialized directions in space.

[22]The word Vāyu derives from the verbal root vā, 'to go', 'to move' (which is still retained in the French il va, whereas the roots i and gā, which are linked to the same idea, are found respectively in the Latin ire and the English to go). Analogically, the atmospheric air, considered as milieu surrounding our body and affecting our organism, is rendered perceptible to us by its displacement (kinetic and heterogeneous state) before we perceive its pressure (static and homogenous state). Let us recall that Aer (from the root אר, which is more especially related to rectilinear movement) signifies 'that which gives to everything the principle of movement,' according to Fabre d'Olivet.

[23]In the field of manifestation considered, essence is represented as the center (initial point), and substance as the circumference (indefinite surface of terminal expansion from this point); cf. the hieroglyphic meaning of the Hebraic particle את, formed of the two extreme letters of the alphabet.

[24]In a wholly elementary way one can even take account of the development of spatial potentialities contained in the point by observing that the displacement of the point engenders the line, as likewise that of the line engenders the surface, and the surface in turn engenders volume. However, this point of view presupposes the realization of extension, and even of extension in three dimensions, for clearly each of the elements considered successively can only produce the following one by moving in a dimension that is actually exterior to it, and in relation to which it was already situated. On the contrary, all these elements are realized simultaneously—time then no longer intervening—in and through the original deployment of the indefinite and unclosed spheroid we have considered, a deployment that is effected not in actual space, whatever this may be, but in a pure void deprived of all positive attribution, and which is in no way productive by itself, but which, in passive

[25]Corporeal extension is the only one known to astronomers, and even then they can only study a certain portion of it by their methods of observation. Moreover, this is what produces for them the illusion of the so-called 'infinity of space', for by the effect of a veritable intellectual myopia that seems inherent to all analytical science, they are induced to consider as 'to infinity' [sic] everything that exceeds the range of their sensory experience, and which in relation to them and the domain that they study, is in reality no more than simple indefinity.

[26]This localization already implies, moreover, a first reflection preceding the one that we shall consider here but with which the principal point identifies itself (by determining itself) in order to make of it the effective center of extension in the process of realization, and from which it is then reflected in all the other points (purely virtual in relation to it) of this extension, which is its field of manifestation.

[27]The point is in fact 'somewhere' once it is situated or determined in space (its potentiality in passive mode)—so as to realize this space, that is—and in this very realization, which all movement, even elementary movement, necessarily presupposes, to bring it from potency to act.

[28]Leibnitz seems to have caught at least a glimpse of this solution when he formulated his theory of 'pre-established harmony', which has generally been very poorly understood by those who have tried to interpret it.

[29]Leibnitz respectively defines time and space by means of these two notions, which are wholly ideal when envisaged outside of this specialized point of view, under which alone they are rendered perceptible.

[30]It is quite evident, in fact, that all these positions coexist simultaneously insofar as they are places situated in one and the same extension, of which they are only different portions (quantitatively equivalent, moreover), all equally capable of being occupied by one and the same body, which on the one hand must be envisaged statically in each of these positions when considered in isolation in relation to the others, and also, on the other hand, when all of them are considered as a whole outside the temporal point of view.

[31]There are facts that seem inexplicable only because in searching for an explanation one does not move outside the ordinary conditions of physical time. Hence it is said that the sudden reconstitution of injured organic tissues that is observed in certain cases regarded as ‘miraculous’ cannot be natural because it is contrary to the physiological laws of the regeneration of these tissues, which laws operate through multiple and successive generations (or bipartitions) of cells, and necessarily require the collaboration of time. First, it is not proved that a regeneration of this kind, as sudden as it may be, is truly instantaneous, that is, not actually requiring any time in order to occur, and it is possible that in certain circumstances the multiplication of the cells is simply rendered much more rapid than in normal cases, to the point of no longer requiring even the least duration detectable to our sensory perception. Next, even in admitting that it is really a question of a truly instantaneous phenomenon, there is still the possibility that in certain particular conditions differing from the ordinary, but nonetheless quite natural, this phenomenon is in fact accomplished outside of time (implying the ‘instantaneity’ in question, which, in the cases considered, amounts to the simultaneity of the multiple cellular bipartitions, or at least as expressed in its corporeal or physiological correspondence), or, if one prefers, that it is accomplished in ‘non-time’, whereas in ordinary conditions it is accomplished in time. It would no longer be a miracle for the person who could understand its real meaning and resolve the following question, which is much more paradoxical in appearance than it is in reality: how, while living in the present, can we act so that any event produced in the past has not happened? And it is essential to note that this (which is not more impossible a priori than it is to presently prevent the realization of an event in the future, since the link of succession is not a causal link) does not in any way suppose a return to the past as such (such a return being a manifest impossibility since it would equally be a transport into the future as such), since there is obviously neither past nor future in relation to the ‘eternal present’.

[32]In this connection, we might add a remark on the numeric representation of this indefinitude (continuing to take it under its spatial symbol): the line is measured, that is to say represented quantitatively by a number a to the first power; but since its measure may also be taken using decimal division as basis, one can write a = 10n. In this case, then, one will have for the surface: a² = 100n², and for the volume: a³ = 1000n³; for the extension to four dimensions, it will again be necessary to

[33]It is important to point out that 'dynamic' is in no way synonymous with 'kinetic'; the movement may be considered as the consequence of a certain action of force (thus rendering this action measurable by means of a spatial translation permitting a definition of its 'intensity'), but it cannot be identified with this force itself. Furthermore, under other modalities and in other conditions, the force (or the will) in action obviously produces something completely different from movement, since, as we have just pointed out above, the latter constitutes only a particular case among the indefinite of possible modifications comprised in the exterior world, that is, in the whole of universal manifestation.

[34]Moreover, this active power can be envisaged under different aspects: as creative power, it is more particularly called Kriyā-Shakti, whereas Jñāna-Shakti is the power of knowledge, Ichchhā-Shakti the power of desire, and so on, considering the unlimited multiplicity of attributes manifested by Being in the exterior world, but for all that without in any way dividing the unity of Universal Potency in itself—which is necessarily correlative with the essential unity of Being, and is implied by this very unity—into the plurality of these aspects. — In the psychological order, this active power is represented by אשר, 'volitional facility' of אשר, the 'intellectual man' (see Fabre d'Olivet, The Hebraic Tongue Restored).

[35]Universal Possibility, regarded in its integral unity (but, of course, as to the possibilities of manifestation only), as the feminine side of Being (of which the masculine side is Purusha, which is Being itself in its supreme and 'non-acting' identity in itself), is thus polarized here into active potency (Shakti) and passive potency (Prakriti).

[36]But this polarization remains potential (therefore wholly ideal, and not perceptible) as long as we do not have to envisage the actual complementarism of fire and water (each of the latter remaining likewise potentially polarized); till then, the two aspects active and passive, can be dissociated only conceptually, since air is still a neutral element.

[37]For every point in extension, the static aspect is reflected in relation to the dynamic aspect, which latter is direct as long as it participates immediately in the essence of the principal point (implying an identification), but which in its indivisible unity, however, is itself reflected in relation to this point considered in itself. One must never lose sight of the fact that the consideration of activity and passivity implies only a relation or a link between two terms envisaged as mutually complementary.

[38]Conversely, it is clearly understood thereby that in the physical world life cannot manifest itself otherwise than in forms; but this is no proof against the possible existence of a non-formal life outside of this physical world, without it being legitimate however to consider life itself, in all the indefinitude of its extension, as being more than a contingent possibility comparable to all the others, and in the same way as the others, arising in the determination of certain individual states of manifested beings, states which proceed from certain specialized and refracted aspects of Universal Being.

[39]It is impossible to determine characteristics that permit the establishment of certain and precise distinctions between these three kingdoms, which seem closely akin, especially in their most elementary forms, which are in some way embryonic.

[40]From this it is sufficiently clear what, from the physical point of view, one should think of the so-called 'principle of inertia of matter': truly inert matter, that is to say matter deprived of all attribution or actual property, and therefore indistinct and undifferentiated; a pure passive and receptive power on which is exercised an activity of which it is not the cause, is, we repeat, only conceivable when envisaged apart from this activity of which it is only the 'substratum' and from which it takes all its reality. It is this activity (to which it is not opposed, in order to furnish a support for it, except by the effect of a contingent reflection which does not give to it any independent reality) which, through reaction (by reason of this very reflection), in fact, in the special conditions of physical existence, makes of it the place of all sensory phenomena (just like other phenomena which do not reappear within the limits of our sense perception), the substantial and plastic milieu of all corporeal modifications.

[45][The text ends here. ED.]