1 THE INITIATIC & MYSTICAL PATHS

Today the esoteric or initiatic domain and the mystical domain — or, if one prefers, their respective points of view — are often confused, and in a manner that does not always seem entirely disinterested. Moreover, this represents a fairly new attitude, or at least one that has become more widespread in recent years within certain circles, which is why we thought it necessary to begin by clarifying our position on this point. It is currently the fashion so to speak among those with limited horizons to construe all Eastern doctrines as ‘mystical’, including those that lack even a semblance of the outward aspects that could justify such an attribution; naturally, the origin of this false interpretation is to be traced to certain orientalists, whose conclusions indeed may not have derived originally from any clearly defined ulterior motive but rather from their incomprehension and their habitual and more or less unconscious bias of relating everything to Western points of view.^[1] Others, however, have subsequently seized upon this false assimilation and, seeing how they could exploit it for their own ends, have done their utmost to propagate this idea outside the special and limited world of the orientalists and their clientele; and this is more serious, not only because the confusion in question becomes more widespread in this way but also because it is not difficult to discern here unmistakable signs of an attempt at ‘annexation’, against which we must be on our guard. Indeed, those to whom we refer can be considered to be the most ‘serious’ deniers of esoterism, namely the religious exoterists who refuse to admit anything whatsoever beyond their own domain, but who doubtless consider this assimilation or ‘annexation’ more clever than a crude negation. To see how some of them devote themselves to disguising as ‘mysticism’ the most obviously initiatic doctrines, it would truly seem that this task assumes for them a particularly urgent character.^[2] Nevertheless, there may truly be something in this same religious domain to which mysticism belongs, something which in certain respects could better lend itself to an assimilation, or rather to an appearance of assimilation. This is what is called ‘asceticism’, for this at least is an ‘active’ method rather than the absence of method and ‘passivity’ that characterize mysticism, a subject to which we shall return.^[3] But it goes without saying that these similarities are quite external; besides, for its part asceticism has perhaps only limited objectives, too limited to be used with benefit for initiatic purposes, whereas in the case of mysticism one never knows just where one is headed, and this very vagueness no doubt lends itself to confusion. Yet those who make attempts of this kind deliberately, as well as those who do so unconsciously, seem not to suspect that in everything pertaining to initiation there is really nothing vague or nebulous, for on the contrary it is as precise and ‘positive’ as can be, so that initiation by its very nature is in fact incompatible with mysticism.

This incompatibility does not, however, derive from what the word mysticism itself implied originally, for this meaning quite obviously refers to the ancient ‘mysteries’, that is, to something that on the contrary belongs to the initiatic order. Nonetheless, this is one of those words that can in no way be understood only from its etymology but must be considered strictly in light of the meaning imposed by usage, which is in fact the only one currently attached to it. Since the current meaning of ‘mysticism’ has been established for centuries it is not possible to use this term to designate anything else, and it is this current meaning that we say does not and cannot have anything in common with initiation, firstly because mysticism in this sense pertains exclusively to the religious or exoteric domain, and then also because the mystical path differs from the initiatic path in all its essential characteristics, which difference is such as to render the two truly incompatible. Let us make clear moreover that this incompatibility is one of fact rather than of principle, for we in no way deny the at least relative value of mysticism or its legitimate place in certain traditional forms; the initiatic and mystical paths can thus perfectly well coexist,^[4] but we only wish to stress the impossibility of following both paths simultaneously, and this without prejudging the end to which each may lead, although because of the profound difference between the domains involved one knows in advance that these ends cannot actually coincide.

We have observed that the confusion leading some people to see mysticism where there is not the faintest trace of it results from the tendency to reduce everything to Western points of view, mysticism properly speaking being exclusively Western and, what is more, specifically Christian. In this connection we have noticed something curious enough to warrant our attention here. In a book that we have already mentioned elsewhere,^[5] Henri Bergson, opposing what he calls ‘static religion’ to ‘dynamic religion’, sees the latter’s highest expression in mysticism, which as a matter of fact he scarcely comprehends and which he admires especially for what we on the contrary find vague and in certain respects even defective. But what is truly strange, coming from a ‘non-Christian’, is that his ‘complete mysticism’, however unsatisfactory may be his conception of it, is nonetheless that of the Christian mystics. Because of his low regard for ‘static religion’, he is all too prone to forget that these mystics are Christians before they are mystics, or at least he improperly places mysticism at the very origin of Christianity in order to justify their being Christians; and, in order to establish a kind of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, he ends by transforming the Jewish prophets into ‘mystics’ as well, evidently having not the slightest idea of the character of the prophets’ mission or of the nature of their inspiration.^[6] Be that as it may, if Christian mysticism, however distorted or diminished its conception, is in his eyes the true model, the reason is easy to see, for strictly speaking scarcely any other mysticism exists, and even the mystics he calls ‘independent’ (whom we would sooner call ‘aberrant’) draw their real inspiration, albeit unknowingly, only from Christian ideas denatured and more or less entirely emptied of their original content. This fact too, like so many others, escapes our philosopher, who does his best to discover some ‘outlines of the future mysticism’ prior to Christianity even though something altogether different is involved here. He even supplies us with several pages on India that bear witness to an unbelievable lack of understanding. When he turns to the Greek mysteries, the comparison, based on the etymological relationship noted above, is reduced to a ridiculous play on words; for the rest, Bergson is himself forced to admit that ‘most of the mysteries had nothing to do with mysticism’; but then why does he speak of them using that word? As to what those mysteries were, he represents them in the most ‘profane’ manner possible; ignorant of everything having to do with initiation, how could he understand that here as well as in India there was something that in no way belonged to religion, something that went incomparably further than his ‘mysticism’; even, let us add, than authentic mysticism, which by the very fact that it exists within the purely exoteric domain also necessarily has its limitations?^[7]

We do not propose to describe here all of the differences that in fact separate the initiatic and mystical points of view, for that would require an entire volume. Our intention is above all to insist that initiation has characteristics entirely different from, and indeed even contrary to, those of mysticism, which is enough to demonstrate that these two ‘paths’ are not only distinct but also incompatible in the sense that we have already explained. One often hears it said that mysticism is ‘passive’ whereas initiation is ‘active’; this is certainly true, but only if one determines precisely what is meant by this. In the case of mysticism the individual simply limits himself to what is presented to him and to the manner in which it is presented, having himself no say in the matter; and let us immediately add that in this lies his principal danger, for he is thus ‘open’ to every kind of influence, and generally, with only rare exceptions, he will not have the doctrinal preparation necessary for any discrimination among them.^[8] In the case of initiation, on the contrary, the individual is the source of the initiative toward ‘realization’, pursued methodically under rigorous and unremitting control, and normally reaching beyond the very possibilities of the individual as such. We must not fail to add that this initiative alone does not suffice, for it is quite evident that the individual cannot surpass himself through his own efforts; but what should be emphasized here is that it is this initiative that necessarily provides the point of departure for any ‘realization’ on the part of the initiate, whereas the mystic lacks such an initiative even in the case of things that clearly do not in any way go beyond the domain of individual possibilities. This distinction may already seem quite clear, since it establishes without question that one cannot simultaneously follow the initiate and mystical paths, but it is nevertheless insufficient, for it still addresses only the most ‘exoteric’ aspect of the matter, and in any case it is far from explaining all the necessary conditions for initiation. But before we undertake a study of these conditions a few more confusions must first be dispelled.