21 | Providence, Will and Destiny

To help round off and complete our comments on the ternary God, Man, Nature, we will add some brief remarks on another ternary which corresponds to it very closely: Providence, Will, Destiny. In this case the three different terms are each being viewed as powers that govern the manifested universe.

The most complete study of this ternary in modern times has been made by Fabre d’Olivet.^[1] He based himself primarily on data deriving from Pythagoreanism; however, he also supplemented this material by referring on several occasions to the Chinese tradition,^[2] and in a way which suggests that he recognised the close correspondence between this ternary and the Great Triad. ‘Man,’ he writes, ‘is neither animal nor pure intelligence. He is an intermediate being, situated half-way between matter and spirit, or Heaven and Earth, and forming the link between them.’ It should hardly need stating that this is a highly accurate description of the position and role of the middle term in the Far-Eastern Triad.

To quote further from Fabre d’Olivet:

That universal Man^[3] is a power in his own right is a fact acknowledged by the sacred codes of every nation, realised by every man of wisdom, and admitted by every true man of learning. . . . The two other powers that he stands between are Destiny and Providence. Beneath him is Destiny: ‘natured nature’, nature bound by necessity. Above him is Providence: ‘naturing nature’, nature in its freedom. He himself—as the human kingdom—is the mediating, efficient Will, situated between the two natures so as to serve as the link and means of communication between them and combine two actions, two motions, which otherwise would be incompatible.

It is interesting to note that the two end terms of the ternary are explicitly referred to as Natura naturans and Natura naturata, which agrees exactly with our earlier comments. As to the two actions or motions, basically they are identical to the action and reaction of Heaven and Earth, or the alternating movements of yang and yin.

These three powers—Providence; Man, or more precisely the human kingdom; and Destiny—together make up the universal ternary. Nothing escapes their action. Everything in the universe is subordinate to them—everything, that is, except for God Himself, who embraces all three in his unfathomable unity so as to form the tetrad of the ancients, that immense quaternary which is all in all and apart from which there is nothing.

The allusion here is to the basic quaternary of the Pythagoreans, symbolised by the Tetraktys; our earlier comments on the ternary Spiritus, Anima, Corpus apply here as well, so any further explana- tion should be unnecessary. However, one additional observation does need to be made because of its considerable importance from the point of view of concordances. This is the fact that ‘God’ is envisaged here as the Principle itself, in contradistinction to the way in which the word is used as the first term in the ternary God-Man-Nature. This means that the same word does not have the same meaning in both cases; in the present case Providence is merely the instrument used by God in governing the universe, in exactly the same way that Heaven is the instrument of the Principle according to the Far-Eastern tradition.

Now if we are to understand why the middle term here is not only man but specifically the human Will, we need to appreciate that for Fabre d’Olivet the will in the human being represents the inward and central element which unites and embraces^[4] the intellectual, psychic and instinctive spheres. These three spheres of course correspond respectively to spirit, soul and body; and as in the microcosm we must always look for correspondences with the macrocosm, we will find that at the microcosmic level these three spheres are analogous to the three universal powers of Providence, Will and Destiny.^[5] At this microcosmic level the will plays a role that makes it the image or reflection of the Principle itself.

This way of envisaging the will—which, it must be said, Fabre d’Olivet insufficiently justifies by appealing to considerations which are psychological rather than truly metaphysical—should be compared with our earlier remarks on the subject of alchemical Sulphur, for that is precisely what we are concerned with here. It is also worth noting that a kind of parallelism exists between the three powers themselves. The appropriateness of describing Providence as an expression of the divine Will should, on the one hand, be self-evident; and on the other hand it is also appropriate to view Destiny as a kind of obscure will of Nature.

Destiny is the lower or instinctive part of universal Nature,^[6] which I have termed ‘natured nature’. Its action is called fate; it manifests itself to us as what we call necessity. . . . Providence is the higher and intelligent aspect of universal Nature, which I have termed ‘naturing nature’. It is a living law that emanates from the Divinity; through it all things are determined in their potentiality of being.^[7] . . . The median power—corresponding to the animic aspect of universal Nature—is the Will of man. It is this that unites Destiny and Providence. Without it, these two polar powers would not only never unite: they would never even know each other.^[8]

There is another point that deserves special mention. In uniting itself to Providence and consciously collaborating with it,^[9] the human Will can become a counter-balance to destiny and finally neutralise it.^[10] In the words of Fabre d’Olivet, ‘the harmony between Will and Providence is what constitutes the Good. Evil is what is born from their opposition.’^[11] . . . Man either perfects himself or becomes depraved according to whether his tendency is to merge into the universal Unity or to distinguish himself from it’.^[12] In other words he approaches either perfection or depravity depending on which of the two poles of manifestation^[13] he gravitates towards: the pole of unity or the pole of multiplicity. Either he allies his will with Providence and follows the path of ‘freedom’, or he allies his will with destiny and follows the path of ‘necessity’.

Fabre d’Olivet also writes that ‘providential law is the law of the divine man. He lives a life primarily of the intellect, which is governed by that law’. We are not told explicitly what he means here by ‘divine man’; presumably it could be either ‘transcendent man’ or just ‘true man’, as the case may be. According to Pythagorean teaching, followed on this as on so many other points by Plato, ‘the Will hard won by faith [this shows that it is related to Providence] is capable of enslaving Necessity itself, controlling Nature and producing miracles’.

The equilibrium between Will and Providence on the one hand and Destiny on the other was symbolised geometrically by a right-angled triangle with sides proportionally equivalent to the numbers 3, 4 and 5. This triangle played a major role in Pythagoreanism;^[14] remarkably, it had no less important a role in the Far-Eastern tradition. If the number 3 stands for Providence,^[15] 4 for the human Will and 5 for Destiny, we end up with 3² + 4² = 5² (9 + 16 = 25). The raising of the numbers to the power of two shows that it is a question here of the domain of universal forces, specifically the animic domain.^[16] In the macrocosm, this domain corresponds to Man. In the microcosm, its centre is the will—the median term.^[17] In spite of everything we have said so far, one question still remains: do the three terms of the Great Triad—or for that matter any other ternary of the same kind—have any spatial or temporal equivalents?

As far as space is concerned, finding such a correspondence presents no difficulty. The key lies in the notions of ‘above’ and ‘below’, determined according to normal geometrical convention in relation to a horizontal plane taken as the level of reference. For us, this horizontal plane will naturally be the human state itself. The median character of this plane can be appreciated firstly from the fact that this is precisely how it appears to us from our own particular perspective (to the extent, that is, that this is the state which we find ourselves in at present); and secondly from the fact that, at least virtually, it is possible to locate in it the centre of all the states of manifestation. For these two reasons, this horizontal plane clearly corresponds to Man as the middle term of the Triad as well as to man in the ordinary sense of an individual human being.

In relation to this horizontal plane, everything above represents the ‘celestial’ aspects of the Cosmos, and everything below its ‘terrestrial’ aspects. The extreme limits of the two regions into which space is accordingly divided—limits which are situated at an indefinite remove in both directions—are the two poles of manifestation. These two poles are Heaven and Earth themselves, perceived from the median plane through those relatively ‘celestial’ and ‘terrestrial’ aspects. The corresponding influences manifest as two contrasting tendencies, each of which relates to one half of the vertical axis: the upper half acting in an ascending direction, the lower in a descending direction, starting from the median plane. As this plane naturally corresponds to expansion in a horizontal direction, and is intermediate between the two opposing tendencies, we find here an exact analogy between the three terms of the Triad and the three gunas of the Hindu tradition:^[1] sattva corresponding to Heaven, rajas to Man and tamas to Earth.^[2]

Finally, if we view the median plane as the diametral plane of a sphere of indefinite radius (indefinite because it contains the totality of space), the upper and lower hemispheres are identical to the two halves of the ‘World Egg’ which we spoke of earlier. These two halves, after separating as a result of the determination of the median plane, become Heaven and Earth respectively (understanding these terms in their broadest sense).^[3] At the very centre of the median plane itself is Hiranyagarba, which thereby appears in the Cosmos as the ‘eternal Avatar’—in other words, as ‘Universal Man’.^[4]

When we turn to the question of time, things would seem to be less straightforward. But in fact here also the ternary structure applies, as can be seen from the expression ‘triple time’, or trikala in Sanscrit. ‘Triple time’ is time viewed according to its three distinct modalities: past, present and future. However, is it possible to relate these three modalities to the three terms of the kind of ternaries we have been studying so far?

The first step towards answering this question is to observe that the present can be depicted as a point dividing into two the line representing the unfolding of time. At each instant this point determines the separation (and also the juncture) between the past and the future, of which it is the common boundary—just as the median plane that we were speaking about above is the common boundary between the upper and lower hemispheres of space.

As we have explained elsewhere,^[5] a ‘rectilinear’ representation of time is both inadequate and inaccurate. In reality time is cyclical—a fact which applies even to its smallest subdivisions. Here however there is no need to specify the form of the line in question. Regardless of whether it is straight or circular, for a person situated at one particular point on the line the two sections into which it is divided will always be either ‘in front of’ or ‘behind’ that point—in just the same way as the two halves of space will appear to be either ‘above’ or ‘below’ the plane taken as the level of reference.

To complete the analogy between spatial and temporal determinates, we can add that the point representing the present can always be taken as being in a certain sense the ‘middle of time’, because when viewed from this point time is bound to appear equally indefinite in the two opposite directions corresponding to past and future. Also relevant here is the fact that ‘true man’ occupies the centre of the human state, which means he occupies a point that is truly central in relation to all the conditions of the state—the temporal condition included.^[6] He can therefore be said to be situated at the ‘middle of time’, from where he actually determines time itself through his dominance of individual conditions,^[7] just as in the Chinese tradition the Emperor determines the midpoint of the annual cycle by situating himself at the centre of the Ming T’ang. As a result the ‘middle of time’ is—if one may so put it—‘true man’s’ temporal location. For him, this point is always the present.

So a close correspondence exists between Man and the present. In fact even in the case of an ordinary human being it is clearly only in the present that he can exert his action, at least in a direct and immediate sense.^[8] The question remains: does a certain correspondence also exist between the past and the future on the one hand, and the two remaining terms of the Triad on the other?

Here again it is a comparison between spatial and temporal determinates which provides the clue. Compared with the human state, those states of manifestation that are relatively speaking lower are depicted in spatial symbolism as being beneath it, while those states that are relatively speaking higher are conceived of as being above it. Now in terms of temporal symbolism these same states are described as constituting cycles that are respectively earlier and later than the present cycle. All of these states together therefore form two distinct domains. The action of these domains is expressed in the human state (to the extent that it is felt there at all) by influences that can be called ‘terrestrial’ on the one hand and ‘celestial’ on the other—understanding these terms in the sense we have consistently given them throughout this study. What is more, these ‘terrestrial’ and ‘celestial’ influences will, for the human state, appear as the respective manifestations of Destiny and Providence: a fact very accurately indicated by the Hindu tradition in allocating the first of these two domains to the Asuras and the second to the Devas.

Perhaps, then the clearest way of appreciating the temporal correspondence of the Great Triad is by viewing the two end terms as Destiny and Providence. From this we see why it is that the past is associated with ‘necessity’ and the future with ‘freedom’, which in fact is precisely the characteristic of those two powers. It is quite true that really this is still just a question of perspective, and that for a being who exists outside the condition of time there is no longer any past or future: no distinction between past and future can possibly exist, because everything appears to him in perfect simultaneity.^[9] It should be understood therefore that we are speaking purely in terms of a being who exists within time and, by virtue of this very fact, finds himself placed midway between past and future.

Here it is worth quoting some words on the same subject by Fabre d'Olivet.

Destiny does not provide the principle of anything; but once the principle has been provided it takes it over and dictates its consequences. Only through the necessity of those consequences does it exert its influence on the future and make itself felt in the present, because in itself it strictly speaking belongs entirely to the past. In other words, we can understand Destiny as being the power which determines our belief that things which have been done have in fact been done; that things are as they are and not otherwise; and that, given their nature, they have inevitable results which manifest successively and necessarily.

Unfortunately, it must be said that Fabre d'Olivet is much less clear and accurate in his discussion of the temporal correlatives of the other two powers.^[10]

By engaging in activity, the Will of man modifies things that are co-existent [and therefore present], creates new things which immediately fall under the sway of Destiny, and prepares for the future mutations in what has already been done and necessary consequences for what has only just been done.^[11] ... The aim of Providence is to bring all beings to perfection—a perfection which it has received in irrefragable form from God himself. The means used by Providence to achieve this end is what we call time. However, time as we conceive it does not exist for Providence,^[12] which perceives it instead as a movement in eternity.^[13]

This quotation is not as clear as one might hope, but what is missing can easily be supplied. As far as Man—and therefore the Will—is concerned, this has already been done above. As for Providence, it is a traditionally accepted notion that (to use an expression from the Quran) ‘God holds the keys of hidden things’.^[14] In other words, God holds the keys primarily of things that in our world have not yet manifested.^[15] The future is in fact hidden from men—at least under normal conditions. Now it is obvious that no being can have any hold over something it does not know, and consequently that man cannot act directly upon the future, which in his temporal ‘perspective’ is simply whatever does not yet exist. This idea has indeed persisted even in the popular mentality, which expresses it (without necessarily having a very accurate understanding of what it is saying) in the proverbial form of statements such as ‘man proposes, God disposes’. This particular expression means that although man may strive as far as is possible for him to prepare for the future, that future will in fact only be what God wills it to be, or what God makes it through the action of His Providence. From this we see that the closer that Will is united to Providence, the more effectively it will act in relation to the future. Another proverbial saying is even more explicit: ‘the present belongs to man but the future belongs to God’. Of this there can be no doubt; and of the three modalities of ‘triple time’ it is clearly the future that is the true domain of Providence. This correspondence is, indeed, presupposed by the symmetry between Providence and Destiny, whose true domain is the past. This symmetry in turn is a necessary result of the fact that these two powers represent the two end terms of the ‘universal ternary’.