The Rejection of 'Powers'

Le rejet des « pouvoirs », June 1935.

In our previous article, we have shown that there is little interest in the alleged claims of 'psychic' powers and the absence of any relation be- tween their development and a realization of the spiritual or initiatic or- der; before departing from this subject, we must still insist that such an achievement is truly harmful in most cases rather than just being indif- ferent. In fact, it constitutes a 'distraction' in the strictly etymological sense of the word: the man who lets himself be absorbed by the multiple activities of the corporeal world will never manage to 'center' his con- sciousness in higher realities, nor, consequently, develop the possibilities corresponding to these realities in himself; even more so will he who is lost and dispersed in multiplicity of the psychic world with its indefinite modes, which is incomparably greater and more varied, will never suc- ceed in ridding himself of it, especially if he does not realize the value of these illusions that do not involve the exercise of corporeal activities.

Therefore anyone who has the will to depart on an initiatic path, not only must they never seek to acquire or develop these famous 'powers,' but must, even if they are spontaneous and accidentally developed, re- move them pitilessly as obstacles diverting him from the single goal he is aiming for. It is not necessary to see there necessarily, as some might readily believe, 'temptations' or 'diabolic tricks' in the literal sense; there is nevertheless something that, as we explained when we spoke of the question of initiatic 'trials,' the 'profane' world, by which we must un- derstand as the whole ensemble of both the psychic and corporeal do- mains, seem to try every means to retain the one who aims to escape it. There is, then, a reaction of adverse forces, which, like many difficulties of another order, can only be due to a kind of unconscious hostility from the milieu. Of course, since man cannot isolate himself completely from this milieu and make himself completely independent until he has reached the goal, this does not exclude that these manifestations are at the same time the very natural, though accidental, results of the internal work in which he engages, and whose external repercussions sometimes take the most unexpected forms, far surpassing all that might be imag- ined by those who have not had the opportunity to realize for themselves.

On the other hand, even those who naturally possess certain psychic faculties are thereby, as we have already said, at a certain disadvantage with regard to their spiritual development; not only is it essential that they totally lose interest and attach no importance to it, but it may even be necessary for them to reduce the exercise to a minimum, if not to sup- press it altogether. In fact, it is advisable to restrict the use of the corpo- real sense as much as possible, at least during certain more or less pro- longed periods, in order to not be distracted from them, the same is equally true of these psychic faculties; moreover, while man could not live if he stopped the exercise of his senses completely and indefinitely, there is obviously no such thing in other cases, and no serious inconven- ience can result from this 'inhibition.' On the contrary, the being can only benefit in terms of his organic and mental equilibrium, and conse- quently find himself in better conditions to undertake developments of possibilities of a superior order, without risking being confused by a more or less pathologic and abnormal state. The producers of extraordinary ‘phenomena' are, in most cases, be- ings inferior in respect of the intellectual and spiritual, or entirely devi- ated by the special 'training' to which they are subjected; it is easy to understand that he who has spent a part of his life exclusively practicing the production of some phenomena' has become incapable of anything else, and that the possibilities of another order are now irremediably closed. This is what generally happens to those who yield to the attrac- tion of the psychic domain: even if they had first undertaken a work of initiatic realization, they are then stopped on this path and will not go any further, they are happy if they stay there and do not allow them- selves to be carried away little by little in the direction which, as we have explained previously, leads properly away from spirituality and can only ultimately lead to ‘disintegration' of the conscious being; however, even leaving aside this extreme case, the mere pausing of all spiritual devel- opment is already a rather serious consequence in itself and which should give food for thought to those who are completely blinded by the illusions of the 'intermediate world.' It may be objected that there are authentic initiatic organizations that exercise certain individuals for the development of these 'powers,' but the truth is that, in this case, the individuals in question are those in whom initiatic 'qualifications' are lacking, and who, at the same time, anoint special aptitudes in the psychic order, as this is all they are capable of. Moreover, under such conditions, psychic development is guided and controlled so as to present the minimum of inconveniences and dangers; these beings even benefit from the bond that is thus established with a traditional organization, albeit at an inferior level, and this, for its part, can use them for purposes of which they themselves will not be aware, not because it is deliberately concealed from them, but because they would be utterly incapable of understanding it given the limitation of their possibilities.

It goes without saying that the dangers of which we have just spoken no longer exist for those who have reached a certain degree of initiatic realization; one can even say that he has all the 'powers' implicitly, without having to develop them in any particular way, because he dominates the forces of the physical world 'from above,' but, in general, he does not exercise them, because he no longer has any interest in them. In a similar way, the one who has penetrated certain traditional sciences in their deepest essence is also totally indifferent to their application and never makes any use of them; pure knowledge is sufficient, and it is really the only thing that matters, all the rest being mere contingencies. Moreover, all manifestations of these things are necessarily a 'descent' in a sense, even if this is only apparent and cannot affect the being itself; it must not be forgotten that the unmanifest is superior to the manifest, and that, consequently, the fact of remaining in this 'non-manifestation' will be, if one may say, the most adequate expression of the state that the being has realized internally. This is what some people symbolize when saying 'the night is preferable to the day,' and it is also what is represented by the figure of the turtle hidden inside its shell. Consequently, if it happens that such a being manifests certain 'powers,' it will only be in quite exceptional cases and for particular reasons which will necessary escape the appreciation of the external world, which are naturally totally different reasons from those which the ordinary producers of 'phenomena' may have; apart from these cases, its only mode of action will be what the Far Eastern tradition designates as the ‘non-acting activity,' which is precisely because of its character of non-manifestation, the very plenitude of activity.

In this connection, we shall recall the perfect insignificance of phenomena that is quite similar but proceeding from very different causes, and which are not of the same order; thus, it is easily conceivable that the being who has a high spiritual degree, if he has occasional cause of any phenomenon, will not act in the same way as the one who has acquired the faculty as a result of psychic 'training,' and that its action will be exercised according to all other modes. The comparison between 'theurgy' and 'magic' would also give rise to the same remark. This truth should be easily recognized even by those who stick to the purely 'exoteric' domain, because, although many cases of 'levitation' or 'bilocation,' for example, can be found in the history of saints, it is certainly as much in the history of sorcerers; the appearances are exactly the same in both, but no one will conclude that the causes are also the same. From the purely theological point of view, of two similar facts in all points, one may be considered a miracle, while the other will not be, and to discern them it will be necessary to resort to marks of another order independent of the facts themselves; from a natural point of view, we could say that a fact will be a miracle if it is due to the action of a spiritual influence, and that it will not be so if it is due only to that of a psychic influence. This is illustrated particularly clear by the struggle of Moses and the magi- cians of Pharaoh, who also represents that of the respective powers of initiation and counter-initiation; it is well understood that, as we have already had occasion to explain, counter-initiation can only exert its ac- tion in the psychic domain, and all that is of the spiritual domain is ab- solutely forbidden from them by its very nature. We think we have now said enough on this subject, and if we have insisted so much on it, it is because we have seen the necessity of it all too often. To conclude in a few words, we will say that initiation should not aim at acquiring 'powers' which, like the very world in which they are exercised, ultimately belong only to the domain of the 'Great Illu- sion'; for the man in the process of spiritual development, it is not a ques- tion of attaching himself even more strongly to it by new bonds, but, on the contrary, of freeing himself from it, and this liberation cannot be ob- tained by anything except Knowledge alone.

Some Errors Concerning Initiation De quelques erreurs concernant l'initiation, July 1935.

Although we have already pointed out in our previous articles that there are many errors regarding the nature and purpose of initiation, it is not superfluous to insist even more on some of these points, for all that we have had occasion to read on this subject brings us almost every day new proof of a general misunderstanding. Naturally, we cannot think of pointing out all these errors one by one and in detail, which would be too tedious and uninteresting; it is better to confine ourselves to consid- ering certain 'typical' cases, which has the advantage of dispensing us from making direct allusions to a particular author or school at the same time, since it must be understood that these remarks have a scope quite independent of any question of 'personalities.'

We will recall first, but without insisting upon it, the conceptions ac- cording to which initiation is something of the merely 'moral' or 'social' order; these are too limited and 'terrestrial,' and the grossest error is al- ways far from the most dangerous. We will only say, to put an end to all confusion in this regard, that such conceptions do not even really apply to the first part of initiation which antiquity designated by the name 'lesser mysteries'; these concern human individualities in the integral de- velopment of its possibilities, therefore beyond the corporeal mode whose activity is exercised in the domain which is common to all men. We do not see what the value or even the raison d'être of an alleged ini- tiation which would be limited to repeating, by disguising it in a more or less enigmatic form, what is most banal in profane education, which is most vulgarly 'within the reach of everyone.' Anyway, we have no in- tention of denying that initiatic knowledge can have applications in the social order, as in any order, but this is a very different question: first, these contingent applications do not constitute the object of initiation; second, they have in themselves a very different character from what we have just spoken of, because they start from principles which have noth- ing to do with the precepts of current 'morality,' and they proceed by means elusive to the profane by virtue of the very nature of things; it is therefore far from what someone in a recent article called “the preoccu- pation with living properly"!

The subtlest, and hence most formidable, errors occur when one speaks with regard to initiation of a 'communication' with higher states or 'spiritual worlds,' and there is all too often the illusion of taking as ‘superior' what is not really true here. We should repeat here all that we have already said about the confusion between the psychic and the spir- itual, because it is this one that is most frequently committed in this re- gard: the 'psychic' states are not 'superior' or 'transcendent' since they are part of the individual human state; when we speak of the higher states of being, without any abuse of language, we exclusively mean su- pra-individual states. Some even go further in this confusion and take for 'spiritual' all that does not fall under the ordinary and 'normal' senses; we have even seen the so-called 'etheric' world, i.e. simply the subtlest part of the corporeal world, qualified as such! In these conditions, it is to be highly feared that the 'communication' in question may be reduced to 'clairvoyance,' to 'clairaudience,' or the exercise of some other psychic faculty of the same kind and no less insignificant, even when it is real. This is what happens almost always in fact, and basically all the pseudo- initiatic schools of the modern West are more or less at this point; we have said enough on this subject before that there is no longer any need to insist on it, because it must be too obvious that all this has absolutely nothing to do with true initiation for any who has followed our exposés.

But this is not all: let us admit that, in the thinking of some, it is really a communication with the higher states; it will not suffice to characterize it as initiation yet. Indeed, such communication is also established by rites of the purely exoteric order, especially by religious rites; it should not be forgotten that, in this case also, 'spiritual influences' truly come into play, although for purposes quite different from those related to the initiatic domain. The intervention of a ‘non-human' element can define, in a general way, everything that is authentically traditional; the pres- ence of this common character is not a sufficient reason to not make nec- essary distinctions, and in particular to confuse the religious domain and the initiatic domain, or even to consider between them a simple differ- ence of degree at most, whereas there is really a difference of nature, and even, we may say, of a profound nature. This confusion is very common among those who claim to study initiation 'from the outside,' with in- tentions that can be very diverse; therefore it is indispensable to de- nounce it expressly: esoterism is not the 'inner' part of a religion as such, even when it takes its base and its point of support in it as happens in certain traditional forms; nor is initiation a kind of special religion re- served for a minority, as some seem to imagine, for example, those who speak of ancient mysteries by calling them 'religious.' It is not possible for us to develop all the differences that separate the religious and initi-atic domains here, which would take us very far, but it will suffice to make it clear that religion considers being only in the individual human state and is not intended to draw it out, but, on the contrary, to ensure the most favorable conditions in this very state, while initiation is essen-tially aimed at exceeding the possibilities of this state and making it pos-sible for the passage to the higher states, and even, finally, to lead beyond any conditioned state whatsoever.

With regard to initiation, it follows from this that mere communica-tion with the higher states cannot be regarded as an end, but only as a starting point: if this communication is to be established first of all by the action of a 'spiritual influence,' it is to then allow an effective acquisition of these states, and not simply, as in the religious order, to bring down a 'grace' on the being which connects it in a certain way while not pene-trating it. To express this in a way that may be more easily understand-able, we will say that if, for example, someone can come into contact with the angels without ceasing to be locked up in his own individual and human conditions, he will not be further advanced from the initiatic point of view; here it is not a question of communicating with other be-ings who are in an 'angelic' state, but of attaining and realizing oneself as such in a supra-individual state, not, of course, as being human, which would obviously be absurd, but as being manifested as human in a certain state which also has in itself the possibilities of all other states. All initi-atic realization is therefore essentially and purely 'internal,' contrary to this 'exit of the self which constitutes ‘ecstasy' in the proper and etymo-logical sense of the word; this is certainly not the only difference, but at least one of the great differences which exist between the 'mystic' states, which belong entirely to the religious domain, and the initiatic states.

It is here that we must always come back to at last, because the con-fusion of the initiatic point of view with the mystic point of view is that which is most frequently committed, and in a way which does not seem always completely involuntary, the most serious ‘deniers' of esoterism, we mean the religious exoterists who refuse to admit anything beyond their own domain, consider this assimilation or ‘annexation' more clever than a brutish negation. To tell the truth, this is a rather new attitude, or one which at least has become very general in recent years; to disguise the most clearly initiatic Oriental doctrines as 'mysticism' has been a particularly urgent task of theirs, we do not have to look for the reasons for doing so, but only to notice this fact, of which we have already had the opportunity to report. However, in the religious sphere, there would be something which might be better suited to a rapprochement, or rather to an appearance of rapprochement in certain respects: this is what we call the term 'ascetic, because at least there is an ‘active' method, instead of the absence of method and the 'passivity' that characterizes mysticism, but it goes without saying that these similarities are entirely external, and, on the other hand, this 'ascetic' perhaps only has goals too visibly limited to be advantageously used in this way, while with mysticism you never know exactly where you are going, and this very vagueness is cer- tainly conducive to confusion. Only those who engage in this deliberate work, not those who follow them more or less unconsciously, seem to suspect that there is nothing vague or nebulous in all that relates to ini- tiation, but, on the contrary, it deals with very precise and 'positive' things; all that we can present here shows it sufficiently, and besides, when we spoke of the conditions of initiation, we have explicitly indi- cated the reasons why it is incompatible with mysticism. The question probably has other aspects which we will perhaps return someday; for the moment we must be content with having once more underlined this particularly insidious character of this confusion, which is calculated to deceive minds that would not allow themselves to be caught up in the grosser deformations of the modern pseudo-initiation.

The Hindu Theory of the Five Elements La théorie hindoue des cinq éléments, August-September 1935.

We know that in the Hindu doctrine the ‘cosmological' point of view is represented principally by the Vaiśeṣika and, in another aspect, by the Sāmkhya, which can be characterized respectively as 'analytic' and 'syn- thetic.' The name Vaiśeṣika is derived from viśeṣa, which means ‘distinc- tive character' and, consequently, 'individual thing'; it therefore properly designates the branch of the doctrine that applies to the knowledge of things in distinctive and individual fashion. This point of view is the one that corresponds most precisely to what the Greeks, especially in the 'pre-Socratic' period, called 'physical philosophy,' being subject to the differences which the respective modes of thought of two peoples neces- sarily entail. However, we prefer to use the term 'cosmology' to avoid any equivocation and to better mark the profound difference between what we are dealing with here and the physics of the moderns; indeed, this is how cosmology was understood in the Western Middle Ages. Understanding in its object that which relates to sensory or corporeal things, which are eminently of the individual order, Vaiśeṣika deal with the theory of the elements, which are the constitutive principles of the bodies, with more detail than other branches of the doctrines; however, it must be remarked that we are obliged to appeal to the latter, especially to Sāmkhya, when it comes to the question of what are the most univer- sal principles from which these elements proceed. According to the Hindu doctrine, these are five in number; they are called bhūta in San- skrit, a word derived from the verbal root bhū, which means 'to be,' but more particularly in the sense of ‘to subsist,' i.e. that which designates the manifested being considered in its 'substantial' aspect (the 'essential' aspect being expressed by the root as). Consequently, a certain idea of 'becoming' also is attached to this word, because it is on the side of 'sub- stance' that the root of all 'becoming' is, as opposed to the immutability of the 'essence'; it is in this sense that Prakrti or the 'Universal Substance' can be appropriately designated as 'Nature,' a word which, like its Greek equivalent phusis, precisely implies everything above by its etymological derivation and the very idea of 'to become.' The elements are therefore regarded as substantial determinations, or, in other words, as modifica- tions of Prakrti, modifications which have only a purely accidental char-acter in relation to this one, such as corporeal existence itself, as a mode defined by a certain set of determined conditions which is nothing more than a mere accident in relation to the Universal Existence envisaged in its entirety. If we now consider the ‘essence' correlatively to the 'substance' in the being, these two aspects being complementary to each other and corre-sponding to what we can call the two poles of the universal manifesta-tion, which amounts to saying that they are the respective expressions of Purușa and Prakrti in this manifestation, it will be necessary for these substantial determinations which are the five corporeal elements to cor-respond to an equal number of essential determinations or of ‘elementary essences,' which are, one could say, the 'archetypes,' the ideal or 'formal' principles in the Aristotelian sense of the latter word, which no longer belong to the corporeal domain, but that of the subtle manifestation. Sāmkhya considers in this fact five elementary essences, which have re-ceived the name tanmātra: this term literally means a 'measure' or an 'assignment' delimiting the proper domain of a certain quality or 'quid-dity' in the Universal Existence. It goes without saying that these tanmātra, by the very fact that they are of the subtle order, are in no way perceptible by the senses as the corporeal elements and their combina-tions; they are only 'conceivable' ideally, and they cannot receive partic-ular designations except by analogy with the different orders of sensible qualities which correspond to them, since it is the quality which here is the contingent expression of the essence. In fact, they are usually re-ferred to by the very names of these qualities: auditory or sound (śabda), tangible (sparśa), visible (rūpa, with the double meaning of form and color), sapid (rasa), olfactory (gandha); but we say that these designations should be taken only as analogical, because these qualities can be con-sidered here only in the principal state and ‘non-developed' in a way, since it is only by the bhūta that they will be, as we shall see, actually manifested in the sensory order. The conception of tanmātra is necessary when we want to relate the notion of elements to the principles of Uni-versal Existence, to which it is still related, but this time on the 'substan-tial' side by another order of considerations of which we will have to speak later: on the other hand, this conception obviously does not have to intervene when one confines oneself to the study of individual exist-ences and, as such, sensory qualities, and that is why it is undoubtfully a question of Vaiśeṣika, which, by definition, is placed precisely in this last point of view. We will recall that the five elements recognized by the Hindu doctrine are the following: ākāśa, ether; vāyu, air; tejas, fire; ap, water; prthvī, earth. This order is that of their development or their differentiation from the ether, which is the primordial element; it is always in this order that they are enumerated in all the texts of the Veda where it is mentioned, especially in the passages of the Chāndogy-Upaniṣad and Taittiriya-Upaniṣad where their genesis is described, and their order of resorption or return to the undifferentiated state is naturally the opposite of this. On the other hand, each element corresponds to a sensory quality which is regarded as its own quality, that which essentially manifests its nature and by which this is known to us; the correspondence thus established between the five elements and the five senses is as follows: ether to hearing (stotra), air to touch (tvac), fire to sight (cakṣus), water to taste (rasanā), earth to smell (ghrāna), the order of development of the senses being also that of the elements to which they are linked and on which they directly depend, and this order is, of course, in conformity with that in which we have already enumerated the sensory qualities by relating them principally to the tanmātras. Moreover, any quality which is manifested in an element is equally so in the following, no longer as their proper belonging, but in so far as they proceed from the preceding elements; it would be contradictory indeed to suppose that the very process of the development of the manifestation, thus gradually taking place, can lead at a later stage to the return to the unmanifested state of which has already been developed in stages of lesser differentiation. Before going further, we can, with regard to the number of elements and their order of derivation, as well as their correspondence with the sensory qualities, point out certain important differences with the theories of these Greek 'philosophic physicists' to which we alluded at the beginning. First, most of them have admitted only four elements, not recognizing the ether as a separate element; in this, curious enough, they agree with the Jains and the Buddhists, who are in opposition on this with orthodox Hindu doctrine, as is the case with many other points. However, we must make some exceptions, especially with Empedocles who admitted the five elements, but developed them in the following order: ether, fire, earth, water, and air, which seems difficult to justify; again, according to some, ^[427] this philosopher also would have admitted only four elements, which are then enumerated in a different order; earth, water, air, and fire. This last order is exactly the opposite as found in Plato; so, it may be necessary to no longer see the order of production of the elements, but on the contrary their order of resorption into one another. According to various accounts, the Orphics and the Pythagoreans recognized the five elements, which is perfectly normal given the strictly traditional character of their doctrines; later, Aristotle admitted them; in any case, the role of the ether has never been so important or so clearly defined among the Greeks as among the Hindus, at least in their exoteric schools. In spite of certain texts of Phaedon and Timaeus, which are undoubtedly of Pythagorean inspiration, Plato generally only consid- ers four elements: for him, fire and earth are the extreme elements, air and water are the mean elements, and this order differs from the tradi- tional order of the Hindus in that air and fire are interchanged; one may wonder if there is not a confusion between the order of production, if it is indeed really the same as Plato himself wanted to hear, and a distribu- tion according to what one would call degrees of subtlety, which we will find again. Plato agrees with the Hindu doctrine by attributing visibility to fire as its own quality, but departs from it by attributing tangibility to earth, instead of attributing it to air. It seems rather difficult to find a rigorously established correspondence between the elements and the sensory qualities among the Greeks; it is easy to understand that this is so, because, considering only four elements, one should immediately per- ceive a gap in this correspondence, the number of five uniformly regard- ing the senses everywhere.

FIRE

DRY HOT

EARTH AIR

COLD WET

WATER

In Aristotle we find considerations of a very different character, in which there is also a question of qualities, but which are not the properly alleged sensory qualities; these considerations are in fact based on the combinations of hot and cold, which are respectively principles of expan- sion and condensation, with the dry and the wet; fire is hot and dry, air is hot and humid, water is cold and wet, ground is cold and dry. The groupings of these four qualities, which are opposed two by two, there- fore concern only the four ordinary elements, to the exclusion of the ether, which is justified by the remark that this, as the primordial ele- ment, must contain within itself sets of opposites or complementary qualities, thus coexisting in the neutral state insofar as it perfectly bal-ances one with the other prior to their differentiation, which can be re-garded as resulting precisely from a break in this original equilibrium.The ether must therefore be represented as situated at the point wherethe oppositions do not yet exist, but from which they occur, i.e., in thecenter of the cruciform figure whose branches correspond to the otherfour elements; this representation is indeed that adopted by the Hermet-ists of the Middle Ages, who expressly recognize the ether under thename 'quintessence' (quinta essentia), which implies an enumeration ofthe elements in an ascending order, or regressive, i.e., inverse to that oftheir production, for otherwise the ether would be the first element andnot the fifth. It may also be remarked that it is in reality a 'substance' andnot an 'essence,' in this regard the expression used shows a frequent con-fusion in medieval Latin terminology, where the distinction between 'es-sence' and 'substance,' in the sense that we have indicated, seems to havenever been made very clearly, as we can only too easily realize in scho-lastic philosophy.^[428] While we are at these comparisons, we must still, on the other hand,warn against a false assimilation which sometimes arises in the Chinesedoctrine, where we find something that is also ordinarily called the 'fiveelements'; these are enumerated thus: water, wood, fire, earth, metal, thisorder being considered, in this case again, as that of their production.What can be deceptive is that the number is the same on both sides, andthat, out of five terms, three have equivalent denominations, but whatcould the other two correspond to, and how to make the order indicatedhere coincide with that of the Hindu doctrine.^[429] The truth is that, not-withstanding the apparent similarities, this is an entirely different pointof view, which would be irrelevant to examine here; to avoid confusion,it would certainly be much better to translate the Chinese word wŭxíng into something other than 'elements,' for example, as it was proposed,^[430] into 'agents,' which is closer to its real meaning. These remarks being made, we must now reject first, if we wish to specify the notion of the elements without insisting on it at length, sev- eral erroneous opinions fairly commonly spread about this subject in our time. First of all, it is scarcely necessary to say, if the elements are the constitutive principles of the bodies, it is in a very different sense than that in which the chemists envisage the constitution of these bodies, when they regard them as resulting of the combination of certain 'simple bodies' or things self-styled as such: on the one hand, the multiplicity of the so-called simple bodies clearly oppose this assimilation, and, on the other hand, it is by no means proven that there are really simple bodies, this name being only given to those which chemists cannot decompose. In any case, the elements are not simple bodies, but the substantial prin- ciples from which bodies are formed; we must not be deceived by the fact that they are designated analogically by names which may be at the same time those of certain bodies, to which they are in no way identical for that purpose, and every body, whatever it may be, proceeds in fact from all five elements, although in its nature there may be a certain predomi- nance of one or the other. More recently, what has been attempted is the assimilation of ele- ments to the different physical states of matter as modern physicists un- derstand it, i.e., in sum to its different degrees of condensation, occurring from the homogeneous primordial ether, which fills the whole extant, uniting together all the parts of the corporeal world. From this point of view, from the densest to the most subtle, i.e., in an order opposite to their differentiation, we make a correspondence between the earth and the solid state, water and the liquid state, air and the gaseous state, and fire to an even more rare state, quite similar to what some physicists have called the 'radiant state,' and which should then be distinguished from the etheric state. We find there the vain concern which is so common nowadays, to accord traditional ideas with profane scientific concep- tions; this is not to say that such a point of view cannot contain any part of truth, in the sense that we may admit that each of these physical states has certain more particular relations with a certain element, but this is nothing more than a correspondence and not an assimilation, which would be incompatible with the constant coexistence of all the elements in any body, whatever state presents itself. It would be even less legiti- mate to want to go further than to pretend to identify the elements with the sensory qualities which, from another point of view, are connected with them much more directly. On the other hand, the order of increas-ing condensation thus established between the elements is the same as that which we have found in Plato: he places fire before air and immedi-ately after ether, as if it was the first differentiating element within this original cosmic medium, so it is not in this way that one can find the justification of the traditional order affirmed by the Hindu doctrine. Moreover, we must always take the greatest care to avoid confining our-selves exclusively to a point of view that is too systematic, i.e., one that is too narrowly limited and particularized; it would certainly be misun-derstanding the theory of Aristotle and Hermetists that we have indi-cated, that seek, under the pretext that it involves principles of expansion and condensation, to interpret it in favor of an identification of elements with the various physical states just mentioned. If one is absolutely interested in finding a point of comparison with physical theories, in the present meaning of the word, it would undoubt-edly be more accurate to consider the elements as representing different vibratory modes of matter by referring to their correspondence with the sensory qualities, the modes under which it is successively perceptible to each of our senses; when we say successively, it must be understood that this is only a purely logical succession. ^[431] Only, when one speaks thus of the vibratory modes of matter, as well as when it is a question of its physical states, it is a point to which one must pay attention: it is that among the Hindus at least (and even among the Greeks to a certain ex-tent), we do not find the notion of matter in the sense of modern physi-cists; the proof of this is that, as we have already remarked elsewhere, there exists in Sanskrit no word which can even be translated as ‘matter.' If, therefore, it is permissible to use this notion of matter to sometimes interpret the conceptions of the ancients in order to make oneself under-stood more easily, one must never do so with certain precautions, but it is possible to envisage vibratory states, for example, without necessarily appealing to the special properties which the moderns essentially attrib-ute to matter. Despite this, such a conception seems even more apt to analogically indicate what the elements are by means of an image, if we can say so, than to really define them; perhaps this is basically all that can be done in the language that we currently have at our disposal, as a result of the oblivion into which the traditional ideas have fallen in the Western world.

However, we will add this: the sensory qualities express, in relation to our human individuality, the conditions that characterize and determine the corporeal existence as a particular mode of the Universal Existence, since it is by these qualities that we know the body to the exclusion of everything else; we can therefore see in the elements the expression of these same conditions of corporeal existence, no longer from the human point of view, but from the cosmic point of view. It is not possible for us to give here the questions which it would include, but at least one can immediately understand by this how the sensory qualities proceed from the elements, as a translation or 'microcosmic' reflection of the corresponding 'macrocosmic' realities. It is also understood that the bodies, being properly defined by the set of conditions in question, are thereby constituted as such by the elements in which they are ‘substantialized'; and this, it seems, is the most precise notion that one can give of these same elements. Following this we shall proceed to other considerations which will show even better how the conception of elements is connected not only with the special conditions of corporeal existence, but also with conditions of existence of a more universal order and, more specifically, to the very conditions of every manifestation. We know how important the Hindu doctrine is to the consideration of the three guṇāḥ: this term designates constitutive and primordial qualities or attributions of the beings envisaged in their different states of manifestation, that they derive from the 'substantial' principle of their existence, because, from the universal point of view, they are inherent in Prakrti, in which they are in perfect equilibrium in the 'indistinction' of pure undifferentiated potentiality. Any manifestation or modification of the 'substance' represents a rupture of this equilibrium; the manifested beings thus participate in the three guṇāh to varying degrees, and they are not states, but general conditions to which they are subjected in any state, by which they are in some way connected, which determine the present tendency of their 'becoming.' We do not have to enter into a complete account of the guṇāh here, but only to consider its application to the distinction of the elements; we will not even return to the definition of each guṇa, which we have already given on several occasions. We will only recall, for this is what matters most here, that sattva is represented as an ascending tendency, tamas as a descending tendency, and rajas, which is an intermediary between the two, as an expansion in the horizontal direction. The three guṇāh must be found in each of the elements as in all that belongs to the domain of universal manifestation; they are found in different proportions, establishing between these elements a kind of hierarchy, which can be regarded as analogous to the hierarchy which, from another incomparably more extensive point of view, established in the same way between the multiple states of the Universal Existence, alt- hough there are only simple terms included within one and the same state. In water and earth, but especially in the earth, it is predominately tamas; physically, this downward and compressive force corresponds to gravitation or gravity. Rajas has predominance in the air; this element is regarded as endowed essentially with a transverse movement. In fire, it is predominately sattva, because the fire is the luminous element; the as- cending force is symbolized by the tendency of the flame to rise, and it is physically translated by the expanding power of heat, as this power op- poses the condensation of bodies.

To give a more precise interpretation of this, we can outline the dis- tinction of elements as occurring within a sphere: in this sphere, the two ascending and descending tendencies we have spoken of will be exer- cised according to the two opposite directions taken on the same vertical axis, in opposing directions from each other and going respectively to the two poles; as for the expansion in the horizontal direction, which marks a balance between these two tendencies, it will be accomplished naturally in the plane perpendicular to the middle of this vertical axis, i.e. the plane of the equator. If we now consider the elements as being distributed in this sphere according to the tendencies which predominate in them, earth, by virtue of the descending tendency of gravitation, must occupy the lowest point, which is regarded as the region of darkness and which is the bottom of the waters at the same time, while the equator marks their surface, according to a symbolism which is common to all the cosmogonic doctrines in whatever traditional form they belong. Water thus occupies the lower hemisphere, and if the descending ten- dency is still affirmed in the nature of this element, we cannot say that its action is exercised in an exclusive (or almost exclusive, necessary co-existence of the three gunāh in all things preventing the extreme limit from ever being attained in any mode of manifestation whatsoever), for, if we consider any point in the lower hemisphere other than the pole, the radius which corresponds to this point has an oblique direction, an inter-mediary between the descending vertical and the horizontal. We may therefore regard the tendency marked by such a direction as decompos-ing into two others of which it is the resultant, which will respectively be the actions of tamas and rajas; if we relate these two actions to the qualities of water, the vertical component, as a function of tamas, will correspond to density, and the horizontal component, as a function of rajas, to fluidity. The equator marks the intermediate region, which is that of air, a neutral element which keeps the balance between the two opposing tendencies, like rajas between tamas and sattva, to the point where these two tendencies neutralize each other and which, extending transversely on the surface of the waters, separates and delimits the re-spective zones of water and fire. Indeed, the upper hemisphere is occu-pied by fire, in which the action of sattva predominates, but where that of rajas is still exercised, because the tendency in each point of this hem-isphere, indicated as previously for the lower hemisphere, is the inter-mediate between the horizontal and the ascending vertical this time: the horizontal component, as a function of rajas, will correspond to heat here, and the vertical component, as a function of sattva, to light, as heat and light are considered as two complementary terms that unite in the nature of the igneous element.

ĀKĀŚA

TEJAS VÀ YU AP PRTHVI In all this, we have not yet spoken of the ether: as it is the highest and the most subtle of all the elements, we must place it at the highest point, i.e. the highest pole, which is the region of pure light, as opposed to the lower pole which is, as we have said, the region of darkness. Thus, the ether dominates the sphere of the other elements; but, at the same time, it must also be considered as enveloping and penetrating all these elements, of which it is the principle, because of the state of undifferentia-tion which characterizes it, and which allows it to realize a true ‘omni-presence' in the corporeal world; as Śankarācārya says in Ātma-Bodhaḥ, "the ether is poured everywhere and it penetrates both the exterior and the interior of things." We can therefore say that among the elements the ether alone reaches the point where the action of sattva is exercised in the highest degree; we cannot locate it exclusively, as we did for the earth at the opposite point, we must consider it as occupying the whole of the elementary domain at the same time, whatever the geometric represen-tation used to symbolize the whole of this domain. If we have adopted the representation by a spherical figure, it is not only because it is the one that allows the easiest and clearest interpretation, but it is also, and above all, because it agrees better than any other with the general prin-ciples of cosmogonic symbolism as can be found in all traditions; there would be very interesting comparisons in this regard, but we cannot en-ter into these developments here, which would deviate too far from the subject of the present study.

Before leaving this part of our exposé, we have one last remark to make: if we take the elements in the order in which we have distributed them in their sphere, going from highest to lowest, i.e. from the most subtle to the most dense, we find the exact order indicated by Plato, but here this order, which we may call hierarchical, is not to be confused with the order of production of the elements and this must be carefully distinguished. In fact, air occupies an intermediate rank between fire and water, but it is nonetheless produced before the fire and, to tell the truth, the reason for these two different situations is basically the same: it is that air is a neutral element in a way, and which, by the same token, corresponds to a state of less differentiation than fire and water, because the two ascending and descending tendencies are still in perfect equilib-rium between the two. On the contrary, this equilibrium is broken in fa-vor of the ascending tendency in fire and in favor of the descending ten-dency in water, the opposition manifested between the respective quali-ties of these two elements clearly marks the state of greater differentia-tion to which they correspond. If we look from the point of view of the production of the elements, we must look at their differentiation as tak-ing place from the center of the sphere, the primordial point where we will then place the ether as their principle; from there, we will first have the horizontal expansion, corresponding to air, then the manifestation of the ascending tendency, corresponding to fire, and then that of the de- scending tendency, corresponding first to water and then to the earth, the stopping point and the final end of all elementary differentiation.

We must now go into some details regarding the properties of each of the five elements, and first establish that the first of them, ākāśa or ether, is indeed a real element and distinct from the others. Indeed, as we have already pointed out above, some, notably the Buddhists, do not rec- ognize it as such on the pretext that it is nīrūpa, i.e. 'without form,' due to its homogeneity they look at it as a 'non-entity' and identify it with emptiness, because, for them, the homogeneous can only be a pure emp- tiness. The theory of the 'universal void' (sarva śūnyatā) is presented here as a direct and logical consequence of atomism, for if there are only those atoms that have a positive existence in the corporeal world, and if these atoms must move to aggregate with one another thus forming all bodies, this movement will be able to take place only in the void. How- ever, this consequence is not accepted by the school of Kaņāda, the rep- resentative of Vaiśeṣika, but this view is precisely heterodox in that it admits atomism, which, naturally, this ‘cosmological' point of view is not at all integral in itself; conversely, the Greek ‘philosophic physicists' who do not count ether among the elements are far from being all atomists, and they seem more to ignore it rather than expressly reject it. Be that as it may, the Buddhists' opinion easily refutes itself by pointing out that there can be no empty space, such a conception being contradictory: in the entire domain of universal manifestation, which space is apart, there cannot be emptiness, because emptiness, which can only be conceived negatively, is not a possibility of manifestation; moreover, this concep- tion of an empty space would be that of a container without content, which is obviously meaningless. The ether is therefore what occupies all space, but it should not be confused with space itself, because this, being only a container, i.e. in sum a condition of existence and not an inde- pendent entity, cannot be the substantial principles of bodies, nor can it give birth to other elements. Ether is therefore not space, but rather the content of the space envisaged prior to any differentiation in this state of primordial undifferentiation, which is like an image of Prakrti's 'indis- tinctness' in relation to this special domain of manifestation which is the corporeal world, the ether already contains in power, not only all the elements, but also all the bodies, and its homogeneity even makes it fit to receive all forms in its modifications. Being the principle of corporeal things, it possesses quantity, which is a fundamental attribute common to all bodies; moreover, it is regarded as essentially simple, always be-cause of its homogeneity, and it is regarded as impenetrable, because it is that which penetrates everything. Being established in this way, the existence of the ether presents itself quite differently than a mere hypothesis, this shows the profound differ-ence which separates the traditional doctrine from all modern scientific theories. However, another objection is to be considered: ether is a real element, but that does not suffice to prove that it is a distinct element; in other words, it could be that the element that is spread throughout the whole corporeal space (we mean the space capable of containing bodies) is not other than air, and then it is air that would actually be the primor-dial element. The response to this objection is that each of our senses makes us know, as its own object, a quality distinct from those known by the other senses, but a quality can exist only in something to which it is related as an attribute is in relation to it, and, as each sensory quality is thus attributed to an element of which it is the characteristic property, it is necessary that five senses correspond to five distinct elements. The sensory quality which is related to the ether is sound; this re-quires some explanation, which will be easily understood if one consid-ers the mode of production of sound by vibratory movement, which is far from being a recent discovery as some might believe, because Kanāda expressly declares that “sound is propagated by waves, wave after wave, radiating in all directions from a given center.” Such a movement propa-gates around its starting point by concentric waves, uniformly distrib-uted in all directions of space, giving rise to the figure of an indefinite and unclosed spheroid. This is the least differentiated movement of all, because of what we call its ‘isotropism,' and that is why it will be able to give birth to all the other movements, which will differ from in it in so far as they will no longer be uniform in all directions; likewise, all the more particularized forms will proceed from the original spherical form. Thus, the differentiation of the originally homogeneous ether, the differ-entiation which gives rise to the other elements, originates in an elemen-tary movement occurring in the manner we have just described, from an initial point in this indefinite cosmic medium, but this elementary move-ment is nothing else than the prototype of the sonic ripple. The auditory sensation is the only one that makes us directly perceive a vibratory movement; even if we admit, with most modern physicists, that the other sensations come from a transformation of similar movements, it is none the less true that they differ qualitatively as sensations, which is the only essential consideration here. Furthermore, after what has just been said, it is in the ether that the cause of sound lies, but it is well understood that this cause must be distinguished from the various media which can serve secondarily to the propagation of sound, and which contribute to make it perceptible to us by amplifying the elementary etheric vibrations, all the more so as these mediums become more dense. Let us finally add, in this connection, that the sound quality is equally sensory in the other four elements, as these all proceed from the ether. Apart from these con-siderations, the attribution of the sound quality to the ether, i.e. the first of the elements, has yet another profound reason, which is related to the doctrine of the primordiality and the perpetuity of sound; this is a point to which we can only make a simple allusion in passing.

The second element, the one that first differentiates from ether, is vāyu or air; the word vāyu, derived from the verbal root vā, which means 'to go' or 'to move,' properly designates the breath of the word, and, con-sequently, mobility is considered as the essential character of this ele-ment. More precisely, air is, as we have already said, regarded as en-dowed with a transversal movement, a movement in which all the direc-tions of space no longer play the same role as in the spheroidal move-ment, which we have had to consider previously, but which, on the con-trary, proceeds in a certain particular direction; therefore, it is the recti-linear motion which gives rise to the determination of this direction. This propagation of the movement according to certain determined directions implies a rupture of the homogeneity of the cosmic medium; we there-fore have a complex motion, which, no longer being 'isotropic,' must be constituted by a combination or a coordination of elementary vibratory movements. Such a movement gives rise to equally complex forms, and, as the form is what firstly affects touch, the tangible quality can be re-ferred as belonging to air, as this element is, by its mobility, the principle of the differentiation of forms. It is therefore by the effect of mobility that air is made sensible to us; analogically, moreover, atmospheric air be-comes sensitive to touch only by its displacement, but, following the re-mark we made above in a general way, we must be careful not to identify the element air with this atmospheric air, which is a body, as some did not fail to do in noting some similarities of this type. Thus, Kanāda de-clares that air is colorless, but it is very easy to understand that this must be so without referring to the properties of atmospheric air, for color is a quality of fire, and this is logically posterior to air in the order of de-velopment of the elements; this quality is not yet manifested at the stage represented by air.

The third element is tejas or fire, which manifests itself to our senses in two principle aspects, as light and heat; the quality which belongs to it in its own right is visibility, and in this respect it is under its luminous aspect that fire must be considered, this is too obvious to warrant any explanation, because it is obviously by light alone that the bodies are made visible. According to Kanāda, “light is colored, and it is the princi-ple of the coloring of bodies.” Color is therefore a characteristic property of light: in light itself, it is white and resplendent; in the various bodies, it is variable, and we can distinguish among its modifications as simple colors and mixed or blended colors. It should be noted that the Pythago-reans, reported by Plutarch, also affirmed that “colors are nothing but a reflection of light, modified in different ways"; it would be very wrong to see a discovery of modern science here. Furthermore, in its caloric as-pect, fire is sensitive to touch, in which it produces the impression of temperature; air is neutral in this respect, since it is anterior to fire, heat is an aspect of it, as for cold, it is regarded as a characteristic property of water. Thus, with regards to temperature as well as to the action of the two ascending and descending tendencies that we have previously de-fined, fire and water oppose one another, while air is in a state of equi-librium between these two elements. Moreover, if we consider that cold increases the density of the bodies by contracting them, while heat di-lates and subtilizes them, we will recognize without difficulty that the correlation of heat and cold with fire and water respectively is included, as a special application and a simple consequence, in the general theory of the three guṇāḥ and their distribution throughout the elementary do-main.

The fourth element, ap or water, has for its characteristic properties, besides the cold of which we have just spoken, density or gravity, which it has in common with earth, and fluidity or viscosity, which is the qual-ity which is essentially different from all other elements; we have already pointed out the correlation of these two properties with the respective actions of tamas and rajas. Furthermore, the sensory quality that corre-sponds to water is flavor; it may be incidentally remarked, though there is no point in attaching too much importance to considerations of this type, that this is in agreement with the opinion of modern physiologists who think that a body is 'sapid' only so far as it can dissolve in saliva, in other words, flavor in any body is a consequence of fluidity.

Finally, the fifth and final element is prthvī or earth, which no longer possesses fluidity as water corresponds to the most condensed body mode of all; it is in this element that we find gravity at its highest degree, which manifests itself in the descent or fall of bodies. The sensory quality that is peculiar to earth is smell; therefore, this quality is regarded as residing in solid particles which, detaching themselves from bodies, meet the organ of smell. On this point again, there does not seem to be any disagreement with the current physiologic theories; but, even if there was some disagreement, it would not matter, because the error should then be on the side of profane science and not of traditional doctrine in any case.

In conclusion, we shall say a few words of the way in which the Hindu doctrine envisages the organs of the senses in relation to the elements: since each sensory quality proceeds from an element in which it essentially resides, the organ by which this quality is perceived to be in conformity with it, i.e. that it is itself of the nature of the corresponding element. It is thus that the real organs of the senses are constituted, and it is necessary, contrary to the Buddhists' opinion, to distinguish them from the external organs, i.e. from the parts of the human body which are only their seats and their instruments. Thus, the true organ of hearing is not the pavilion of the ear, but the portion of the ether which is contained in the inner ear that vibrates under the influence of a sound ripple; Kanāda observes that it is not the first wave nor the intermediate waves that make the sound, but the final wave that comes into contact with the organ of hearing. Likewise, the true organ of sight is not the globe of the eye, nor even the retina, but a luminous principle which resides in the eye that comes into communication with the light emanating or reflected from the external objects; the brightness of the eye is not ordinarily visible, but it can become so in certain circumstances, especially in animals that see in the darkness of the night. Moreover, it should be noted that the ray of light through which the visual perception takes place, and which extends between the eye and the perceived object, can be considered in both directions, on the one hand as starting at the eye and reaching the object, and secondly, reciprocally, as coming from the object towards the pupil of the eye; a similar theory of vision is found among the Pythagoreans, and this also accords with Aristotle's definition of sensation, conceived as “the common act of the perceiver and the perceived." Considerations of the same type could be given to the organs of each of the other senses; we believe, through these examples, we have given sufficient indications in this regard.

Such is, in its broad outlines and interpreted as precisely as possible, the Hindu theory of the element, which, in addition to its own self-interest, is capable of making us more generally understand what is the 'cosmological' point of view in traditional doctrines.