The Rite and the Symbol

Le rite et le symbole, February 1935.

We drew attention to the close connection between the rite and the sym- bol at the end of one of our previous articles: all the constituent elements of the rite necessarily have, we stated, a symbolic meaning and, on the other hand, the symbol itself in its most usual sense is essentially in- tended to produce effects that are rigorously comparable to those of rites as a support of meditation. Let us add that, when it comes to truly tradi- tional rites and symbols (and those which do not possess this character do not deserve to be named, being only counterfeits or parodies in fact), their origin is similarly ‘non-human.' Thus the impossibility of assigning a definitive author or inventor is due to ignorance, as the profane historians may suppose (when they do not arrive at this, in their despair they see this as a product of a kind of 'collective unconscious' which, even if it existed, would be incapable in any case of giving rise to trans- cendent things such as those in question), ^[409] but it is a necessary conse- quence of this very origin which can only be contested by those who totally ignore the true nature of tradition and all that is an integral part of it, as is obviously the case for both rites and symbols. If we wish to examine the fundamental identity of the rite and the symbol in more detail, we can say firstly that the symbol, understood as the 'graphic' figuration as is most common, is in a way the fixation of a ritual gesture.^[410] It often happens that the very path of the symbol must be carried out regularly under conditions which confer on it the charac- teristic of a rite proper; we have a very clear example from this, in an inferior domain such as that of magic (which is a traditional science nonetheless), with the production of talismanic figures, and, in the order which concerns us immediately, the outline of the yantras in the Hindu tradition is also a striking example.^[411] But that is not all, because the notion of the symbol to which we have just referred is much too narrow, to tell the truth. There are not only figurative or visual symbols, there are also sound symbols; we have al- ready indicated on another occasion this distinction of two fundamental categories, which in the Hindu doctrine is that of the yantra and man- tra.^[412] We have even said then that their respective predominance char- acterized two types of rites, which originally relate to the traditions of sedentary peoples in the case of visual symbols, and to that of nomadic peoples in the case of sound symbols; naturally, it is understood that sep- aration between the two cannot be established in an absolute manner (and this is why we speak only of predominance), all combinations being possible here because of the multiple adaptations that have occurred over the ages and through which the various traditional forms have been con- stituted that are known to us today. These considerations quite clearly show the connection which quite generally exists between rituals and symbols; we can add that this link is more immediately apparent in the case of mantrāsaḥ: indeed, while the visual symbol, once it has been out- lined, possibly remains in the permanent state (and this is why we spoke of the fixed gesture), the sound symbol, on the contrary, is manifested only in the very accomplishment of the rite. This difference is attenuated when a correspondence is established between sound symbols and visual symbols; this is what happens when writing, which represents a true fix- ation of the sound (not of the sound itself as such, of course, but of a permanent possibility of reproducing it); it is scarcely necessary to recall that all writing is an essentially symbolic figuration, at its origin at least. Moreover, this is not the case with the word itself, to which this symbolic character is no less inherent in its very nature: it is obvious that the word, whatever it may be, cannot be anything other than a symbol of the idea that it is intended to express. Thus, every language, oral or written, is truly a set of symbols, and this is precisely why language cannot be a creation more artificial or less artificial, nor a mere product of individual faculties, despite all the 'naturalist' theories that are imagined to explain it.^[413] the construction of monuments to traditional destination could still be cited here as an example, these monuments necessarily having a symbolic character within themselves.

For the visual symbols themselves, it is also a case quite comparable to that of the sound symbols in relation to what we have just indicated: this case is that of the symbols which are not drawn permanently, but only are employed as signs in the initiatic rites (especially the 'signs of recognition' that we have spoken of in our previous articles) and even religious ones (the 'sign of the cross' is a typical example and known to all); here, the symbol is really one with the ritual gesture itself.^[414] More- over, it would be quite useless to make of these signs a third category of symbols, distinct from those we have spoken so far. Certain 'psycholo- gists' would probably consider them thus and designate them as 'motor' symbols or by some other expression of this kind, but, being obviously made to be perceived by sight, they thus enter into the category of visual symbols; they are in this category because of their 'instantaneity,' so to speak, those which present the greatest similarity with the complemen- tary category, that of sound symbols. Moreover, the 'graphic' symbol it- self is, we repeat, a gesture or a fixed motion (the very movement or the complex set of motions that must be made to outline it, that the same 'psychologists' would no doubt call a ‘motor scheme'). As far as sound symbols are concerned, we can also say that the movements of the vocal organs, necessary for their production (whether it is the emission of or- dinary speech or of musical sounds), is in fact a gesture in the same way as all other kinds of corporeal movements, of which it is impossible to isolate it entirely.^[415] Thus, this notion of the gesture, taken in its widest sense (which is more in conformity with what the word really implies than the more restricted meaning which is imposed on it by common usage), brings all these cases that differ into unity, so that it may be said

never anything but the result of a true degeneration (this could only have hap- pened earlier and more easily in the case of languages because of their common and general use).

that it is there that they have their common principle in essence; in the metaphysical order, this fact has a profound meaning, which we cannot think of developing at present.

It must be easy to understand now that every rite is constituted literally by a set of symbols; indeed, these do not only include the objects used or the figures represented, as one might be tempted to think when one sticks to the most superficial notion, but also the gestures made and the words uttered (since these are in reality, according to what we have just said, only a particular case of these), in a word, all the elements of the rite without exception; these elements are thus symbols by their very nature, and not by virtue of a superimposed significance which would come to them from external circumstances and which would not be inherent to them. One could still say that rites are symbols 'put into action,' that any ritual gesture is a symbol 'acted';^[416] it is only another way of emphasizing the same thing, only emphasizing the character of the ritual of being, like any action, something which is necessarily accomplished in time,^[417] while the symbol as such can be considered from an 'atemporal' point of view. In this sense, one could speak of a certain pre-eminence of the symbol in relation to the rite, but rite and symbol are in their essence only two aspects of the same reality; this is none other than the 'correspondence' which connects all the degrees of the Universal Existence, so that through it our human state can be put in communication with the higher states of being.