The first degree of the manifestation of Ātmā, taking this expression in the sense explained in the last chapter, is the higher intellect (Buddhi), which . . . is also called Mahat or the “great principle”; it is the second of the twenty-five principles of the Sāṇkhya and the first therefore of all the produc tions of Prakriti. This principle still pertains to the universal order, since it is formless; we must not, however, forget that it already belongs to manifestation, and therefore proceeds from Prakriti, for all manifestation, at whatever degree we take it, necessarily implies the two correlative and complementary terms, Purusha and Prakriti, “essence” and “ substance”. It is nonetheless true that Buddhi transcends the domain not only of human individuality but of every individual state whatsoever, and it is this which justifies its other name of Mahat: it is never really individualized, therefore, and it is not until the next stage, that of the particular (or rather “particularist”) consciousness of the “ego”, that we shall find individ uality realized.
Buddhi, considered in relation to the human individuality or to any other individual state, is, then, its immediate but transcendent principle, just as, from the point of view of universal Existence, formless manifestation is the principle of formal manifestation; and it is at the same time what may be called the expression of the per sonality in manifestation, therefore that which unifies the being throughout the indefinite multiplicity of its individual states (the human state, in its utmost extension, being but one state among all the rest). In other words, if we view the “Self” (Ātmā) or personality, as the Spiritual Sun1 which shines at the center of the entire being, Buddhi will be the ray directly emanating from this Sun and illumi nating in its entirety the particular individual state that more espe cially concerns us, while at the same time linking it to the other individual states of the same being, or rather, more generally still, to all the manifested states (individual or non-individual) of that being, and, beyond these, to the center itself. Further, it should be remarked, without however going into the question so far as to interrupt the course of our exposition, that, owing to the funda mental unity of the being in all its states, the center of each state, where this spiritual ray is projected, should be regarded as virtually, if not effectively, identified with the center of the entire being; and it is for this reason that any state whatsoever, the human state as well as any other, can be taken as a basis for the realization of the Supreme Identity. It is precisely in this sense, and in virtue of this identification, that one may say, as we did in the first place, that Purusha itself dwells at the center of the human individuality, that is to say at the point where the intersection of the spiritual ray with the realm of the vital possibilities determines the “living soul” (jīvātmā).2
Furthermore, Buddhi, like everything that proceeds from the potentialities of Prakriti, participates in the three guṇa s; that explains why, when viewed from the standpoint of distinctive knowledge (vijñāna), it is regarded as ternary, and, in the sphere of universal Existence, it is then identified with the divine Trimūrti:
Mahat is conceived distinctively as three Gods [in the sense of three aspects of the intelligible Light, for this is the real meaning of the Sanskrit word Deva, of which the Latin word Deus is, moreover, etymologically the exact equivalent],3 through the influence of the three guṇas, being one single manifestation [ mūrti] in three Gods. In the universal order, it is the Divinity [ Īshvara, not in himself, but under his three principal aspects as Brahmā, Vishnu, and Shiva, constituting the Trimūrti, or “triple manifestation”]; but regarded distributively [under the aspect of “separativity”, which is, moreover, purely contingent] it belongs [without however being itself individualized] to individual beings [to whom it communicates the possibility of participating in the divine attributes, that is to say in the very nature of Uni versal Being, the Principle of all existence].4
It is easy to see that Buddhi is here considered in its respective rela tions with the first two of the three Purusha s which are spoken of in the Bhagavad-Gītā: in the “macrocosmic” order the “immutable” Purusha is Īshvara himself, of whom the Trimūrti is the expression in manifested mode (we are speaking, of course, of formless manifestation, for there is nothing individual about it); and it is stated that the other Purusha is “disseminated among all beings”. Similarly, in the “microcosmic” order, Buddhi may be viewed relatively to the personality (Ātmā) and relatively the “living soul” (jīvātmā), the lat ter moreover only being the reflection of the personality in the indi vidual human state, a reflection which could not exist without the mediation of Buddhi. To recall here the symbol of the sun and its reflected image in the water, Buddhi is, as we have stated, the ray which determines the formation of the image and at the same time unites it with its luminous source.
It is in virtue of the twofold relationship which has just been indicated, and of this function of intermediary between the personality and the individuality, that we may regard the intellect, in spite of the inevitable inadequacy of such a way of speaking, as passing in some sort from the state of universal potentiality to the individualized state, but without really ceasing to be such as it was, since this apparent passage only comes about through its intersection with the particular domain constituted by certain conditions of existence defining the individuality in question; it then produces as a result ant of this intersection the individual consciousness (ahaṇkāra), implied in the “living soul” (jīvātmā) in which it is inherent. As we have already pointed out, this consciousness, which is the third principle of the Sāṇkhya, gives rise to the notion of the “ego” (aham, whence the name ahaṇkāra, literally “that which makes the me”), since its proper function is to establish the individual conviction (abhimāna), that is to say precisely the notion that the “I am” is con cerned with external (bāhya) and internal (abhyantara) objects, which are respectively the objects of perception (pratyaksha) and contemplation (dhyāna); and the sum total of these objects is described by the term idam, “this”, when conceived as in opposition to aham or “me”, a purely relative opposition, however, and for that reason quite different from that which modern philosophers claim to establish between “subject” and “object” or between “mind” and “things”. Thus the individual consciousness proceeds directly, but simply as a conditioned modality, from the intellectual principle, and, in its turn, produces all the other principles or elements spe cially attaching to the human individuality. . . .
1 As to the sense in which this expression should be taken, we would refer the reader to the remark previously made concerning the “Universal Spirit”.
2 Clearly, we are not referring in this instance to a mathematical point, but to what might by analogy be called a metaphysical point, always with the proviso however that such an expression must not be allowed to evoke the notion of the “monad” of Leibnitz, since jīvātmā is nothing more than a particular and contingent manifestation of Ātmā, so that its separate existence is really illusory. The geometri cal symbolism referred to will however be set forth in a separate work, together with all the developments to which it lends itself. [See The Symbolism of the Cross, in which this geometrical symbolism is treated in detail. ED]
3 Were one to give to the word “God” the meaning that it has subsequently assumed in Western languages, its use in the plural would make nonsense from the Hindu just as much as from the Christian or Islamic point of view, since as we pointed out before, it could then only apply to Īshvara exclusively, in his indivisible unity which is that of Universal Being, whatever multiplicity of aspects can be considered as pertaining to it in a secondary way.
4 Matsya-Purāna. It will be noticed that Buddhi is not unrelated to the Logos of the Alexandrians.