Guenon Dream State

8/8/2019 Guenon Dream State

1/4

34 THE MI]LTIPLE STATES OF THE BEINGwe repeat, the principle of manifestation, and we see by this howvery much the metaphysical point of view is restricted by those whoclaim to reduce it to'ontology' alone, for to abstract it frorn Non-Being in this way is even to exclude everything that is in fact mosttruly and most purely metaphysical. Having said this in passing, wewill conclude our exposition of the present point with the follow-ing: Being is one in itself, and universal Existence, which is the inte-gral manifestation of its possibilities, is consequently one in itsessence and in its inmost nature; but neither the unity of Being northe 'unicity' of Existence excludes the multiplicity of the modes ofmanifestation, lvhence the indefinitude of degrees of Existence inthe general and cosmic order, and of the states of the being in theorder of particular existences.5 Therefore, the consideration of thernultiple states in no way contradicts the unity of Being, any morethan it does the 'unicity' of Existence that is based on that unity,since neither the one nor the other is in any way affected by multi-plicity; and from this it follows that in the whole dornain of Being,the fact of multiplicity, far from contradicting the afhrmation ofunity or opposing it in any fashion, finds therein its only valid foun-dation, logically as well as rnetaphysically.

5. Wc' tlo n()t sity 'irldivitltrirl', l)('( illt5(' 5l,ll('swhich ale supra-irrtlivirlttitl, ,tt t' ittt ltttlt'rl ltlt r'.

ol rrorr-l'orrnal nranifcsllrtiot't,

6ANALOGOUSCONSIDERATIONSDRAWN FROMSTUDY OF THEDREAM STATE

WE now leave the purely metaphysical point of view of the preced-ing chapter in order to consider the relationships of unity and multi-plicity, for we can perhaps better understand the nature of theserelationships with the help of some analogical considerationsoffered by way of example, or rather of illustration' so to speak,lwhich will show in what sense and in what lneasure one can say thatthe existence of multiplicity is illusory rvith respect to unity, while ofcourse still possessing such reality as its nature allows. We will drawthese more particular considerations from the study of the dreamstate, which is one of the modalities of the mirnifestation of thehurnan being corresponding to the subtle (that is, non-corporeal)part of its individuality. In this state the being produces a world thatproceeds entirely from itself, and the objects therein consist exclu-sively of mental images (as opposed to the sensory perceptions of

1. Strictly speaking, no example is in frro possitrle where rnetaphysical truthsare concerttecl, for these are universal irr csscrrcc' iln(l n()t strsceptible of any particu-larization, lvherelts evcry exarnplc. is rrcccssulily ol l |lllicrrllr ordcr, to one clegreeol arrothcr.


2/4

36 THE MUI-TIPLE STATES oIr rIIE REINGthe r,vaking state), that is to say of combinations of icleas clothed insubtle forrns that depend substantially on the subtle fornl of theindividual hirnseli moreo\r, of rvhich the imaginirl objccts of adream are nothing but erccidentarl arnd secot.tdarv trrodificatiorrs.l

In the dream state, man is therefore situirted in a world imaginedentirely by himself,3 every element of which is consequently drtrwrrfrom himself, from his own nore or less extencled inclividuality (inits extra-corporeal modalities), like so many'illusory torns' (mny-avi-rupa),a this being so even if l-re possesses no clear and distinctconsciousness of it. Whatever may be the interior or exterior start-ing-point (which mery vary rvidely according to the case) that gives adream a certain direction, the events that unfold therein can onlvresult frorn a combination of elements contained at least potentiallyand as if capable of a certirin kind of realization, withir-r the integralcornprehension of the individual; ar-rd if thesc clenlents, u'hich aremodificartions of the individual, are indefinite in number, the vari-ety of such possible combinations is equally so. A dreant should infact be regarcled as a mode of realization for prossibilities that, whilebelonging to the dornain of hunran individuality, are for one reasonor another not susceptible of realizatior-r in a corporeal mode; suchare, fbr example, tl-re fbnns of beings belonging to thc same worldbut other than man, forms that the latter possesses virtually in hinr-self by reason of the central position he occupies in that world.5'l'hese forms obviously cannot be realized by the hurnan beingexcept in the subtle state, irnd the drearn is the rnost orclinary-onecoulcl also say the nlost nornal-of all the means by r,vhich he isable to identify himself with other such beings, without in any rvayceasing to be hirnself, as indicated in this Taoist text: 'One night,'said Chuang Tzu,

2. See Nlntr urtd I Iis llctotttttrg, t llrtl'. t '3. The worci'ilttltl.lillctl'sltotllrI l', ttttrlct .l,""I ltctrit is inclcctl thc lirlrtt.ttiotr ol ittt.tri, llr,rl r., , rrlr'rllv4. Scc Mrlrl rttnl llt, li(tttttttttr.., lr,rl' t"ir. Sct '//rr' ,\Ytttltolt,rrt rtl lltt r t" , l, ,l'

rrr its rrrost exitct scrtsc, sincerrrrolvt'rl irr ir tltc:utt.

,OGIES DRA'I,YN FROIVI TLIE DREAM .STATE 37I was a butterlly, tlitting about and cor-rtented with my lot; then Ialvoke, to fincl mysclf Chuang Chou. Which am l really? Abutterfly thirt drearns it is Chuang Chou, or Cl-ruirng Chou lvhoinragiues that he is a butterfly? Are there tu,o real indivicluals inrny case? \{ras thc.re a rcal trar.rsforrnation front one inclividual toanother? Neither the one nor the other: there were two unretrlmoclilications of the uniclue Being, of the universal norm, inrvhicl-r all bcings in all tl-reir states are one.b

If in the coursc of his drcarn the inclividual takes an active part irrthe unfblding events that his inraginativc faculty creiltes, thart is, if inthe dretrrn he plays in it a cleternrinecl role in the extra-corporealnroclality of his being that at the tinre corresponcls to the state of hisclearly manifestecl consciousness, or to 'nvhat one coulcl call the cen-tral zone of that consciousness, olte rnust nonetheless aclmit thatsimultaneously he likewise'plirys'all the other roles as lvell, whetherin other nrodalities, or art the very least in difTerent secondary r-nodi-fications of the same modality that also belong to his individualconsciousness-and if not in the current lin-ritecl state of mani['esta-tion ol this consciousness, then at least in some one of its possibili-ties of ntanifestation, which, in their totality, inclucle a fielcl ofindefinitely greater extent. Naturally all thesc other roles appear sec-ondary to the one that is principal to the individual, that is, the onein lr4rich his current cor.rsciousness is clirectly involved, and since allthe elernents of the clream exist only through this individual, onecan stry that they are real only insofar as they participate in his ownexistencc; it is the dreamer himself who realizes them as so rrranyrnociifications of himseli rvithout ceasing tl-rereby to be himselfindependentll' of these modifications, which in no way affect whatconstitutes the very essence o{' l-ris inrlir,iduality. N,loreover, if theindiviciual is cclnscictus that he is clreaning, conscious, that is, oI thefirct that all the cvcnts unfolding in this state have only the realitytl-rat he himsclf gives tl-rcrn, hc ivill lre cntircly ur.raf'fected even if inthc rlrcarl hc is sinrultirncotrsli- rrrtor lrrtl sl)cctator, ancl this is so

(\. (.lrLtLutl /. lr, r lr.rlr. :.


3/4

38 TtiE N{tjt.TtPl.E s'l'n l llj ()l:'l llil BEINGprecisely because he will not ceitsc to be a spectator in order tobecorne an Actor, the conceptitttr and the rcalization no longer beingseparated for l-ris indivicl-ral consciousness '"r'hen it has reached astage of developntent sufficicnt to et-nbrace synthetically all thcpresent modifications of the inclividuality. If the situation is other-rvise, the sanre rnodifications can still be retrlized, but if tl-re con-sciousness does not link this realization directly to the conceptiorlof which it is an effect, the individual is led to attribute to the cirearncvents a reality exterior to himself, and, in the measure in whicl-r hedoes so, he is subject to an illusion of which the cause lies rvithirrhimself, an illusion consisting in separating the multiplicity of thoseevents from their immediate principle, that is to sav fror-n his or'vnindividual unity.TThis is a very clear examl-rle of a rnultiplicity existing witl"rin aunity, rvithor.rt thc latter beirtg aff-ected by it; ancl even though theunity in question here may only be relative-that of an indiviclual-in relation to that mr.rltiplicitl', it nonetlteless plays a part analogousto that of veritable and primordial unity in relation to universalmanifestiition. Moreover, we coulcl have taken another exan-rple anclconsiclered the perceptions of the waking state ill this rval',8 but thecase we chose has tl-re advantage ovcr it because the conclitionspeculiar to the dream rvorld in rvhich olre is isolated fronl all thcexterior, or supposedly exterior,9 things that constitute the sensible

7. The sanre can be said of cases of hallucination, in rvhich the error tloes not,as is usually ntaintainc.cl, consist ir.r attributing rr-ality to thc'perceivetl object-itbeing obviously irnpossible tti perceive sornething thiit does not exist in any way-but in attributing ttt it a rnocle of realitl- other tl-ran that r'vhich is truly its orvn,amounting in eft'ect to a confnsiot] l)et\,\,een the orclers of strbtle antl cotporealmanifcstation.ti. Leibnitz clefinecl perception as'thc cxplcssiorr ol'urultiplicity in unitl" (rrrttl-toran in tuto expressiLt.\, rvhiclr is cor-rccl, Irtrt ortly rvith thc rcservatiotrs rve luvealreacly inclicirtetl on the unily orrc c;rrr liillrtly' .rllr ilrttlt'to lltc"itttlivic|.ral srtbstlrncc'(cl:.'t|rc Syrrilsolitrt of //tr'()oss, tltrt|. 119. Ilythisrcstrietiorr\r'tilorrot.rt,rllnrr,rrrlorir'nvtlrtcrlerioritl,ofscrlsilrleolljccls,rvlricllis()l)('folls((lrr(rrtr'"l ll'tr 'l''rlr'rlrl\'l'ttlottllloilltlitilltltlrittrl'ctlott6t lvish l() et)l(,t jlsl norl rrl,,rrr llr, (lr' ,lr'rr ,,1 rrlr.rl rlctltlt ,rl tc,tlilv,rttt slttlttltl.tssilltt lo llt,tl r'rlr't iot tl t

.4Nz\LOGIE.S DRAWN FRO|vI TIIE DRE.AA'f STATE ?c)world, permit no ilrsurrent. What procluces the reality clf thisclrearn rvclrlci is the incliviclual conscic'lusncss alone, envisagecl in itscomplete unfolding, in all the possibilitics of n.ranifcstation that itconrprises; moreovcr) envisaged thus in its entirety, this conscious-ness contaills the drearn rvorld in the same lvav that it contains allthe other elemcnts of indiviclual rnanilestation belonging to any ofthe n-roclalitics contained in the integral extension of indiviclualpossibilitl,.

Norv it is irnportant to note that whcn universal rnanifestation isconsidered analogicalll., all that carr be said is that, just as the indi-vidr-ral cousciolrsness procluces the reality of that special rvorldrvhich is composecl of all its possible nrodalities, there is also sonre-thing that produces the rcalit,v of the rnanifestecl Universe, but rvith-or.rt its beii-rg in any way legitimatc to ecluate tl-rirt'sometl-ring'lvitl-ran incliviclual faculty or a specializccl condition of existcncc, rvhichr,vould be an erninentlv anthropornorphic rrnd anti-ntctaplrysicaLconccirtion. (lonseclucntly it is neither consciousncss nor thought,Lrut rather that sorrretl'ring of which consciousness ancl thouglrt arcor-rlv prarticular nocles of rnanilestation; ancl if there is an indefini-tr,rde of sr-rch possible modes which can be regardecl as so man?vattribr-rtes of universal Being, clirect or inclirect, analogous in a cer-tirin nreasure to what, firr the inclividual, arc the roles played in theclream state by his rnultiple rlodalities and modifications, and by.lvhich his inrrrost nrlture is no longer affectecl, there is no reason totry to recluce all these attributes to oue rtr to several of thern; clr atleast thcre car-r only bc c'rner t'eason) rvhich is nclne other than thatsystematic tendcr.rcy we havc alrcacl,v c'lenounced as incorlpatiblewith tlre universality of nretaphysics. Whatever thc attributcs, thevare only cliffe rcnt aspccts ol'that r-rnitlue plinciple lvhich eives rcal-ity to all ntanifestation becausc it is Ileins itsell and their divc-rsitvcxists only fror.n tl.rc point of viov of dilferentiatecl ntanifcstation,not from that of its principlc, or'ol- IJcin{r in itself, ivhich is the veri-tablc ancl prinrorclial rrrrity. -l'lris is trtrc cvcrr rtf tlre r.t.rost universalrlistinctiotr oltc crut ntalie itr Ilciltr,i, tlt;rt ol-'csscrrec'trrrtl 'substancc',rvliicli rtr.c lilic tlrc llvo polcs ol'rrll rrr.r rrili'sl,rliorr; rrrrtl corrsctlrrcntlyit is str tr lttr tirtri lirr rrll tlt.' ttl,,t,' l),u lit ttl.rr .r\l)( ( l\, rvlrit lr llrr'r'clirrc


4/4

40 THE MI.IIJIPLE STAT!]S OF TI.IE BEINGare more contingent ancl of seconclary importance:10 whatevervalue they may take on in the eyes of the indiviclual when he envis-ages them frorn his particular point of view, properly speaking theyare only sirnple'accidents' in the Universe.

10. We allude here especially to lhc tlistirrcti0rt bctrvcctt'ttlincl'ant-l 'mattel',such as has been ptrt firrlvirrtl itl irll Wt'slt'r tt ltllilosoIlry sitlce l)cscartes, lvhiclrseeks t11 absolb lll rculity irr orrc ot lltt'rtlltr'r, rtt irr l:otlt, of thesc tcrtlrs, itll

Documents

Guenon Dream State