Post by giovanni on Jan 15, 2006 16:17:13 GMT
THE SYMBOLISM OF THE BRIDGE
Bro. René Guénon
Although we have already spoken of the Symbolism of the bridge on various occasions, we will add to what we have said some further observations in connection with a study on the subject [1] by Doña Luisa Coomaraswamy in which she particularly emphasizes a point demonstrating the close connection of this symbolism with the doctrine of the sūtrātmā. What is involved is the original meaning of the word setu, which is the most ancient of the different Sanskrit terms denoting bridge and the only one found in the Rig Veda. This word, derived from the root si, ‘to attach', means strictly a 'tie'; and the bridge thrown over a river is indeed what ties one bank to the other; but beyond this very general remark there is in addition, in what is implied by this term, something much more precise, The bridge must be thought of as originally constituted by lines or cords, which are its most orthodox natural model, or by a rope fastened in the same way as these, for example to trees growing on the two banks, so that the banks are thus effectively 'attached' to each other by this rope. Since the two banks symbolically represent two different states of the being, it is obvious that the rope plays the same part here as the `thread' linking these states to one another, that is, the sūtrātmā itself. The character of such a link, both slender and strong, is also an adequate image of its spiritual nature, and this is why the bridge, which is also assimilated to a ray of light, is often described traditionally as being as narrow as the edge of a sword, or again, if made of wood, as formed from a single beam or from a single tree trunk. [2] This narrowness also brings out the `perilous' character of the way in question, which is moreover the only way possible, but which all do not succeed in traversing and which very few indeed can pass over without help and by their own means,[3] for there is always a certain danger in the passage from one state to another; but this danger relates especially to the 'benefic' and `malefic' double meaning which the bridge presents, as do so many 'other symbols, and to which we shall shortly return.
The two worlds represented by the two shores are, in the most general sense, heaven and earth, which at the beginning were united, but which were separated by the very fact of manifestation, the entire domain of which is then assimilated to a river or to a sea extending between them.[4] The bridge is thus exactly equivalent to the axial pillar linking heaven and earth even while holding them apart; and it is by reason of this meaning that it must be conceived as essentially vertical,[5] like all the other symbols of the 'World Axis; for example the axle of the 'cosmic chariot' when its two wheels likewise represent heaven and earth.[6] This also establishes the fundamental identity of the symbolism of the bridge with that of the ladder; of which we have spoken previously.[7] Thus, crossing the bridge is finally nothing other than the passage along the axis, which alone effectively unites the different states with one another; the bank from which the bridge starts is in fact this world, that is, the state in which the being that is to traverse the axis presently finds itself and the bank at which it ends, after the being has traversed the other states of manifestation, is the principial world. One of the two banks is the domain of death, where everything is subject to change, and the other is the domain of immortality. [8]
Just now we recalled that the axis at the same time links and separates heaven and earth; similarly, although the bridge is really the path that unites the two shores and allows the passage from one to the other, in a certain sense it may also be an obstacle placed between them, bringing us once again to its 'perilous' character. This is even implied, moreover, in the meaning of the word setu, which is a bond in both of the two senses in which it can be understood; on the one hand, that which connects two things to each other, but, on the other hand, also a fetter in which the being is caught. A rope can serve equally well for either of these two purposes, and the bridge will likewise appear under one or the other aspect, that is, as 'benefic' or as 'malefic', according to whether or not the being succeeds in getting free of it. It may be noted. that the double symbolic sense of the bridge results again from the fact that it can be crossed in two opposing directions, whereas it should be crossed in one direction only, that going from `this shore' to the `further shore; any turning back constituting a danger to be avoided, [9] except in the single case of the being that, already freed from conditioned existence, can henceforth 'move at will' through all worlds, and for which such a turning back is moreover no more than a purely illusory appearance. In every other case but this, the part of a bridge that has already been crossed must normally be 'lost from view' and become as if it no longer existed, just as the symbolic ladder is always regarded as having its base in the very domain where the being that is climbing it actually finds itself, the lower part of the ladder disappearing for him insofar as his ascent has been accomplished. [10] So long as the being has not reached the principial world from which it may afterward redescend into manifestation without being in any way affected, realization can in fact he accomplished [11] only in the ascending direction; and for the one that would ding to the way for its own sake, thus taking the means for the end, that way would veritably become an obstacle instead of leading effectively to liberation, which implies that it must continue to destroy the ties that hind it to the stages already traversed, until the axis is finally reduced to a single point that contains all and is the center of the total being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] 'The Perilous Bridge of Welfare’ in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, August 1944
[2] In this connection let us recall the double meaning of the English word beam, which designates both a girder and a ray of light, as we have already observed elsewhere (see ‘Masons and Carpenters; Studies in Freemasonry and the Compagnonnage, chap. 5).
[3] This is a privilege only of the 'solar heros' in the myths and tales in which the crossing of a bridge is involved.
[4] In all the more restricted applications of this same symbolism, it will always be a question of two states which, from a certain 'level of reference; have between them a relationship corresponding to that between heaven and earth.
[5] In this respect, and in connection with what has just been said, we will recall the 'rope trick' that is so often described, in which a rope thrown into the air remains or seems to remain vertical while a man or a child climbs it until he disappears from view. Even if this should usually be only a phenomenon of suggestion, it matters little from our present point of view, and, like climbing a pole, it is nonetheless a very significant representation of what we are discussing.
[6] Mrs Coomaraswamy points out that although there are cases where the bridge is described as having the shape of an arch, which identifies it more or less explicitly with the rainbow, these cases are in reality far from being the most frequent in traditional symbolism. We will add that even this is not necessarily in contradiction with the conception of the bridge as vertical, for as we said in connection with the chain of the worlds, a curved line of indefinite length can be assimilated in each of its portions, to a straight line, which will always be 'vertical' in the sense that it will be perpendicular to the domain of existence that it passes through, in addition, even where there is no identification between the bridge and the rainbow, tile latter is nonetheless very generally regarded as a symbol of the union of heaven and earth.
[7] ‘The Symbolism of the Ladder' [chap. 54).
[8] It is evident that in the general symbolism of traversing the waters envisaged as leading from `death to immortality; crossing by means of a bridge or a ford corresponds only to the case where the passage is effectuated from one bank to the other, lo tile exclusion of those where it is described either as a movement against the current to the source thereof, or, on the contrary, as a descent toward the sea, where the voyage must necessarily be accomplished by other means, for example, in conformity with the symbolism of navigation, which is moreover applicable to all cases (see 'Traversing the Waters' [chap. 56]).
[9] Hence the allusions, so frequently met with in myths and legends of every provenance, to the danger of turning back along the way and of 'looking back'.
[10] There is here something like a 'resorption' of the axis by the being traversing it, as we have already explained in The Great Triad, to which we will also refer on certain other related points, notably concerning the identification of that being with the axis itself, whatever may he the symbol by which the latter is represented, and also, consequently, with the bridge, which gives the true meaning of the 'pontifical' function, which is very dearly alluded to, among other traditional formulas, by this Celtic phrase from the Mabinogion cited as an epigram by Mrs Coomaraswamy: 'He who would be Chief, let him be the Bridge.'
Bro. René Guénon
Although we have already spoken of the Symbolism of the bridge on various occasions, we will add to what we have said some further observations in connection with a study on the subject [1] by Doña Luisa Coomaraswamy in which she particularly emphasizes a point demonstrating the close connection of this symbolism with the doctrine of the sūtrātmā. What is involved is the original meaning of the word setu, which is the most ancient of the different Sanskrit terms denoting bridge and the only one found in the Rig Veda. This word, derived from the root si, ‘to attach', means strictly a 'tie'; and the bridge thrown over a river is indeed what ties one bank to the other; but beyond this very general remark there is in addition, in what is implied by this term, something much more precise, The bridge must be thought of as originally constituted by lines or cords, which are its most orthodox natural model, or by a rope fastened in the same way as these, for example to trees growing on the two banks, so that the banks are thus effectively 'attached' to each other by this rope. Since the two banks symbolically represent two different states of the being, it is obvious that the rope plays the same part here as the `thread' linking these states to one another, that is, the sūtrātmā itself. The character of such a link, both slender and strong, is also an adequate image of its spiritual nature, and this is why the bridge, which is also assimilated to a ray of light, is often described traditionally as being as narrow as the edge of a sword, or again, if made of wood, as formed from a single beam or from a single tree trunk. [2] This narrowness also brings out the `perilous' character of the way in question, which is moreover the only way possible, but which all do not succeed in traversing and which very few indeed can pass over without help and by their own means,[3] for there is always a certain danger in the passage from one state to another; but this danger relates especially to the 'benefic' and `malefic' double meaning which the bridge presents, as do so many 'other symbols, and to which we shall shortly return.
The two worlds represented by the two shores are, in the most general sense, heaven and earth, which at the beginning were united, but which were separated by the very fact of manifestation, the entire domain of which is then assimilated to a river or to a sea extending between them.[4] The bridge is thus exactly equivalent to the axial pillar linking heaven and earth even while holding them apart; and it is by reason of this meaning that it must be conceived as essentially vertical,[5] like all the other symbols of the 'World Axis; for example the axle of the 'cosmic chariot' when its two wheels likewise represent heaven and earth.[6] This also establishes the fundamental identity of the symbolism of the bridge with that of the ladder; of which we have spoken previously.[7] Thus, crossing the bridge is finally nothing other than the passage along the axis, which alone effectively unites the different states with one another; the bank from which the bridge starts is in fact this world, that is, the state in which the being that is to traverse the axis presently finds itself and the bank at which it ends, after the being has traversed the other states of manifestation, is the principial world. One of the two banks is the domain of death, where everything is subject to change, and the other is the domain of immortality. [8]
Just now we recalled that the axis at the same time links and separates heaven and earth; similarly, although the bridge is really the path that unites the two shores and allows the passage from one to the other, in a certain sense it may also be an obstacle placed between them, bringing us once again to its 'perilous' character. This is even implied, moreover, in the meaning of the word setu, which is a bond in both of the two senses in which it can be understood; on the one hand, that which connects two things to each other, but, on the other hand, also a fetter in which the being is caught. A rope can serve equally well for either of these two purposes, and the bridge will likewise appear under one or the other aspect, that is, as 'benefic' or as 'malefic', according to whether or not the being succeeds in getting free of it. It may be noted. that the double symbolic sense of the bridge results again from the fact that it can be crossed in two opposing directions, whereas it should be crossed in one direction only, that going from `this shore' to the `further shore; any turning back constituting a danger to be avoided, [9] except in the single case of the being that, already freed from conditioned existence, can henceforth 'move at will' through all worlds, and for which such a turning back is moreover no more than a purely illusory appearance. In every other case but this, the part of a bridge that has already been crossed must normally be 'lost from view' and become as if it no longer existed, just as the symbolic ladder is always regarded as having its base in the very domain where the being that is climbing it actually finds itself, the lower part of the ladder disappearing for him insofar as his ascent has been accomplished. [10] So long as the being has not reached the principial world from which it may afterward redescend into manifestation without being in any way affected, realization can in fact he accomplished [11] only in the ascending direction; and for the one that would ding to the way for its own sake, thus taking the means for the end, that way would veritably become an obstacle instead of leading effectively to liberation, which implies that it must continue to destroy the ties that hind it to the stages already traversed, until the axis is finally reduced to a single point that contains all and is the center of the total being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] 'The Perilous Bridge of Welfare’ in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, August 1944
[2] In this connection let us recall the double meaning of the English word beam, which designates both a girder and a ray of light, as we have already observed elsewhere (see ‘Masons and Carpenters; Studies in Freemasonry and the Compagnonnage, chap. 5).
[3] This is a privilege only of the 'solar heros' in the myths and tales in which the crossing of a bridge is involved.
[4] In all the more restricted applications of this same symbolism, it will always be a question of two states which, from a certain 'level of reference; have between them a relationship corresponding to that between heaven and earth.
[5] In this respect, and in connection with what has just been said, we will recall the 'rope trick' that is so often described, in which a rope thrown into the air remains or seems to remain vertical while a man or a child climbs it until he disappears from view. Even if this should usually be only a phenomenon of suggestion, it matters little from our present point of view, and, like climbing a pole, it is nonetheless a very significant representation of what we are discussing.
[6] Mrs Coomaraswamy points out that although there are cases where the bridge is described as having the shape of an arch, which identifies it more or less explicitly with the rainbow, these cases are in reality far from being the most frequent in traditional symbolism. We will add that even this is not necessarily in contradiction with the conception of the bridge as vertical, for as we said in connection with the chain of the worlds, a curved line of indefinite length can be assimilated in each of its portions, to a straight line, which will always be 'vertical' in the sense that it will be perpendicular to the domain of existence that it passes through, in addition, even where there is no identification between the bridge and the rainbow, tile latter is nonetheless very generally regarded as a symbol of the union of heaven and earth.
[7] ‘The Symbolism of the Ladder' [chap. 54).
[8] It is evident that in the general symbolism of traversing the waters envisaged as leading from `death to immortality; crossing by means of a bridge or a ford corresponds only to the case where the passage is effectuated from one bank to the other, lo tile exclusion of those where it is described either as a movement against the current to the source thereof, or, on the contrary, as a descent toward the sea, where the voyage must necessarily be accomplished by other means, for example, in conformity with the symbolism of navigation, which is moreover applicable to all cases (see 'Traversing the Waters' [chap. 56]).
[9] Hence the allusions, so frequently met with in myths and legends of every provenance, to the danger of turning back along the way and of 'looking back'.
[10] There is here something like a 'resorption' of the axis by the being traversing it, as we have already explained in The Great Triad, to which we will also refer on certain other related points, notably concerning the identification of that being with the axis itself, whatever may he the symbol by which the latter is represented, and also, consequently, with the bridge, which gives the true meaning of the 'pontifical' function, which is very dearly alluded to, among other traditional formulas, by this Celtic phrase from the Mabinogion cited as an epigram by Mrs Coomaraswamy: 'He who would be Chief, let him be the Bridge.'