You are visitor number (per WebCounter) to our site! - please send us your feedback

 

Holy Fools, Sacred Clowns and Demiurgic Tricksters: On Laughter and the Ambiguity of M�y�

 

Les hommes sont si n�cessairement fous, que ce serait �tre fou par un autre tour de folie, de n��tre pas fou.�

 

Blaise Pascal

 

(Men are so necessarily fools that not to be a fool would amount to being one by another twist of folly.)

 

 

Der, wer zuletzt lacht, lacht am besten � sagt

Der Volksmund; wohl ein grober Spruch, doch wahr �

Ja voller Weisheit. Denn das letzte Wort

Der Welt ist jenes, das das Erste war:

N�mlich das Sch�pfungswort: Es werde Licht �

Und es geschah.

��������������� Und Bessres gibt es nicht.

 

Frithjof Schuon

 

(He who laughs last, laughs best � says

A popular adage; �tis a coarse saying, but true �

Yea, even full of wisdom. For the last word

Of the world is the same as the first:

The Word of creation: let there be light!

And it happened.

��������������� And something better does not exist.)

�������������������������������

Some think it so essential that they say: Nor foole, nor Prologue, there can be no Play. [1]

 

����������� �The unconditional metaphysical and spiritual primacy of the Absolute and the adamantine discernment between its Reality and the domain of� �illusion� or lesser reality is undoubtedly the cornerstone of integral metaphysics and the foundation of all genuine spiritual paths. Notwithstanding this cardinal emphasis which is like the unshaking ground of the way, perhaps no reality occupies a position as functionally central in the perennialist exposition of metaphysics and traditional anthropology as that of M�y� or Universal Relativity. More than any other traditionalist writer, Schuon considers the notion of M�y� �--following that of Beyond-Being and the epistemological preeminence of the Intellect-- to be a key element of esoterism as principle and as way, for it truly distinguishes the esoteric standpoint from the exoteric perspective, with respect both to the Principle and to manifestation. In this metaphysical idiom, M�y� in divinis is none other than the Divine Being envisaged in His relation to the realm of creation.[2] There is a �relativity� of the Absolute that pertains to its �entering� the realm of relation to �otherness.�[3] Consequently, relativity in divinis allows us to understand the crucial distinction between the Divine Essence as Infinite Possibility and the Divine Person or the Divine Faces turned toward Creation and mankind. Schuon has especially emphasized this distinction in regard to the problem of evil, since the discrimination between Beyond‑Being and Being [4] entails a discernment between the various levels of� Divine Will: on one level the Divine manifests itself in virtue of its Infinitude, while on another level God's Will is identified with� the promotion of Good within manifestation through Revelation, Law and Judgment.

����������� �In the world of Manifestation, the notion of M�y� accounts for the multiple relative view‑points and perspectives in which the Absolute is envisaged as it makes us aware of the fundamentally ambiguous character ‑neither real nor unreal-- of� the manifested order including our own terrestrial experience. Hindus often associate M�y�� with the creative Divine Play (l�l�) [5] therefore stressing� the freedom and spontaneity of the Divine Act, and as such it can also be associated with humor. Schuon himself shows us the way to such an association when he defines the inintelligible nature of M�y� [6] as an �elusive and almost �mocking� element.�[7]� Divine humor reveals itself in the very process of manifestation as l�l� as it involves the humorous play and display of M�y�, the �play of masks� with which Frithjof Schuon dealt in one of his latest books; but it can also be considered as a cause of the unfolding of the manifested universe. As such, it is akin to the �jovial� overflowing of divine joy, happiness and benevolence while pointing at the �not quite serious� nature of relativity as relativity. �You are the Joy, we are the laughter� as R�m� puts it in one of his poems, thereby identifying creatures to the very vibrations of the Divine Beatitude. At any rate, whether it be considered in its manifesting or manifested dimension, the esoteric understanding of M�y� is a particularly precious gift to seekers of our day and age. In a world as snarled and fragmented as ours, spiritual men and women have an urgent need to reach an understanding of the webs and mazes of M�y� as well as of its liberating doors.�

 

 

***

� ���������

����������� Humor is commonly defined as "the ability to see or show the funny or amusing side of things;" whereas laughter is nothing else than the most direct manifestation of this ability. This definition already suggests the importance of� recognizing that reality or things have multiple sides and it also suggests that rigid "one‑sidedness" stands in opposition to humor. Humor involves a keen sensitivity to the moving multiplicity of perspectives; it is incompatible with excessive stiffness because it perceives all positions within the context of their relativity, and it does so without having to fall into relativism or confusing levels of reality.[8] As laughter, but in a more mental and less �existential� mode, humor debunks the ultimate levity of these absolutist pretenses which are not grounded in the Absolute and which remain unmindful, in their zeal, of the ups- and-downs of M�y�. In a hyperbolic but real sense, only the Absolute cannot be laughed at; if other realities objectively [9] deserve reverence� (independently from a subjective need for respect on the part of any human being in virtue of his own limitations) or need to be treated seriously, it is so because they are, in one way or another,� vehicles of the Absolute. The "funny side of things" is what reveals both their lack of absoluteness and their pretension to be treated as the Absolute. Humor stems from a subtle sense of the distance separating what appears to be from what actually is. It therefore implies duality: God's humor arises, as it were,� from the level of His Relativity --that of the relatively Absolute, to use one of Schuon�s key concepts--, as it would have no meaning independently from a consideration of it. It could also be said that there is no room for �humor� nor �laughter� in the Supreme Non‑Duality unless one wishes to consider the All-Possibility as an Infinite Matrix or �Pandora's Box� prefiguring the unfolding of M�y�.� ���������

����������� Be that as it may, God's �humor� may be considered as lying in His apparent negation of Himself in M�y�. Esoterism is accordingly akin to humor because, by contrast to exoterism, it is supremely aware of the relativity of manifestation as a veil upon Reality or as �unreal reality�. For esoterists, the exclusively "serious" treatment of mere terrestrial endeavors�� --especially on the part of those who wish to "build" a new world independently from the Absolute or who, although they pay lip service to the Absolute, are primarily keen on absolutizing relativity in the name of all kinds of good intentions--� always gives away its futility and its absurdity:� it lacks of� sense of� metaphysical proportions,� a lack which is the hallmark of� its Weltanschauung. [10]

� ��������� It is certainly no coincidence that the religious traditions whose spiritual alchemy emphasizes humor and laughter most ‑-that is, Taoism and Zen Buddhism‑ [11] are also among those that focus on� Reality in its most absolute sense,[12] and therefore show little inclination� to treat as real anything that is not the Absolute or the Essential Void. The eccentric irreverence and asocial pranks of many Taoist masters, as well as the iconoclastic tendencies of Zen,[13] rest upon a metaphysical discernment between the absolutely Absolute and what is not so. One must however mention for the sake of perfect objectivity that the iconoclastic irreverence of these spiritual traditions must be situated within the context of an overall tradition characterized �in traditional Japan for example-- by its "formal" emphasis and perfection, to such an extent that form becomes as it were essence.� Confucianism, Shinto and Bushid� form the background of Taoism and Zen: the abrupt transcendence of forms presupposes a kind of formal over-saturation.[14] That is no doubt one of the major reasons why the most daring Taoist and Zen modalities are in general ill‑adapted to Western mentalities, whose flaws rarely contain an excess of respect for forms. Be that as it may, it is in this kind of iconoclastic perspective that humor and laughter may be forged and refined into spiritual weapons for use in a war against the idolatry of forms and the idolatry of the ego. From this vantage point, forms and ego are essentially connected in the comedy of errors of this world. In this connection, the experience of satori is often associated with a loss of equilibrium that is akin to burlesque and bursting laughter through its destabilizing directness and �violence.� Let us mention for example the satori of this Rinzai Master who reached twice the illumination on the occasion of a fall:

Suddenly the temple bell struck the second hour, time of the first morning service, which we were expected to attend. I tried to get up, but my feet were so numb with cold that I fell to the snow. At that very instant it happened, my satori. It was an enrapturing experience, one I could not hope to describe adequately. (�) One day on my way back from sanzen (presenting one�s view of a koan to the master) and while descending the temple steps, I tripped and fell. As I fell I had my second satori, a consummate one. [15]

Accordingly, such perspectives tend to emphasize the dimension of impermanence of beings and the resulting objective and subjective transmutations or transformations (Chuang Tzu�s wu hua) at the expense of ontological substantiality, for they also involve a non-substantialist definition of the Ultimate Reality as Void (shunya) or Chaos (hun tun).�

����������� �By contrast, more exoteric philosophies and wisdoms represented by figures such as Confucius or Aristotle, although not necessarily lacking in humor, enjoy a much more ambiguous and tense relationship with the world of laughter. Confucius is often derided by Taoists for� his seriousness in dealing with the ordering of the world and the conventions of society.[16] It must be stressed however that, as a genuine sage, he is also depicted by Taoists as one who understands the limitations of his own perspective, since he sacrificially and painstakingly resigns himself to work within its boundaries.[17] As for Aristotle, it is obvious that his priority in dealing with humor and laughter is to draw limits and promote a sense of moderation and propriety which would keep them from transgressing the realm of� the law. Joking, as everything else indeed, including contemplation, has to manifest itself� within the "middle state" (the ariston metron)� for otherwise it runs the risk of erupting abusively: indeed for the Stagirite "a joke is a kind of abuse."[18]� Society and the Law cannot leave the potentially transgressive nature of laughter unchecked.[19]

***

 

����������� In one of his most remarkable metaphysical pages, Frithjof Schuon masterly differenciates between the main ways in which the various traditions have drawn a line between universal realities.[20] This differenciation is highly relevant to the metaphysical understanding of our topic. The first and most adamantine of these ways discriminates (as do Advaita V�d�nta and Mah�y�na Buddhism) between the Divine Essence and Universal Relativity (including Divine Being). The second way (which is basically that of Semitic Monotheism) draws a theological line between God (considered both as Beyond‑Being and Being) and Creation or the Universal Manifestation (including its supra‑formal levels). A third perspective draws the religious boundaries between the Divine domain, including the Spirit or Logos, and the cosmos of which the latter is the Divine Center. A fourth point‑of‑view separates the Celestial Realm (including God and the spiritual levels of manifestation) from the psychic and physical domains. Finally, a fifth way of envisaging universal realities, which is characteristic of Shamanism, distinguishes the world of the Spirit (including its immanent terrestrial dimension and its animic extension) from the physical and visible realm.

����������� �It is instructive that humor and laughter primarily manifest themselves �although in quite a different way-- in their spiritual dimension in the first and fifth of these perspectives, which represent the most exclusive and the most inclusive of� metaphysical possibilities. We have already commented upon the affinity between humor and the first of these perspectives as exemplified in Taoism and Zen. As for the perspective of the Shamanistic traditions, it involves humor and laughter while giving to them a different meaning and a cosmological and demiurgic emphasis under the guise of the Trickster, represented by such figures as Iktomi, Coyote or Raven among North American Indians, or Ananse the Spider and Leuk the Hare in West Africa.[21] Let us mention, however, that Taoism seems to provide us with a case where the non-dualistic and Shamanistic perspectives meet, as is evidenced by the Shamanistic origin of major Taoist metaphysical concepts. Be that as it may, shamanistic cosmic humor is related to the play with possibilities, the experimental imagination of the Demiurge. The erratic and chaotic character of the demiurgic tendency is "humorous" insofar as it defies any sense of order and intelligibility. It deals with "contingent possibilities including the most insignificant haphazard occurrences."[22] As such, it has strong affinities with the absurd, that is with the absence of intelligible foundations or at least our inability to perceive any such foundations.[23] This random and apparent senselessness may enter into the operative modalities of some functions of shamanism. As Eliade has indicated, �even the symbolism of chaos can be deciphered in the �madness� of future shamans, in their �psychic chaos�: this is a sign that the profane man is in the process of �dissolving� and that a new personality is in the making.�[24] Titus Burckhardt has indicated how the traditional mask makes it possible for the �psychic matter� to undergo a process of alchemical liquefaction;[25] this is also relevant to the clown and to the trickster who �is� a �mask� �in the sense of a fonction-- and actually often wears a mask,[26] like the Lakota heyoka [27] whose identity may remain more or less anonymous under the guise of a comic mask. In the spirit of the monkey as a grotesque and ex-centric figure �which may still be considered from the standpoint of a partial positive symbolism in India and China, this function manifests itself as �random consciousness� or as �a consciousness decentralized and dissipated.� [28] That is the reason why the trickster figure, who embodies this tendency in many traditional societies and folklores, nearly always reveals some elements of stupidity [29] side by side with gifts of cunning intelligence. He works to the benefit of the cosmos which he contributes to shape, but his way of doing so is either haphazard or awkward, if not downright foolish or scandalous. Obviously, this dimension of cosmic absurdity is not unconnected from the nature of M�y�, for M�y� is undoubtedly absurd when considered exclusively on its own level.[30]

�� �������� Given its functional association with the unfolding of M�y� it would be a radical mistake to envisage this unintelligible aspect of the demiurgic �tricks� from the standpoint of morality, as it would be misleading, or at least quite useless and for that matter somewhat wanting in a sense of humor, to try to understand or judge the trickster figures by the compass of moral imperatives. It is so, metaphysically speaking, because M�y� and the Demiurge "work out" the essential and infinite dimension of the Divine Will on the level of accidence, therefore in a domain where the category of a strictly moral intelligibility of things does not apply. There results from this, on the level of natura naturans, an ambiguity that �sentimental moralism finds it difficult to understand.� [31] Let us specify moreover that the demiurgic tendency to which we refer may manifest itself on a variety of levels --cosmological, spiritual, social and even psychological--, which makes it difficult to define as a single reality, and compels us to deal with it in a wide array of phenomena of diverse functional import. It may manifest itself on the divine as well as on the human and animal levels. As for the modalities of its function, they may also differ greatly, both intrinsically and extrinsically. The trickster may be purely chaotic, impulsive and self-seeking as Ananse the Ashanti Spider and the Irish Bricriu �Poisontongue� (hero of the Old Irish story Fled Bricrenn), he may even border on what monotheistic religions would apprehend as demonic, or he may be well-meaning, and even charitable and just like the Hui Fool Kuanzi (in Muslim Chinese culture)[32] and the famous Nasr-al Din Hodja. The first case generally involves a cosmic and demiurgic function �wherefrom its amoral aspect, whereas the second appears to refer to a social, moral or spiritual dimension. However, such a distinction should not be generalized without great care since the �amoral� Trickster is more than often envisaged as a founder, a cultural hero and a benefactor of mankind. The Protean aspect of the trickster figure may thus challenge definitions that are all too rigid and stable.

����������� However difficult, if not impossible, it may be to define a phenomenon that stands precisely in opposition to the very notion conveyed by the Latin words fines (boundaries) and definire (to limit)[33], we would like to propose the following conceptual diagram as a possible approach to the trickster phenomenon. This diagram involves the four-fold relationship between marginality, liminality, connection and transgression in which the four characteristics are tied together by the grotesque or burlesque element. A sixth aspect, concerning the effect or result of the presence and action of the trickster figure, lies in change, whether it be creation, restoration or modification. Our diagram could therefore be sketched as follows:

 

����������������������������������������������� MARGINALITY

����������������������������������� (outcast, lowly, aberrant, discordant)

����������������������������������������������������������� ||

LIMINALITY�� ���������� = �������� GROTESQUE =��������� CONNECTION

(threshold, initiation)����� (trick, parody, mischief, joke)� (communication,encounter)

����������������������������������������������������������� ||

����������������������������������������������� TRANSGRESSION

����������������������������������� �������� (gluttony, lust, sacrilege)

 

����������������������������������������������������������� \/

 

����������������������������������� ������ CATALYST of CHANGE

����������������������� (demiurgic function, invention, creation, restoration, healing)

 

The transgressive nature of the trickster figure clearly appears throughout most cultures in the paradox that his character is both sacred and sacrilegeous, hero and villain, initiator and scapegoat. This highest ambiguity necessarily entails an element of transcendence without which it would be utterly incomprehensible, for such an apparent contradiction can only be the consequence of the juxtaposition of two different levels of reality or two hierarchically ordered view-points. The demiurgic trickster is sacred with respect to his cosmic function, sacrilegeous with respect to his personal behaviour. Let us remember in this connection that the term sacer means both sacred and wretched or cursed, this duality being a reflection of the profound sacrificial law associated with the function of the scapegoat.[34]� The principle of transformation incarnated by the snake thus partakes of a metaphysical necessity without which the Biblical drama and Redemption itself would have no meaning: that is one of the possible meanings of the Augustinian felix culpa.

����������� Although the sacred imposes itself by virtue of its own power and evidence, there is a certain extrinsic and indirect way in which it must be differenciated from the non-sacred on the plane of terrestrial experience. When performed by the grotesque trickster, sacrilege becomes a sort of consecration a contrario. �The story of Iktomi the Spider and the sacred buffalo skull, narrating the trickster�s� outlandish curiosity and its negative consequence --his head remains tucked into the skull-- is a typical example of this paradoxical phenomenon. In that connection, the trickster is a mere instrument of divine providence, a kind of reverse exemplar. By contrast, the mysterious companion of Moses --often identified with Al-Khidr, in the sura of the Cavern--� acts according to divine and spiritual ruse when he seems to break normative and moral ways of behaving. Unlike Iktomi, he knows what he is doing, notwithstanding that such a distinction is only �relatively absolute,� for only God knows in the fullest sense.�����

����������� One of the most universal aspects of the humorous or burlesque personifications of the demiurgic trickster --which is akin to both his communicative and transgressive functions in our diagram-- shows that he is� capable of being and doing everything and nothing, as well as borrowing a wide variety of forms and shapes. He is the one who "works out everything," as does Rabelais' Panurge (Pan-Urgos):� he speaks all languages, wears all kinds of contrasting hats and garbs, and mingles with people of all walks of life. In his Pantagruel (Chapter IX), Rabelais introduces Panurge as an ambiguous young man who both looks like and acts as an aristocrat and a rogue. He tellingly makes his first entry in the book as an enigmatic chatterbox displaying a bewildering ability to speak all kinds of� dialects, or rather to imitate them with all the appearances of fluency. Imitation is the hallmark of the trickster figure insofar as his realm is M�y�, the very kingdom of imitations and Platonic phantasmata; �relativity is �imitation,� and only God does not imitate.This sense of imitation often entails some element of boasting and burlesque grandiosity which leads him into trouble. It also involves a tendency to outdo everybody and everything in good and evil deeds, both as a caricature and a gluttonous trespasser. From another angle, the trickster revels in and thrives at crossroads and market places --places which were devoted to Hermes-Mercury--, establishing connections tous azimuths in a meddling and often mischievous manner.He is a wanderer, constantly on the go, like Iktomi, the North American trickster, and Ananse, his African counterpart who roams about� �more often there than here.� He can be a thief or a liar for the sake of men, as Raven when he stole the light. He facilitates connections between the most different levels and the most diverse realities, as he also makes things happen in the most unpredictable [35] and unconventional way, bringing about changes, transformations [36] and sometimes even upheavals.� Paradoxically, he tends to be both a trouble-maker and a mediator: he opens up cracks in the walls of social and cosmic orders through the incongruency of his manners and deeds, but he also allows for new connections and communications through the velocity of his zigzagging impulses.[37]����������

����������� In order to gain a better understanding of this function --to which Frithjof Schuon deemed worthy� a whole chapter entitled �The Demiurge in North American Mythology� in his Logic and Transcendence--� it is worth noting that the trickster figure is often a divine or semi‑divine being or an animal, or both. Demiurgic and trickster-like features thus characterize Hermes-Mercury, Loki and Odin, and maybe even cum grano salis the younger Krishna; they also apply a fortiori to Iktomi and Ananse the Spiders, Monkey, Coyote, Hare, Turtle, and several creatures of the air such as birds and insects. Even when considered as a human or humanized being, the trickster figure does not belong to the ordinary run of mankind. His characteristics, whether physical or psychological,� set him apart from society and from his fellow humans. He may be an Old Man, a young Prankster, even an Old Woman at times. He is often envisioned as the Fool, the Jester or the Madman. In one way or another,� his marginality has to do with the ambiguity of his nature, which is both spiritual and physical,� lofty and lowly, constructive and destructive and so on. His being and experience defy all categories and norms of ordinary existence and morality.� This ambivalence� is attuned to the reconciliation of extremes. In that respect, the demiurgic work could therefore be described as follows: to bring out, often quite indirectly and unintentionally,� the intelligibility of luminous Spirit in the dark absurdity of matter. In the case of the mythological trickster, this result is clearly achieved as the unintended consequence of an otherwise aberrant behavior. The case of divine trickster-like figures such as Hermes and Odin seems different insofar as these figures function as epiphanies, although the modes of this function may appear ambiguous when considered extrinsically. As for folkloric types of tricksters such as Nasr al-Din Hodja and Ulenspiegel, they tend� to act as inventive and liberating channels of manifestation for the �collective wisdom,� as a passive reflection of the Logos on the plane of popular culture. In all cases, trickster figures operate as instruments of connection� and communication, and thus contribute to the renewed and enlivened conservation and growth of a given sector of reality.

����������� At this juncture, it is important to emphasize that the demiurgic function which is embodied by the trickster undergo a wide variety of manifestations ranging from quasi-demonic figures to messengers of Heaven, from chaotic outcasts without a center to highly ambiguous divine characters such as the Scandinavian Loki. This diversity of symbols and manifestations makes it impossible to restrict the demiurgic function to a single modality. As Frithjof Schuon has indicated, within a given culture the demiurgic function may be �embodied in three or several personifications depending on whether it is passional, tenebrous or on the contrary luminous.�[38] Moreover, as we have already suggested, it is often difficult to distinguish the mythological trickster from the mischievous culture hero or the holy fool. Methodically speaking, it may be helpful to consider that a demiurgic or trickster-like figure is divine and luminous in proportion to his active awareness of the Divine Will which he contributes to carry out while being tenebrous to the extent that this mission is all the more passively, unconsciously and indirectly fulfilled. That is, approximately speaking, the wide gap separating Hermes from Ananse the Spider. In other words, the demiurgic process is a participation in the cosmic intelligence because it involves an element of divine ruse; but that ruse may be exercised or carried out by the trickster figure (Hermes� and Odin�s cases represent the highest possibility of the kind), whereas in other cases (which involve a definitely buffoonish element) the trickster may be both the instrument and the victim of that divine ruse, insofar as he tends to follow his own desires and whims.��

����������� The cases of a Ulysses and a Nasr al-Din Hodja correspond to two� possibilities of a somewhat different nature. They present us with cunning or mischievous heroes who somehow participate in the divine �ruse� or �prudence.� Ulysses seems to express a practical, prudential and strategic intelligence which may be ultimately identified with the Intellect, whereas Nasr al-Din Hodja the second may be interpreted as manifesting holy wisdom in its light and carefree dimension as it debunks the fanatic, conventional or hypocritical facets of religious and social life.� It would however be pedantic and futile to try to delineate absolute boundaries between these various possibilities for the type of demiurgic function that we have in mind always implies an element of intrinsic or extrinsic ambiguity in virtue of its dealing with the �substance of incomprehensibility� --to use Frithjof Schuon�s expression-- of the world.

����������� When considered on the cosmological level, the demiurgic trickster functions as the instrument of the ontological contact between extreme levels of reality. Since nothing can lie outside of the Divine Reality, even that which is apparently the most remote from its Source, there must be a way in which the obscure may �participate� in the Light ‑aside from its mere aspect of privation. The reality of that indirect participation should in no way obliterate the clear distinction between good and evil, nor should it imply the idea of a need for evil on the part of the good.� It simply points to a paradoxical consequence of the unity of Being and, so to speak, to the impossibility of non-being to be or, if one prefers, of Being not to be.� The crystallization of this paradox vests is accomplished by the trickster, insofar as he embraces the lower realms of M�y�. It is through the fissure opened by the trickster figure that something of the perfume of heaven infiltrates the taverns of worldly stench. This coincidence of extremes analogically reflects the supreme mystical coincidentia oppositorum. As everything is "contained" in the Divine Essence, the Divine Presence is "contained" in everything; but diverse are the ways in which this Presence actualizes itself.

�����������������������������������������������������������������������

***

���

����������� � As Frithjof Schuon taught, [39]� we may see God� as the very Substance of the world --as revealed� in the perception of the miracle of existence-, and we may also see Him through terrestrial manifestations of His Qualities and, indirectly, through the privation of these Qualities. Given a beautiful phenomenon, we may or can see God in three ways: as an occurrence of the miracle of existence, as a manifestation of Divine Beauty, and possibly even as a limitation testifying to the Illimitation of the Divine, for it must not be forgotten that, as Schuon wrote on several occasions, a phenomenon, as beautiful as it may be, is also a limitation, if only because it excludes other beauties.

����������� �Now, by contrast with this experience of the Divine in its direct and positive symbols, �seeing� God in profanity and even ugliness is an altogether different matter.� On the one hand, these phenomena are negations of Being, on the other hand, they affirm Being a contrario through and in spite of their lack of Being, or their lack of Beauty, which amounts here to the same. So there seems to be two ways in which profane or ugly phenomena could be reduced or �reassimilated� to the One. First, by considering their manifestation in the context of existence as such, the latter being a symbol of Divine Absoluteness (which does not mean that these phenomena are themselves �symbols� as phenomena, quod absit, since they are privative); second, by a kind of subversion of their attempt at negating Divine Being and Divine Beauty, a ruse with the Devil so to speak. This second way leads us to a further spiritual dimension of our topic.�

����������� As a projection of the myriad possibilities contained in the Divine Essence,� M�y� can be conceived either as dissolution or else as solidification or segmentation on the one hand, and as condensation on the other. The "tenebrous" M�y�� is fundamentally a condensation of reality, and as such, it has affinities with tamas, the last and lowest quality in Hindu cosmology. Most often considered from the standpoint of its dark and descending quality, tamas is notwithstanding also, in virtue of the law of reverse analogy, the reflection of Divine Infinitude on the plane of material existence.[40] Symbolized by the color black in its negative aspect ‑-as opposed to the positive black of the Night of the Essence--� tamas, inasmuch as it cannot be ignored or denied, must somehow be converted into positive energy, or at least diverted from its negative function.

����������� From a certain standpoint, we may therefore be distinguish between two aspects of M�y�: a theophanic and elevating one which corresponds to sattva (it also corresponds to the color blue which manifests illimitation),� while the� second is congealing, obscuring and descending, and is akin to tamas. The first dimension refers to the liberating and saving Shakti --corrresponding to Lakshm� [41]--whereas it is in the second dimension of M�y� that the Luciferian tendency toward what Schuon calls the illusion of "metaphysical extraterritoriality" dwells. This tamasic tendency of M�y� calls for a divine reaction in the form of rigour, majesty and even destruction, and that is the role of K�l�.[42]� K�l� is so to speak the negative aspect of the Shakti which reduces the "subversive" extension of time to the instantaneity of space. The age of K�l�� points to an ultimate "change of time into space" (to use Ren� Gu�non�s phrase) which resolves the raging madness of M�y�.

����������� �It may therefore be legitimate, from a slightly different standpoint, to envisage a third dimension of M�y�, one that is highly ambiguous or ambivalent and akin to rajas, the dynamic and passional quality of the Cosmogonic Substance, which is also the quality predominating in the kshatriya caste.[43]� This Shaktic dimension may be destructive or liberating, depending on the direction in which it is channeled. First among all the terrestrial manifestations of that dimension, the ambiguity of sexuality reflects its ambivalence on the plane of� human existence.

����������� �The symbolism of the Taming of the Shrew may be particularly relevant as a literary� illustration of the abovementioned reality. As it plainly appears in Shakespeare�s comedy, the negative side of femininity --or the destructive potentiality of the rajasic M�y�--� must be brought under the yoke of� positive masculinity as an expression of the Absolute or its Intellective refraction; in this alchemical process, to bring under the yoke does not mean to destroy, but on the contrary to use, and to direct toward liberating ends.[44] To this end the hardened masculine must also undergo a transmutation that �feminizes� it as it were in the form of a seductive and charming cunningness.� In a sense the masculine Sulphur has a to become feminine Quicksilver and conversely; or, from another standpoint, the �feminine� unconscious impulses must be brought into the light of intelligence as corporeal Intellect, whereas the �masculine� consciousness must be made �integral� by a kind of �incarnation.� This seems to be the deepest meaning of the mythological story of Omphale �Queen of Lydia-- and Hercules [45], in which the hero dresses as a woman and trembles before his lover who takes up a masculine stance. Now it is not without relevance to our topic that Petruchio undoubtedly appears as a character akin both to the kshatriya caste and to the archetype of the mercurial trickster, in whose ambiguity he revels. Such an� association between the trickster figure and the second caste is common in a variety of� traditions. The North American Indian tradition presents cases of� vocational functions associating a warrior path with eccentric or clown-like deportment. In Japan as well, the cosmogonic trickster Susa-no-o reveals connections and affinities with the explosive turbulence that may characterize warriors.[46]� He is the one who brings demiurgic trouble to the empire and readily stands in� opposition to the sattvic and brahmanic figure of Amaterasu-Omikami.� Notwithstanding,� Frithjof Schuon has explicitly indicated that Susa-no-o's "passional element" is� necessary in the "cosmic economy," as "productive energy," which� is why, although "first sinner,"� Susa-no-o can thrive on earth without losing his "celestial dignity." [47]

����������� An impoverished nobleman of somewhat martial demeanour, Petruchio also appears, in The Taming of the Shrew, as an eccentric marginal figure, a blend of nobility and prima facie coarseness, who seems to have acquired a wealth of experience in the ups-and-downs of� the play of� M�y�. Significantly, at the beginning of the play he acknowledges� that he has "thrust" himself into the "maze" of this world (Act I, scene 2, verse 54). Although undoubtedly firm, and even violent at times, he rarely opposes the destructive energy of Kate-Katherine directly. It is rather� through a combination of seductive ruse, humor and laughter that he succeeds in channeling his soul-mate's energy toward the Good, symbolized by the harmony and peace of� marriage.� It could be said that the ability that Petrucchio displays in juggling the outbursts of his wife�s hot temper and converting the latter into a positive energy participates in an alchemy that shares both in the archetypes of both Hermes-Mercury and Krishna. In this alchemy, Petruchio may be identified with the Spirit as it corrects and informs the soul by negating the latter�s centrifugal impulses.

����������� The Krishnaite component of� The Taming of the Shrew seems to be connected to sexual alchemy in relation to Shaktic reality. The possibility of such an alchemical transmutation lies in the essential unicity of Shaktic energy as expressed, for example, by the fact that the various Hindu and Buddhist d�kin� , as expressions of the nature of feminine energy on the plane of multiplicity, range from the most celestial to the most infernal.[48]� In other words, it is not the energy in itself which is tenebrous or destructive, but the direction and modality imparted to it.[49] Moreover, the connection between the Shaktic element --not the Supreme Divine Shakti or a given manifestation of it, but general cosmic energy -- and our central theme plainly appears in the fact that the former may be envisaged --like the Mercurian dimension of Shakespeare�s play-- in a humorous manner. Let us remember in this connection, that even Krishna�s divinity --his divine substance--, in no way excludes a mischievous and even naughty side (that is, his masks) either as a playful butter-thief or as a butterfly lover. The esoteric outlook requires that we make sense of these two dimensions without confusing them.

����������� �Adding a definitely comical bent to the sprightly character of love, The Taming of the Shrew� presents us with a somewhat grotesque sexual alchemy that ridicules the feminine in its centrifugal aspect. This peculiar tendency may stem paradoxically from the fact that femininity represents for man the most direct manifestation of the Divine in terrestrial existence. As such however, it is also what may give rise to the most idolatrous behaviour, both subjectively and objectively. As object of man's love, and when unaware of her "essential beauty," woman may become an egocentric� "goddess" and tyrant , whereas man may become a foolish and passionate slave oblivious of the feminine archetype. The trickster-like behaviour of Petruchio and other literary and folkloric figures in relation to woman may well correspond in its way to a symbolic and� sometimes preventive war against such a sorry possibility. Other trickster figures like Ulenspiegel or Rabelais' Panurge fulfill the same cathartic function by indulging in ridiculing women, or rather, more specifically, beautiful but proud and arrogant young women. Panurge (literally "the one who works out everything") is particularly nimble and devious in� the amourous war that appears as a� grotesque parody of the worship of the Lady. There is no doubt that such behaviour corresponds to an imbalance grown out of an opposite imbalance, and it is obvious that this possibility takes us far from the normative definition of social congruency. However, the Troubadours themselves, medieval devotees of courtly love, were not always unaware of these unsettling� ways, as is shown by the example of Marcabru.[50]� If the exaltation of� positive M�y� may be a way of affirming the Real,� the playful� mockery or defilement of tnegative M�y� may be an indirect way of denying the illusory. In a climate that takes us away from any similar comical intent but which is not without analogy with the realities to which we have just alluded, Odin�s and Hermes�s wooing and amorous escapades as well as --notwithstanding their higher meaning-- Krishna's love games may refer to a� sort of "quickening" of the Shaktic element which paradoxically neutralizes its subversive potentialities.[51]

����������� As for the mercurial character of Petruchio, it is somehow identified with the cosmic intelligence of the Logos. In Greco-Latin mythology,� Hermes-Mercury is characterized� as as witty and sometimes deceitful god, with erotic and healing functions. Ruse and laughter are two of his common attributes. These are also Petruchio�s main weapons, for they allow him to participate in the function of the Logos in different ways. In the first respect, he ironically treats Kate as if she were already identified with her archetype (Katherine) by referring to the latter in order to ridicule the fallen nature of his wife (Act II, scene 1, verses 185-194). He therefore cunningly reminds her of what she really is and what she will become again at the end of the play.[52] This kind of� comical humiliation is a way to simultaneously espouse and dissolve the inferior M�y� in order to bring her back to the superior archetype of which she is an inversion. Laughter fulfills an analogous function, although in a different mode, since it proceeds as a kind of explosion that breaks and shatters the coagulation of the dense and rebellious M�y�. It manifests itself as a symbolic destruction whereby the� illusion of reality shatters with the irresistible suddenness of a liberating blessing. Such an understanding of the alchemy of laughter may grant some plausible symbolic meaning to a suggestive definition of the apocatastasis as �God's laughter� insofar as the latter may be understood as a sudden and liberating shattering of the illusory dimension of reality �from within� as it were. Divine laughter is both destructive and� apocalyptic as it expresses the instanteneous removal of veils and limitations. As such it also expresses a victory over death and over the fear of death as is most likely indicated by the phenomenon of ritual laughter during the Hilaria and the Lupercalia[53] �in Rome.[54] Analogically, and on the highest spiritual level, the capacity of laughter to provoke the utmost liberation is suggestively expressed by� Ramana Maharshi in its subjective dimension: �A day will dawn when you will yourself laugh at your effort (to seek to gain Reality). That which is on the day of laughter is also now.� [55]

�����������������������������������������������������������

***

����������� Much like femininity, authority, whether spiritual or temporal, stands among the most direct manifestations of the Divine in terrestrial experience, and may therefore enter, because of the risk of its abuse, into an ambivalent relationship with the principle of humor and its manifestation in the trickster. [56] The figure of the King's Fool has often been mentioned as a revelatory political institution allowing for the open manifestation of unwelcome truth in the guise of a beguiling joke. Here again, laughter functions as a reminder that the relative is not to be confused with the Absolute, that man is only man, and that the highest terrestrial destiny may quite unintentionally mislead those who are richer in faith and obedience than in discernment to treat it as if it were the Supreme. Far from being subversive, laughter and jokes thus reinforce order and hierarchy by preventing the manifestations of potentially fatal abuses. Metaphorically speaking, they crack open a grin in the potentially idolatrous traditional order, thereby preventing it from closing in on itself.[57]

����������� It follows from all the preceding considerations that humor and laughter may be considered as divinely inspired ways of revealing and fighting the solidifying and obscuring tendency of M�y�. Besides this somewhat combative dimension of laughter and humor, one must acknowledge a more defensive function �a function of dissimulation. Objectively speaking, the abnormal social and psychological conditions presiding over a secular society� place sapientia and mysticism in an uncomfortable� position since they must, more than ever,� protect themselves against incomprehension, mocking profanation and hostility. The latter reactions may manifest the negative aspect of humor and laughter as a defilement of the sacred. Christian unease toward laughter and religious tendencies to associate its manifestations with� the diabolic stem from this point-of-view. In this context, laughter is perceived� as the subversive hallmark of the Fall, since it thrives on a duality that results from being separated from God. Baudelaire wrote, in a similar sense,� that laughter was unknown in the garden of Eden, for it implies a kind of disassociation in correlation with the Fall, and is therefore incompatible with primordial innocence. It is at this juncture that one may distinguish �schematically for ambivalence cannot be excluded in this domain-- between a godly laughter expressing pure joy, the mirth of gods, and devilish and sarcastic laughter with its resounding shattering of reality.

����������� This duality is also reflected in the ambiguity of the demiurgic principle. In most if not all� religious climates, exoteric theology cannot do justice to the latter since religion cannot work with too many shades of meaning without jeopardizing its volitive and sentimental effectiveness,� whence its reduction of the demiurge to a diabolical figure, and its definite tendency to associate laughter, and even humor, with the latter. Christian exoterism �or let us say the Christian tradition in its collective and institutional dimension-- particularly upholds a gravity and a sense of penance, stemming from an acute and painful sense of sin,� against the joking tendency which it cannot but perceive as threatening [58]and dangerous.[59]

����������� In point of fact, the semi-diabolic nature which is attributed to many tricksters of folklore seems to confirm this point-of-view� in an often grotesque or burlesque manner. The famous Flemish trickster, Ulenspiegel,� is described as having been born� with a small black dot on his shoulder --a kind of devilish parody of the miraculous birth-marks of Messengers from Heaven--� which the midwife who delivered him interpreted as "the dark mark of the devil's finger." [60]� However --in addition to the fact that this is only a small dot and that only the devil�s finger was involved-- this semi-diabolical nature, common to most if not all tricksters,� must be� situated� within the more encompassing context of the ambivalence of M�y�. This amounts to saying that the aforementioned duality must be specifically related to the subtle question of demiurgic process which is characterized by a fundamentally dual character. It must even be added that the trickster figure may sometimes become a deceiver of the devil, therefore confirming that his nature is neither good nor evil, or both.[61] The Cuban trickster El Bizarr�n tricked the devil by pretending that he had sent his donkey to heaven, thus prompting the devil to abandon his search. [62] Dealing with the delicate point of the demiurgic ambiguity, Frithjof Schuon specified that "the lowest point of the demiurgic domain and the highest point of the satanic domain may coincide". [63]

� ��������� The dual character just highlighted is sometimes mythologized and symbolized by being placed under the symbolism of twin brothers which may ultimately refer to the two sides of a single original demiurge. In this vein, Karl Ker�nyi has argued� that the two demiurgic brothers of Greek mythology, Prometheus and Epimetheus, might have originally been one single figure characterized both by slyness and stupidity. [64] Such a distinction between two demiurgic brothers, one good and the other evil, is a way to express the� dual character of the demiurgic principle while playing down the most disconcerting aspects of its ambiguity. The double character of the astrological sign of Gemini, placed under the rulership of Mercury --the planet of Logic intelligence-- refers to a similar duality positively associated by genethliac astrologers with the nimble acumen of the mental faculty as an instrument of good, while negatively entailing a kind of� youthful and erratic sense of experimentation which may be combined with a certain inability to consider the consequences of one's actions, thus a kind of evil stupidity.

����������� In the highest sense this enigmatic combination of intelligence with a lack thereof, which often leads trickster figures themselves to be tricked and fooled, must be referred to two levels of the demiurgic function: on the one hand the demiurge brings about the good by unfolding the possibilities included� in the All- Possibility,� therefore participating more or less passively in the Divine Logos, but on the other hand, the providential and all-encompassing meaning of the process and modalities of this unfolding remain unknown to the stupid and "blind" demiurgic trickster. This amounts to saying that the trickster is "intelligent" or cunning in carrying out a creative and transforming process while being in fact� "foolish" and stupid, since he does not understand the real scope of this process. Whence the recurrent theme of a competition between God and the trickster-demiurge in which the latter is always the loser.� For example, this theme appears� clearly in Western Africa where the Akan's Ananse the Spider is said to have� failed in his attempt at competing with God or Nyame by imitating him.[65] The Dogon's mythology also presents Ogo as a� rebellious trickster who fights the Supreme Amma, and is ultimately banished from His kingdom.[66]� In a sense, the trickster stands� for mankind as it awkwardly participates in the unfolding of M�y�. Like the trickster, man is a "bricoleur" who strives to "fix up" the world� with highly ambiguous results that oscillate between the "pontifical" tikkun of the Kabbalah [67] and the subversive hybris of Prometheus.

����������� As a liminal being, the trickster is also akin to adolescence, an intermediary and imbalanced stage between childhood and adulthood.� This critical phase stands between a reality left behind and another that is not yet fully reached. This liminality is traditionally associated with initiatory rites which symbolically enact a period of death preceding rebirth and life. Adolescence therefore potentially challenges all boundaries and classifications,� it entails both an awareness of the nothingness of existence and an intimation of the Absolute as Infinite Possibility. The awkwardness and pain of this age lie precisely� in the inability of� most adolescents to integrate their aspiration to totality within the ontological framework of relativity provided by their immediate and limited experience.� Now, the "stupid intelligence" or the "intelligent stupidity" of the trickster corresponds� analogically� to the predicament of this phase of human growth. The demiurge has to bring the All-Possibility into actual being within the constraints of relativity, and he cannot do so without a full measure of imbalance, contradiction and unpredictability.� On the most profound level, this imbalance can be� understood as characterizing the destiny of a "living death," since it precludes any integration of the normative exteriority that characterizes human life.�

����������� The complex question concerning the ambivalence of the demiurgic process leads us back logically to that of the ambiguity of laughter.� On account of that very ambiguity,� the subversive and desacrating tendency of laughter cannot be better neutralized than by higher --if not louder-- laughing. [68]The poison is also the remedy.� The key point here is that enlightened laughter undoubtedly implies some transcendence, and consequently an ambivalent feeling of superiority. We laugh at what we transcend and master. The ultimate laughter is that of the Self. This is also why spiritual laughter implies an element of totality: beyond and in spite of some social and cultural conventions and constraints that sometimes limit its manifestations, it expresses, in principle, an intense existential consciousness that involves our whole being. The Japanese association of� the Samourai�s thunder-like laughter with the Hara, the existential center of consciousness is highly relevant in this respect. Analogically �-but on a higher plane-- M� Ananda May�s attah�si (divine laughter) expresses this sense of totality by evoking the power of thunder that embraces, according to Swami Gitananda, all the levels of manifestation and leads him to state that �no human being can laugh like this.�[69] On its highest spiritual level, laughter allows us to escape upward, as if we were flying up and through the confining net of M�y�. In his Mathnawi, R�m� tells the story of a lover who, when asked by his beloved to take his love back to its roots in God, �lay back on the ground laughing, and died laughing; (�) that laughter was his freedom and his gift to the Eternal.� [70]

����������� By contrast, subversive laughter as a manifestation of the cosmic downward flux toward negation and nothingness must be turned upside down --or rather downside up-- by a laughing response. In this way, laughter places wisdom and mysteries out of the reach of the "mockers" of the Bible. Some critics have argued that is the precise way in which Rabelais proceeded in his stories of giants, using laughter and profanity both to veil and to hint at the "substantifique moelle"� (substantive marrow) of his books.[71] The humorous, and at times unconventionally grotesque, expressions of wisdom in Taoism have a similar meaning: the sage laughs at those who laugh by laughing with them. On the one hand, the Tao would not be the Tao if fools were not laughing at It; on the other hand, the sage laughs at the fools while appearing to laugh with them at the Tao. His laughter is a kind of sacrificial� gift of himself for the sake of the Tao.� It is not without relation to the arcanum while at the same time being a sort of symbolic language of its own for those who have ears to hear. This indirect and ironic language is a way of alluding to the successive inversions that preside over the unfolding of M�y� on the various levels of the universal ontological hierarchy. In riding the tiger of this ambiguous unfolding, the laughing sage intends to provide concrete evidence that the devil is never the last one to laugh, for "rira bien qui rira le dernier.� (�He laughs best who laughs last�)

����������� Thus, the sacred itself may thus be expressed in such a way as to guarantee its integrity and be a parry for potential� profanation. This is for example the meaning of sacred laughter in Bali, when the parodic performance of the sacred becomes a kind of decoy, taking upon itself the baleful laughter of the enemy. These clown-like performances of myths, inextricably linking the godly and the demonic in a� never-ending cosmogonic struggle, constitute the best affirmation and defense of tradition. The "devil" is so to speak integrated into the very drama of the traditional mythology as the dance opposing the good and the bad, Barong and Rangda, reproduces and expresses the cosmic dance of M�y�.

����������� This parodic integration of the sacred leads us to specify� that when the trickster mimics the holy, through a grotesque imitation [72] of the priest or the shaman, he does in fact� confirm and foster, in his own way, the very power that he acts out. Acting subjectively as a rebel, he scouts the confines of� acceptable --or unacceptable-- behavior in such a way that, objectively and ultimately, he brings home the reality and necessity of that with which he plays and wants to transgress. Granted, this desire might be more than imaginary given his propensity to skirt the boundaries of propriety. His running the risk of going too far is part and parcel of his ambiguous and unstable nature, whence what could be called the �sacrificial� dimension of his being.[73]� If Nanabozho, the Algonquin Trickster,� can be considered by Frithjof Schuon as the first heyoka, it is because his �irregularity� sets him apart and makes him �sacred� (sacrificare= sacer facere=to make sacred) precisely in virtue of this marginality. His �sacrificial� function is therefore not to be understood in moral terms but in a quasi-ontological sense. It could also be said that the function of the trickster in regard to society, tradition and the cosmos is comparable to that of M�y� toward �tm�: affirming through negating, consolidating through destroying, asserting Being through nothingness.

�����������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������� ***

�

����������� Humor and laughter fulfill an important spiritual and psychological function, whether it be in a profane world de facto negating all transcendence or in an exoterically stifling ambience reducing spiritual realities to confessional formulas and sentiments. Henry Corbin has been one of the few students of spirituality to shed some light on this subjective aspect of the matter.[74]� In� a world in which esoterism and mysticism are considered as "foolishness" or "madness,"� the esoterist and the mystic must be able to trick out their deadly serious purpose with the playful colors of humor and laughter. Subjectively speaking, this path may also help them to avoid the dangers inherent in their inner tension vis-�-vis the Divine. Since they have reached a higher degree of familiarity with a dimension of reality that is commonly denied or ignored by most of their fellow humans,� mystics must protect themselves by displaying a certain distance toward the expression of their knowledge or experience. In this way, they will not be taken too seriously by others, nor will they take themselves too seriously. The world and the ego are kept at a safe distance. Humor and laughter may be useful cards in this game.

����������� �This possibility may, however, raise a subtle question, since the mystic cannot normally act as a joker or as a fool without running the risk of jeopardizing, in the eyes of some qualified seekers, the impact of the Reality he protects in his heart. Granted, one may assume that those qualified for a spiritual path must have a sufficient discernment to be receptive to� humor, as well as some intuition of the spiritual meaning of laughter, if not some intimation of the serious side of trickster-like fooleries. Notwithstanding this assumption,� such modalities will require a sense of proportions, as well as some discernment as to the context and� the dosage of the therapeutic foolery; and such modalities obviously entail a very peculiar, and in a way slippery, vocation.

����������� �Moreover, the meaning of this type of behaviour may well vary, depending on whether the mystic lives within a traditional context or within a modern society.� In the first case, humor and laughter will often function as an implicit denunciation of "pharisaic" attitudes, and they will also provide the mystic with a safety zone against possible threats from exoteric authority. Omar Khayyam�s unconventional humor evidently falls into this category: it is at times much safer not to be taken seriously. It must be added that in the latter context, the spiritual dimension of humor, laughter, jokers and fools is always more or less acknowledged --albeit more often in abstracto than in the flesh [75]-- as an odd,[76] marginal but ultimately profound and necessary "safety valve" which provides relief from the collective and individual tensions necessarily involved in a traditional structure. The Roman Saturnalia --as well as the various popular carnivals which were known thoughout the world-- fulfilled this liberating function. It is significant that the association of the stern Saturn, god of the paternal and rigourous "narrow gate", with upside-down, grotesque, and obscene festivities is a paradox of a rich symbolism. The extreme condensation represented by Saturn calls for an extreme release in the form of festive excesses of all kinds.

����������� � On a higher level, traditional people also understood, if only intuitively, that such "joking" possibilities subtly point toward a transcending of horizontal and worldly affairs, therefore conveying some sense of otherworldliness, or even wisdom, in virtue of the principle that "the last will be the first� and �the inferior man among men is superior in Heaven.� (Chuang-tse). Traditional people know,� to some extent at least, that this world is, after all, in many respects, an inversion of the next. Still, one may well question the utility or legitimacy of fooling ways in the modern world, since the latter is already based, by definition, on a rejection or a subversion of any sense of an ontologically grounded hierarchical order. We have provided the first element of an� answer to this question when dealing with the disproportionate "seriousness" that characterizes the various modern ideological enterprises. It should be added that laughter may provide the contemplative� with a welcome shield in the often straining alchemy of� his relationship with the modern world. In other words, it may� no doubt ease the process of "sincerely playing one's part", to use F. Schuon's phrase. In a sense, this predicament is exemplified by Hamlet�s status in the Kingdom of Denmark. His �madness� is both a catharsis and a mask. The �rottenness� [77] of the Kingdom of Denmark and Claudius� usurpation of the throne are images of M�y� aspect of subversion and inversion. As the only witness to Justice and Truth Hamlet takes this inversion upon himself through the appearance of a madness that is in fact supremely �sane.� His �imbalance� fulfills a cathartic function inasmuch as it expresses and �acts out� an �inversion of the inversion.� The recourse to theatre (Act III, scene 2) as a means of �telling the truth� in a world in which it cannot be uttered amounts to an analogous process. Like Christ who takes upon himself the sins of world through the folly of the cross, Hamlet must be sacrificed so that the Father�s Kingdom may be restored while his death testifies at the same time to the separation between the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms. Let us mention in passing that the famous lines between Hamlet and Polonius (�for you yourself, sir, shall grow old as I am, if, like a crab, you could go backward, Act I, scene 2, 194-203) points to this same aspect of inversion, and is actually akin to the heyoka contrary behavior.[78] Hamlet is sad when others rejoice, he is madly joyful when others are saddened or shocked. Black Elk explains that �the truth comes into this world with two faces. One is sad with suffering, and the other laughs; but it is the same face, laughing or weeping. When people are already in despair, maybe the laughing face is better for them; and when they feel too good and are too sure of being safe, maybe the weeping face is better for them. And so I think that is what the heyoka ceremony is for.�[79] This type of behavior is connected to a function of psychic and collective equilibration that is also highly sacrificial. In this respect the clown is like a lightning-rod, taking upon himself the psychic effects of the disharmonies and tensions of the ambience. [80]

����������� The preceding considerations suggest that humor, laughter and tricks may� paradoxically involve a higher degree of inner solitude. Spiritual humor and laughter are in a sense the symptoms of a spiritual exile. They are ways of restoring a sense of Reality, either through the liberation of pure joy or through the derisive negation of the illusory.� As for the trickster figure, his solitude is that of the exception; it is also that of the erratic and restless instrument of the gods who cannot but be condemned to his own immediate absurdity. As an exception that confirms the rule and as a puzzling cozener, he cannot stop spinning the wheel of M�y� to make the world be what it is. In fact, he has no choice but to incarnate and give way to the deifuge tendency of cosmic unfolding.[81] Like the mystic who is constained by God�s will, trickster is constrained by his excentric function as orchestrator of� the dance of M�y�. When considered simply as a laughing fool, his solitude is no less real, even though his antics do require the eyes and ears of fellow humans. His solitude is actually deepened by the veil of incongruity that� he weaves around him through his pranks. Some of the Sufi mal�matiyyah draw an ascetic path out of such consciously cultivated inappropriateness. According to Ibn Arab�, the mal�miyya �hide from creatures (�) by creatures. (�) God has hidden them among His creatures by submitting them to the form that is demanded by the moment� They have no authority in this world.� One must also emphasize that some mal�miyyah do not distinguish themselves in anything from the common faithful in their outer practices. The blame that they seek is rather that of the elite than that of the common folk with whom they relate as if they were part of them. This is akin to the idea of �popular mask� mentioned by Ren� Gu�non concerning some esoteric modalities of Sufism and Taoism: �(�) They hide their spiritual degree and disappear in the mass of the faithful, exposing themselves, as common men, to the blame of the elite, that is to say both fuqah� and Sufis.�[82]
As for the holy clowns, God�s fools, Russian urodevoi, or even heyoka, who systematically behave in an apparently absurd manner, they do so -- dementedly attracted by God�s inward pull� or consciously conforming to a celestial call-- because they are witnesses to --or simply instruments of--� a higher reality that their surroundings can neither accept nor conceive.

����������� � Black and white [83] like the checkered mantle of the Balinese Shiva,[84] destroyer and builder like Loki, the clown of the Ragnar�k whose return is expected at the end of the cycle, the demiurge is ambivalent like M�y� and the Shaktic energy that presides over her deployment. The ambiguity is both objective and subjective.� Frithjof Schuon has clearly expressed this delicate but inescapable point when describing one of its central manifestations, which is sexuality where �the ambiguity is not only in the experience, but also in the subject as well as in the object.� [85]� That ambiguity is ultimately grounded in the nature of M�y� as universal unfolding or manifestation which cannot but involve an illusory negation or subversion of the essential Goodness of the One. However, one should not lose sight of the fact that this ambiguity is not contradictory �from a more discontinuous standpoint-- with the objective distinction between a higher and a lower M�y�, nor should the essential unity of Being (wahdat al-wuj�d)� preclude a discrimination between hierarchical levels of reality. Indeed good in itself does not need evil to be what it is, but the Infinity of the Supreme Good �needs� the �possibility of impossibility� that evil is, as a negation of Reality and Goodness.The distinction between divine and benevolent demiurges and semi-diabolical tricksters, inasmuch as it can be drawn, is parallel to the distinction between a positive and a negative M�y�.[86] The Indian differenciation between Right-hand Shaktism (dealing with the higher and benevolent Divine Shakti) and Left-hand Shaktism (making use of otherwise forbidden or dangerous realities) presents a similar duality on a spiritual level.

�����������������������������������������������������������

***

����������� �

����������� Given the indefinite plurality of its aspects, M�y� may be all things to all people, both objectively and subjectively. The trickster and the fool are agents or manipulators of her display. �Free from all,"� they are also "slave of all" .[87] Their utter freedom is perfect service. The Afro-Brazilian Candombl� trickster Ex� �may be described as o chefe (the chief) but he is also referred to, paradoxically, as escravo (slave).� [88] The trickster and the fool serve a necessary function within reality� by being the �cosmic institutor of good and evil,� [89]� or simply by helping release unresolved tensions.[90] Mediator and go-between, hermeneutic puzzler, apotropaic jester, sacrilegeous trouble-maker, the trickster is the necessary enigma of a world that cannot exclude absurdity since it is not �necessary� in its phenomenal literality. As for the holy fool and the cunning practical joker, they also reveal in their own ways the folly of a world which claims to stand on its own feet when its feet --to use a Kabbalistic image-- stand on the Abyss.

����������� The essential messages of humor, laughter, and the various types of fools who manifest them in an often ambiguous manner, converge on spiritual liberation. Like a distance expressing a sense of proportions,� like an outburst of sudden understanding, or a buffoonish dismemberment of apparent reality, they show us the way to overcome the limitations of a fragmented vision. Therefore, they may play the role of an unexpected upaguru. To a certain extent, they even echo the nature and function of the Spiritual Master:� first, as does humor, by crystallizing a de-identification from the ego, its illusions and its �serious� passions; secondly, as does laughter, by shattering the layer of our ego to help us unveil our true nature; thirdly, as do the fool and the trickster, by presenting us with the paradox of a sort of koan. For the latter is also a manner of joke, whose seeming absurdity cannot be reduced on its own level. Such is sometimes the liberating enigma, indeed the living koan, which the Master embodies and proposes to the disciple�s discernment: that of the manifestation of Illimitation in human limitations. The resulting ambiguity is no doubt extrinsic in the case of the Sage and the Master, while it is intrinsic in that of the demiurgic trickster. In a sense the cycle that opens with the chaotic and exteriorizing infra-formal mystery of the demiurge closes with the concentrated and interiorizing supra-formal� mystery of the Sage.[91]� In both cases, but in an inverse way, the enigma results from the confrontation of two levels of reality: that of Necessary Infinitude and accidental finitude; the Absolute as such and the individual as such. As Frithjof Schuon expressed it: �This confrontation is both impossible and unavoidable; it obliges us in any case to combine extremes in some way.� [92]

����������� It appears that the realities we have discussed, in spite of their apparent �ex-centricity,� reveal a profound affinity with the esoteric principle and gnostic perspective. This principle enjoins us not to shun any ambiguous reality on the pretext of opportuneness, and prompts us to� put each thing on its proper level and in its right place. The spiritual dimension of humor, laughter, fools and tricksters is an expression of� the discerning distance from oneself� and the world that is the hallmark of� the intellective way. Accordingly, it involves a keen sense [93] for the swift and sharp integration of the myriad of shifting view-points that are so many refractions of the Self on the broken mirror of M�y�.

 

 

�