The being who has reached in this way the central point has realized, by this very means, the human state in its entirety; he is the “true man” (chenn-jen) of Taoism, and when, starting from this point to rise to the higher states, he has achieved the perfect fulfillment of his possibilities, he will have become the “DIVINE Man” (sheun-jen) who is the “Universal Man” (al-insaan al-kaamil) of Islamic esotericism. So it can be said that it is those without are the “rich” from the standpoint of manifestation who are really the “poor” with regard to the Principle, and inversely; that is what the following Gospel sentence expresses very clearly, “The last shall be first and the first shall be last” (St. Matthew, XX, 16.); and we are compelled to see in this respect, once again, the perfect agreement of all the traditional doctrines, which are no more than the diverse expression of the one Truth. Studies in Comparative Religion Winter Issue (1973) AL-FAQR (‘SPIRITUAL POVERTY’)
The ” Self,” considered in this manner, in relation to a being, is properly speaking the Personality; one might, it is true, restrict the use of this latter word to the “Self ” as principle of the manifested states, just as the “DIVINE Personality,” Ishwara, is the Principle of universal Manifestation; but one can also extend it analogically to the “Self ” as principle of all the states of the being, manifested and unmanifested. The Personality is an immediate determination, primordial and non-particularized, of the principle which in Sanskrit is called Âtmâ or Paramâtmâ, and which, in default of a better term, we may call the “Universal Spirit,” on the clear understanding, however, that in this use of the word “spirit” nothing is implied which might recall Western philosophical conceptions, and, in particular, that it is not turned into a correlative of “matter,” as the modern mind is prone to do, being subject in this respect, even though unconsciously, to the influence of Cartesian dualism. Genuine metaphysic, let it be repeated once more in this connection, lies quite outside all the oppositions of which that existing between spiritualism” and ” materialism” affords us the type, and it is in no way required to concern itself with the more or less special and often quite artificial questions which such oppositions give rise to. (NA: In theology, when it is declared that” God is pure spirit” it is reasonable to suppose that this statement must likewise not be taken in the sense of “spirit” as opposed to “matter,” that is to say, according to the sense in which these two terms have no meaning except in reference to one another; to understand it in this way would amount to accepting a kind of “demiurgic” Conception, more or less akin to the theories attributed to the Manichaens. It is none the less true to say that such an expression is of a kind that readily lends itself to false interpretations, leading to the substitution of “a being” for pure Being.) Man and His Becoming according to the Vedanta FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SELF” AND THE “EGO”