Skip to main content

Francis Warrain: From ‘La Théodicée de la Kabbale’–The System of the Scale-Part 2-Bilateral Balance

Francis Warain,

picture frontispiece

in ‘La Théodicée de la Kabale’,

Editions Véga, 1949.


With today’s sharing from the Blue House of Via-HYGEIA, we continue our selections from Francis Warrain’s ‘La Théodicée de la Kabbale’, posthumously published by Editions Véga in 1949. This is part 2 out of 5 parts on the subject of The System of the Scale we introduced in an earlier post. English translation from the original French by Via-HYGEIA. Original French runs from page 50 to 54. The transcription convention of the sephiroth’s names in English follows Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok’s usage, in his seminal ‘Walking in the Fire’. 1993-2007. Kosher Torah Publishing. This is the simple, luminous teaching of a very humble and wise man we have chosen to honor in this present series.


The System of the Scale

Part 2-Bilateral Balance

We immediately see that the Scale establishes the ternary and the quaternary. the relationship of the opposites to their connection brings the ternary; it sets the ground for the quaternary, because the connection’s foundation lies upon the principle that dominates, penetrates and support the whole.

Hence, we will have a superior ternary where the unity reveals itself as source from where duality emerges. There will be a convergence between Hokhma and Binah towards a superior term, Keter (see below sketch I). Here the opposition is still wrapped in the union. The duality still has the character of a relationship of complementary objects.

To this ternary, where the unity wraps-in some way-the duality, must correspond the manifestation of an explicite opposition gathered back to unity by synthesis. The opposition strengthens as an antagonism with Hesed and Gevurah. The synthesis is operated by Tiferet (see below sketch II). It happens as a contest, the central term being a conclusion.

Tiferet is the manifestation of the unity manifested by Keter: between these two Sephirot, there is a direct communication. On the contrary, Hesed and Gevurah mark the accentuated opposition derived directly from, one from Binah, the other from Hokhma, principles of the opposition. There is no channel going from Binah to Hesed, nor from Kokhma to Gevurah. Instead, Hesed and Gevurah are linked between themselves like Binah and Hokhma. But, while the channel inserted between Hokhman and Binah will suit the purpose to mark a distinction, wrapped within an intimate copulation, the channel that links Hesed and Gevurah will serve the purpose to moderate the antagonism that would break any balance if it would become absolute.

Finally, Tiferet communicates directly with Hokhma and with Binah. It shows that the manifestation in all its plenitude can deduct itself from the duality of complementary objects without going through the antagonistic phase. But, this plenitude, enough for the Absolute itself, does not suffice for the adaptation into the relative level. It was needed to establish antagonisms, so to create the function of separation, without it the relative does not have a proper existence and cannot maintain itself in a distinction. Further more, if this antagonism would linger, it would prevent the relative to reach the unity without it could not subsist. The antagonism must necessarily lead to a synthesis, which Tiferet is ( see below sketch III). Tiferet  does not cancel the antagonism, it conciliates it. And then the plenitude of the Absolute finds itself not only developed (the convergence of Keter, Hokhma and Binah would be enough for that) but also explained. It embraces in all of their expansions the dissolving conditions of the relative; and it knows how to accomplish the sovereign One-All, perfectly defined, and at the same time still saturates the extreme tendencies that are opposing each other to the concrete unity by the boundless diffusion (Hesed) and the inflexible restriction (Gevurah).

Tiferet is immediately linked to each of the sephirot but with Malkhut. It poses as the supreme solution of the essential antinomy that the relationship between the Absolute and the Relative brings forth.

But the manifestation of the Absolute in Tiferet cannot consist in a simple reflection of the Absolute upon itself. The senary that ends up to this Sephira marks the manifestation of the Absolute in a perfect relationship. And due to this very fact-that the essence of the relationship is achieved in all its plenitude-it, thus, identifies the Absolute and the Relative. This perfect relationship, of which Tiferet expresses the integration reveals itself as being the essential form through which the Absolute explicits itself fully. Absolute and Relationship are but two aspects, occult and manifested, of the same supreme Reality, the supreme Thought itself. This senary completely achieves all the conditions of a concevable relativity, but because of that, also it does not respond to the production of existences maintained under the conditions of relativity: because this perfect achievement identifies the Relative to the Absolute.

The Relative cannot remain relative if it stays relatively achieved; it cannot be complete in itself. Hence, the supreme  Principle extracts from relationship of the Absolute with the Relative a new function that  establishes relativity as depending of the Absolute. This will be resulting in fecundity and by the union of the superior with the inferior. The system must end by a sort of suspension and with an axial extension establishing the penetration of the supreme principle, down to the limits of relativity.

The plenitude of the manifestation, Tiferet, will then become in turn a principle; it will project a duality, a mixt of the two preceding ones, a duality that will participate into the copulation and the disjonction, that will also have the character of a transition and that will be the principle of action and movement. The two Sephirot, Netzah and Hod (see note 1 below the text) intrinsically have those two aspects: they respond to the notion of ‘Sabaoth‘, Hosts or Armies ( צְבָאֽוֹת Tzevaoth transl.). But this third group, in virtue of its transitive character, must present the opposition of the cause and the aim. The cause appears like a projection, the aim like a result. We have now a quaternary disposition formed by Tiferet as origin, Yesod as result, Netzah and Hod as concurring conditions (see below sketch IV). This quaternary, therefore, is a reduction of the superior senary, obtained by the transitive character of Netzah and Hod. Yesod opposes Tiferet, like the determination of action opposes the perfection of the state. This determination must respond to the perfect action; it therefore opposes plenitude- the character of sufficient-to the all-mighty-ness of production. Yesod shows us the principle of action as a result of the transition between the duality of complementary objects and the duality of antagonistic objects.

By Yesod,, the Absolute finds itself, sort of adapted to the condition of the Relative, in such a way as to make the function of absolute immanent in the Relative; function that is the foundation involved with every relationship. But Yesod is the Absolute hiding itself in the bosom of the Relative; its all-mighty-ness will be revealed by a penetration; and it will bring the blossoming of the Relativity as a whole, synthetic and organized: Malkhut, the Kingdom, the Corolla. This tenth Sephiroth shows us the Relativity achieved in conformity to its essence, which means: presenting a systematic whole of the constituted relationship: One-All, varied and complete. Therefore, Yesod and Malkhut are, somehow, the splitting of the character of the Absolute locked up in Keter: principle and aim, center and periphery. The figurative scheme of the system of the Sephirot, in conformity to the Scale, presents a direct link from Netzah and from Hod towards Malkhut (see below sketch V)

Malkhut therefore communicates with these two Sephirot immediately and mediately (Via-Hygeia note, in French: ‘immédiatement’ and ‘médiatement’. Mediately in the meaning of remotely ) through Yesod. And this is conceivable: Relativity is, in fact, achieved by a polarity linked with a relation. It is this relation that introduces in her the unity and penetrates it with a function of the Absolute. Both Malkhut and Tiferet mark the identity of the Absolute and of the Relative. But Tiferet makes the Relativity shine of a ray of the Absolute. Malkhut fills the Absolute with the blossoming of the Relative.

Throughout this whole process spreads Daath. As we have seen, Daath is not a Sephira (some drawings put Daath between Hokhma and Binah, as a distinct Sephira. This does not seem consistent to the doctrine of the Zohar nor of the Sepher Yetzirah. Some commentators say that Daath manifests when Keter remains hidden) but the very fact of this union of the complementary objects, Hokhma and Binah: and this fact is the immanent trace of the transcendant principle. Therefore, Daath is represented by the crucial arrangement of the system of the Scale. It is the agent of all liaisons, that sometime come out of Keter between Hokhma and Binah and sometime binds Tiferet to Yesod.

Daath, knowledge and wisdom, is-to sum up-the principle of all relations, the root of the relation diving into the Absolute. But, the polarity of the relation has necessarily an origin distinct of the relation, because the relativity holds by the incomplete union of two polar terms. And, for the union to be possible, while resisting to the perfect identity that would transform the Relativity into the Absolute, these polar terms must participate of the character of the complementary objects and of the character of the antagonistic objects too; they must correspond to the transition between these two characters. It is to this transitive functions that Netzah and Hod would correspond.

To be continued…

Coming soon-Part 3-Hierarchy


Note 1


In the interpretation of a engraving from Heinrich Khunrath’s ‘AMPHITHEATRVM SAPIENTIÆ ÆTERNÆ’ by Stanislas de Guaita related by Papus in his ‘Treatise on Occult Science’, and in the ‘Metallic Sephirot’ described by Eliphas Levi, the Sephira Netzah, even though the seventh, is located on the left on the feminine side. This seems to be in contradiction with the Zohar that applies to Netzah the right thigh and to Hod the left thigh. This arrangement breaks the alternance of the sides in the positioning of the Sephiroth regulated by the system of the Scale, as we will see further-on. Nevertheless, what could explain this variant is the transitional character that these Sephiroth establish between separation and reunion. Victory implies unity in diversity. Glory constructs unity by the filling of the diverse.

The point of arrival of these two Sephiroth has, in deed, a character opposed to their point of origin. Nevertheless, it seems that for the world of  the Emanation, somehow, the principle overrules the result and that, consequently we ought to remain using the usual distribution: Netzah to the right and Hod to the left.


Original French







More about Francis Warrain: 🌿 About Khunrath’s ‘AMPHITHEATRVM SAPIENTIÆ ÆTERNÆ’:!thumbs/AC06760056/1/
Francis Warrain: From ‘La Théodicée de la Kabbale’–The System of the Scale-Part 2-Bilateral Balance

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

all rights reserved Via Hygeia 2022