THE question as to where the 'supreme country' was actually situated has been left to one side until now, partly because it is such a complex topic, but also because it has been peripheral to the point of view we wished to express. There is every reason for supposing that there have been several successive locations, each corresponding to different cycles, themselves subdivisions of another, more drawn-out cycle called the Manvantara. Were the whole cyclical content somehow placed outside of time, there would be seen to be a hierarchical order in this determining of positions that correspond to the way traditional forms were established, forms that are themselves no more than adaptations of the principal, primordial tradition dominating the entire Manvantara. At this point it must be repeated that it is possible to have several subsidiary centres existing at the same time as the principal centre, attached to it and reflecting its image. This can rather easily create confusion, since these dependent centres, being more overt, are for that reason more conspicuous than the supreme centre. [1]
In reference to this last point, the similarity between Lhasa, centre of Lamaism, and Agarttha, has already been indicated. Even in the West, at least two cities, Rome and Jerusalem, show topographical situations suggesting a comparable origin; it has already been explained that Jerusalem is a manifested image of Melki-Tsedeq's mysterious Salem. In fact there existed in ancient times what one could call a sacred or sacerdotal geography through which precise laws [2] determined the posi-
tion of cities and temples. This indicates the links that existed uniting 'sacerdotal art' and 'royal art' with the art of the builder [3] and the reason that ancient guilds and corporations actually did possess a true initiatory tradition. [4] Between the foundation of a town and the development of a doctrine, or of a new form of tradition arising through adaptation to conditions defined by the time and the place, there was already a certain relationship which resulted in the construction of the town symbolizing the unfolding of the doctrine. [5] Naturally, the most meticulous precautions were taken when selecting the site of a town destined to become the metropolis or centre for a specified area of the world, so that the names of such towns merit careful study, as do the reported circumstances of their foundation. [6]
Such a town or centre existed in pre-Hellenic Crete, [7] and it seems that there were several in Egypt, probably founded in successive epochs, like Memphis and Thebes. [8] The name of
the latter, also denoting a Greek city, is of particular interest as a designation of a spiritual centre, as it is plainly cognate with the Hebrew Thebah, or Noah's Ark of the great flood. This is itself another representation of the supreme centre, especially in the sense of preserving the tradition in a sort of veiled state [9] during a transitory period which is like the interval between two cycles and which is marked by a cosmic cataclysm destroying all prior conditions to give place to a wholly new state. [10] The role of Noah [11] in the Bible is very similar to that played in the Hindu tradition by Satyavrata, who subsequently became, under the name Vaivaswata, the current Manu. This latter tradition is allied to the commencement of the present Manvantara, whereas the biblical flood marked the advent of another more restricted cycle, within this same Manvantara; [12] they do not represent the same event, but simply two analogous ones. [13]
It is worth mentioning the association that exists between the symbolism of the Ark and that of the rainbow, and which is suggested by the description in the Bible of the rainbow appearing at the culmination of the flood as proof of the
alliance between God and earthly creatures. [14] During the cataclysm of the flood, the Ark floats on the ocean of the inferior waters, then the rainbow appears 'in the clouds' in the region of the superior waters, to signify the re-establishment of order out of chaos and the subsequent renovation of all things. Ark and rainbow form a strictly analogous relationship, inverse and complementary to each other. The convex shape of the Ark is directed downwards, that of the rainbow upwards, so that in meeting they comprise the two halves [15] of a circular or cyclical form, which had been in fact complete at the beginning of the cycle. This form is the vertical slice of a sphere; its horizontal cut is represented by the circular girdle of the Terrestrial Paradise, [16] the latter divided by a cross formed by the four rivers issuing from the 'polar mountain'. [17] The reconstitution (of the whole) necessarily takes place at the end of the same cycle, but note that in the design of the celestial Jerusalem the circle is replaced by a square [18] to indicate
achievement of what the Hermeticists symbolically called 'squaring of the circle'. The sphere, representing the development of possibilities through the expansion of the primordial, central point, is changed into a cubic form on completion of this development and when the final balance for the particular cycle is achieved. [19]