ROYALTY AND PONTIFICATE
THE title 'Lord of the World', interpreted in its highest, most complete and most rigorous sense, belongs properly to 'Manu', the primordial and universal legislator. This is the name that, in various forms, is found amongst many ancient peoples: Mina or Menes of the Egyptians, the Celtic Menw, and Greek Minos. [1] In reality the name describes not a figure that is more or less historical or legendary, but a principle, a cosmic Intelligence that reflects pure spiritual light and formulates the Law (Dharma) appropriate to the conditions of our world and of our cycle of existence. At the same time, it is the archetype of man in his uniqueness, that is to say of man as a thinking being (in Sanskrit manava).
It is important to emphasize that it is this principle that can be manifested through a spiritual centre existing in this terrestrial world, by an organization responsible for preserving integrally the repository of sacred tradition which is of 'nonhuman' origin (apaurusheya), and through which primordial Wisdom communicates across the ages to those capable of receiving it. The leader of such a centre or organization is entitled to use the name and attributes of Manu, whom he represents, as it were. Also, the degree of knowledge which he must have attained to warrant the conferment of this authority enables him to truly identify with the principle of which he is the human expression, and before which his own individuality disappears. Such was the case of Agarttha, if this centre received, as indicated by Saint-Yves, the inheritance of the ancient 'solar dynasty' (Surya-vansha) which once resided
at Ayodhya, [2] and which drew its origin from Vaivaswata, the 'Manu' of the present cycle.
Saint-Yves does not in fact envisage 'The Lord of the World' as the supreme chief of Agarttha, but rather as its 'sovereign pontiff', whom he places, moreover, at the head of a 'Brahmanic church' - a somewhat over-westernized conception. [3] Apart from this point, Saint-Yves accords completely with Ossendowski: it would seem that both writers took a point of view which complements their personal interests and opinions without understanding that, in fact, leadership of Agarttha consisted of a double power - both sacerdotal and royal. The 'pontifical' characteristic, in the truest sense of this word, belongs very really and par excellence to the chief of the initiation hierarchy. 'Pontifex' means literally 'builder of bridges', and this Roman title is, in a way, by its origin a masonic title; symbolically it is he who functions as a mediator enacting communication between this and higher worlds. [4] Consequently, the rainbow or 'celestial bridge' is used in much the same way by all traditions. For the Hebrews it is the sign of God's union with His people; for the Chinese, the union of Heaven and Earth, and for the Greeks it represents Iris, 'the messenger of the gods'. To the Scandinavians as well as the Persians and Arabs, in central Africa, and even as far as certain peoples of North America, it signifies the bridge between the material and higher worlds.
For the Romans this union of sacerdotal and royal power represented only one aspect of the extraordinarily complex and diverse symbolism of Janus, whose gold and silver keys depicted the two respective initiations [5] that, using Hindu terminology, would correspond to the way of the Brahmin and that of the Kshatriya. However, at the highest point of the hierarchy there is one common principle from which the one and the other draw their respective attributes, which is therefore above their distinctions. This principle is the source of all legitimate authority, in whatever domain it is exercised; and the initiates of Agarttha are ativarna, that is to say, 'beyond caste'. [6]
In the Middle Ages there was an expression in which these two complementary aspects of authority were reunited in an interesting fashion; during this era a mysterious country, 'The Kingdom of Prester John', [7] was often mentioned. Now this was the time when what could be called the 'outer covering' of the initiation centre in question was formed in good part by Nestorians (or those who are rightly or wrongly so called), and by Sabaeans, [8] who called themselves the 'Mendayyeh of
Yahia' or 'disciples of John'. In this context, one is prompted to remark that it is curious that many oriental groups that were rigidly enclosed communities, from the Ismailis or the disciples of 'The Old One of the Mountain' to the Lebanese Druses - all, without exception, took the same title 'Guardians of the Holy Land' as did the western Orders of Chivalry. The sequel to what is being discussed may be more easily understood than at first appears when it is seen that Saint-Yves had found a very precise expression, possibly more precise than he knew himself, with the term 'The Templars of Agarttha'. Equally, the meaning of 'exterior covering' may be clarified by noting that initiation into Chivalry was essentially an initiation of Kshatriyas. Amongst other things, this explains the dominant role played by the symbolism of Love. [9]
Leaving aside these considerations, the idea of one individual embodying both priest and king is not widely current in the contemporary West even though it is found at the origin of the Christian Church, strikingly enacted by the Magi-kings. Of course, by the Middle Ages, to outside appearances at least, supreme power had already become divided between the Empire and the Papacy. [10] Such a division marks an organization that is incomplete at its head since the common principle, on which the two powers depend, is missing; the true power had then to be found elsewhere. In the East the maintenance of such a separation at the very summit of a hierarchy is rather exceptional. Only amongst certain Buddhist tenets can one recognize something of the kind: one in question is the affirmed incompatibility between the function of Buddha and that of Chakravarti or 'universal monarch', [11] between which, it is said, Shakya-Muni had at a certain moment to choose.