THE THREE SUPREME FUNCTIONS
ACCORDING to Saint-Yves, the supreme head of Agarttha holds the title of 'Brahatma" ('Brahmatma' would be more correct) or 'sustainer of souls in the Spirit of God'. His two advisors are the Mahatma, 'Representative of the universal soul', and 'Mahanga', 'symbol of the entire material organization of the Cosmos'. [1] They comprise the hierarchical division established in Western terms by the triad 'spirit', 'soul', and 'body', that may be applied here within the analogical framework of the Macrocosm and Microcosm. It is important here to know that Sanskrit terminology defines only the principle inherent in these designations, and cannot be applied to human beings except in so far as they represent these principles, and even then it only applies to their functions, not their individualities. Ossendowski describes the Mahatma as 'knowing the events of the future' and the Mahanga as 'controlling the causes for these events', while the Brahatma is able to 'speak to God face to face'. [2] This phrase is easily understood if it is remembered that Brahatma occupies the central position from where direct communication is established between the terrestrial world and higher states and, through them, with the supreme Principle. [3] If the term 'Lord of the World' were to be interpreted in a restrictive sense, in accordance with an understanding only of the terrestrial world, it would prove inadequate; it would be more accurate, in certain respects, to name Brahatma 'King of the three worlds', [4] for in every authentic hierarchy
he who possesses the highest qualifications possesses by the same token all subordinate qualifications, so that the 'three worlds' (which comprise the Tribhuvana of Hindu tradition) are the domains that correspond respectively to the three functions previously enumerated.
'When he comes out from the temple', writes Ossendowski, 'the Lord of the World radiates the Divine Light' - the Hebrew Bible reports exactly the same of Moses when he came down from Mount Sinai. [5] It is worth noting that Islamic tradition regards Moses as the 'Pole' (El-Qutb) of his era. Is it not for this reason that he was instructed, according to the Kabbalah, by Metatron himself? It is worth distinguishing at this point between the principal spiritual centre of our world, and those subordinate secondary centres that only represent the former in respect of their particular traditions specially adapted for particular communities. Without labouring the point I should nevertheless add that the function of 'legislator' (Arabic rasul) belonging to Moses necessarily supposes a delegation of the power that is the sign of Manu. One meaning implicit in the 'Manu' signifies precisely the reflection of the Divine Light.
'The Lord of the World', said a Lama to Ossendowski, 'is in touch with the thoughts of all those who direct the destiny of mankind ... He knows their intentions and their ideas. If these are pleasing to God, the Lord of the World favours them with his invisible aid. But if they are displeasing to God, he puts a check on their activities. This power is given to Agharti through the mysterious science of "Om", the word we use to begin our prayers.' Immediately afterwards comes a phrase that for those who do not know the significance of this sacred monosyllable should occasion great surprise: ' Om is the name of an ancient saint, the first Guru, who lived three hundred thousand years ago.' This sentence would be completely
unintelligible were it not borne in mind that the era mentioned - apparently so vaguely - far precedes that of the present Manu. Moreover, the Adi-Manu or first Manu of our present Kalpa (Vaivaswata being the seventh) is called 'Swayambhuva' or issue of 'Swayambhu', 'that which subsists of itself, in other words, 'eternal logos'. Now the Logos, or he who represents it directly, can truly be called the first Guru or 'spiritual Master', which means that ' Om ' is, in effect, another one of its names. [6]
The word ' Om ' at once provides a key to the hierarchical allocation of functions pertaining to 'Brahatma' and his two advisors. According to Hindu tradition, the three components of this sacred monosyllable represent the 'three worlds' just mentioned of the Tribhuvana: 'Earth' (Bhu), Atmosphere (Bhuvas) and 'Sky' (Swar), which, to use a different terminology, correspond to the corporeal manifestation, the world of subtle or psychic manifestation, and the non-manifested world of the Principle. [7] They describe in ascending order the worlds of Mahanga, Mahatma, and Brahatma, as can easily be seen by referring to the interpretation of their titles given
above. These form the sequence of subordination existing between the different domains that justifies the previous interpretation of 'Brahatma' as 'Lord of the three worlds'. [8] 'This being is the Lord of all things, the Omniscient, seeing instantaneously all effects in their cause; the inner organizer residing at the centre of the world and ruling it from within, directing its movement without participating in it. He is the source of all legitimate power, the beginning and end of all beings that belong to the cyclical manifestation in which he represents the Law. [9] To use another symbolism, no less exact, the Mahanga represents the base of the initiatic triangle, the Brahatma its summit, and between the two the Mahatma embodies in a certain way the reconciling principle (the cosmic vitality, the Anima Mundi of the Hermeticists), the action of which is deployed in 'intermediary space'. All this is depicted very clearly through the corresponding characters of the sacred alphabet called by Saint-Yves Vattan and Vattanan by Ossendowski, and also by the geometric forms (straight line, spiral, and point) to which the three matras, elements constituting the monosyllable Om, can be reduced.
This can be defined more exactly: the fullness of both sacerdotal and Royal power, seen as principles in a kind of undifferentiated state, belongs to the Brahatma. The two powers subsequently divide in order to manifest, the Mahatma specifically representing sacerdotal power, and the Mahanga Royal power. The distinction is comparable to that between Brahmin and Kshatriya, although in other respects the Mahatma and the Mahanga, being 'beyond castes', have themselves, like the Brahatma, elements of both powers. This raises a point that has never been explained satisfactorily, yet is most important: it has been mentioned already that the two powers were united in the 'Magi-Kings' of the Gospels; now it can be revealed that these mysterious personages represented in truth nothing other than the three leaders of
Agarttha. [10] The Mahanga offers gold to Christ and hails him as 'King'; the Mahatma, offering incense, greets him as 'Priest'; and the Brahatma, greeting him as 'Prophet' or Spiritual Master par excellence, proffers myrrh (the symbol of amrita [11] and balm of incorruptibility). The homage rendered in this way to the new-born Christ, by the authentic representatives of the primordial tradition in the three worlds which are their respective domains, is at the same time, one should note, a sign of the perfect orthodoxy of Christianity in this respect.
Of course Ossendowski was not in a position to consider ramifications of this order. Indeed if he had understood certain things more profoundly he would have noticed at least the strict analogy existing between the supreme triumvirates of Agarttha and of Lamaism as he describes it. He points out that the Dalai Lama 'embodies the saintliness (or pure spirituality) of Buddha', the Tashi-Lama 'his science' (not 'magic' as he appears to think but, rather, 'theurgy'), and the Bogdo-Khan represents 'his material and warrior power', an identical allocation of function to that dividing the 'three worlds'. He should have drawn the parallels even more readily since he was told that 'the capital of Agharti recalls Lhasa where the Dalai Lama's palace, the Potala, is situated on top of a mountain that is covered over with temples and monasteries'. Through reversing the emphasis of the relationship, this sort of explanation is erroneous, for in reality it is the image that recalls its prototype, not the other way round. Thus, the centre of Lamaism is merely an image of the true 'centre of the world'; but all centres of this kind possess, according to the locality where they are founded, certain topographical peculiarities that, far from being unimportant, have an irrefutable symbolic
value that must correspond to those laws through which 'spiritual influences' operate. This last topic actually belongs to an area of traditional science which one could call 'sacred geography'.
There is another, no less remarkable, parallel. Saint-Yves, describing the different degrees or circles of the initiatic hierarchy which correspond specifically to certain symbolic numerals, particularly those of the divisions of time, concludes: 'the highest circle, nearest to the mysterious centre, is composed of twelve members who represent the supreme initiation and correspond, amongst other things, with the Zodiacal Zone'. This constitution is reproduced in what is mown as the 'Circular Council' of the Dalai Lama, a council comprising twelve grand Namshans (or Nomekhans), a form also found in certain Western traditions such as 'Knights of the Round Table'. Seen from the sphere of cosmic order, the twelve members of Agarttha's inner circle represent not only the twelve signs of the Zodiac but also (it is tempting to say 'rather', although neither interpretation negates the other) the twelve Adityas which are as many forms of the sun acting in concord with these Zodiacal signs. [12] And naturally, as Manu Vaivaswata is called 'Son of the Sun', so also does the 'Lord of the World' count the Sun amongst his emblems. [13]
The first conclusion arising from what has been said is that certain very close similarities exist between the different accounts, found in all countries, of spiritual centres which are more or less hidden or at least difficult of access. The only plausible explanation for this similarity lies in the assumption that if the accounts refer to different centres, as seems to be the case at least for some, then they must all be emanations from one unique and supreme centre, just as all individual traditions are but adaptations of the great primordial tradition.