I 3 § The Guardians of the Holy Land
A mong the prerogatives of the orders of chivalry, and especially of the Templars, one of the best known but generally not best understood, is that of 'guardians of the Holy Land'. Admittedly, if we restrict ourselves to its most outward meaning we find an immediate explanation in the connection between these orders and the Crusades, since for Christians as well as for Jews the 'Holy Land' seems to designate nothing other than Palestine.
Nevertheless, the question becomes more complex when we note that several oriental organisations, the initiatic character of which is not in doubt, such as the Assassins and the Druse, have also taken the same title of 'guardians' of the Holy Land'. In such a case it can in fact no longer be a question of Palestine; and it is, moreover, remarkable that these organisations have quite a large number of features in common with the Western orders of chivalry and that historically some of them have even had relations with these orders. What, then are we really to understand by 'Holy Land', and what does this function of 'guardian' correspond to, seeming, as it does, to be attached to a specific kind of initiation, one that can be described as 'chivalric' if we give this term a meaning which is wider than usual but amply justified by the analogies that exist between the different forms in question?
We have already shown elsewhere, especially in The Lord of the World, that the expression 'Holy Land' has several synonyms: 'Pure Land', 'Land of Saints', 'Land of the Blessed', 'Land of the Living', 'Land of Immortality', that these equivalent designations are to be found in the traditions of all peoples, and that they always apply essentially to a spiritual centre, the location of which in a given region can, according to circumstances, be understood literally or symbolically, or simultaneously in both the one and the other sense. Every 'Holy Land' is designated further by expressions such as 'Centre of the World' or 'Heart of the World', and this calls for some explanations, for these uniform appellations, although differently applied, can easily lead to certain confusions.
If, for example, we consider the Hebraic tradition, we see that the Sepher Ietsirah speaks of the 'Holy Palace' or 'Inner Palace', which is the veritable 'Centre of the World', in the cosmogonic sense of the term; and we also see that the 'Holy Palace' has its image in the human world by the abode of the Shekinah in a particular place, the Shekinah being the 'real Presence' of the Divinity. [1] For the people of Israel, this abode of the Shekinah was the Tabernacle (Mishkan) which, for this reason, was considered by them as the 'Heart of the World' because it was in fact the spiritual centre of their own tradition. This centre, moreover, was not initially a fixed location; where nomads are concerned, as was the case here, their spiritual centre must move about with them, even while remaining always the same in the course of their peregrinations. 'The abode of the Shekinah', said Paul Vulliaud, 'was not fixed until the time the Temple was constructed, for which David had prepared the gold, the silver, and all that was necessary for Solomon to complete the work. [2] The Tabernacle of the Holiness of Jehovah, [3] the abode of the Shekinah, is the Holy of Holies which is the Heart of the Temple, which is itself the Centre of Zion (Jerusalem), as holy Zion is centre of the Land of Israel, as the Land of Israel is the centre of the world'. [4] It may be noted here that there is a series of extensions given gradually to the idea of the centre in the applications of it which are successively made, so that the appellation 'Centre of the World' or 'Heart of the World' is finally extended to the entire Land of Israel insofar as this is considered the 'Holy Land'; and it must be added that in the same respect it also receives, among other denominations, that of 'Land of the Living'. It is said that the 'Land of the Living Comprises seven Lands', and Vulliaud observes that 'this land is Canaan in which there were seven peoples' [5], which is exact in a literal sense even though a symbolic interpretation is equally possible. This expression of 'Land of the Living' is equally synonymous with 'place of immortality', and the Catholic liturgy [6] applies it to the celestial sojourn of the elect which was represented by the Promised Land, in that Israel, on entering this land, was to see the end of its tribulations. From yet another point of view, the Land of Israel, as spiritual centre, was an image of Heaven; for according to the Judaic tradition, 'all that the Israelites do on earth is accomplished according to the pattern of what takes place in the celestial world'. [7]
What is said here of the Israelites can be said similarly of all peoples possessing a genuinely orthodox tradition; and in fact the Israelites are not the only people who have assimilated their country to the 'Heart of the World', and who have regarded it as an image of Heaven, two ideas which after all are only one in reality. The use of the same symbolism is found with other peoples who possess a 'Holy Land', that is, a country where a spiritual centre has been established which has for them a status comparable to that of the Temple of Jerusalem. In this respect, the 'Holy Land' is similar to the Omphalos which was always the visible image of the 'Centre of the World' for the people inhabiting the region where it was placed. [8]
The symbolism we are discussing is found especially among the Egyptians; in fact, according to Plutarch, 'the Egyptians give their country the name Chemia [9] and they compare it to a heart'. [10] The reason given by this author is somewhat strange: 'This country is in fact warm, humid, lying in the southern parts of the inhabited lands, extended to the South as in the body of man the heart extends to the left', for 'the Egyptians consider the East as the face of the world, the North being the right and the South as the left'. [11] These are rather superficial correspondences and the real reason must be quite different, as the same comparison with the heart has likewise been applied to every land held to be sacred and 'central' in the spiritual sense, whatever its geographic situation. Moreover, according to Plutarch himself, the heart which represented Egypt at the same time represented Heaven: 'The Egyptians', he said, 'represent Heaven, which cannot grow old as it is eternal, by a heart placed on a brazier, the flame of which maintains the vital warmth'. [12] Thus, while the heart is itself represented by a vase which is not other than that which the legends of the Western Middle Ages designated as the 'Holy Grail', it is also simultaneously the hieroglyph of Egypt and of Heaven.
The conclusion to be drawn from these considerations is that there are as many particular 'Holy Lands' as there are regular traditional forms, since they represent the spiritual centres which correspond respectively to these different forms. But if the same symbolism applies uniformly to all these 'Holy Lands', it is because all these spiritual centres have an analogous constitution, often even in precise details, inasmuch as they are all images of one single supreme centre, which alone is the veritable 'Centre of the World', but the attributes of which they apply to themselves in virtue of participating in its nature by a direct communication, wherein lies their traditional orthodoxy, [13] and in virtue of actually representing that Centre in a more or less outward way for particular times and places. In other words, there exists a 'Holy Land' par excellence, prototype of all the others, seat of the Primordial Tradition from which all the other particular traditions are derived by adaptation to such and such particular conditions which are those of a people or of an epoch. This 'Holy Land' par excellence is the 'supreme country', following the sense of the Sanskrit term Paradesha, from which the Chaldeans have made Pardes and the Westerners Paradise. It is in fact the 'terrestrial Paradise' which is indeed the point of departure of every tradition, having in its centre the one wellspring from which flow the four rivers towards the four cardinal points, [14] and which is also the 'sojourn of immortality' as can easily be seen by referring to the first chapters of Genesis. [15]
We cannot think of returning here to all the questions which concern the Supreme Centre, and which we have already treated very fully elsewhere: its conservation, in a more or less hidden way according to the period, from the beginning to the end of the cycle, that is, from the 'terrestrial Paradise' to the 'celestial Jerusalem' which represent its two extreme phases; the multiple names by which it is designated, such as Tula, Luz, Salem, Agartha; [16] the different symbols which represent it, such as the mountain, the cavern, the island and still many others, immediately connected for the most part with the symbolism of the 'Pole' or of the 'World Axis'. To these figurations, we could join those which make of it a city, a citadel, a temple or a palace, according to the particular aspect under which it is envisaged; and in this context it is relevant to mention not only the Temple of Solomon which relates more directly to our subject, but also the triple precinct of which we have recently spoken as representing the initiatic hierarchy of certain traditional centres, [17] as well as the mysterious labyrinth which, under a more complex form, pertains to a similar conception, with the difference that what is especially stressed here is the idea of an approach or advance towards the hidden centre. [18]
We must now add that the symbolism of the 'Holy Land' has a double meaning: whether it may relate to the supreme Centre or to a subordinate centre, it represents not only that centre itself but also, by an association which is entirely natural, the tradition which emanates from it and which is there preserved, that is, in the first case, the Primordial Tradition, and in the second, a particular traditional form. [19] This double meaning is likewise to be found, and in a particularly clear way, in the symbolism of the Holy Grail which is at once a vase (grasale) and a book (gradale or graduale); this latter aspect manifestly designates the tradition while the other concerns more directly the state corresponding to the actual possession of this tradition, that is, the 'edenic state' if it is the Primordial Tradition that is in question; and he who has attained to this state is thereby reintegrated into Pardes in such a way that his abode is henceforth in the 'Centre of the World'. [20]
It is not without a motive that we bring together these two symbolisms, for their close resemblance shows that when one speaks of the 'knighthood of the Holy Grail' or of the 'guardians of the Holy Land', what must be understood by the two expressions is exactly the same thing. It remains for us to explain, as far as possible, exactly what is the function of these 'guardians', a function which belonged in particular to the Templars. [21]
In order to understand clearly what is involved, we must distinguish between the custodians of the tradition whose function is to preserve and transmit it, and those who are only recipients, in one degree or another, of a communication of the tradition and, we might say, a participation in it.
The first, trustees and dispensers of the doctrine, remain at the source which is strictly the centre itself. From there, the doctrine is communicated and distributed hierarchically to the different initiatic degrees, according to the streams represented by the rivers of Pardes, or, to use the figuration which was the theme of the last chapter, by the channels which run from the inside towards the outside, linking together the successive precincts which correspond to the different degrees.
Not all, therefore, of those who participate in the tradition have reached the same degree, nor do they fulfil the same function; it is necessary even to make a distinction between these last two things which, though corresponding in a general way, are not, strictly speaking, inseparable. For it can happen that a man may be intellectually qualified to attain to the highest degrees but may not thereby be apt to fulfill all the functions in the initiatic organisation. Here it is only the functions which we have to consider; and from this point of view we will say that the 'guardians' remain at the boundary of the spiritual centre, taken in its widest sense, or at the last precinct, by which the centre is both separated from the 'outer world' and placed in relationship with it. Consequently, these 'guardians' have a double function: on the one hand, they are indeed the defenders of the 'Holy Land' in the sense that they bar from access to it all who lack the requisite qualifications to enter, and they constitute what we have called its 'outer covering', that is, they conceal it from the eyes of the profane. On the other hand, they nevertheless assure certain regular relations with the outside, as we shall explain in what follows.
It is obvious that to act as defender is, to speak the language of Hinduism, a function of the Kshatriya; and all 'chivalric' initiation is in fact essentially adapted to the nature of men pertaining to the warrior caste, that is, the Kshatriyas. Hence the special characteristics of this initiation, the particular symbolism which it uses, and the intervention of an affective element very explicitly designated by the term 'Love'. As we have already explained this at some length, we need not dwell on it here. [22] But in the case of the Templars, there is something more to be considered: even though their initiation was essentially 'chivalric', as suited their nature and function, they had two sides to their character, being both military and religious; and it had to be so if they were, as we have many reasons to think, among the 'guardians' of the supreme Centre, in which spiritual authority and temporal power are reunited in their common principle, and which as it were stamps the recognisable sign or mark of this reunion on all that is directly connected with it. In the Western world, where the spiritual takes a specifically religious form, the true 'guardians of the Holy Land', insofar as they had any 'official' existence, had to be knights, but knights who were monks at the same time, and in fact that indeed is what the Templars were.
This brings us directly to the second function of the 'guardians' of the supreme Centre, a function which, as we said just now, consists in ensuring certain outward relationships and above all in maintaining the bond between the Primordial Tradition and the secondary derived traditions. That this may be so, it is necessary that for each traditional form there should be one or more organisations to all appearances within the said form, but composed of men conscious of what lies beyond all forms, that is, of the one doctrine which is the source and essence of all the others and which is not other than the Primordial Tradition.
In the world of the Judeo-Christian tradition it would be natural enough for such an organisation to take as symbol the Temple of Solomon. This temple, moreover, having long since ceased to exist materially, could thus have only an altogether ideal signification, as being, like every subordinate spiritual centre, an image of the supreme Centre. The very etymology of Jerusalem indicates clearly enough that it is only a visible image of the mysterious Salem of Melchizedek. If the Templars were indeed what we believe them to have been, in order to fulfil their allotted function concerning the specific tradition, that of the West, they would have to remain attached outwardly to the form of this tradition; but at the same time they would need to have an inner consciousness of real doctrinal unity so as to be capable of communicating with the representatives of other traditions. [23] It is this that explains their relations with certain Oriental organisations and especially, as is natural, with those that elsewhere played a part similar to their own.
These considerations make it clear, on the other hand, why the destruction of the Order of the Temple should have entailed for the West the rupture of regular relations with the 'Centre of the World'; and it is precisely from the fourteenth century that the deviation inevitably resulting from this rupture must be dated, a deviation which has gone on gradually becoming more and more accentuated down to our own time.
This is not to say, however, that all ties were broken with a single blow; it was possible to maintain some degree of relations for quite some time, but only in a hidden way, and by the intermediary of organisations such as the Fede Santa or the Fedeli d'Amore or the Massenie du Saint-Graal and doubtless many others as well, all inheritors of the spirit of the Order of the Temple, and for the most part attached to it by a more or less direct filiation. Those who kept that spirit alive and who inspired these organisations without ever forming themselves into any definite group were those who are called Rosicrucians [24]—an essentially symbolic name. But the day came when these Rosicrucians themselves had to leave the West in which conditions had become such that their action could no longer be exercised there, and it is said that they retired into Asia, reabsorbed as it were, towards the supreme Centre of which they were an emanation. For the Western world there is no longer a 'Holy Land' to guard, as the way which leads to it is henceforth entirely lost. How much longer will this situation endure? That is a question which it is not for us to answer. Apart from the fact that we do not wish to hazard any prediction, the solution depends only on the West itself; for it is in returning to normal conditions and in recovering the spirit of its own tradition-if it still has in it this possibility-that the West may see open before it the way that leads to the 'Centre of the World'.