Payload Website Template

THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN the spiritual and temporal powers is found in one form or another among almost all peoples. This is not surprising since it corresponds to a general law of human history, relating moreover to the system of 'cyclical laws' that we have frequently alluded to throughout our works. In the most ancient periods this opposition is usually found in traditional accounts expressed in symbolic form, as in the case of the Celts mentioned above; but it is not this aspect of the question that we propose especially to develop here. For the moment we shall restrict ourselves to two historical examples, one taken from the East and the other from the West. In India the antagonism between the spiritual and the temporal is found in the form of a rivalry between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas (about which we shall recall some episodes presently); in medieval Europe it appears especially in the so-called dispute between the priesthood and the empire, even though it had other more particular aspects that were equally characteristic,^[1] as we shall see in what follows. It is only too easy to point out that the same struggle continues to this day, although due to the disorder of the modern world and the 'mingling of castes' it is complicated by heterogeneous elements that may sometimes conceal it from the notice of a superficial observer.

It is not that anyone has contested (at least generally speaking and notwithstanding certain extreme cases) the fact that each of these two powers, which we can call sacerdotal power and royal power, for such are their true traditional names, had its own purpose and its own domain; in the final analysis, the dispute usually bears only on the question of the hierarchical relationships that should exist between them. It is a question of a struggle for supremacy, a struggle invariably arising in the same manner: having first been subject to the spiritual authority, warriors, the holders of the temporal power, revolt against this authority and declare themselves independent of all superior power, even trying to subordinate to themselves the spiritual authority that they had originally recognized as the source of their own power, and finally seeking to turn the spiritual authority to the service of their own domination. This alone should suffice to show that in such a revolt there must be a reversal of normal relationships; but the point becomes all the more clear when these relationships are considered, not as between two more or less clearly defined social functions naturally tending to encroach upon one another, but as between two separate domains in which these functions are respectively exercised. It is in fact the relationships between these domains that must logically determine those between the corresponding powers.

However, before tackling these considerations directly, we must make some remarks that will facilitate their comprehension by precisely defining certain terms which will come up often in our discussion. This is all the more necessary in view of the fact that in current usage these terms have taken on quite vague meanings sometimes far removed from their original ones. First of all, if we speak of two powers, and if we do so in cases where it becomes necessary for various reasons to maintain a certain external symmetry between them, we prefer to use the word 'authority' rather than the word 'power' for the spiritual order. The word 'power' can then be reserved for the temporal order, to which it is better suited when taken in its strictest sense. In fact, the word 'power' almost inevitably evokes the idea of strength or force, and above all the idea of a material force,^[2] a force which manifests itself visibly and outwardly and affirms itself by the use of external means, for such means indeed characterize the temporal power by very definition.^[3] On the contrary, spiritual authority, interior in essence, is affirmed only by itself, independently of any sensible support, and operates as it were invisibly. If we can speak in this context of strength or force, it is only by analogical transposition, and, at least in the case of a spiritual authority—in its purest state so to speak—it must be understood that it is an entirely intellectual strength whose name is 'wisdom' and whose only force is that of truth.^[4]

The expressions sacerdotal power and royal power, which we have just introduced, call for even more explanation here. What exactly is meant by priesthood and royalty? To begin with the latter, we can say that the royal function includes everything that in the social order constitutes what is properly referred to as the 'government'; and this is so even if the government does not take the form of a monarchy. This function belongs properly to the entire Kshatriya caste, for the king is no more than the first among them; it is in a way twofold: administrative and judicial on the one hand, and military on the other. With regard to its regulatory and stabilizing function it must ensure the maintenance of internal order, and with regard to its function of protecting the social organism it must maintain outward order. These two constituent elements of the royal power are symbolized in diverse traditions respectively by the scales and the sword. We see from this that royal power is indeed synonymous with temporal power, even when this latter is taken in its broadest sense. But the much more restricted idea that the modern West has of royalty can prevent this equivalence from being perceived immediately, and for this reason it was necessary to formulate this definition now so that we might not lose sight of it in what follows.

As for the priesthood, its essential function is the conservation and transmission of the traditional doctrine, in which every regular social organization finds its fundamental principles. This function is, moreover, obviously independent of all the special forms the doctrine may take in adapting to the particular conditions of any given era, for these forms do not in any way affect the substance of that doctrine, which remains everywhere and at all times identical and immutable, provided the traditions involved are authentically orthodox. It is easy to understand that the function of the priesthood is not exactly what is attributed by Western conceptions, especially today, to '_clergy_' or '_priests_'. While these conceptions may apply in certain cases and to a certain extent, the function of the priesthood can also be something very different. In fact, what truly possesses a '_sacred_' character is the traditional doctrine and all that is directly attached to it, and this doctrine does not necessarily take a religious form.^[5] The terms '_sacred_' and '_religious_' are by no means equivalent, for the first is much broader than the second. While religion is part and parcel of the '_sacred_' domain, this latter includes elements and modalities that have absolutely nothing religious about them; and the '_priesthood_' [le sacerdoce], as its name indicates, relates without any restriction whatsoever to all that can truly be called '_sacred_'.

The true function of the priesthood, then, is above all one of knowledge and teaching, and this is why, as we said above, its proper attribute is wisdom.^[6] It is of course true that certain other more outward functions, such as the performance of rites, equally belong to it, because they require doctrinal knowledge, at least in principle, and participate in the 'sacred' character inherent to it. But these functions are only secondary, contingent, and, in a way, accidental.^[7] If, in the Western world, the accessory seems here to have become the principal, if not the only function, this is because the real nature of the 'priesthood' has been almost completely forgotten, this being one of the effects of the modern deviation, which negates all intellectuality (we think it almost superfluous to recall here that this word is always taken in the sense of pure intelligence and supra-formal knowledge). And if this deviation has not been able to make all doctrinal teaching disappear, it has at least 'minimized' it and relegated it to the background. That it has not always been so is proved by the very word 'clergy', for the word 'clerk' originally signified 'scholar' as opposed to 'layman', which designates a man of the people, that is, of the 'vulgar', who is to be classed among the ignorant or the 'profane', and whose only recourse is to believe whatever he cannot understand, this being the only way for him to participate in the tradition to the extent his possibilities allow.^[8] It is curious to note that those who today take pride in calling themselves 'laymen', as well as those who take pleasure in calling themselves 'agnostics'—they are indeed often the same people—do nothing but boast of their own ignorance, and for them to fail to realize that such is the meaning of the labels they attach to themselves, their ignorance must indeed be great and truly irremediable.

If the 'priesthood' is in essence the depository of traditional knowledge, this is not to say that it has a monopoly on it, since its mission is not only to conserve it integrally but also to communicate it to all who are fit to receive it, to distribute it hierarchically, so to speak, according to the intellectual capacity of each. All knowledge of this order thus has its source in sacerdotal teaching, which is the instrument of its regular transmission. What appears to be reserved especially to the priesthood, because of its character of pure intellectuality, is the superior part of the doctrine, that is the knowledge of the principles themselves, whereas the development of certain applications is more suitable for the aptitudes of other men whose own functions put them in direct and constant contact with the manifested world, that is, with the sphere to which these applications relate. This is why we see in India, for example, that

The distinction made in Catholicism between the 'teaching Church' and the 'Church taught' ought precisely to be one between 'those who know' and 'those who believe', but though this is so in principle, in the present state of things is it still so in fact? We will content ourselves with raising this question, as it is not for us to resolve it, and besides, we have not the means to do so. Indeed, though many an indication leads us to fear that the reply can only be negative, we lay no claim to an exhaustive knowledge of the present organization of the Catholic church, and can only express the wish that there may still exist within this Church a center where not only the 'letter' but also the 'spirit' of the traditional doctrine is integrally conserved.

certain secondary branches of the doctrine are studied more especially by the Kshatriyas, whereas the Brahmins attach only a relative importance to them, their attention being constantly fixed on the order of the transcendent and immutable principles of which all the rest constitute but accidental consequences. Or, to look at it from the other direction, the attention of the Brahmins is fixed solely on the highest goal, in relation to which all the rest is nothing but a contingent and subordinate means.^[9] There are even traditional books specifically intended for the use of the Kshatriyas because they present doctrinal aspects adapted to their own nature,^[10] and also 'traditional sciences' especially suited to them, whereas pure metaphysics is the prerogative of the Brahmins.^[11] All this is perfectly legitimate, for these applications or adaptations are also a part of sacred knowledge viewed in its integrality; and besides, even though the sacerdotal caste does not take a direct interest in them on their own account, these applications or adaptations are nevertheless its work, since it alone is qualified to control their perfect conformity with principles. Yet it may happen that when they revolt against spiritual authority the Kshatriyas fail to recognize the relative and subordinate character of that knowledge, considering it their own property and denying that they received it from the Brahmins, and finally going so far as to proclaim it superior to the knowledge that is the exclusive possession of the latter. The outcome of this is the reversal of the normal relationships between principles and their applications, or even, in the most extreme cases, the pure and simple negation of all transcendent principles. In all such cases we have the substitution of the 'physical' for the 'metaphysical', taking these words in their strictest etymological sense, or in other words what can be called 'naturalism', as we shall see better in what follows.^[12]

From this distinction, in sacred or traditional knowledge, between two orders broadly designated as 'principles' and 'applications' (or the 'metaphysical' and the 'physical' orders, as we have just said) was derived the distinction, in the ancient mysteries of both East and West, between what were called the 'greater mysteries' and the 'lesser mysteries', the latter comprising essentially knowledge of nature and the former knowledge of what is beyond nature.^[13] This same distinction corresponds precisely to that between 'sacerdotal initiation' and 'royal initiation'. In other words, the knowledge taught in these two mysteries was regarded as necessary to the exercise of the respective functions of Brahmins and Kshatriyas, or the equivalents of these two castes in the institutions of other peoples.^[14] But it goes without saying that it was the priesthood that, by virtue of its teaching function, conferred both initiations and thus assured the effective legitimacy not only of its own members, but also of those of the caste to which the temporal power belonged, it being from this that the 'divine right' of kings derives, ^[15] as we shall see later. This is so because possession of the 'greater mysteries' implies necessarily and _a fortiori_ possession of the 'lesser mysteries', for every consequence and every application is contained in the principle from which it proceeds, the superior function 'eminently' comprising the possibilities of the inferior functions. ^[16] It is necessarily so in all true hierarchy, which is founded upon the very nature of beings.

One more point should be at least summarily mentioned here, though we do not wish to overstress it: along with the expressions 'sacerdotal initiation' and 'royal initiation', and in parallel with them so to speak, we also come across those of 'sacerdotal art' and 'royal art', which designate the practical application of the knowledge taught in the corresponding initiations, together with all the 'techniques' pertaining to their respective domains. These designations were preserved for a long time in the ancient guilds, and the second—that of 'royal art'—had a curious destiny, for it was transmitted right up to the time of modern Freemasonry, in which of course it subsists, in company with many other terms and symbols, only as a misunderstood vestige of the past.^[17] As for the designation 'sacerdotal art', it has entirely disappeared; nevertheless, it was apt for the cathedral builders in the Middle Ages, just as it was for the art of the temple builders of antiquity. But a confusion between the two domains must have taken place due to an at least partial loss of the tradition, itself a consequence of the encroachment of the temporal upon the spiritual; and thus it was that even the very expression 'sacerdotal art' was lost, doubtless toward the time of the Renaissance, which marks in all respects the consummation of the rupture of the Western world with its own traditional doctrines.^[18]

Footnotes

[1]We could easily find many more examples, especially in the East: in China the struggles that took place in certain epochs between Taoists and Confucianists, whose respective doctrines are linked to the domains of the two powers, as we shall explain later; and in Tibet, the hostility shown initially by the kings toward Lamaism, which ended not only in the latter's triumph, but in the complete absorption of the temporal power within the 'theocratic' organization that still exists today. [This work was written in 1929. ED.]

[2]One could moreover also include in this notion the force of will, which is not 'material' in the strict sense of the word but which for us is still of the same order since it is essentially oriented toward action.

[3]The name of the caste of the Kshatriyas is derived from _kshatra_, which denotes 'force'.

[4]In Hebrew, the distinction indicated here is marked by the use of roots that correspond with each other but differ by the presence of the letters _caph_ and _koph_ which, by their hieroglyphic interpretation, are respectively the signs of spiritual force and material force, whence, on the one hand, such senses as truth, wisdom, and knowledge, and on the other, those of power, possession, and domination. Such also are the roots _hac_ and _hak_, _can_ and _kan_, the first forms designating the attributions of the sacerdotal power, the second those of the royal power (see _The King of the World_, chap. 6).

[5]Moreover, we shall later see why the religious form properly speaking is particular to the West.

[6]It is due to this function of teaching that in the Purusha-Sukta of the Rig-Veda the Brahmins are represented as corresponding to the mouth of Purusha considered as 'Universal Man', whereas the Kshatriyas correspond to his arms because their functions relate essentially to action.

[7]The exercise of intellectual functions on the one hand, and rituals on the other, has sometimes given rise within the priesthood itself to two divisions, of which a clear example is found in Tibet: 'The first of the two great divisions comprises those who preach observance of moral precepts and the monastic rule as the means of salvation, and the second all who prefer a purely intellectual method (the "direct path"), liberating the one who follows it from all laws whatsoever. It is essential that the followers of these two systems be kept strictly separate from each other. The monks attached to the first system rarely fail to recognize that the virtuous life and discipline of monastic observances—truly quite excellent and in most cases indispensable though they may be—nevertheless constitute only a preparation for a higher path. As for the partisans of the second system, all without exception fully believe in the beneficent effects of strict fidelity to the moral laws and also to those decreed especially for the members of the Sangha (Buddhist community). Moreover, all are unanimous in declaring that the first of the two methods is more recommendable for the majority of people' (Alexandra David-Neel, 'Le Thibet Mystique', in the _Revue de Paris_, February 15, 1928). This passage seemed worth quoting in full even though certain of its expressions call for some reservations: for example, there are not two 'systems' which, as such, need necessarily exclude each other; but on the other hand, the role of contingent means, which is that of rites and observances of all sorts and their subordination with respect to the purely intellectual path, are defined here quite clearly and in a manner conforming strictly to the teachings of the Hindu doctrine on the same subject.

[8]This does not mean that it is legitimate to extend the meaning of the word 'clerk' as did Julien Benda in his book _La Trahison des Clercs_, for this extension implies ignorance of a fundamental distinction, that of 'sacred knowledge' and 'profane knowledge'. Spirituality and intellectuality certainly do not have the same significance for Benda as for us, and he includes in the domain he qualifies as spiritual many things that are in our view of a purely temporal and human order. But this must not prevent us from acknowledging that there are in his book very interesting considerations that are in many respects true.

[9]We have had occasion to point out in another study a case that illustrates what we are saying here: whereas the Brahmins have always applied themselves almost exclusively, at least for their personal practice, to the immediate realization of final 'Deliverance', the Kshatriyas developed by preference the study of conditioned and transitory states corresponding to the various stages of the two 'ways of the manifested world', called _deva-yāna_ and _pitri-yāna_ (_Man and His Becoming according to the Vedānta_, chap. 21).

[10]In India, such is the case of the _Itihāsas_ and the _Purānas_, whereas the study of the _Veda_ properly concerns the Brahmins because it is the principle of all sacred knowledge. Besides, as we shall see later, the distinction between the objects of study suitable for the two castes corresponds in a general way to that of the two parts of the tradition called in the Hindu doctrine _shruti_ and _smriti_.

[11]We are still speaking of the Brahmins and Kshatriyas taken as a whole. If there are individual exceptions, they do not in any way affect the principle of caste itself, proving only that the application of this principle can only be approximate, especially under the conditions of the _Kali-Yuga_.

[12]Although we speak here of Brahmins and Kshatriyas, since the use of these words greatly facilitates the expression of what we have in mind, it must be clearly understood that all we are saying here does not apply to India only. The same remark holds true wherever these same terms are employed without special reference to the Hindu traditional form—a point we shall elaborate shortly.

[13]From a slightly different though closely related point of view, one can also say that the 'lesser mysteries' concern only the possibilities of the human state whereas the 'greater mysteries' concern the supra-human states. By the realization of these possibilities or these states the two mysteries lead respectively to the 'Terrestrial Paradise' and the 'Celestial Paradise', as Dante put it in a passage of his _De Monarchia_; and it should not be forgotten that, as Dante also indicates quite clearly in his _Divine Comedy_, the 'Terrestrial Paradise' should be considered only as a stage on the path leading to the 'Celestial Paradise'. These points will be addressed later.

[14]In ancient Egypt, which had a constitution that was distinctly 'theocratic', it seems that the king was assimilated to the 'priestly' caste by virtue of his initiation into the mysteries, and that he was even sometimes chosen from among the members of this caste. At least is what Plutarch affirms: 'Their kings were appointed [^]: from the priests or from the military class, since the military class had eminence and honour because of valour, and the priest because of wisdom. But he who was appointed from the military class was at once made one of the priests and a participant in their philosophy, which, for the most part, is veiled in myths and in words containing dim reflexions and adumbrations of the truth....' ('Isis and Osiris', in Plutarch: Moralia, vol. v, tr. Frank Cole Babbitt [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), par. 9, p23). It is to be noted that the end of this passage contains a very explicit indication of the double meaning of the word 'revelation' (cf. The King of the World, chap. 4, n5).

[15]It should be added that in India the third caste, that of the Vaishyas, whose proper functions are those of the economic order, also has access to an initiation entitling it to the qualities, which it has in common with the first two, of _ārya_ or 'noble' and of _dvija_ or 'twice-born'. The knowledge belonging properly to this caste represents moreover, in principle at least, only a limited portion of the 'lesser mysteries', such as we have defined them; but this is a point we need not stress here since the object of the present study is only to consider the relations between the first two castes.

[16]We can say then that the spiritual power belongs 'formally' to the sacerdotal caste, whereas the temporal power belongs 'eminently' to this same sacerdotal caste and 'formally' to the royal caste, just as according to Aristotle the superior 'forms' contain 'eminently' the inferior 'forms'.

[17]Apropos of this it should be noted that among the Romans, Janus, who was the god of initiation into the mysteries, was at the same time the god of the _Collegia Fabrorum_. This connection is particularly significant from the point of view of the correspondence indicated here. On the transposition by which all art as well as all science can receive a properly 'initiatic' value, see _The Esoterism of Dante_, chap. 2.

[18]Some fix the date of this loss of the ancient traditions precisely in the middle of the fifteenth century, a loss that led in 1459 to the reorganization of the brotherhoods of builders on a new basis, from that time forward incomplete. It is to be noted that it is from the end of this epoch that the churches ceased to be oriented in a regular way, a fact of more considerable importance, as regards the present subject, than one may at first think (cf. _The King of the World_, chaps. 8 and 11).

2 FUNCTIONS OF PRIESTHOOD AND ROYALTY

Footnotes