Payload Website Template

TOWARD THE END of an earlier article^[1] we alluded to certain contemporary astronomers who sometimes depart from their own field to indulge in digressions bearing the marks of a philosophy that can without injustice be called entirely sentimental since it is essentially poetic in expression. Now to say sentimentalism is always to say anthropomorphism, of which there are many kinds; and the particular kind in question here manifests itself first as a reaction against the geocentric cosmogony of the revealed, dogmatic religions, and ends in the narrowly systematic concept of scholars who, on the one hand, wish to limit the Universe to the measure of their own present understanding,^[2] and on the other, to beliefs that are at the very least (again by reason of the entirely sentimental character of belief itself) just as singular and irrational as those they claim to replace.^[3] In what follows we shall return to both sets of beliefs, products of the same mentality; but it is well to note that they are sometimes found together, and it is hardly necessary to recall by way of example the famous 'positivist religion' instituted by Auguste Comte toward the end of his life. Let it not be thought however that we bear the least hostility toward the positivists; on the contrary, when they are in fact strict positivists, ^[4] and despite the fact that their positivism inevitably remains incomplete, they hold an entirely different place in our regard than do the modern, doctrinaire philosophers who label themselves monists or dualists, spiritualists or materialists.

But to return to our astronomers, one of those best known to the greater public (it is for this reason alone that we cite him rather than some other with higher scientific credentials) is Camille Flammarion, who, even in those of his works that seem purely astronomical, includes such statements as the following:

If worlds died forever, and if suns, once extinguished, never shone again, it is probable that there would no longer be stars in the sky.

And why?

Because creation is so ancient that its past can be considered eternal.^[5] Since the period of their formation, the innumerable suns of space have had ample time to be extinguished. Relative to the eternity of the past, only new suns shine. The first have been extinguished. The idea of succession is thus imposed on our minds.^[6]

Whatever the private beliefs each of us has acquired in his consciousness regarding the nature of the Universe, it is impossible to grant the former theory of a creation enacted once and for all.^[7] Is not the very idea of God synonymous with the idea of a Creator? As soon as God exists, he creates; if he had only created once, there would no longer be suns in the immensity of space, nor planets drawing round about their light, their heat, their electricity and life. Creation must thus necessarily be perpetual.^[8] And if God did not exist, the antiquity, the eternity, of the Universe would stand out with even greater prominence.^[10]

The author states that the existence of God is 'a question of pure philosophy and not of positive science, which does not prevent him elsewhere from trying to demonstrate,^[11] if not scientifically then at least by scientific arguments, the same existence of God, or, we should rather say, of a god, and what is more, of a god that could scarcely be called luminous^[12] since he has only the aspect of a Demiurge. The author himself states this by affirming that for him 'the idea of God is synonymous with that of a Creator,' and when he speaks of creation he is always concerned with the physical world alone, that is, with the contents of space that the astronomer explores with his telescope.^[13] Incidentally, here are scholars who hold themselves to be atheists simply because this is the only way they can conceive of the Supreme Being, and because they find this conception repugnant to reason (which at least testifies in their favor); but Flammarion is not of their number since he, on the contrary, misses no opportunity to profess his deistic faith. Even in the text at hand, he proceeds shortly after the passage just cited (through considerations taken moreover from an entirely atomist philosophy) to formulate this conclusion: 'Life is universal and eternal.'^[14] He claims to have arrived at this through positive science alone (by means of how many hypotheses!). But it is rather singular that this very conclusion has long been dogmatically asserted and taught by Catholicism as pertaining exclusively to the domain of faith.^[15] If science and faith were in such perfect agreement, was there really need to reproach religion so acrimoniously on account of the few annoyances Galileo had to suffer from the hands of its representatives, for having taught the rotation of the Earth and its revolution around the Sun, opinions contrary to the geocentrism then supported by an exoteric (and erroneous) interpretation of the Bible, but of which the most ardent defenders (for they still exist) are perhaps no longer found among the faithful of the revealed religions?^[16] Seeing Flammarion combine sentimentalism with science under the pretext of 'spiritualism' in this way, we should not be surprised that he soon arrives at an 'animism' which, like that of a Crookes, a Lombroso (at the end of his life), or a Richet (so many examples of the failure of experimental science in the face of a mentality long since formed by the influence of anthropomorphic religion in the West), differs from ordinary spiritism only in form so that 'scientific' appearances might be saved. But what would be even more astonishing—if one did not believe that the idea of an individual, and still further, a 'personal' God, could satisfy all mentalities, or even all sentimentalities—would be to find the very same 'scientific philosophy' on which Flammarion constructs his neo-spiritualism, presented in nearly identical terms in the writings of other scholars, although used on the contrary to justify a materialist conception of the Universe. Of course, we can grant no more legitimacy to the one than to the other, for the spiritism and the 'vitalism' or 'animism' of the one are as foreign to pure metaphysics as are the materialism and 'mechanism' of the other, and the conceptions of the Universe held by both are equally limited, although in different ways,^[17] for they take what in reality is only spatial and temporal indefinitude as infinity and eternity. 'Creation develops in infinity and in eternity,' Flammarion writes, and we know the restricted sense in which he uses the word 'creation'. But let us leave this and proceed without further delay to that which has occasioned the present article.

The March 1911 issue of _L'Acacia_ carries an article by F... M.-I. Nergal on 'La question du Grand Architecte de l'Univers', a question already treated^[18] in the same periodical by the late F... Ch.-M.

indication will certainly suffice to put our readers on guard against ravings of this sort.

Limousin and F... Oswald Wirth. We ourselves said a few words about them over a year ago.^[19]

Now, if Flammarion can be seen as an example of the neo-spiritualist tendencies of certain contemporary scholars, F... Nergal can very well be taken as an example of the materialist tendencies of certain others. Indeed, he himself clearly affirms as much, rejecting all terms that (like 'monist', notably) might give rise to any equivocation; and we know that, in reality, true materialists are very few in number. Again, it is difficult for them always to preserve a strictly logical attitude, for while they believe themselves to be of rigorously scientific minds, their conception of the Universe is merely a philosophical view like any other, and a good number of sentimental elements enter into its construction. Some go so far in the direction of granting (at least in practice) a preponderance to sentimentalism over intellectuality that we can find cases of a veritable materialistic mysticism. Indeed, is not the concept of an absolute morality (or what is called such) an eminently mystical and religious notion when it exercises so strong an influence on the mentality of the materialist that it leads him to admit that, even were there no rational motive for being a materialist, he would remain one all the same solely because it is 'nobler' to 'do good' without any hope of possible recompense? This, assuredly, is one of those 'reasons' that reason does not know, but we believe F... Nergal himself grants too great an importance to moral considerations to deny all value in such an argument.^[20]

Be that as it may, in the article just mentioned, F... Nergal defines the Universe as 'the totality of worlds revolving through the infinites [sic].' Might we not believe we were listening to Flammarion? It was precisely on such an assertion that we took leave of the latter, and if we take note of this before all else, it is simply to make manifest the similarity of certain ideas in men who, by reason of their respective individual tendencies, nonetheless come to diametrically opposed philosophical conceptions.

For us, the question of the Great Architect of the Universe, which is closely linked to the preceding considerations, seems well worth revisiting frequently, and since F... Nergal desires that his article garner response, we shall offer some reflections it has suggested to us, and this, of course, without any dogmatic claims, since such would be foreign to the interpretation of Masonic symbolism.^[21]

We have already said that for us the Great Architect of the Universe constitutes solely an initiatic symbol, to be treated as any other symbol, so that before all else one must seek to form a rational idea of it,^[22] which is to say that this conception can have nothing in common with the God of anthropomorphic religions, the notion of which is not only irrational but is even anti-rational.^[23] However, although we think 'each can attribute to this symbol the significance of his own philosophical [or metaphysical] conception,' we are far from comparing it to an idea as vague and insignificant as Herbert Spencer's 'Unknowable', or in other words to 'that which science cannot attain'; and it is quite certain that, as F... Nergal rightly says, 'although no one contests the existence of the unknown,^[24] absolutely nothing authorizes us to claim as some have done that this unknown represents a mind, a will.' Doubtless, the 'unknown retreats,' and can do so indefinitely; it is therefore limited, which amounts to saying that it constitutes only a fraction of Universality, and consequently such a conception could not correspond to that of the Great Architect of the Universe, which, in order to be truly universal, must imply every particular possibility contained within the harmonious unity of Total Being.^[25] F... Nergal is again right to say that often 'the expression the Great Architect only corresponds to an absolute void, even for those who adhere to it, but it is hardly likely that this was the case for those who created it, for they must have wanted to inscribe on the front of their initiatic edifice something other than an expression devoid of meaning. To rediscover their train of thought, it obviously suffices to ask oneself what the expression signifies in itself, and precisely from this point of view we find it all the more appropriate to the way it is used, since it corresponds admirably to the whole of Masonic symbolism, which it dominates and illumines as the ideal conception presiding over the construction of the Universal Temple.

The Great Architect is, indeed, not the Demiurge, but something greater, even infinitely greater, for it represents a much loftier concept: he draws the ideal plan, ^[26] which is realized in act, that is, manifested in its indefinite (but not infinite) development through the individual beings contained (as particular possibilities, at once the elements and the agents of this manifestation) within its Universal Being; and it is the collectivity of these individual beings envisaged as a whole that in reality constitutes the Demiurge, the artisan or craftsman of the Universe. ^[27] This conception of the Demiurge, which we have already presented in another study, corresponds in the Kabbalah to _Adam Protoplastes_ (first former), ^[28] while the Great Architect is identical to _Adam Qadmon_, or Universal Man. ^[29] This will suffice to mark the profound distinction that exists between the Great Architect of Masonry on the one hand and on the other hand the gods of the various religions, who are only so many aspects of the Demiurge. Moreover, it is incorrect to identify, as does F.. Nergal, the anthropomorphic God of exoteric Christians with Jehovah, or יהוה, the Hierogram of the Great Architect of the Universe himself (the idea of which, despite this nominal designation, remains much more indefinite than the author even suspects), or with Allah, another Tetragram, the hieroglyphic composition of which quite clearly designates the Principle of Universal Construction.^[30] Such symbols are by no means personifications, even less so since it is forbidden to represent them through just any figures.

On the other hand, it follows from what has just been said that the substitution of various formulas for the former expression, 'To the Glory of the Great Architect of the Universe' (or 'of the Sublime Architect of the Worlds' in the Egyptian Rite), is in reality only its replacement with equivalent expressions, such as 'To the Glory of Humanity,' where humanity is understood in its totality as constituting Universal Man;^[31] or again 'To the Glory of Universal Freemasonry,' since Freemasonry, in the universal sense of the term, is identified with integral Humanity seen in the light of the (ideal) accomplishment of the Great Work of Construction.^[32] We could expand much further on this subject, as it lends itself by nature to indefinite development, but in order to conclude practically we shall only remark that atheism in Masonry is and can only be a mask, which no doubt in the Latin countries and particularly in France temporarily had its utility—one could almost say its necessity, and that on account of various reasons we need not investigate here—but today it has become rather dangerous and compromising for the outward prestige and influence of the Order. Nevertheless, this is not to say that one must on that account, in imitation of the pietist influence that still dominates Anglo-Saxon Masonry, demand of the institution a profession of deistic faith, implying a belief in a personal and more or less anthropomorphic God. May such a thought be far from our mind; what is more, if such a declaration were ever demanded in any initiatic Fraternity, we would certainly be the first to refuse to subscribe to it. But the symbolic formula of recognition of the G.'. A.'. of the U.'. contains nothing of the sort; it is sufficient, all the while allowing everyone perfect freedom of personal convictions (a character it shares moreover with the Islamic formula of Monotheism)^[33], and from the strictly Masonic point of view one cannot reasonably ask for anything more or anything other than this simple affirmation of Universal Being, which so harmoniously crowns the edifice of the Order's ritual symbolism.

numeric equation well known in the Muslim Kabbalah. According to the Koran itself, Allah 'commanded the angels to worship Adam, and they worshipped him; the proud Iblis refused to obey, and [this is why] he was numbered with the infidels' (11:32). Another question, connected to the former, and one that holds interest both from the ritual and historical point of view, would be to determine the significance and original value of the symbol of the G.'. A.'. of the U.'. researching whether regularity dictates that one say: 'To the Glory of the G.'. A.'. of the U.'.', following the prevalent usage within French Masonry, or instead, in accordance with the English formula, 'In the Name of the G.'. A.'. of the U.'.' (I.T.N.O.T.G. A.O.T.U.).

Footnotes

[1]See 'Le Symbolisme de la Croix, La Gnose, 2nd year, no. 6, p166. - Here is the passage in question: 'If it is impossible for us to accept the narrow point of view of geocentrism, we nevertheless cannot approve of the sort of scientific lyricism, or what could be called such, that seems especially dear to certain astronomers, who never tire of speaking of "infinite space" and "eternal time”, which are pure absurdities; here again we can only see, as we shall show elsewhere, another aspect of the tendency towards anthropomorphism.'

[2]'Man is the measure of all things,' a Greek philosopher has said; but it is quite evident that this must not be understood of contingent, individual man, but of Universal Man,

[3]In keeping with notions suggested directly by astronomy, let us cite as an example the strange theory of the migration of the individual being through various planetary systems, an error completely analogous to that of reincarnation (on which see La Gnose, 2nd year, no. 3, p94, n1: 'A limitation of universal Possibility is

[4]But the positivist, if he wants to be logically consistent, can of course never adopt an attitude of negation, whatever form it might take; in other words, he cannot be systematic, since negation implies limitation, and _vice versa_.

[5]The notion of a so-called temporal eternity composed of successive periods of duration and seemingly divided into two halves, the one past and the other future, is a singular one; in reality, it is only a matter of the indefinitude of duration, to which human immortality corresponds. We shall later have occasion to return to this idea of a divisible pseudo-eternity and to the conclusions some contemporary philosophers have wished to draw from it.

[6]It is almost superfluous to draw attention to the many pure hypotheses crowded into these few lines.

[7]In the name of what principle, one might ask, is this impossibility proclaimed, when it is a question of belief (the word he uses), that is, something that relates solely to individual conscience?

[8]From this sentence it clearly follows that for the author God has a beginning and is subject to time as well as to space.

[9]But perpetual, which implies only indefinite duration, is by no means synonymous with eternal; and antiquity, be it ever so great, has no relation to eternity.

[10]Astronomie populaire, pp380-381.

[11]Dieu dans la Nature, or 'Le Spiritualisme et le Materialisme devant la Science moderne'.

[12]We know that the word for God [French, Dieu] is derived from the Sanskrit _Deva_, which means 'luminous'. Here it is of course a question of spiritual light and not of the physical light that is only its symbol.

[13]Indeed, modern science only admits, at least in principle, that which can be subjected to examination by one or more of the five bodily senses; from this narrowly specialized point of view the rest of the Universe is considered purely and simply non-existent.

[14]_Astronomie populaire_, p387.

[15]We shall return to this question of 'eternal life,' but here can observe that this so-called eternalization of a contingent, individual existence is but the consequence of a confusion between eternity and immortality. Moreover, in a certain measure this error may be excused more easily than that committed by spiritists and other psychics who believe immortality can be demonstrated 'scientifically,' which is to say experimentally, although experience obviously can prove nothing more nor better than the survival of some elements of individuality after the death of the corporeal, physical element. We should add that from the point of view of positive science even this simple survival of material elements is still far from firmly established, despite the claims of various schools of neo-spiritualists.

[16]We are alluding here in particular to certain occultist groups, whose theories are moreover not serious enough to merit the briefest presentation; this simple

[17]Curious remarks could be made regarding the various limitations of the Universe as conceived of by modern scholars and philosophers; it is a question that we shall perhaps one day address.

[18]In 1908.

[19]See the chap. 6, 'Masonic Orthodoxy'.

[20]In the same article in question here, F... Nergal speaks of 'the ideal of beauty and of sentiment, which have in view the sincerity of strong and profound convictions founded upon the methods and disciplines of science,' a sincerity he opposes to that of 'the spiritualism of F... G..., the natural fruit of his literary education.'

[21]See chap. 6, 'Masonic Orthodoxy' (quotation from the _Rituel interpretatif pour le Grade d'Apprenti_).

[22]Ibid.

[23]What we say here of anthropomorphism applies equally to sentimentalism in general and to mysticism in all its forms.

[24]This, of course, in relation to human individualities considered in their current state; but 'unknown' does not necessarily mean 'unknowable': nothing is unknowable when everything is envisaged from the point of view of Universality.

[25]As we have pointed out on several occasions, it must not be forgotten that the material possibility is only one of these particular possibilities, and that there [^]: exist an indefinite number of others, each equally subject to an indefinite development within its manifestation, that is, in passing from potency to act (see in particular ‘La Symbolisme de la Croix’, 2nd year, nos. 2–6).

[26]‘The Architect is the one who conceives of the building, who directs its construction,’ F... Nergal himself says, and on this point too we are in perfect agreement; but if it can be said in this sense that he truly is the ‘author of the work,’ it is nevertheless evident that he is not materially (or, in a more general sense, formally) its ‘creator’, since the architect who draws the plan must not be confused with the craftsman who executes it. From another point of view this is precisely the distinction between speculative and operative Masonry.

[27]See ‘Le Demiurge’, _La Gnose_, 1st year, nos. 1–4 [*Miscellanea*, pt. 1, chap.1].

[28]And not ‘first formed’, as the Greek term _Protoplastes_ has sometimes incorrectly been rendered by a translation that is manifestly contrary to its real meaning.

[29]See ‘Le Demiurge’, _La Gnose_, 1st year, no. 2, pp25–27 [*Miscellanea*, pt.1, chap.1].

[30]Indeed, the four Arabic letters that form the name Allah are, respectively, the symbolic equivalents of the ruler, the square, the compasses, and the circle, the latter being replaced by the triangle in the Masonry that makes us of an exclusively rectilinear symbolism.

[31]It goes without saying that each individual will in fact construct for himself a more or less limited notion of integral Humanity in accordance with the current breadth of his intellectual perception (what might be called his 'intellectual horizon'), but for our part we must consider the formula solely in its true and complete sense, detached from all of the contingencies determining individual conceptions.

[32]We should observe that the first precept of the Masonic Code is precisely formulated as follows: 'Honor the G... A... of the U..', and not 'Worship the G... A.'. of the U..', in order to avoid even the slightest appearance of idolatry. Such would indeed only be an appearance, since, as the considerations we have set forth here prove, the formula implying worship would be sufficiently justified by the doctrine of the 'Supreme Identity, which, seen in this light, can be expressed in a (literal)

[33]'Theism' must not be confused with 'deism, for the Greek Θεος carries with it a much more universal significance than the God of modern exoteric religions; we shall moreover have occasion to return to this point later.

2 THE GREAT ARCHITECT OF THE UNIVERSE

Footnotes