René Guénon
Chapter 4

ROYALTY AND PONTIFICATE

THE title 'King of the World', taken in its highest, most complete, and at the same time most rigorous sense, applies properly to Manu, the primordial and universal legislator, whose name is found in diverse forms among a great many ancient peoples; in this regard, let us recall only Mina, or Menes, of the Egyptians, Menw of the Celts, and Minos of the Greeks.[1] This name moreover does not designate a more or less legendary historical personage, but rather 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; and at the same time it is the archetype of man, considered particularly insofar as he is a thinking being (in Sanskrit, mānava). Moreover, it is important to emphasize that this principle can be manifested through a spiritual center existing in the terrestrial world by an organization charged with preserving intact the deposit of sacred tradition, which is of 'non-human' origin (apaurusheya), through which primordial Wisdom is handed down across the ages to those capable of receiving it. The head of such an organization, representing in a way Manu himself, can legitimately bear his title and attributes; and what is more, the degree of knowledge he must have attained to exercise his function enables him to truly identify himself with the principle of which he is the human expression, as it were, and before which his individuality disappears. Such is indeed the case of Agarttha, if, as Saint-Yves maintains, this center has taken over the heritage of the ancient 'solar dynasty' (Sūrya-vansha), which formerly resided at Ayodhyā,[2] and which traced its origin back to Vaivasvata, the Manu of the present cycle.

Nevertheless, as we have said, Saint-Yves does not in fact envisage the supreme head of Agartha as the 'King of the World', but presents him as 'Sovereign Pontiff', whom moreover he places at the head of a 'Brahmanic church', a designation that proceeds from a rather too Westernized conception.[3] This last reservation apart, what he says in this regard complements what Ossendowski says, both writers having seen only that aspect corresponding to their own tendencies and dominant preoccupations, for in truth it is here a matter of a double power, at once sacerdotal and royal. The 'pontific' character, in the proper sense of this word, belongs most truly and par excellence to the head of the initiatic hierarchy, and this calls for an explanation: Pontifex literally means 'builder of bridges', and by its origin this Roman title is as it were 'masonic'; but symbolically it is that which fulfills the function of mediator, establishing communication between this world and the higher worlds.[4] In this respect, the rainbow or 'celestial bridge' is a natural symbol for the pontificate and all traditions give it perfectly concordant meanings; thus among the Hebrews it is the sign of God's covenant with his people; in China it is the sign of the union of Heaven and Earth; in Greece it represents Iris, 'the messenger of the gods'; and almost everywhere—among the Scandinavians as well as the Persians and Arabs, in Central Africa, and even among certain peoples of North America—it is the bridge that links the sensible world to the suprasensible.Among the Romans, on the other hand, this union of sacerdotal and royal power was represented by a certain aspect of the extremely complex and multivalent symbolism of Janus, whose gold and silver keys represented, in this connection, the two corresponding initiations.[5] In Hindu terms, it is a matter of the ways of the Brahmin and the Kshatriya respectively; but at the summit of the hierarchy there is a common principle from which both draw their respective attributes, and which is therefore beyond these distinctions since this principle is the source of all legitimate authority, in whatever domain it is exercised; and the initiates of Agartha 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 joined in an interesting way. At that time frequent mention was made of a mysterious region called the 'Kingdom of Prester John'.[7] Now this was at a time when what could be called the 'outer covering' of the initiatic center in question was formed in large part by Nestorians (or those who were so called, rightly or wrongly), and by Sabaeans,[8] who referred to themselves as the Mendayyeh de Yahia, that is, 'disciples of John'. In this connection, one is immediately prompted to remark that it is curious that many Eastern organizations, which were rigidly closed communities-from the Ismā'īlīs, or the disciples of the 'Old Man of the Mountain', to the Druses of Lebanon-have without exception taken the same title 'Guardians of the Holy Land' as did the Western Orders of Chivalry; what follows will no doubt clarify just what this means. It seems that Saint-Yves found the right expression, perhaps more so than he himself knew, when he spoke of the 'Templars of Agarttha'. And, lest one be astonished at the expression 'outer covering' that we have just employed, we will add that it must be understood that the chivalric initiation was essentially an initiation of the Kshatriyas; and this explains, among other things, the preponderant role played there by the symbolism of Love.[9]However that may be, the idea of one individual who is both priest and king is not current in the contemporary West, although it is found at the very origins of Christianity, where it is represented in a striking way by the 'Magi-kings'; but already by the Middle Ages, at least to outer appearances, the supreme power had become divided between the papacy and the empire.[10] Such a separation can be considered the mark of an organization that is incomplete at its summit, so to speak, since there we do not find the common principle from which the two powers regularly proceed and on which they depend, the true supreme power having therefore to be sought elsewhere. In the East, on the contrary, the maintenance of such a separation at the very summit of the hierarchy is rather exceptional, and it is only in certain Buddhist conceptions that one encounters something of the kind. Here we allude to the incompatibility affirmed between the function of Buddha and that of Chakravarti, or the 'Universal Monarch',[11] between which, it is said, Shākyamuni had to choose at a certain point.It is worth adding also that the term Chakravartī, far from being particularly Buddhist, applies very well to the function of Manu or of his representatives, following the Hindu tradition; literally, it means 'he who makes the wheel turn', which is to say he who, placed at the center of all things, directs their movement without himself participating therein, or, according to Aristotle's expression, he who is the 'unmoved mover'.[12]We particularly wish to emphasize that, since the world rotates around it, the center in question is the fixed point that all traditions refer to symbolically as the 'Pole', generally represented by a wheel among the Celts and Chaldeans as well as the Hindus.[13] Such is the true significance of the swastika, a symbol found everywhere, from the Far East to the Far West, and which is essentially the 'sign of the Pole';[14] and this is no doubt the first time in modern Europe that its real meaning is being made known. Indeed, contemporary scholars have employed all manner of fantastic theories in their vain efforts to explain this symbol, the majority of them, obsessed by a sort of fixed idea, having been intent on seeing here, as almost everywhere else, an exclusively 'solar' symbol, whereas, if it has occasionally become such, this could only have been by accident, as a result of some distortion.[15] Others have come nearer the truth when they see in the swastika a symbol of movement, although this interpretation, without being false, is quite insufficient, for it is not a question of just any kind of movement, but of rotational movement around a center or immutable axis; and it is this fixed point, we repeat, that constitutes the essential element to which the symbol in question is directly related.[16]From what we have just said, it is already clear that the 'King of the World' must have a function that is essentially organizational and regulatory (it being not without reason, let us add, that this latter word possesses the same root as rex and regere), a function that can be summed up in words such as 'equilibrium' or 'harmony', which is rendered precisely by the Sanskrit term Dharma,[17] by which we understand the reflection in the manifested world of the immutability of the supreme Principle. And in the same way, it is understandable why the fundamental attributes of the 'King of the World' are 'Justice' and 'Peace', which are only the special forms of this equilibrium and harmony in the 'world of man' (mānavaloka).[18] Here again is a point of the greatest importance, which we note not only because of its general significance, but for the benefit of those who allow themselves to succumb to certain chimerical fears, of which Ossendowski's book itself contains a sort of echo in its closing lines. In India there is a term peculiar to the Jains that is the strict equivalent of the Latin pontifex: it is the word Tirthankara, literally ‘he who makes a ford or crossing', the crossing in question being the way of Deliverance (Moksha). The Tirthankaras number twenty-four, as do the ancients of the Apocalypse, who moreover also constitute a pontifical college.

Nestorians, whose connections with Lamaism seem incontestable, had an important though enigmatic influence on the beginnings of Islam. The Sabaeans for their part exerted a great influence on the Arab world at the time of the Caliphs of Baghdad; and it is also said that it was among them that the last of the Neoplatonists found refuge after their sojourn in Persia.

Footnotes

[1]This footnote is not present in the provided OCR text, but the marker is in the main text. Assuming it's an OCR error or missing content.
[2]This footnote is not present in the provided OCR text, but the marker is in the main text. Assuming it's an OCR error or missing content.
[1]Among the Greeks, Minos was at the same time both legislator of the living and judge of the dead; in the Hindu tradition these two functions belong respectively to Manu and Yama, who are moreover represented as twin brothers, which indicates the splitting into two of a single principle envisaged under two different aspects.
[2]Envisaged symbolically, this seat of the ‘solar dynasty' can be likened to the 'Solar Citadel' of the Rosicrucians, and doubtless also to Campanella's 'City of the Sun'.
[3]This expression ‘Brahmanic church' has as a matter of fact never been used in India, except by the heterodox and entirely modern sect of the Brahma-Samāj, which arose at the beginning of the nineteenth century under European, and particularly Protestant, influences, soon to be splintered into a multitude of rival branches, which today have almost completely disappeared. It is curious to note that one of the founders of this sect was the grandfather of the poet Rabindranath Tagore.
[4]Saint Bernard said that 'the pontiff, as indicated by the etymology of this name, is a sort of bridge between God and man' (Tractatus de Moribus et Officio Episcoporum, III,9).
[5]From another point of view these keys are respectively those of the 'greater mysteries' and the 'lesser mysteries'. In certain representations of Janus, the two powers are also symbolized by a key and a scepter.
[6]It is to be noted in this connection that the social organization of the Western Middle Ages seems to have been modeled in principle on the institution of castes: the clergy corresponded to the Brahmins, the nobility to the Kshatriyas, the third estate to the Vaishyas, and the serfs to the Shūdras.
[7]The matter of Prester John arises particularly around the time of Saint Louis, in connection with the travels of Carpin and de Rubruquis. What complicates matters is that, according to certain accounts, there were as many as four personages who bore this title: in Tibet (or in the Pamir), in Mongolia, in India, and in Ethiopia (this last word having in any case a very vague meaning); but it is likely a matter of different representatives of the same power. It is also said that Genghis Khan wanted to attack the kingdom of Prester John, but that the latter repulsed him by unleashing thunderbolts against his armies. And finally, since the time of the Muslim invasions Prester John seems no longer to have manifested himself, though he is perhaps outwardly represented by the Dalai Lama.
[8]In Central Asia, and particularly in the region of Turkestan, Nestorian crosses have been found that are identical in form to the crosses of chivalry, some of which moreover bear at their center the figure of the swastika. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that the
[9]We have already called attention to this in our study The Esoterism of Dante.
[10]In ancient Rome, on the contrary, the emperor was also Pontifex Maximus. The Islamic theory of the Caliphate also unites the two powers, at least to a certain extent, as does the Far-Eastern notion of the Wang (see The Great Triad, chap. 17).
[11]We have noted elsewhere the analogy between the conception of the Chakravartī and Dante's idea of the Empire; his treatise De Monarchia should be mentioned in this connection.
[12]In a quite comparable sense Chinese tradition uses the expression 'Invariable Middle'; and it should be noted also that according to Masonic symbolism the Masters gather in the 'Middle Room'.
[13]The Celtic symbol of the wheel was retained in the Middle Ages. Numerous examples of it are to be found in Romanesque churches, and the rose-window found in Gothic architecture seems to have derived from it, for there is a certain relationship between the wheel and the emblematic flowers, such as the rose in the West and the lotus in the East.
[14]This same sign was not unknown to Christian Hermeticism. In the ancient Carmelite monastery in Loudun we have seen some very curious symbols, most likely dating from the second half of the fifteenth century, in which the swastika, together with the sign (which we shall discuss later), occupies one of the most important positions. And it is noteworthy that the Carmelites, who came from the East, link the founding of their order to Elias and to Pythagoras (just as the Masons for their part link their origins to both Solomon and Pythagoras, which constitutes a rather remarkable parallel), and that elsewhere some people even claim that in the Middle Ages they had an initiation very close to that of the Templars and also to that of the monks of the Order of Mercy; it is known that this latter Order gave its name to a certain grade of Scottish Masonry, about which we have written at some length in The Esoterism of Dante.
[15]The same remark applies notably to the wheel, the true significance of which has just been indicated.
[16]We will only cite, for the record, the even more fanciful opinion that makes of the swastika a diagram of a primitive instrument intended for the production of fire; if this symbol does sometimes have a certain connection with fire (being in particular an emblem of Agni), this is for quite other reasons.
[17]The root dhri expresses essentially the idea of stability; the form dhru, which has the same meaning, is the root of Dhruva, the Sanskrit name for the Pole, which some connect with the Greek name for the oak, drus; in Latin, moreover, the same word robur signifies the oak as well as strength or firmness. Among the Druids (whose name should perhaps be read dru-vid, uniting strength and wisdom), and also at Dodona, the oak represented the ‘World Tree', symbol of the fixed axis that joins the poles.
[18]Recall here the biblical texts in which Justice and Peace are closely joined: Justitiae et Pax osculatae sunt (Ps. 84:11), Pax opus Justiti, etc.
PreviousCh. 3: Western Ideas About Agarttha
NextCh. 5: SHEKINAH AND METATRON