Initiatic Knowledge and Profane 'Culture'

Connaissance initiatique et « culture » profane, June 1933.

We have pointed out in passing in our previous articles, that we must be wary of any confusion between the doctrinal knowledge of the initiatic order, even while it is only theoretical and simply preparatory for 'reali- zation,' and all that is external instruction or profane knowledge, which is unrelated to this knowledge. Some reflections that have been transmit- ted to us from various sides have come to show us the need to insist more specifically on this point: we must put an end to the prejudice that is commonly called 'culture,' in the profound and 'worldly' sense, has any value, if only as a preparation vis-à-vis the initiatic knowledge, when it has and cannot have any real point of contact.

In principle, this is, quite simply, a lack of rapport: profane instruc- tion, to whatever degree it is contemplated, can serve no purpose in ini- tiatie knowledge, and it is not compatible with it either; it appears only from this point of view as an indifferent thing, in the same way as the skill acquired in a manual trade or the 'physical culture' which is so fash- ionable nowadays. At its core, all this is of the same order for those who take the point of view which we take; it is dangerous to allow oneself to be misled by the pretended 'intellectuality' which has nothing to do with pure and true intellectuality; the constant abuse of the word 'intellectual' by our contemporaries is enough to prove that this danger is all too real. It often results, among other consequences, in a tendency to want to unite, or rather, to mix together things that are of a totally different or- der, we have had many occasions to point out the futility of all attempts to establish any link or comparison between modern and profane sci- ences and traditional knowledge. Some even go so far as to claim to find in the former ‘confirmations' of the second, as if that which rests on im- mutable principles could derive the slightest benefit from an accidental and external conformity with some of the hypothetical and ever-chang- ing results of this uncertain and tentative search that the modern ones are pleased to decorate with the name of 'science!'

But it is not on this aspect of the question that we must insist upon, or even on the danger that there may be when we give undue importance to this inferior knowledge, but to devote all activity to the detriment of a superior knowledge, whose very possibility will thus be totally unknown or ignored. We know all too well that this case is the majority with our contemporaries; for these, the question of a relationship with initiatic or traditional knowledge no longer arises, since they do not even suspect the existence of such knowledge. But even without going so far, profane instruction can very often form, if not in principle, an obstacle to the acquisition of true knowledge, which is to say the very opposite of effec- tive preparation, we will explain the various reasons for this now in a little more detail. Firstly, profane education imposes certain mental habits that can be difficult to discard afterwards; it is all too easy to see that the limitations and even the distortions which are the usual consequence of university education are often irremediable, and to escape entirely from this unfor- tunate influence, special arrangements must be made which can only be exceptional. We speak here in a very general way and we will not dwell upon such particular inconveniences, as the narrow views which inevi- tably result from 'specialization;' what is essential to observe is that, if profane knowledge in itself is simply indifferent, as we have said, the methods by which it is inculcated are the very negation of those which open the door to initiatic knowledge. Next, it is necessary to take into account an obstacle which is far from negligible, this kind of infatuation which is frequently caused by an al- leged knowledge and which is even, in many people, all the more accen- tuated as this knowledge is more elementary, inferior, and incomplete; besides, even without leaving the profane point of view and the contin- gencies of 'ordinary life,' the misdeeds of primary education in this re- spect are easily recognized by all those who are not blinded by certain preconceived ideas. It is evident that of two ignorant people, he who re- alizes that he knows nothing is in a disposition much more favorable to the acquisition of knowledge than he who thinks he knows anything; the natural possibilities of the former are intact, while those of the latter are 'inhibited' and can no longer freely develop. In any case, even admitting the same goodwill in the two individuals considered, it would still remain that one of them would first have to rid his 'mind' of the misconceptions that it is encumbered with, while the other is at least exempt from this preliminary and negative work, which represents one of the meanings of what the Masonic initiation symbolically designates as the ‘stripping of metals.' This can easily be explained by the fact that we have frequently had occasion to observe the alleged 'cultured' people. We know what is com- monly understood by this word. On another level, this 'culture' generally produces effects quite similar to those we recalled earlier with regards to primary education; there are certainly exceptions, for it may happen that the person who has received such a 'culture' is endowed with happy nat-ural dispositions in order to appreciate it only to its true value and not to be deceived by it, but we are not exaggerating in saying that, apart from these exceptions, the great majority of ‘cultured' people must be counted among those whose mental state is most unfavorable to the reception of true knowledge. There is in them, vis-à-vis the latter, a kind of resistance which is often unconscious, sometimes deliberate; even those who do not formally deny, originating in a bias 'a priori,' all that is esoteric or initi-atic, at least in this respect, they testify to a lack of complete interest, and they may even be affected to display their ignorance of these things, as if they were in their own eyes a mark of the superiority conferred on them by their 'culture!' Let it not be thought that there is on our part the least caricatural intention; we are only saying exactly what we have seen in many circumstances, not only in the West, but also in the East, indeed this type of 'cultured' man is of little importance, having made no ap-pearance only as the product of a certain education that is more or less 'Westernized.' The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the people of this type are simply the least ‘initiable' laymen, and it would be per-fectly unreasonable to take any account of their opinion if only to try to adapt the presentation of certain ideas; moreover, it should be added that the concern for 'public opinion' in general is an attitude as 'anti-initiatic' as is possible. We must also at this point specify another point which is closely re-lated to these considerations: that all knowledge that is exclusively 'bookish' has nothing in common with initiatic knowledge, even consid-ered as its merely theoretical stage. This may appear obvious after what we have just said, for all that is bookish study is incontestably part of the most external education; if we insist on this, it is possible that we could be mistaken in the case where this study concerns books whose concerns are of the initiatic order. Whoever reads such books in the same manner as 'cultured' people, or even the one who studies them in the same man-ner as the 'scholars' and according to profane methods, will for this rea-son not be any closed to true knowledge, because he introduces provi-sions which do not allow him to neither penetrate the real meaning of it or be assimilated with it in any degree; the example of the Orientalists, with their total misunderstanding is a striking illustration of this. The opposite is true of the one who takes these same books as 'supports' for his inner work, which is the role to which they are essentially destined, knows how to see beyond words and finds in them an opportunity and a point of support for the development of his own possibilities. It can be easily understood that this has nothing in common with bookish study, although the books are the point of departure; the fact of piling up in one's memory verbal notions does not even conjure up the shadow of real knowledge; only the penetration of the mind enveloped in the exter- nal forms counts, which implies that the being carries within itself cor- responding possibilities, since all knowledge is identification. Without this inherent 'qualification' in the very nature of this being, the highest expressions of initiatic knowledge, to the extent that is possible, and the Sacred Scriptures themselves, will never be anything but a 'dead letter.'

'Fedeli d'Amore' and ‘Corte d'Amore' « Fidèles d'Amour » et « Cours d'Amour », July 1933. The research on the 'Fedeli d'Amore,' which we have had occasion to speak of here, continue to give rise to interesting works in Italy: Mr. Al- fonso Ricolfi, who had already published various articles on the subject, has just published a study that others must follow where he affirms his intention to resume the yet unfinished work of Luigi Valli.^[324] Perhaps he does so, however if he does it is with some timidity, because he thinks that Mr. Valli has 'exagerrated' on certain points, notably by refusing a real existence to all the women sung of by the powers attached to the 'Fedeli d'Amore,' which is opposed to the most commonly accepted opin- ion; to tell the truth, this question is undoubtedly less important than he seems to believe, at least when one places oneself outside of the point of view of mere historical curiosity, which in no way affects the true inter- pretation. There is nothing impossible for some who, through a feminine name for divine wisdom, have adopted the names of people who have actually lived in a purely symbolic manner, and even then there can be two reasons for this: firstly, as we have said again and again, anything can be the occasion and the starting point of a spiritual development de- pending on the nature of the individual, this can also be true of an earthly love as well as of any other circumstance (especially, since it must not be forgotten that what we are dealing with here may in fact be characterized as a way of the Kshatriyas); secondly, the true meaning of the designation thus employed was all the more difficult for the profane, who naturally adhered to the letter, and this advantage, although contingent, was per- haps not always entirely negligible. This note leads us to consider another point which has rather close links with this one: Mr. Ricolfi considers that we must distinguish be- tween the ‘Corte d'Amore' and the ‘Corte d'amore;' this distinction is not, as one may think at first glance, a mere subtlety. Indeed, we must understand by 'Corte d'Amore' a symbolic assembly presided over by Love itself personified, while a 'Corte d'amore' is only a human meeting, constituting a kind of court called to pronounce on more or less complex cases; that these cases have been real or supposed, or in other words, whether it was an effective jurisdiction or a mere game (and it may have actually been both), regardless of the point of view that we stand. The 'Corte d'amore,' if they really only dealt with questions concerning pro-fane love, were not the assembles of the true 'Fedeli d'Amore' (unless they had taken some external appearances to better hide); but they may have been an imitation and a parody, born of the incomprehension of the uninitiated, just as there were unquestionably, at the same time, profane poets who, celebrating real women in their verses, placed no importance on anything but the literal meaning. In the same way, aside from the real alchemists, there were the ‘blowers;' here too, we must be aware of any confusion between them, it is not always easy without a thorough exam-ination, since, externally, their language may be the same; this confusion, in this case as well as in the other, may have sometimes served to confuse indiscreet inquiries. But what would be inadmissible is to attribute a kind of priority or anteriority to what is only a counterfeit and degeneration; Mr. Ricolfi seems inclined to admit all too easily that the profound meaning may have been added to something which, at its origins, would have had noth-ing other than a profane character. In this regard, we will be content with recalling what we have said quite often regarding the initiatic origin of all science and art, whose purely traditional character could later be lost only be an effective misunderstanding of which we spoke earlier; more-over, to suppose the opposite, is to admit an influence of the profane world on the initiatic world, which is to say a reversal of the real hierar-chical relations which are inherent in the very nature of things. What may be an illusion in the present case is that the profane imitation must have always been more visible than the true organization of the 'Fedeli d'Amore,' an organization which we should be careful not to conceive of in the manner of a 'society,' as we have already explained for initiatic organizations in general: if it may seem exclusive to the ordinary histo-rian, this is proof, not of its non-existence, but of its very serious and profound character.^[325] One of the primary merits of Mr. Ricolfi's work is to bring new indi-cations as to the existence of the 'Fedeli d'Amore' in northern Frnce; the little-known poem of Jacques de Baisieux on the Fiefs d'Amour (identified with the 'celestial fiefs' as opposed to the 'terrestrial fiefs'), on which it extends at some length is particularly significant in this regard. The traces of such an organization are certainly much rarer in this region than in Languedoc and Provence;^[326] however, it must not be forgotten that there was a little later the Roman de la Rose, moreover there were close links with the 'Chivalry of the Grail' (to which Jacques de Baisieux himself makes explicit allusions) are suggested by the fact that Chrétien de Troyes translated Ovid's Ars Amatoria, which could also have some meaning other than the literal meaning (and this would be no astonish- ment on the part of the author of the Metamorphoses). Assuredly, all is far from being said about the organization of the 'knights errants,' whose very idea is related to that of the initiatic ‘journeys;' for the moment we can only recall all that has already been written here on this last subject, and we will only add that the expression ‘savage knights,' as pointed out by Mr. Ricolfi, alone deserves a specific study. There are also rather peculiar thinks in the book of André, the chap- lain to the King of France; unfortunately, they have largely escaped Mr. Ricolfi, who relates some things without seeing anything extraordinary. Thus, it says that the palace of Love rises “in the middle of the Universe,” that this palace has four sides and four doors; the gate of the East is re- served for the god, and that of the North always remains closed. But this is remarkable: Solomon's Temple, which symbolizes the 'Center of the World,' also has, according to the Masonic tradition, the form of a quad- rilateral or a 'long square,' and doors open on three of its sides, that of the North alone having no opening; if there is a slight difference (the absence of a door on the one, and the closed door on the other), the sym- bolism is precisely the same, the North here being the dark side, the one that does not illuminate the light of the Sun.^[327] Moreover, Love appears here in the form of a king bearing on his head a crown of gold; is this not how we also see him represented in Scottish Masonry as the 'Prince of Mercy, '^[328] and can we not say that he is then the 'peaceful king,' which is the very meaning of Solomon's name? There is yet another approach that is no less striking: in various poems and fables, the ‘Corte d'Amore' is described as composed entirely of birds, which in turn we see speak, but we have already said what was meant by the 'language of the birds;'^[329] would it be permissible to see only a pure coincidence in the fact that, as we have said then, it is precisely in connection with Solomon that, in the Qur'ān, this 'language of the birds' is expressly mentioned? Let us add nother remark which is not without interest to establish other concordances: the principal roles in this ‘Corte d'Amore' seem to be gen- erally attributed to the nightingale and the parrot; we know the im- portance given to the nightingale in Persian poetry, of which Luigi Valli has already pointed out the points of contact with the ‘Fedeli d'Amore,' but what is perhaps less known is that the parrot is the vahana or sym- bolic vehicle of Kama, which is to say that of the Hindu Eros; is all this not enough to give pause? While we are dealing with birds, is it not also curious that Francesco da Barberino in his Documenti d'Amore, repre- sents Love itself with falcon or sparrow hawk feet, the emblematic bird of the Egyptian Horus, whose symbolism is closely related to that of the 'Heart of the World?'^[330] On the subject of Francesco da Barberni, Mr. Ricolfi returns to the figure of which we have already spoken, ^[331] and where six couples of characters arranged symmetrically and a thirteenth androgynous figure in the center visibly represents seven initiatic degrees; if its interpreta- tion differs somewhat from that of Luigi Valli's, it is only on points of detail which do not change the essential meaning. He also gives the re- production of a second figure, a representation of a 'Corte d'Amore' where the characters are distributed in eleven tiers; this fact does not seem to have particularly attracted his attention, but if one is willing to refer to what we have said elsewhere about the role of the number 11 to Dante, in relation to the symbolism of certain initiatic organizations, ^[332] it would be easily understood how important this is. Moreover, it seems that the author of the Documenti d'Amore has not been a stranger even to the word Merzè, which seems to have been one of the enigmatic designations of their organization.

to certain traditional knowledge of a rather special kind, such as the ex-planation of the meaning of words by the development of their constitu-ent elements; indeed, that one attentively reads this sentence by which it defines one of the twelve virtues to which corresponds the twelve parts of his work (and this number also has its raison d'être: it is a zodiac whose Love is the Sun), and that Mr. Ricolfi quotes without comment: “Docili-tas, data novitiis notitia vitiorum, docet illos ab illorum vilitate ab-stinere;” is this not reminiscent of Plato's Cratylus, for example?^[333] Let us point out again, without departing from Francesco da Bar-berino, a rather curious mistake by Mr. Ricolfi about this androgynous figure, which is clearly Hermetic and is absolutely not 'magical' because these are two quite different things; he even speaks in this respect of 'white magic,' whereas he would like to see 'black magic' in the Rebis of Basil Valentin, because of the dragon which, as we already said,^[334] simply represents the elementary world, which is also placed under the feet of the Rebis, dominated by him, and also, even more amusing due to the square and the compass, for reasons that are all too easy to guess, which undoubtedly raise much more political contingencies than considera-tions of an initiatic order! Finally, to finish, since Mr. Ricolfi seems to have some doubt regarding the esoteric character of the figure where under the appearance of a simple ‘ornate letter,' Francesco da Barberino was represented in adoration before the letter I, let us further specify the meaning of this, which according to Dante was the first name of God: it properly designates the 'Divine Unity' (and this is why this name is first, the unity of the essence necessarily preceding the multiplicity of attrib-utes); indeed, not only is it the equivalent of the Hebrew iod, a hieroglyph of the Principle, and itself the principle of all other letters of the alphabet, and whose numerical value is 10 reduced to unity (this is the unit devel-oped in the quaternary: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10, or the central point producing the circle of universal manifestation through its expansion). Not only does the letter I represent unity in Latin numeration, because of its straight line form, which is the simplest of all geometric forms (the point being 'formless'); yet, in the Chinese language, the word i means 'unity,' and Tai-i is the 'Great Unity,' which is symbolically represented as resid- ing in the polar star, which is yet full of meaning, because in returning to the letter I of the Western alphabets, one realizes that, being a vertical straight line, it is thus apt to symbolize the ‘Axis of the World,' the im- portance of which is well known in all traditional doctrines, ^[335] and so this 'first name of God' also reminds us of the anteriority of 'polar' sym- bolism in relation to 'solar' symbolism.

Naturally, we have above all insisted on the points where the expla- nations of Mr. Ricolfi are most obviously insufficient, because we think that this is what is most beneficial, but it goes without saying that it would be unfair to criticize specialists in ‘literary history,' who have not been prepared to approach the esoteric domain, who lack the necessary data to discern and correctly interpret all the initiatic symbols. On the contrary, we must recognize the merit of daring to go against officially accepted opinions and anti-traditional interpretations imposed by the profane spirit that dominates the modern world, and their gratitude to place at our disposal, by impartially expounding the results of their re- search, documents in which we can find what they themselves have not seen; we can only wish to see other works of the same kind appear again soon, bringing new light to the mysterious and complex question of the initiatic organizations of the Western Middle Ages.

Kabbalah and the Science of Numbers Kabbale et science des nombres, August-September 1933.

We have often insisted that the ‘sacred sciences' of a given traditional form are integral to it, at least as much as subordinate and secondary elements can be, which are far from being mere additions that would have been attached artificially. It is indispensable to understand this point and to never lose sight of it if one wishes to penetrate, no matter what, the true spirit of a tradition; it is all the more necessary to draw attention to this fact, because among those who claim to study traditional doctrines it is found frequently in our times a tendency to disregard the sciences, either because of the special difficulties in their assimilation, or because, besides the impossibility of incorporating them into the frame- work of modern classification, their presence is particularly embarrass- ing for anyone who tries to reduce everything to the exoteric point of view and to interpret doctrines in terms of 'philosophy' or 'mysticism.' Without wishing to dwell further upon the vanity of such studies under- taken 'from the outside' and with all profane intentions, we will never- theless be referring to these again, because we see daily opportunities of the distorted conceptions which inevitably lead to what is worse than pure and simple ignorance.

It sometimes happens that certain traditional sciences play a more important role than the one just mentioned, in addition to their own in- herent value in their contingent order, they are taken as symbolic means of an expression for the higher and essential part of the doctrine, so that it becomes entirely unintelligible if it separated from it. This is particu- larly the case with respect to the Hebrew Kabbalah, for the 'science of numbers,' which is largely identified with the ‘science of letters,' as well as in Islamic esoterism; by virtue of the very constitution of the two He- brew and Arabic languages, which, as we pointed out recently, are so close to each other in all respects.^[336]

The preponderant role of the science of numbers in Kabbalah is so evident than it cannot escape even the most superficial observer, and it is hardly possible for the most prejudiced and biased to deny or conceal this. However, these latter do not fail to, at the least, make false interpre-tations in order to make it best fit within the framework of their precon-ceived ideas; we propose here above all to dispel these deliberate confu-sions, due in no small measure to the abuses of the so-called ‘historical method,' which has every intention of seeing 'borrowing' wherever it sees certain similarities. We know that it is fashionable in academic circles to pretend to con-nect Kabbalah with Neo-Platonism, to diminish both antiquity and scope; is it not admitted, as an indisputable principle, that nothing can come but from the Greeks? Unfortunately, it is forgotten that Neo-Platonism itself contains many elements that are not specifically Greek, and that Judaism in particular had, in the Alexandrian milieu, an importance that was far from negligible, if there was truly borrowing, it might be that they had taken place in the opposite direction of what is claimed. This hypothesis would be even more probable, firstly due to the adoption of a foreign doctrine is hardly reconcilable with the 'particularism' which was always one of the dominant features of the Judaic spirit, and secondly because, Neo-Platonism is considered relatively to be an exoteric doctrine (even if it is based on esoteric data, it is only an 'externalization') and as such, could not exert any real influence on an essentially initiatic tradition, especially one that is ‘closed,' as is and always was Kabbalah.^[337] Moreover, we do not see any particularly striking similarities between it and Neo-Platonism, nor do, in the form in which it is expressed, numbers play the role which is so characteristic of Kabbalah; the Greek language would not have allowed this, while this is, we repeat, something which is inher-ent in the Hebrew language itself, which, consequently, must have been bound from the beginning to the traditional forms expressed by it. Of course, it is not that there is a reason to deny that a traditional science of numbers has also existed among the Greeks; it was the basis of Pythagoreanism, which was not a simple philosophy, but had a properly initiatic character. It is from there that Plato drew not only the cosmological part of his doctrine, as he expounds particularly in the Ti-maeus, but his 'theory of ideas,' which is essentially only a transposition according to a different terminology of Pythagorean conceptions as num-bers envisaged as principles of things. Therefore, if one really wanted to find a term of comparison with Kabbalah among the Greeks, it was Py-thagorism that should be followed back; it is precisely here that the whole futility of the 'borrowing' thesis appears most clearly: we are in-deed in the presence of two initiatic doctrines which likewise give a cru-cial importance to the science of numbers, but this science is presented on both sides in radically different forms. Some considerations here of a more general nature would not be use-less: it is perfectly normal that the same science be found in various tra-ditions, because the truth is that in any field, whatsoever, cannot be the monopoly of a single traditional forms to the exclusion of others; this fact cannot be a matter of astonishment, except with the ‘critics' who do not believe the truth. Only the opposite would be, not only surprising, but rather difficult to conceive. There is nothing here that implies a more or less direction communication between two different traditions, even if one is undeniably older than the other: can we not find a certain truth and express it independently of those who have already expressed it pre-viously, and is it not all the more probable that through this independ-ence the same truth will be expressed in another way? It must be noted that this does not go against the common origin of all traditions, but the transmission of principles, starting from this common origin, does not imply in an explicit way that of all the developments which are implied within it and of all the applications to which they may give rise. Every-thing that is a matter of 'adaptation,' in a word, can be considered as belonging to one or another particular traditional form, and if we find the equivalent elsewhere, it is because of the same principles, one should naturally draw the same consequences, whatever the special way in which way they have been expressed here or there (of course, this is sub-ject to reservation when certain symbolic modes of expression which, being everywhere the same, must be regarded as going back to the Pri-mordial Tradition). The differences of form will, in general, be all the greater as we move further away from the principles by descending to a more contingent order; this is one of the primary difficulties in under-standing some of the traditional sciences. It will be easily understood that almost all interest is removed due to these consideration, in regards to the origins of the traditions or the ori-gins of the elements which they contain, from the 'historic' point of view as it is understood in the profane world, since they perfectly render use-less the supposition of any direct filiation; even where we notice a much loser similarity between two traditional forms, this similarity can be ex-plained less by 'borrowing,' which is very often improbably, than by 'af-finities' due to a certain set of similar or common conditions (race, type of language, way of life, etc.) among the peoples to whom these forms are respectively addressed. ^[338] As for the cases of real filiation, it does not mean that they must be entirely excluded, because it is obvious that all the traditional forms do not proceed directly from the Primordial Tradi-tion, but that other forms have sometimes had to play the role of inter-mediaries, but these latter are, in most cases, those which have entirely disappeared, and these transmissions generally hark back to times far too distant for ordinary history, whose field of investigation is very limited, so that they do not have the slightest knowledge of it, not to mention the means by which intermediaries are carried out are not of those which may be accessible for these research methods. All this is only leading us away from our subject in just appearance: if it cannot be directly derived from the it, even assuming that it is not really anterior to the other, and if only due to a great difference of form on which we will return later more specifically, could we at least consider for both a common origin, which would be, according to the views of some, the tradition of the ancient Egyptians (which, it is needless to say, this time would go well beyond the Alexandrian period)? Let us say im-mediately, this is a theory which has been abused; as far as Judaism is concerned, it is impossible for us, despite certain more or less fanciful assertions, to discover the slightest connection with all that can be known of the Egyptian tradition (we are talking about the form which is alone to be considered in this, since the substance is necessarily identical in all traditions). No doubt it would have more real links with the Chal-dean tradition, whether by derivation or mere affinity, and as far as it is possible to truly grasp something of those traditions which have been extinct for so many centuries. For Pythagorism, the question is perhaps more complex; the travels of Pythagoras, which must be understood literally or symbolically, do not necessarily imply borrowing from the doctrines of this or that people (at least as for the essential, and whatever other points of detail may be in-volved), but rather the establishment or strengthening of certain links with more or less equivalent initiations. Indeed, it seems that Pythago-rism was above all the continuation of something which pre-dated Greece itself, and there is no reason to look elsewhere for its principal source: we wish to speak of the Mysteries, more particularly of Orphism, which was perhaps only a 'rehabilitation,' in the sixth century B.C., which, through a strange synchronism saw changes of form take place in the traditions of almost all peoples. It is often said that the Greek Mys-teries were themselves of an Egyptian origin, but such a general assertion is far too 'simplistic,' and, while this may be true in some cases, such as that of the Eleusinian Mysteries (which we believe especially applies here), there are others where it would not be tenable. ^[339] Thus, whether it is Pythagorism itself or the earlier Orphism, it is not at Eleusis that we must look for the 'point of attachment,' but at Delphi, and the Delphic Apollo is by no means Egyptian, but of a Hyperborean origin that is im-possible to envisage for the Hebraic tradition;^[340] this brings us directly to the most important point with respect to the science of numbers and the different forms it has worn. In Pythagorism, this science of numbers appears closely related to that of geometric forms; and so, it is with Plato, who in this respect is purely Pythagorean. Here we could see the expression of a characteristic feature of the Hellenic mentality, attached above all to the consideration of visual forms; indeed, we know that among the mathematic sciences, it is geometry that the Greeks developed most particularly. ^[341] However, there is something more, at least with regards to 'sacred geometry,' which is what this is about: the 'geometric' God of Pythagoras and Plato, understood in its most precise and, one could say, 'technical' meaning is none other than Apollo. We cannot dwell on this subject for too long for there are developments which would lead us too far astray, and perhaps we will return to this question on another occasion; it is enough for us at present to point out that this fact is clearly opposed to the hypothesis of a common origin of Pythagorism and Kabbalah, and this is the very point we have sought above all to reconcile, and which is, to tell the truth, the only one which could have given the idea of such a comparison, which is to say, the apparent similarity of these two doctrines and the roles played by the science of numbers.In Kabbalah, this same science of numbers is in no way connected with geometric symbolism, and it is easy to understand that this is do, for this symbolism could not be suitable for nomadic peoples, as was originally the case for the Hebrews and the Arabs.^[342] On the contrary, we find here something which does not have its equivalent among the Greeks: the close union, one could even say the identification in many respects, of the science of numbers with that of letters, because of the digital correspondences of these; this is what is eminently characteristic of Kabbalah, ^[343] and which is found nowhere else, at least in this aspect and with this development, if not, as we have already said, in Islamic esoterism, which is to say on the whole in the Arab tradition.It might seem surprising at first glance that considerations of this or-der remained foreign to the Greeks,^[344] since letters have a numerical value for them as well (which is also the same in the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets for those which have their equivalents), and there were never other signs of numeration. However, the explanation of this fact is quite simple: it is that the Greek writing represents in reality only a foreign import (either 'Phoenician' as is most often said, or in any case 'Cad-mean,' which is to say, ‘oriental' without any more precise specification, and the varying names of the letters are proof of this), and which, in its numerical or other symbolism, has never really, if we can express it thus, become one with the language itself.^[345] On the contrary, in languages such as Hebrew and Arabic, the meaning of words is inseparable from literal symbolism, and it would be impossible to give a complete inter- pretation as to their most profound meanings, the one that really matters in the traditional and initiatic point of view (because we must not forget that these are essentially ‘sacred languages'), without taking into account the numerical values of the letters that compose them; the links existing between numerically equivalent words, and the substitutions to which they sometimes give rise, are, in this regard, a particularly clear exam- ple.^[346] There is something which, as we said at the beginning, is essen- tially due to the very formation of these languages, which is related in a strictly 'organic' way, far from having things added from without and afterwards, as in the case of the Greek language; since this element is found in both Hebrew and Arabic, it can legitimately be regarded as pro- ceeding from the common source of these two languages and the two traditions they express, which is to say what may be called the 'Abra- hamic' tradition. We can now draw from these considerations the necessary conclu- sions: that if we consider the science of numbers among the Greeks and the Hebrews, we see it clothed in two very different forms, supported in one by a geometric symbolism, and in the other by a literal symbolism.^[347] As a result, there can be no question of ‘borrowing,' no more on one side than the other, but only equivalences as it necessarily occurs between all the traditional forms; we leave aside entirely any question of 'priority,' without any real interest in these conditions, and perhaps insoluble, the real point of departure being able to be well beyond the periods for which it is possible to establish a timeline that is somewhat rigorous. In addi-tion, the hypothesis of an immediate common origin must also be re-jected, because we see the tradition of which this science is an integral part, on the one hand, to an 'Apollonian' science, which is to say directly hyperborean, and, on the other, an 'Abrahamic' source, which is most likely related to (as the very names of the Hebrews and Arabs suggest) to the traditional stream of the ‘Lost Island of the West.'^[348]