Initiatic Organizations and Religious Sects

Organisations initiatiques et sectes religieuses, June 1932.

We have recently point out here, in reference to the final book of Mr. Luigi Valli, how improper it is to apply the term 'sects' to initiatic organ- izations; the study done by our collaborator P. Genty on the Albigensi- ans, published at the same time, has incited us to make some more re- flections on this subject and we think that it is not untimely to return to this. Indeed, this is something more than a simple choice of words; this expression 'sects,' in such a case, is not only to be rejected because it is unpleasant, but because it appears to be the result of adversaries, alt- hough some, such as Mr. Valli for example, have been able to use it with- out particularly ill intent, by imitation or habit, as there are some who call 'paganism' the doctrines of antiquity without even suspecting that this is only an insulting term and of a polemical basis. In reality, there is a serious confusion between things of entirely different orders, and this confusion, in those who create or maintain it, does not seem to be always purely involuntary; this can be primarily attributed in the Christian world, and sometimes even in the Islamic world, to the enemies or nega- tors of esoterism, who wish, by a false assimilation, to attribute some- thing of the disrepute of 'sects,' which is to say in other words, ‘heresies,' understood in the specifically religious sense.

By the very fact that it is about esoterism and initiation, it is not a question of religion, but of pure knowledge and 'sacred science,' which, to have this sacred character (which is not monopolized by religion, as some wrongly seem to believe), is no less essentially scientific, although in a sense significantly different from that given to the word by the mod- ern ones who know only of 'profane science,' devoid of any value from the traditional point of view and which proceeds from a more or less alteration of the very idea of science. Without a doubt, this is what makes the confusion in question possible, this esoterism has more connection, and in a more direct way, with religion than with anything else external; it can even in some cases take its base and fulcrum in a definite religious form, but it does not relate less to a whole other area than this one, with which, consequently, it cannot enter into opposition or competition. Moreover, this still results from the fact that this, by definition, is an or- der of knowledge reserved for an elite, whereas, by definition, religions address all indistinctly; initiation, in the true sense of the word, involving particular qualifications, cannot be religious. Moreover, without even ex- amining the essence of things, the supposition that an initiatic organiza- tion could compete with a religious organization is truly absurd, because, by the very fact of its closed recruitment it would be too much at a dis- advantage in this respect; but this is neither its role nor its purpose.

We will then remark that whoever says 'sect' necessarily is saying, by the very etymology of the word, scission or division; effectively, 'sects' are divisions engendered within a religion, by a more or less pro- found divergences between its members. Thus, sects are necessarily of multiplicity, ^[263] their existence implies a departure from the principle, whose esoterism is, on the contrary and by its very nature, closer than the exoteric religion, ever devoid of any deviation. In fact, it is through esoterism that all the traditional doctrines are united, beyond the neces- sary differences and their external forms; from this point of view, not only are initiatic organization are not ‘sects, but they are the exact op- posites.

Further, 'sects,' schisms, or heresies always appear as deriving from a given religion, in which they originate and of which they are, so to speak, irregular branches. On the contrary, esoterism can in no way be derived from religion; even when it is taken as a medium, as a means of expres- sion and realization, it is linked to its principle, and it represents, in rela- tion to it, the Tradition prior to all particular religious forms. The interior cannot be produced from the exterior, neither the center from the cir- cumference, nor the superior from the inferior, nor the spirit from the body; the influences which preside over traditional organizations always descend and never ascend, nor does a river return to its source. To pre- tend that initiation could be derived from religion, let alone a 'sect,' is to overthrow all the normal relations which result from the very nature of things;^[264] so that, when a religion has lost all points of contact with eso- terism, there remains only a 'dead letter' and a misunderstood formalism, because what vivified it was the effective communication with the Spir-itual Center of the world, and this can only be established and maintained by esoterism and a genuine and regular initiatic organization. To explain how the confusion that we are currently trying to dissipate may have appeared with enough of a semblance of reason so that it makes itself accepted by those who only consider things from the exte-rior, it must be said: it seems that in such cases, religious 'sects' may have arisen because of the thoughtless dissemination of fragments of esoteric doctrine which would be more or less misunderstood; but esoterism in itself cannot be held responsible for this kind of vulgarization, or 'profa-nation' in the etymological sense of the word, which is contrary to its very essence, and which has never been able to cost its doctrinal purity. In order for such a thing to happen, it was necessary for those who re-ceived such teachings to understand them badly enough, for a lack of preparation or perhaps of qualification, to attribute to them a religious character which completely distorted to them; and does not the error al-ways originate from a misunderstanding or distortion of the truth? This was probably the case with the Albigenses; but if they were 'heretics,' Dante and the 'Fedeli d'Amore,' who stood upon strictly initiatic ground, were not; and this example will further aid to make clear the crucial dif-ference between 'sects' and initiatic organizations. Let us add, while cer-tain 'sects' may have arisen from a deviation of initiatic teachings, this presupposes, of course, its pre-existence and its independence with re-gards to the 'sects' in question; historically, as well as logically, the con-trary opinion seems unsustainable. One question remains to be examined: how and why could such de-viations occur at times? This would risk taking us very far astray, be-cause it goes without saying that, in order to answer this completely, we should examine each particular case closely. What can be said in a gen-eral manner is that, firstly and from the most external point of view, it seems almost impossible to completely prevent any divulgations by tak-ing precautions; and if these divulgations are in any case partial or frag-mentary (because they can only relate to what is relatively most accessi-ble), the distortions that ensue are all the more accentuated. According to another more profound point of view, one might perhaps say that such things must take place in certain circumstances as a means of acton re-garding the course of events; 'sects' also have their role to play in the history of humanity, even if it is of an inferior role, and any apparent disorder is in fact only one element of the total order of the world; and is it not Saint Augustine who said: “Opportet haereses esse?" The quarrels of the exterior world lose much of their importance when we consider them from a point where the oppositions which arouse them are reconciled; but precisely for this reason it would not be the role of the initiatic organizations to mingle in these quarrels, while, on the contrary, 'sects' are inevitably involved in it, and this perhaps is what forms their raison d'être.

We will simply submit these reflections to people of good faith, so that they know what to say regarding a confusion which is too often concerned; as for others, we do not pretend, whatever we say, will cause them to change their attitude or language, but, after having restored the truth to the extent of our means, we have the right to neglect and ignore them. As far as the religious opponents of esoterism are concerned, besides claiming to question an issue which is in no way within their competence, since it is essentially 'extra-religious,' they answer without doubting their own condemnation, thereby showing their inability to pierce the peel of their tradition form and to penetrate into the core that is wrapped within; because the peel hides the core within, they claim that it does not exist. A blind man can just as well, and with as much reason, deny the existence of light, and it is probably impossible to convince him of it; but does this prevent the light from existing and does it prevent those who enjoy all their faculties from perceiving it? He who sees the light has no need to discuss his existence with the blind, and all philosophical quibbles that they can invent will be null and void for him; the reasoning of the 'profane,' with regards to things of the initiatic order, are just as valuable and important as this, and we do not see why we should be concerned with it.