24 mai 2008

James Larking, Native Americans and Sacrifice, (full text)

Where a people's vision speaks of life, sacrificial means for recurrent renewal of all life, and suffering for the identity with the source of life, such vision can neither be destroyed, denied or ignored.

Native Americans practised sacrifice in many forms, from the simple giving of oneself, spiritually, in the Lakota Vision Quest, to the elaborate rituals of the Incas and Aztecs. As a sacred path, the sacrifice has always existed among the tribes of the Americas. These traditions required of their adherents both sacrifice and death; the two aspects are intricately intertwined. The foremost theme of sacrifice and death is the giving up of yourself, whether in an inward or outward sense.

All these holy peoples and holy things are now hearing what I say! O Wakan-Tanka, I shall offer up my body and soul that my people may live!

The outward sacrifice is the ritual performed, the surrender of earthly goods or of life itself, for the renewal of that life, for all things are interconnected.
We should understand well that all things are the work of the Great Spirit. We should know that He is within all things: the trees, the grasses, the rivers, the mountains, and all the four legged animals, and the winged peoples.

The inward sacrifice is the capitulation of the ego, the death of the lower self, to attain the higher. Rather than loss, as it would first appear to be, the sacrificant gains all; unity with the Creator. That which is ephemeral is abandoned and the imperishable is all that remains. Sacrifice and death, then, are positive affirmations of the truth of existence; that we must lose in order to gain.

American Indian belief is that this life is a gift from the gods and a sacrificial attitude acknowledges this gift, returning thanks from deep within ourselves. This path is the only way to a wholesome existence for the Native American. With this inner pathway and the outward ritual comes access to the Divine storehouse, without this, the door is closed. It is believed by the Lakota that if the affirmation of sacrifice is not made then the, "Every energy of the world will run out." The sacrificial rites of the Sweat Lodge, the Sun Dance and the Crying for a Vision are all a giving of oneself to renew creation.

O Grandfather Wakan-Tanka, bend down and look upon me as I raise my hand to you. You have beheld this sacred centre which we have fixed, where we shall suffer. I offer all this suffering to You on behalf of the people. It is Your Light which comes with the dawn of the day, and which passes through the heavens. Be merciful to us, O Great Spirit, that the people may live.

The first tribes received gifts from their Creator, such as the Sacred Pipe, the Sun Dance and the Keeping of the Soul. The rites associated with these gifts were part of their obligation to revere all life, as well as a way of showing gratitude. The earth was their Mother and she cared for them and sustained them. They, in turn, cared for her, for they knew that all things and all peoples are related, that we all exist in a mutual and beneficial relationship.

Behold this pipe which we - with the earth, the four Powers, and with all things - have offered to You. We know that we are related and are one with all things of the heavens and the earth. We all wish to live and increase in a holy manner.

Such knowledge was not confined to the Lakota but was almost universal throughout the Americas. The Quiche Maya knew that sacrifice was essential to the life of the land and its peoples. This is evident in their sacred book, "The Popul Vuh." The heroic brothers Hun-Hunahpu and Vucub-Hunahpu were sacrificed by Priestly Gods Hun-Came and Vucub-Came. The head of Hun-Hunahpu was placed in a tree that had never before produced fruit; instantly the tree bore fruit. This fruit, miraculously born, in turn gives rise to the birth of the Mayan people. The Hunahpu brothers had undergone purificatory rituals before they were sacrificed so that their offering was acceptable and caused a renewal of all life. Life is given through a sacrifice of the gods so that the people must return sacrifice in acknowledgement of the gift of creation. The melding of Hun-Hunahpu with the tree symbolises the relatedness of life on earth with the gods; the birth of the Mayans from the tree illustrates the interconnectedness of earthly creation.

The Tupi tribes of Brazil practised ritual sacrifice and cannibalism which, despite its apparent savagery, was a holy act and ensured the survival of these prolific peoples. There were distinct rituals involved in the killing of the sacrificial victim which demonstrate the awareness of the Tupi to the inter-relatedness of all life. The executioner did not eat of the victim but retired to his hammock to recover from the event. This is a direct result of his connection to the victim, an intimate relationship caused by the giving and taking of life. There is a real sense of renewal in these rites. The victim, by the giving of his flesh for the people to consume, gives life to the tribe. The victim, in a sense, continues his life by giving strength to the people.

Far north of the Tupi, the Eskimo have a myth which tells of Sedna, a goddess, who cut off her fingers to give birth to seals, whales and other marine life. She herself, is half human, half fish, symbolic of the unity of all things. This myth again demonstrates the relation of the gods to the tribes and the animals to each other.

The act of sacrifice is the perpetuation of unity. It is the rite for the renewal of life in almost all of the tribal groups of the Americas. The people return offerings in acknowledgement of that which they have been granted, and believe that in so doing they reunite themselves with the Great Spirit. That these rites and beliefs were more or less universal throughout the continent preserved the purity of the environment, for these tribes respected the earth as a sacred gift. They were aware that the earth, their Mother, sustained them and that they should not abuse her. Native Americans did not take the fertility of the earth for granted. Creation was not an object to be used or cast aside but a living being who nourished them. They were one with Her. If the Indian did ignore his sacred duty then Mother earth Herself would extract the price.

Where the sacred in the world and life is held as irrelevant illusion, where evasion of sacrifice in pursuit of some seeming "good life" becomes a goal unto itself, then in the empty and concomitant ugliness of such a life and human-manipulated world, the ordering cycle of sacrifice will and must be accomplished by nature herself so that again there may be renewal in the world.

The sacrifice must, and will, be paid. Natural disasters are, in reality, nature in the process of re-establishing the equilibrium, should we take the view outlined above. The modern spirit is often in disharmony with its environment, misunderstanding or ignoring the sacred web of all life. We are not here to control nature and exploit Her, but to live in harmony with Her and with the Great Spirit. The Native American stepped lightly on the earth for he trod on sacred ground. "My relatives, Wakan-Tanka has been kind to us and has placed us upon a sacred earth; upon Her we are now sitting." They dealt gently with nature for She is alive. She is no less than the Great Spirit. In Her manifestation on earth, She is a gift from the Great Mysterious, the Creator, and was revered as such. All creation was sacred and it was a great crime to harm it.

For religious man, nature is never only 'natural'; it is always fraught with a religious value. This is easy to understand, for the cosmos is a divine creation; coming from the hands of the gods, the world is impregnated with sacredness.
American Indians were always aware of their sacred origin. They lived daily in the presence of the sacred. There existed nothing that was not sacred. "My paw is sacred. All things are sacred."

Black Elk of the Oglala Sioux speaks of what is in the world,

The Six Grandfathers have placed in this world many things, all of which should be happy. Every little thing is sent for something, and in that thing there should be happiness and the power to make happy. Like the grasses showing tender faces to each other, thus we should do, for this was the wish of the Grandfathers of the world.

All of the things in the world are related to each other and in this sense rely upon each other for their continued well-being.


What is almost unique in the Indians attitude is that their reverence for nature and for life is central to their religion: each form in the world around them bears such a host of precise values and meanings that taken all together they constitute what one would call their "doctrine."

If one of the links in this "doctrine" or sacred chain of existence should neglect or abuse its position then the consequences affect all life. For like the spiders web, these values and meanings, nature and life, are intricately spun together to form the beauty of Creation.

It is evident that the link has been broken when we view the modern environmental crisis. Although one could analyse the problem and apportion blame in many areas, this would serve little purpose. Our aim should be to understand, within ourselves, where we went wrong and attempt, first to change ourselves and from there we may be able to progress to a solution. It is in the ancient wisdom of the still living Native American Tradition that healing and forgiveness lie. This is not a matter of adopting the faith of the Indian peoples but of learning from them, and other still vital Traditions, to revere life as a whole, understanding that we are all related, the peoples of the earth, the animals, the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, even the grasses and the trees. With such an attitude it would be difficult to abuse our earth for we would know that in so doing we abuse ourselves.

A sense of the sacredness of life would quite naturally change the perspective of society in that it would no longer feel that it could exploit the earth with impunity. There would be awareness that there is a need for care to be taken in our habitation of the world. Sustainability is only possible in the realm of the sacred; for it is the sacred that sustains the world.

To return to the words of Black Elk,

We should understand well that all things are the work of the Great Spirit. We should know that he is within all things: the trees, the rivers, the grasses, the mountains, and all the four legged animals, and all the winged peoples; and even more important, we should understand that He is also above all these things and peoples. When we do understand all this deeply in our hearts, then we will fear, and love, and know the Great Spirit, and then we will be and act and live as he intends.

To know who we are and where we come from are keys to successful living. It is only in modern times that people have asked for the 'meaning of life.' Countless spiritually oriented cultures and societies have lived with the secure knowledge of these facts about humankind's origins. Black Elk may have doubted himself at times but he never doubted to whom he owed his existence, to whom he owed his service.

The Sun, the Light of the world,
I hear Him coming.
I see His face as He comes,
He makes the beings on earth happy,
And they rejoice.
O Wakan-Tanka, I offer to you this world of Light.


Read more!

Rabbi Gershon Winkler, When Darkness Reigns, (full text)

The 12th-century Rabbi Avraham ibn Daud taught: “With the Changing cycles of planetary configuration comes renewal of Nature on our earth. And with the renewal of nature, which we Experience as seasonal changes, comes also the renewal of the Soul of all creatures” (on Sefer Yetsirah 3:4). Indeed, when the world around us renews itself in Spring, we feel good inside. Our Hearts, like seeds in the earth, begin to open and to sprout. When the world around us renews itself further in Summer, we feel Ripe inside. Our hearts, like the fruits of the earth, feel full With color and aroma, and begin to ripen. When the world around us renews itself yet again in Autumn, we feel mixed, celebrative around the bountiful harvest of all that has come to fruition for us, and at the same time a little fearful that it won’t happen again as we witness the promise of bounty vanishing before our eyes as the trees bare themselves of leaves and the earth sucks in the green from the brush and meadows.

And then we are left to the mercy of Winter, when the nights grow longer and longer, the light of day shorter and shorter, and all the while no sound of growth, of future, not outside our window, not inside our soul. Needless to say, for many of us the winter months are a tad difficult, even at times depressing. Our soul yearns for any semblance of the light it had once known, even if in the form of sun light, and now even that ebbs away with every passing day.

The ancient rabbis taught: “Three things were made before the creation of our world: Water, Wind, and Fire. Water birthed darkness, Fire birthed light, and Wind birthed wisdom” (Midrash Sh’mot Rabbah 15:22). The light that Fire birthed is experienced in the long hot days of summer; the darkness that Water birthed is experienced in the long cold nights of winter. Both are accompanied by Wind, the winds of cold, the winds of heat in their respective seasons, meaning also therefore that both bring their own unique wisdom since wisdom is the child of Wind. What, then, is the wisdom of Winter?

This may come as a surprise to some of us, but our ancient mystical tradition teaches us that Darkness is but a garment for Light. It is as much representative of God as is Light. In the words of the Zohar: “And God said, ‘Let us make the human in our Image, according to our Likeness’ (Genesis 1:26). ‘In our Image – this means Light; According to our Likeness – this means Darkness,’ for Darkness is the garment of the Light no less than the body is the garment of the soul” (Zohar, Vol. 1, folio 22b). Darkness, again, is as much representative of God as is Light, and the gift and wisdom of Winter is the opportunity to connect to that particular quality of God within us that accessible only through Darkness – in particular, the darkness of Winter.

The gift of darkness is its veiling of light. While light is good in that it brings us clarity, enables us to experience our environment and be inspired by color and shape, it can also at times detract from our inner selves, removing our focus so far away from our self-essence with its tantalizing array of visuals too much of which tends to externalize our selfhood. The balance that darkness then brings to light is to dim the distractions that light enables so that we are forced to return deeper and deeper into our selves just like the earth in Winter is breathing into herself all that she had in Spring breathed out of herself. In Winter, we get into the veiling place, into the consciousness of Essence, Self-Essence, God-Essence, Earth-Essence – the experience of the unification of variety, reminding ourselves during this sacred season that all variety is actually contained within and originated from a single source.

Our ancestors therefore celebrated the oncoming of winter with virtually an entire month of rituals that ranged from personal introspection and celebration to hope for the blessings winter rains to reinforcement of faith in the return of Spring. This lengthy train of festivals and ceremonies -- just as the earth was withdrawing her yield, and the days growing shorter, the nights longer – served not only to celebrate the harvest cycle but also served to prepare our ancestors emotionally and spiritually for the gift as well as the mystery of Winter. Having taken in all that had been gifted of the earth, they were left with no sign, no promise, that anything would ever grow again, that the sun would ever shine as did before, to bring warmth and to draw forth nurturance. The festivals and their rich ceremonies, however, instilled in our ancestors the faith they needed to let go of tomorrow’s worries – basically external focus – and to divert their attention instead to the blessings of the moment-at-hand – basically internal focus.

Judaism then teaches us to celebrate both ends of the Solstice, the darker side of it and the lighter side, that both are equally as sacred and equally worthy of celebration. That there is a major discrepancy between the way we allow seasonal changes like winter to affect us and the way it really can affect us in a wholesome, nurturing way. And, like the Zohar taught us, we need to start thinking outside the box and see Darkness as much the image of God as Light.

So bring on the darkness and let us celebrate her.


Read more!

René Guénon, Il Simbolismo dello zodiaco nei pitagorici (frammento)

Ed. originale Le symbolisme du Zodiaque chez les Pythagoriciennes,
in Études Traditionelles, giugno 1938

Trattando la questione delle porte solstiziali ci siamo riferiti direttamente soprattutto alla tradizione indù, perché in essa i dati che vi si riferiscono sono presentati nel modo più chiaro; ma in realtà si tratta di qualcosa che è comune a tutte le tradizioni, e si può trovare anche nell’antichità occidentale. Nel Pitagorismo, in particolare, il simbolismo zodiacale sembra aver avuto un’importanza altrettanto considerevole; le espressioni ‘porta degli uomini’ e ‘porta degli dèi’, da noi usate, appartengono del resto alla tradizione greca; solo che le informazioni giunte sino a noi sono in questo caso talmente frammentarie e incomplete che la loro interpretazione può dar luogo a parecchie confusioni, che non sono mancate da parte di coloro che hanno considerato tali informazioni isolatamente e senza renderle più chiare per mezzo di un raffronto con altre tradizioni.

Anzitutto, per evitare certi equivoci, sulla posizione reciproca delle due porte, occorre ricordarsi di quanto abbiamo detto sull’applicazione del ‘senso inverso’, a seconda che le si consideri in rapporto all’ordine terrestre o all’ordine celeste: la porta solstiziale d’inverno, o il segno del Capricorno, corrisponde al nord nel ciclo annuale, ma al sud in relazione al cammino del sole nel cielo; così, la porta solstiziale d’estate, o il segno del Cancro, corrisponde al sud nel ciclo annuale, e al nord in relazione al cammino del sole. Per questo, mentre il movimento ‘ascendente’ del sole va da sud a nord e il suo movimento ‘discendente’ da nord a sud, il periodo ‘ascendente’ dell’anno dev’essere invece considerato compiersi nella direzione nord-sud, e il suo periodo’ discendente’ in quella sud-nord, come abbiamo già detto in precedenza. Proprio in rapporto a quest’ultimo punto di vista, secondo il simbolismo vedico, la porta del dêva-loka è situata verso nord e quella del pitri-loka verso sud, senza che vi sia in ciò, malgrado le apparenze, alcuna contraddizione con quello che troveremo più avanti.

Citeremo, corredandolo delle spiegazioni e rettificazioni necessarie, il riassunto dei dati pitagorici esposto da Jérôme Carcopino [1]: «I pitagorici» egli dice «avevano costruito tutta una teoria sui rapporti dello Zodiaco con la migrazione delle anime. A quale data risalirebbe? È impossibile saperlo. Fatto sta che nel secolo II della nostra era, essa fioriva negli scritti del pitagorico Numenio, che ci è permesso di conoscere attraverso un riassunto secco e tardivo di Proclo, nel suo commento alla Repubblica di Platone, e un’analisi, al tempo stesso più ampia e più antica, di Porfirio, nei capitoli XXI e XXII del De Antro Nympharum». Ecco, diciamolo subito, un esempio piuttosto significativo di ‘storicismo’: la verità è che non si tratta per nulla di una teoria ‘costruita’ più o meno artificialmente, a questa o quella data, dai pitagorici o da altri, a modo di una semplice opinione filosofica o di una concezione individuale qualunque; si tratta di una conoscenza tradizionale, che concerne una realtà di ordine iniziatico, e, proprio in virtù del suo carattere tradizionale, non ha e non può avere alcuna origine cronologicamente assegnabile. Sono, beninteso, considerazioni che possono sfuggire a un ‘erudito’; ma egli dovrebbe almeno capire questo: se la teoria in questione fosse stata ‘costruita dai pitagorici’, come spiegare il fatto che essa si trova dappertutto, al di fuori di ogni influenza greca, e in particolare nei testi vedici, che sono sicuramente di molto anteriori al pitagorismo? Anche questo, Carcopino, in quanto ‘specialista’ dell’antichità greco-latina, può sfortunatamente ignorarlo; ma, da quel che riferisce egli stesso in seguito, risulta che tale dato si trova già in Omero; dunque, anche presso i Greci essa era conosciuta, non diremo solo prima di Numenio, cosa fin troppo evidente, ma prima dello stesso Pitagora; si tratta di un insegnamento tradizionale che si è trasmesso in modo continuo attraverso i secoli, e poco importa la data forse ‘tardiva’ alla quale certi autori, che non hanno inventato nulla e non ne hanno mai avuto la pretesa, l’hanno formulato per iscritto in modo più o meno preciso.

Detto questo, torniamo a Proclo e a Porfirio: «I nostri due autori concordano nell’attribuire a Numenio la determinazione dei punti estremi del cielo, il tropico d’inverno, sotto il segno del Capricorno, e il tropico d’estate, sotto quello del Cancro, e nel definire, evidentemente sulle sue tracce, e sulle tracce dei ‘teologi’ che egli cita e che gli sono serviti da guide, il Cancro e il Capricorno come le due porte del cielo. Sia per discendere nella generazione, sia per risalire a Dio, le anime dovevano quindi necessariamente varcare una di esse». Per «punti estremi del cielo», espressione un po’ troppo ellittica per essere perfettamente chiara da sola, bisogna naturalmente intendere qui i punti estremi raggiunti dal sole nella sua corsa annuale, dov’esso in certo modo si arresta, da cui il nome di ‘solstizi’; a tali punti solstiziali corrispondono le due ‘porte del cielo’, il che è appunto esattamente la dottrina tradizionale che già conosciamo. Come abbiamo indicato altrove, [2] questi due punti erano talora simboleggiati - per esempio sotto il tripode di Delfi e sotto gli zoccoli dei corsieri del carro solare - dal polipo e dal delfino, che rappresentano rispettivamente il Cancro e il Capricorno. Inutile dire, d’altra parte, che gli autori in questione non hanno potuto attribuire a Numenio la determinazione stessa dei punti solstiziali, che erano noti da sempre; si sono semplicemente riferiti a lui come a uno di coloro che ne avevano parlato prima di loro, e come egli stesso si era già riferito ad altri ‘ teologi’.

Si tratta poi di precisare il ruolo proprio di ciascuna delle due porte, ed è qui che nasce la confusione:, «Secondo Proclo, Numenio le avrebbe rigidamente specializzate: per la porta del Cancro, la caduta delle anime sulla terra; per quella del Capricorno, l’ascensione delle anime nell’etere. In Porfirio, invece, è detto soltanto che il Cancro è a nord e favorevole alla discesa, il Capricorno a sud e favorevole alla salita: di modo che invece di essere strettamente assoggettate al ‘senso unico’, le anime avrebbero conservato, sia all’andata che al ritorno, una certa libertà di circolazione». La fine di questa citazione esprime, a dire il vero, un’interpretazione di cui conviene lasciare tutta la responsabilità a Carcopino; non vediamo assolutamente in cosa quel che dice Porfirio sarebbe ‘contrario’ a quel che dice Proclo; forse è formulato in modo un po’ più vago, ma sembra di fatto voler dire in fondo la stessa cosa: ciò che è «favorevole» alla discesa o alla salita deve probabilmente intendersi come ciò che la rende possibile, poiché non é molto verosimile che Porfirio abbia voluto lasciar sussistere in tal modo una specie di indeterminazione, il che, essendo incompatibile con il carattere rigoroso della scienza tradizionale, non sarebbe in ogni caso in lui che una pura e semplice prova d’ignoranza su questo punto. Comunque, è visibile che Numenio non ha fatto altro che ripetere, sulla funzione delle due porte, l’insegnamento tradizionale conosciuto; d’altra parte, se egli pone, come indica Porfirio, il Cancro a nord e il Capricorno a sud, evidentemente egli considera la loro posizione nel cielo; lo indica d’altronde abbastanza chiaramente il fatto che, in quel che precede, sono in questione i ‘ tropici ‘, che non possono avere altro significato oltre quello, e non i ‘ solstizi’, che si riferirebbero invece più direttamente al ciclo annuale; e per questo la posizione qui enunciata è inversa a quella data dal simbolismo vedico, senza tuttavia che ciò costituisca alcuna differenza reale, giacché si tratta di due punti di vista ugualmente legittimi, che si accordano perfettamente fra di loro se si è capito il loro rapporto.

Ma vedremo qualcosa di ancor più straordinario: Carcopino continua dicendo che «è difficile, in mancanza dell’originale, trarre da queste allusioni divergenti», ma che in realtà, dobbiamo aggiungere noi, sono divergenti solamente nel suo pensiero, «la vera dottrina di Numenio», che, abbiamo visto, non è la sua propria dottrina, ma soltanto l’insegnamento da lui riferito, cosa d’altronde più importante e più degna d’interesse; «ma risulta dal contesto di Porfirio che, anche esposta sotto la sua forma più elastica» - come se potesse esserci «elasticità» in un problema che è unicamente una questione di conoscenza esatta - «essa resterebbe in contraddizione con quelle di certi suoi predecessori, e, in particolare, con il sistema che alcuni più antichi pitagorici avevano fondato sulla loro interpretazione dei versi dell’Odissea in cui Omero ha descritto la ‘ grotta d’Itaca’», cioè quell’‘antro delle Ninfe’ che non è altro se non una delle raffigurazioni della ‘caverna cosmica’ di cui abbiamo parlato in precedenza. «Omero, annota Porfirio, non si è limitato a dire che la grotta aveva due porte. Egli ha specificato che una era volta al lato nord, e l’altra, più divina, al lato sud, e che si discendeva dalla porta a nord. Ma non ha indicato se si poteva scendere per la porta a sud. Dice solo: è l’entrata degli dèi. Mai l’uomo prende il cammino degli immortali». Pensiamo che questo dev’essere il testo stesso di Porfirio, e non vi vediamo la contraddizione annunciata; ma ecco ora il commento di Carcopino: «Secondo questa esegesi, si scorgono, in quel compendio, dell’universo che è l’antro delle Ninfe, le due porte che s’innalzano ai cieli e sotto le quali passano le anime, e, al contrario del linguaggio che Proclo mette in bocca a Numenio, quella a nord, il Capricorno, fu dapprima riservata all’uscita delle anime, e quella a sud, il Cancro, fu di conseguenza assegnata al loro ritorno a Dio».

Ora che abbiamo completato la citazione, possiamo facilmente renderci conto che la pretesa contraddizione, anche qui, esiste solo secondo Carcopino; c’è infatti nell’ultima frase un errore evidente, e persino un duplice errore, che sembra veramente inspiegabile. Anzitutto, è Carcopino che aggiunge di propria iniziativa la menzione del Capricorno e del Cancro; Omero, a quanto dice Porfirio, designa le due porte solo per mezzo della loro posizione a nord o a sud, senza indicare i segni zodiacali corrispondenti; ma, siccome precisa che la porta «divina» è quella a sud, bisogna concludere che è questa che corrisponde per lui al Capricorno, esattamente come per Numenio, vale a dire che anch’egli situa le due porte secondo la loro posizione nel cielo, e tale sembra quindi esser stato, in genere, il punto di vista dominante in tutta la tradizione greca, anche prima del pitagorismo. Inoltre, l’uscita delle anime dal ‘cosmo’ e il loro ‘ritorno a Dio’ sono propriamente una sola e identica cosa, di modo che Carcopino attribuisce, apparentemente senza accorgersene, lo stesso ruolo a entrambe le porte; Omero dice, tutto al contrario, che per la porta a nord si effettua la ‘discesa’, cioè l’entrata nella ‘caverna cosmica’ o, in altri termini, nel mondo della generazione e della manifestazione individuale. In quanto alla porta a sud, essa è l’uscita dal ‘cosmo’, e, di conseguenza, per essa si effettua la ‘salita’ degli esseri in via di liberazione; Omero non dice espressamente se si può anche scendere per tale. porta, ma ciò non è necessario, poiché, designandola come «entrata degli dèi», egli indica a sufficienza quali siano le ‘discese’ eccezionali che vi si effettuano, conformemente a quanto abbiamo spiegato nel nostro studio precedente. Insomma, che la posizione delle due porte sia considerata in rapporto al cammino del sole nel cielo, come nella tradizione greca, o in rapporto alle stagioni nel ciclo annuale terrestre, come nella tradizione indù, è sempre il Cancro a essere la ‘porta degli uomini’ e il Capricorno la ‘porta degli dèi’; non può esserci in questo alcuna variazione e di fatto non ve n’è alcuna; è solo l’incomprensione degli ‘eruditi’ moderni che crede di scoprire, nei vari interpreti delle dottrine tradizionali, divergenze e contraddizioni che non vi si trovano.

1. La Basilique Pythagoricienne de la Porte Maieure. Non avendo il volume a disposizione, citiamo dall’articolo pubblicato anteriormente sotto lo stesso titolo nella Revue des Deux Mondes, numero del 15 novembre 1926.

2. Quelques aspects du symbolisme du poisson, in Études Traditionelles, febbraio 1936.


Read more!

Moise Maimonide, Cauza primă (fragment)

Filosofii, aşa cum ştii, Îl numesc pe Dumnezeu “cauza primă”. Dar cei care sunt cunoscuţi sub numele de Motecallemin evită acest nume cu mare grijă şi-L numesc pe Dumnezeu “agent”. Ei cred că este o mare diferenţă între a spune cauză şi a spune agent, căci, spun ei, dacă noi spunem că El este o cauză, de aici ar rezulta în mod necesar că există efectul, ceea ce ar conduce la eternitatea lumii şi [la a admite] că lumea Îi este [coexistentă] într-un mod necesar. Dar dacă noi spunem “agent”, nu rezultă în mod necesar că obiectul acţiunii există împreună cu el, căci agentul poate fi anterior acţiunii sale. Şi ei ajung până să-şi imagineze că agentul nu poate fi numit “agent” decât cu condiţia să fie anterior acţiunii sale.

Dar acesta este raţionamentul celui care nu ştie să distingă între ceea ce este în potenţialitate şi ceea ce este în act. Căci trebuie ştiut că nu există diferenţă în această privinţă între cuvintele “cauză” şi “agent”. Într-adevăr, şi cauza, dacă o consideri în potenţialitate, îşi precede efectul în timp, în timp ce, dacă este o cauză în act, efectul coexistă în mod necesar cu cauza în act. În egală măsură, dacă vei considera agentul ca agent în act, rezultă în mod necesar că obiectul acţiunii sale există. Căci arhitectul, înainte de a clădi casa, nu este deloc arhitect în act, ci arhitect în potenţialitate [la fel cum materia casei, înainte ca să fie construită, este o casă în potenţialitate]. Dar atunci când clădeşte, devine arhitect în act, şi rezultă atunci în mod necesar că există [concomitent] ceva clădit. Nu am câştiga deci nimic dacă am prefera denumirea de agent celei de cauză. Şi doar avem aici ca scop stabilirea egalităţii între aceste două denumiri, şi [să arătăm] că, aşa cum Îl numim pe Dumnezeu “agent”, chiar dacă obiectul acţiunii sale nu ar exista, - şi aceasta pentru că nimic nu L-ar putea reţine şi să-L împiedice să acţioneze atunci când El voieşte – la fel ne este permis să-L numim “cauză”, absolut cu acelaşi sens, chiar dacă efectul încă nu ar exista.

Ceea ce i-a angajat pe filosofi să-L numească pe Dumnezeu “cauză” şi să nu-L numească deloc “agent”, nu era opinia lor binecunoscută privind eternitatea lumii, ci aveau pentru aceasta alte motive pe care le voi recapitula acum. A fost expus în Fizica faptul că există diferite cauze pentru tot ceea ce are o cauză, că sunt în număr de patru, adică: materia, forma, agentul (sau eficientul) şi finalitatea, că unele sunt apropiate şi altele depărtate, că fiecare dintre acestea patru este numită “cauză”. Printre aceste opinii, una dintre cele pe care nu le contest este aceasta, că Dumnezeu este concomitent eficientul, forma şi sfârşitul. În acest sens ei spun că Dumnezeu este cauza, ceea ce îmbrăţişează concomitent aceste trei cauze şi ceea ce vrea să spună că Dumnezeu este eficientul lumii, forma şi finalitatea sa. Am ca scop, în acest capitol, să-ţi explic în ce sens s-a spus despre Dumnezeu că El este eficientul (sau agentul) şi că El este de asemenea forma lumii şi finalitatea ei. Nu trebuie să te preocupi aici de chestiunea de a şti dacă Dumnezeu a produs lumea, sau dacă ea, aşa cum ei [filosofii] cred, coexistă în mod necesar cu El, căci am intra atunci în lungi detalii, aşa cum convine unui asemenea subiect. Aici avem doar ca scop [să stabilim] că Dumnezeu este eficientul faptelor particulare care survin în lume, aşa cum El este eficientul lumii în ansamblul său. Iată deci ceea ce zic: A fost expus în Fizica faptul că, pentru fiecare dintre aceste patru tipuri de cauze, trebuie căutată o altă cauză, astfel încât vom găsi la început, pentru lucrul care ia naştere, cele patru cauze imediate, şi, pentru aceste cauze, alte cauze în continuare, până când se ajunge la cauzele prime. Astfel, de exemplu, cutare lucru este efectul produs de cutare eficient, care, la rândul său, îşi va avea propriul eficient, şi tot aşa, până când se ajunge la un prim motor care va fi adevăratul eficient al tuturor acestor lucruri intermediare. Într-adevăr, fie A pus în mişcare de B, B de C, C de D şi D de E. Aceasta neputându-se întinde la infinit, să ne oprim, de exemplu, la E, şi nu va fi nici un dubiu că E este motorul lui A, al lui B, al lui C şi al lui D, şi pe bună dreptate vom putea spune despre mişcarea lui A că E este cel care a făcut-o. În acest fel fiecare fapt în univers, oricare i-ar fi de altminteri eficientul imediat care l-a produs, este atribuit lui Dumnezeu, aşa cum o vom expune [în altă parte]. El este deci cauza cea mai îndepărtate, în calitate de eficient.

În egală măsură, dacă vom urmări formele fizice, care se nasc şi pier, vom găsi că ele trebuie în mod necesar [fiecare] să fie precedată de o altă formă care pregăteşte cutare materie să primească cutare formă [imediată]. Această a doua formă, la rândul ei, va fi precedată de o alta [şi aşa mai departe], până când ajungem la ultima formă care este necesară pentru existenţa acestor forme intermediare, care sunt cauza formei imediate. Forma ultimă a oricărei fiinţe este Dumnezeu. Dacă spunem despre El că este forma ultimă a întregului univers, nu trebuie să se creadă că ar fi aici o aluzie la forma ultimă despre care vorbeşte Aristote, în Metafizica, care nici nu ia naştere nici nu piere, pentru că forma despre care este vorba acolo este fizică, şi nu o inteligenţă separată. Într-adevăr, atunci când spunem despre Dumnezeu că este forma ultimă a lumii, nu este ca şi în cazul în care forma având materie este o formă pentru această materie, aşa încât Dumnezeu să fie o formă pentru un corp. Nu astfel trebuie înţeles acest lucru, ci în modul următor: la fel cum forma este ceea ce constituie adevărata fiinţă a tot ceea ce are formă, aşa încât, forma pierind, fiinţa piere şi ea, la fel Dumnezeu se găseşte într-un raport absolut asemănător cu toate principiile fiinţei celei mai îndepărtate. Căci prin existenţa Creatorului totul există, căci El îi perpetuează durata prin ceva ce numim “efuziune”, aşa cum vom expune într-unul din capitolele acestui tratat. Dacă deci non-existenţa Creatorului ar fi admisibilă, universul întreg n-ar mai exista, căci ceea ce constituă cauzele sale îndepărtate ar dispărea, odată cu ultimele efecte şi ceea ce este intermediar. Şi, în consecinţă, Dumnezeu este pentru univers ceea ce este forma pentru lucrul care are formă şi care prin aceasta este ceea ce este, forma constituind adevărata sa fiinţă. Acesta este deci raportul lui Dumnezeu cu lumea, şi din acest punct de vedere s-a spus despre El că este forma ultimă şi forma formelor, ceea ce vrea să spună că El este cel pe care se sprijină în ultimul rând existenţa şi menţinerea tuturor formelor în lume, şi prin El subzistă ele, la fel cum lucrurile dotate de forme subzistă prin formele lor. Şi din această cauză El a fost numit, în limba noastră, ‘hay aolamim, ceea ce înseamnă că El este “viaţa lumii”, aşa cum vom arăta [mai încolo].

Acelaşi lucru se întâmplă pentru orice finalitate, căci atunci când un lucru are o anume finalitate, tu trebuie să cauţi pentru această finalitate o altă finalitate. Dacă, de exemplu, spui că materia acestui tron este lemnul, eficientul lui este tâmplarul, forma sa pătrată şi de cutare sau cutare figură, iar finalitatea sa este ca cineva să se aşeze pe el, trebuie imediat să întrebi: În ce scop se aşează cineva pe tron? Se va răspunde: pentru ca cel care se aşează pe el să fie ridicat deasupra pământului. Dar, se va mai întreba, în ce scop trebuie să fie cineva ridicat deasupra pământului? şi se va răspunde: Pentru ca astfel aşezat, să crească în ochii celor care-l văd. Şi în ce scop, vei continua tu, trebuie cineva să pară mare celor care-l văd? Se va răspunde: ca să fie temut şi respectat. Dar vei întreba tu din nou, în ce scop să fie temut? Ca să i se supună oamenii ordinelor sale, se va zice. Şi în ce scop, vei continua tu, trebuie să se supună oamenii ordinelor sale? Ca nu cumva, se va răspunde, oamenii să-şi facă rău unii altora. Şi dacă tu mai întrebi: În ce scop? ţi se va răspunde: Pentru ca existenţa lor să continue în bună ordine. Aşa va fi în mod necesar cu fiecare nouă finalitate, până când s-ar ajunge în cele din urmă – după o anume opinie care va fi expusă [în altă parte] – la simpla voinţă a lui Dumnezeu, aşa încât se va răspunde în cele din urmă: Aşa a dorit Dumnezeu. Sau [se va ajunge] – conform unei alte opinii – la exigenţa înţelepciunii divine, aşa cum voi arăta, încât se va răspunde în cele din urmă: aşa a impus înţelepciunea Sa. Seria tuturor finalităţilor va ajunge deci, după cele opinii, la voinţa şi la înţelepciunea lui Dumnezeu. Dar acestea, conform opiniei noastre, sunt esenţa Sa, căci a fost expus în intenţie, voinţa şi înţelepciunea lui Dumnezeu nu sunt deloc lucruri în afara esenţei Sale, vreau să spun, altele decât esenţa Sa. În consecinţă, Dumnezeu este scopul ultim al oricărui lucru. De asemenea, totul are ca scop să-I fie asemănător în perfecţiune, atât cât aceasta este cu putinţă, şi aceasta este ceea ce trebuie înţeles prin voinţa Sa, care este esenţa Sa, aşa cum vom arăta. Din acest punct de vedere deci a fost numit “scopul scopurilor”.

Astfel ţi-am arătat în ce sens s-a spus despre Dumnezeu că este eficient, formă şi finalitate. Din această cauză ei [filosofii] L-au numit “cauză”, şi nu doar “agent” (sau eficient). Să ştii că unii gânditori dintre motecallemin au împins ignoranţa şi îndrăzneala până la a asusţine că, chiar dacă s-ar admite că Creatorul ar putea să nu existe, nu ar rezulta de aici deloc că lucrul pe care Creatorul l-a făcut, adică lumea, ar trebui în mod necesar să înceteze să existe, căci (spun ei), nu trebuie în mod necesar ca ceea ce a fost făcut să piară pentru că autorul, după ce l-a facut, a încetat să existe. Ceea ce au spus ei ar fi adevărat dacă Dumnezeu ar fi doar eficient, şi dacă lucrul făcut nu ar avea nevoie de El pentru a-şi prelungi viaţa. La fel cum, atunci când tâmplarul moare, cufărul [pe care el l-a făcut] nu piere din aceasta, căci nu el îi prelungeşte durata. Dar, dat fiind că Dumnezeu este în acelaşi timp forma lumii, aşa cum am arătat, şi El este cel care prelungeşte permanenţa şi durata, este imposibil [să se presupună] că cel care dă durata ar putea dispărea, şi că totuşi lucrul care nu are durată decât prin El ar putea continua să existe.

Iată deci la ce mare eroare ar da loc această aserţiune: că Dumnezeu este doar eficient, şi că El nu este nici scop, nici formă.


Read more!

Giovanni Ponte, Doctrina Verdadera Y Hombres Falsos, (fragmento)

Como ya habíamos hecho observar, el punto de vista tradicional corresponde concretamente a posibilidades de realización y de expansión inmensamente más válidas que aquellas que ofrece la vida "profana".

Naturalmente, sin embargo, para que así ocurra, es necesario que el vínculo con elementos o doctrinas tradicionales no se limite a una adhesión meramente teórica. Habíamos tomado en consideración, en otro lugar, la importancia de tal adhesión teórica, que representa el punto de partida y el presupuesto indispensable; pero debe quedar bien claro que ella no conduce a nada válido si no es tan profunda como para implicar la tendencia a una participación más íntima y total del propio ser. Y el más brillante desarrollo mental, inclusive si se expresa y si se califica con términos tomados a préstamo de las doctrinas tradicionales, no alcanzará jamás a sustituir aquella correspondencia fundamental que puede provenir solamente del centro del propio ser, esto es, desde la sede de la verdadera intuición intelectual, representada simbólicamente por el Corazón en todas las tradiciones: no habrá por lo tanto remedio, hasta que el "Corazón" quede consolidado.

Esta relativa disociación entre la actitud mental y una profunda facultad intelectual es el origen de un fenómeno bastante singular. Personas que muestran estar ya notablemente cercanas al punto de vista tradicional, o por lo menos que se consideran persuadidas de cierta enunciación tradicional del orden más profundo y fundamental, encuentran después una barrera difícilmente superable cuando se trata de llevar las consecuencias más allá de un ámbito exclusivamente mental.

Indudablemente, romper un equilibrio ilusorio precedente, ir, por así decir, contra la corriente, construir algo que sea cualitativamente del todo diferente de aquello hacia lo cual empuja la sugestión dominante en la sociedad actual; producirá dificultades con el ambiente y consigo mismo y, para superarlas, cierto tiempo y una determinada maduración pueden ser indispensables. Pero puede ocurrir, tal vez, que estas dificultades resulten enormemente engrandecidas, casi justificando la ausencia de un empeño más serio. Circunstancias secundarias y más o menos insignificantes devienen así en pretextos para defenderse contra la eventualidad de tener que cambiar verdaderamente algo de sí mismo, convirtiéndose en el más grande de los peligros, casi como el peligro verdaderamente espantoso consistente en perseguir ciegamente la gran corriente de la vida "profana".

En algún caso, este estado de cosas puede ser agravado por una actitud de falsa seguridad que se refuerza apoyándose ente los aspectos más elevados de la doctrina tradicional, incluso la misma enunciación metafísica, mal entendida y peor aplicada. Así por ejemplo, con una extraña confusión de planos, la idea de inalterabilidad del "Sí" trascendente resulta de algún modo referida a la propia condición presente, alimentando una impresión cerebral de dominio y de auto suficiencia del todo ilusoria.

De este modo, a una presunta impotencia práctica, puesta delante de sí mismo a modo de propia justificación, se puede asociar muy bien cierto sentido de indiferente superioridad completamente contradictorio, pero, de hecho, también utilizable para el mismo objetivo de eximirse, de cualquier modo, de las incomodidades de la búsqueda de una realización que vaya más allá del mundo, en absoluto tranquilizante, en el cual está inmerso y en el cual se ha habituado a sufrir, con perseverante inconsciencia, toda suerte de determinaciones. Y esta posición es tanto más insostenible si se refleja en las condiciones de mayor responsabilidad de quien ha comenzado a comprender cierta cosa, y que no puede ya regresar a una situación de ignorancia pura y simple. Esta mayor responsabilidad, bien entendida, no se reduce a una condición "moral" distinta pero, pese a ello, el propio comportamiento queda de hecho mucho más empeñoso y, ciertamente, tampoco la inacción podría considerarse indiferente al juego de acciones y reacciones concordantes que determinan el devenir de un ser, cuando ella corresponde al rechazo de posibilidades espirituales que son perseguibles hasta un determinado momento y que podrían, seguidamente, no serlo más.

Sin embargo, la participación inicial en la metafísica tradicional, normalmente, debe y puede tener consecuencias bien diversas hasta asumir una importancia decisiva, incluso para personas extrañas a todo otro vínculo con la tradición. Cuando aquella participación no queda encerrada en el plano mental, cuando es tan sincera de tocar verdaderamente el "Corazón" del ser humano, ella, bien lejos de favorecer cómodos sofismas, obstruye el campo de las complicaciones imaginarias, y entonces hay una cuestión que no puede ser eludida: ¿por qué, no obstante la comprensión teórica de la metafísica, la propia realidad queda, de hecho, limitada y limitante, y tampoco se puede hacer, a menos de identificarse a ella, algo para alcanzar su resolución efectiva en la realidad metafísica, y, ante todo, algo para establecer un vínculo consciente, el cual por sí sólo, podrá dar, ya, un "sentido" a la propia existencia?

Por otra parte, el cambio de perspectiva permite ver también cómo el sentido profundo de la vida tradicional es justamente la respuesta a aquella cuestión fundamental. También las determinaciones particulares y limitativas ínsitas, inevitablemente, en toda forma de vida tradicional aparecen por consiguiente con una nueva luz, iluminada desde la consciencia del objetivo hacia el cual conducen, que es, precisamente, la realización de la realidad metafísica: y, usando una imagen, la balsa puede ser indispensable para atravesar la corriente, incluso cuando después de atravesada será un estorbo inútil que habrá que dejar atrás.

La vida tradicional es por lo tanto, en cierto modo, la "piedra de comparación" de la sinceridad de la adhesión a la doctrina metafísica.

Se puede observar aun, a este respecto, que la activación de un vínculo consciente entre la propia condición de hecho y la realidad metafísica implica también, de un modo u otro, la toma de consciencia de un estado de subordinación y de sumisión: y, mientras haya dualidad, habrá también una relación de dependencia total hacia el Principio. La vida tradicional, la vida ritual, activan continuamente la consciencia de tal relación; y, justamente, esto puede conducir más allá de las formas múltiples del mundo humano, hacia la condición central de quien, precisamente, por estar en relación directa con la realidad principial, realiza perfectamente la propia "sumisión" consciente al Principio, base de toda realización trascendente: es éste, según la expresión taoísta, el estado del "hombre verdadero".

Aquellos que, en cambio, evitan afrontar las dificultades que comporta la asunción de una vida tradicional, permaneciendo debajo de su forma, encerrados en una participación exclusivamente mental con las doctrinas tradicionales, no pueden más que realizar de hecho una "sumisión" inconsciente a las ilusiones de la "vida ordinaria". Mientras permanezcan en este estado es inútil que busquen hacerse valer apoyándose en doctrinas verdaderas: son hombres falsos.

Artículo de la Rivista di Studi Tradizionali, Turín.


Read more!

Julius Evola, The Concept of Initiation (full text)

In the final issue of Krur, the review of the esoteric sciences edited by Julius Evola over the course of 1929, he explained the reasons for the termination of this editorial experience, or rather for its transformation into a new one, namely La Torre, as follows : "Krur, in 1930, will be published in another form : (...) as a bi-monthly review of struggle, critique, affirmation and negation. The heroic-magical point of view, which we have championed until now, will not be abandoned : actually, it will constitute the sole point of reference and justification for a work of critique and revision which will be applied to immediate problems, in relation to whatever of significance is published in Italy or elsewhere. It is in our intention to build a stronghold invulnerable to the general decline in all values of life; it is our ambition to know and to indicate vaster horizons than the usual petty human constructions ; it is our aim to remain standing firmly upon the ground, ready for defence as well as for attack, cut off and inaccessible to any evasion - and because of all this, the title Krur will be changed to La Torre - Foglio di espressioni varie e di tradizione una".

In the first issue of La Torre, Evola, setting the tone, stated : "Our review does not appear for the purpose of slapping the face of our honourable Mussolini, which neither Fascism nor our honourable Mussolini would care about. Our review appears, on the contrary, to champion principles which, for us, would be absolutely unchanged, whether in the Fascist regime, or in a communist, anarchist or republican regime (...) To the extent that Fascism follows and champions such principles, we can be considered as fascists. And this is all". As Marco Rossi put it, "the ideals offered by the review could be justly regarded as constituting a sort of traditionalist, imperialist and 'super-Fascist' ideology, for the ideas of hierarchy, of spirituality, and of order were explicitly and coherently valued ; but the absolute freedom and the radical intransigent fidelity to the nature of things, without any cover, diplomacy or ambiguity, made it a unique case in the Italian editorial panorama of the 1930's". So unique that the review ceased to be published after only ten issues, although we need not see in this a result of governmental censorship, since, contrary to what is assumed today by most people on the basis of the propaganda of the Jewish-owned 'free press' of the 'democracies', the press under Fascism ended up enjoying, as Marco Rossi put it, rather vast spaces of liberty.

The controversial nature of La Torre reached its highest point in a column entitled, in accordance with the Kshatriya-nature of Julius Evola, 'L'Arco e la Clava' : "The bow to strike from a distance, the bludgeon, to destroy at close range", as recalled by the Italian author himself in 'The Road of Cinnabar' in 1963. Five years later, he again used this title for an anthology of his writings, which he described as 'L'arco e la clava' ('The Bow and the Bludgeon'), "[ a collection of writings], some already published separately on various occasions, or constituting the texts of [my speeches at] conferences, others new". The bludgeon consists of the essays in which Evola deals with various aspects of the customs and society of today, from an anti-conformist point of view and in relation to a higher vision of man and life : homosexuality, negrified America, pornography, the taste for vulgarity in everyday life, advertising, jazz, neo-spiritualism, and so on. With the bow, higher and more distant objectives are reached, such as the problems, many already attacked at the time of Ur and Krur, of the relations between West and East, the essence of myths and symbols, the significance of Romanity, the Olympian ideal, the centres of Initiation, the true significance of Tradition, the path of action and the path of contemplation, and, as we present here, the Concept of Initiation.


The Concept of Initiation

It is not easy, today, to give an exact idea of what is meant by Initiation and to define the figure of the 'Initiate'. The main difficulty lies in the necessity of referring to a vision of the world and man, and to structures, which belong essentially to traditional civilisations, distant from the present one, not only from the modern mentality and culture, but also, to a large extent, from the religion which has come to predominate in the West.

In addition, there is the disgraceful circumstance that, if, today, one still hears of Initiation, outside of the empty ritualistic remains of modern Freemasonry and such amateurish literary exercises as, for example, the well-known book 'The Great Initiates', by E. Schuré (1), it is on the sidelines of the various theosophical, anthroposophical, or generally occult sects. The discredit which has rightly become attached to these frivolous 'neo-spiritualistic' forms, which are sometimes outright hoaxes, could not but create a prejudice which impedes the understanding of what Initiation really is.

This state of affairs has provided those who claim to represent 'modern critical thought' and contemporary 'culture' with a pretext to assimilate the world of Initiation to that of the 'magicians', 'clairvoyants', and so on, of the lower classes, and to disregard the fact that, historically, Initiation was an integral and frequently essential part of the great traditions and civilisations of the past to which, in other regards, respect and gratitude are paid.

Nevertheless there is a group of modern disciplines - among them, the history of religions, ethnology, and the scientific study of the Orient and of Antiquity - in which certain momentous confusions are almost inevitable if the concept of Initiation is not defined in a precise manner. It can be noted that, in the face of the rich material which is now available, scholars who are highly thought of, such as Frazer and Van der Leew, do not know how to orientate themselves adequately ; thus they may be seen making the Initiate, the medicine man, the mystic, the Yogi and even the wizard, into one and the same thing, whereas, between these general types, very precise distinctions must be made. Let us not even speak of what has happened with the psychoanalytical manipulations of this material ; what we have already indicated about the views of C. G. Jung, who is one of the main persons responsible for such manipulations, will suffice.

On the positive side, today, almost the only thing we can mention is the contribution made by the Traditionalist current claiming to follow René Guénon ; in this field, he is the most serious researcher and he bases himself on much accurate and authentic knowledge. Certainly, his horizons have some limits; however, he has proceeded with a certain rigour and he has maintained a well-calculated distance from the 'neo-spiritualist' by-products indicated above, as well as from the so-called 'scientific' researches of specialists of an external and profane nature.\

Having described the broad situation in these terms, in what follows we propose to clarify synthetically what should be understood by the term 'Initiation', and according to what spiritual frame of reference it should be regarded. We should warn our readers that our purpose is to define the concept of Initiation in itself and for itself, so to speak in a pure state, as a 'spiritual category'. Readers who are familiar with other works of ours are likely to know already what they will find here summarised ; readers who are not so familiar will experience a broadening of horizons because the vision of the higher ideals which humanity has managed to conceive would be rendered incomplete if the initiatory ideal were excluded or ignored. To the first group of readers, the extent to which we follow the views of the aforementioned Traditionalist current, and that to which we have found it necessary to grow away from them, will be self-evident.

I. Etymologically, 'to initiate' means to provide a new commencement. In this respect, one could also speak of a 'rebirth' ; but then it would be necessary to give this term a strictly ontological signification. As a matter of fact, the fundamental premise of Initiation is that the human condition, with the limits which define the common individuality, can be surpassed. It is a change of state, a passage from a way of being to another way of being, in the most objective sense. This is why in some testimonies Initiation is described almost as a physical fact, to underline its real, ontological character. The opposition between 'Superman' and 'Initiate' can be helpful to explain the concept of Initiation. The term 'Superman' refers to the extreme and problematic strengthening of the species 'Man'. However, in principle, the Initiate no longer belongs to this species at all. If one has in mind High Initiation, it can be said that the 'Superman' belongs to a Promethean plane (Man remains as he is but seeks, illegitimately, to gain a superior dignity and power), while the Initiate in the proper sense belongs to an Olympian plane (he has acquired an innate, distinct, and justified dignity).

The theory according to which the being possesses multiple states, of which the human is only one, is therefore the premise of the concept of Initiation. These states must however be considered as not only superior, but also inferior to the one characteristic of the common and normal human personality. Thus we can conceive of a double possibility of opening of this personality, upwards and downwards ; consequently, an 'ascending' overcoming (true to the strict etymological sense of the word 'to transcend', i.e., 'to go beyond by rising') must be well distinguished from a 'descending' overcoming (2).

This is why we have just spoken specifically of 'High Initiation', and the distinction indicated then also refers to what we have said elsewhere about primitive peoples constituting a special domain. The tribal initiations of the primitives and their so-called 'age cohort' initiations in general operate in the descending direction. The individual opens himself to the mystical-vital force of his stock, is integrated in it, and makes it his own. Or the integration may concern the deep powers which work formatively in the organism in the various periods of existence. What may result from this for the individual, the new faculties which he can thus acquire, contain however almost always something collective and sub-personal. The results of this show themselves to us in typical forms, for example, in totemism and in some varieties of primitive religions of the dead. To this subject we shall not return in this essay.

We should however distinguish here something which also appears in the area of the higher civilisations. It pertains to the division of Initiation into the Lesser Mysteries, which can be called generically Demetrian-Chthonic, and the Greater Mysteries, which can be called Ouranic or Olympian. Sometimes the Lesser Mysteries have been presented as a preliminary phase and the Greater Mysteries as a culmination. However, at other times, the Lesser and Greater Mysteries, along with many other forms of Initiation which are named differently but which can be referred respectively to the former and the latter, have not shown this character of phases but have been distinct and even opposed to each other. As a matter of fact, the terms can refer to different orientations, vocations and meanings. To simplify, it can be said that the essence of the Lesser Mysteries has a 'cosmic' and, in a certain sense, pantheistic character. Their limit is the hyle, in the broadest and most original sense of the word, i.e. nature, Mater Natura, Mater Magna, the manifested world. The Greater Mysteries are, contrarily, under the sign of Transcendence, of what is not 'life', even in the cosmic sense, but supra-life or Being. One could therefore speak, in the former case, of a rebirth into Life, and, in the latter, of a rebirth into Being, as ends of the corresponding Initiations. Yet, the concept of Initiation gains the fullness of its higher significance essentially with respect to the second direction.

The initiations which aimed at establishing or renewing a contact with special powers of nature should be considered on their own, as a variety of the Lesser Mysteries. In the traditional world, various initiations corresponding to specific crafts are of this type.

II. Next, we should distinguish the world of religion from that of Initiation. Here a certain schematisation cannot be avoided. Basically, there are religions in which an Initiation is present, and from the point of view of the history of religion it is a fact that some religions have developed from a domain which originally had an initiatory character, through a process of popularisation, of flattening, and of externalisation of the original teachings and practices. Buddhism is characteristic of this : there is a real gulf between what can be called the pure 'doctrine of awakening' and the related practices at the origin of Buddhism, and the religion which spread subsequently. It can be stated, however, that, in a complete Traditional system, Religion and Initiation are two hierarchically ordered degrees, whose relation in the doctrinal field is expressed by the following binaries : exoterism and esotericism ; mere faith and gnosis ; devotion and spiritual accomplishment ; plane of the dogmas and myths and plane of metaphysics. The present history of religions hardly brings out, or does not bring out at all, this essential articulation, and the way of conceiving religion which has come to predominate in the West, to the suggestive power of which many independent scholars are subject without realising it, shows that 'religion' can in fact become a category in itself, quite precisely determined and defined in opposition to everything which is initiatory and metaphysical. This conception derives to a large extent from the beliefs of the Semitic peoples, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, characterised, in their positive forms, by theism, creationism and the concept of man as generated per iatum (i.e., generated by the deity as a detached being). Islam indeed possesses an esoteric and initiatory tradition in the contexts of Shi'ism and Sufism; Judaism has a related tradition, in the Kabbala ; but these currents are in a certain manner separated from orthodoxy.
In Catholicism, their equivalent is completely lacking, since, instead of esotericism and initiatory experience, there is on the one hand mere mysticism, and on the other, as we shall note below, the curious phenomenon of structures which, in form, are of the initiatory type, but which are applied in a non-initiatic manner.

We can explain in sum the specific character of the religious perspective per se as opposed to the initiatory one by saying that the former is centred on the conception of the deity as person ( = theism), and is defined by an essential, ontological, distance, between this God-person, whose place is principial, and man, whose place is subordinate, which results in a transcendence which admits only relations of dependence, of devotion, or, at the extreme, transport and mystical ecstasy, while the limit corresponding to the relation "human 'I' - divine 'Thou'" remains firm.

Initiation, by contrast, has as its premise the removal of this limit, and in its place posits the principle of the 'Supreme Identity', whose counterpart is a supra-personal conception of the First Principle. Beyond God-as-person, there is the Unconditioned, a superior reality to both Being and non-Being, and to any specifically religious representation (some have spoken of a "Supergod"). As is well-known, in Hindu metaphysics, and in the original forms of Buddhism, for instance, the personal god, the gods and the celestial kingdoms were recognised, but an inferior degree of reality was accorded to them and they were considered as belonging themselves to the realm of the conditioned. The Absolute is beyond them. In Neoplatonism, whose connections to the world of the Hellenistic Mysteries are established, we find analogous conceptions. This shows how arbitrary it is to speak indiscriminately of 'religion' wherever there are relations between man and a supra-human world.

III. From the practical point of view, the metaphysical principle of identity leads to the replacement of relations of a moral and devotional character with relations of knowledge. This finds its main expression in the idea that what defines the human state with all its conditionalities is not an ontological distance, but only 'ignorance' or 'oblivion'. This truth has sometimes been sensed also by high mysticism (Meister Eckhart : man is God, but 'does not know' he is such - which corresponds precisely to the Hindu theory of avidya, or 'ignorance'). The concept of salvation or redemption is thus replaced by that of awakening and metaphysical awareness of the dimension of transcendence as such. It is in these terms that the specific attainment of the Initiate should be defined. Its essential character is that of a 'centrality'. Thus, some have opposed to the concept of ecstasy that of en-stasy, indicative of the opposite direction, not of a 'going out', but of a reconvergence towards the centre - besides, mysticism itself has known the saying : "You have not found Me because you have sought Me outside of yourself, while I (the deity) was within you". Another formula is that of the centre which unites with the Centre, of the one which unites with the One.

The essential distinction which has just been indicated between the religious and the initiatory perspectives would seem nevertheless compromised by the fact that, even in the religions of salvation, the aim seems to be the overcoming of mortal and fleeting nature. But, again, it is necessary to acknowledge that these terms have a different meaning there, and also that historically various forces have interacted and given rise to a promiscuity which does not let us distinguish the component parts with any clarity. This point can be explained by considering the special problem of existence in the afterlife.

What is peculiar to the Traditional 'Inner (i.e. esoteric) Teachings' is the distinction between immortality and survival in a generic sense. The difference between the Initiatory orientation and the conception of the religious type has been expressed adequately by a scholar of the Far Eastern tradition (Granet), who pointed out that in the religious perspective, the concept of a soul immortal in itself is never questioned, and the alternative is only the passage of this immortal soul after death to positive or negative states ('paradises' or 'hells'), a moral criterion being decisive in this ; however, for the 'Inner Teachings', immortality is something problematic and uncertain, and the alternative is rather between survival and non-survival - in fact, not so much at the moment of physical death as at the moment referred to as the 'second death'. Immortality in the proper sense is an exceptional possibility and coincides with the 'deconditionalisation' of the Being. 'Great Liberation', the passage beyond any transitory state, be it even supra-terrestrial, is the aim of the Great Initiation. As is well-known, the concept of 'second death' is recurrent, especially in the ancient Egyptian texts related to the world beyond the grave, and it is notable that the related remarks which are found in the Old Testament are an echo of such initiatory teaching.

Another example, though somewhat mythologised, is provided by Greek tradition, in the opposition between the privileged and Olympian immortality of the Initiates and 'Heroes' identified with demi-gods, for the few, and the destiny of Hades for 'the great number'. But perhaps it was in Taoism, not speculative but practical, that this doctrine - the problematic nature of immortality and the Initiatory condition for it - found their more precise formulation. The teachings expressed in the so-called Tibetan Book of the Dead (Bardo Thodol), finally, amplify these fundamental ideas in an objective manner, propounding the phenomenology of the possible experiences of the world beyond the grave and always opposing the accomplishment of the Unconditioned to the passage to one or another of the possible human or non-human forms of existence, to none of which the attribute of immortality, of the non-transient, of stability, or of transcendent centrality can be referred in any way. And, here again, the alternative is determined by 'knowledge' in the aforementioned metaphysical sense, and by actions of the spirit only possible to the possessor of such knowledge.

The common theme of these various examples is in obvious opposition to exoteric religious ideas about a naturally immortal soul and its destinies in the after-life, ideas which are often linked to the democratisation and degradation of a previous initiatory teaching. Thus, in Egypt and also in Greece ; Rohde rightly noted in relation to Greece how, following the decline of the original conception of the 'hero', they ended up considering as a 'hero' everyone, including those who had no other merit than that of being dead.

It is worth pointing out that, in the ancient tradition of the Mysteries (which the current history of religions often confuses with the religions of salvation, the so-called Erlösungsreligionen), the essential ontological aspect by which the Initiatory conception is opposed to the religious one is highlighted. From Diogenes Laertius we know of the scandal provoked in certain already 'illuminist' Greek circles by the Mystery doctrine according to which even a delinquent Initiate would have a privileged destiny after death, to which even men of such high moral intelligence as Agesilas or Epaminondas, as uninitiates, would not have access. In this connection, one can speak of a 'transcendental realism', which is confirmed also in the conception of the objective effectiveness of the Initiatory rite : it is admitted that its power is, on the spiritual plane, as objective and impersonal, and as detached from morality, as, on the material plane, actions of a technical nature are. Like such actions, the rite only requires that certain objective conditions are satisfied ; then the effect will follow of its own accord by necessity, whoever the subject (3). We may add that even in the first centuries of Christianity this opposition was still to a certain extent sensed, when the distinction was drawn between deification and sanctification. Deification is an ontological concept, it is defined in terms of change of essence, like the Initiatory transformation of Being. Sanctification has instead a moral and subjective character, which pertains essentially to the attitudes of the individual and to a certain conduct of life. In the development of Christian mysticism, after the beginnings (in which, especially in the Greek Church Fathers, there were remains of esoteric and Mystery traditions), the concept of sanctification got the upper hand almost exclusively (Augustinism, Spanish mysticism).

The conception to which we have just referred, nevertheless, seems to be contradicted by the fact that, even in what is known to us of Initiatory traditions, in Yoga and similar disciplines, strict precepts of a moral character can often be found. However, it is precisely in this respect that an essential difference between the world of religion and the world of Initiation, and between the religious attitude and the Initiatory attitude, stands out, because precepts which can be identical in both cases nevertheless acquire a different meaning in each. In the first case, they are given an intrinsic imperative power, either because they are considered as parts of a revealed divine law, or because an absolute validity, analogous to the categorical moral law of Kant, is claimed for them. In the second case, they have instead the significance of means ordered to an end ; they are considered only as conditions to the extent that to follow them creates in the individual certain favourable dispositions for Initiatory transformation. The classical expression of this instrumental conception of moral precepts is given by the well-known Buddhist simile of the raft : it is said that the sila, that is, the totality of the moral precepts, is to be compared to a raft built and used to cross a current ; once the raft has carried out its task, it is absurd to carry the raft further (it could be added : it would be equally absurd to build it, if one did not propose to cross any water-course).

This is how the relationship between Initiation and morality can be defined. In general and in every tradition, from the Initiatory point of view, it is necessary to distinguish a part which has an exclusively social and mundane value, acting as a factor to hold in check the human animal, and a part which is really turned upwards, towards transcendence. The relativity of moral precepts becomes clear in both of these areas. In the first case, moral precepts undergo, in the various traditions, ethnic and historical conditionalities which make it impossible to find anything really constant and invariable, and therefore intrinsically valid, in the numerous varieties of rule prescribed according to times and places. In the second case, when, that is, a purely instrumental value is attributed to moral precepts, the sole criterion is the extent to which the means - of whatever nature - allow the goal to be reached, so that, not only are very different Initiatory paths indicated, with a view to the predominant dispositions of this or that individual, but also the chosen means may be in complete contrast to the moral precepts which a tradition in its exoteric aspects prescribes for the life of the majority in the world. The most typical cases are the so-called 'Left-Hand Path' of the Tantric vâmâcâra (which has some points of contact with Dionysianism - for example, when it comes to the use of sex and the emphasis put on the orgiastic and destructive element), and the 'heroic path' (vîra-mârga), which, under the sign of pure transcendence, have as principle a true anomia, and a scorn for the common moral and religious rules, although the ultimate end is not different from that of the 'Right-Hand Path', which instead uses such rules as a support ("the rules which do not chain but sustain those who do not know how to go by themselves"). In general, the recurrence of 'antinomianism' (this word designates the rejection of the rules of the current religion), which almost always indicates connections with the world of Initiation or of esotericism, is well-known in the history of religions.

IV. What has been said so far will help to make it clear also that, between mysticism and Initiation, a boundary must be marked out. This point is generally neglected and confusion between the two domains is common, therefore it will be a good idea to add a few short considerations. To be accurate, in terms of mere etymology, mysticism refers to the Initiatory world because the 'mystes' (hence 'mysticism') was the follower of the ancient Mysteries. But, once again, we find ourselves in front of a typical case of the corruption of language. In its now current signification, the word 'mysticism' can legitimately be used only to designate a phenomenon with a specific physiognomy of its own, namely the extreme limit of the world of religion alone. First of all, this is a matter of fundamental orientation. To use terms already mentioned, mysticism is under the sign of ecstasy, Initiation under the sign of en-stasy; extroverted motion in the first case, introverted motion in the second. In accordance with the structure of the religious spirit, the position of the mystic with respect to transcendence is essentially 'eccentric' (=decentred). Hence, the prevailing characteristic of mysticism is passivity, and of the Initiatory state, activity. A very common mystical symbol, especially in the West, is that of the spiritual wedding, in which the human soul plays the feminine role of the bride, which would be absurd on the initiatory plane. However, the passivity of the mystic is inherent in the prevalence of the emotional element, emotional and sub-intellectual, and it is reflected in the prevailing character of mystical experience, which chokes and overwhelms the conscious principle of the I, rather than being controlled and dominated by it. Thus the mystic, almost always, has no precise idea of the road covered, and is unable to grasp or indicate the real and objective content of his experiences. The subjective moment and elements of a purely human nature prevail, the soul having ascendancy over the spirit (this is what renders the reading of the texts, the monotonous emotional effusions, of the majority of Christian mystics, almost unbearable - one can skim through, for example, the anthology called 'The Mystics' published by E. Zolla). Thus one can legitimately speak symbolically of the mystical path as an essentially damp one, as opposed to the dry Initiatory one. It is undeniable that some mystics have occasionally reached metaphysical heights, but without attaining true transparency, so to speak, through flashes and raptures, through the momentary lifting up of a curtain which immediately after fell down.

Besides, the mystic as such is a lonely vagrant. He ventures into the domain of the supra-sensible without having true principles to orientate himself and without having at his disposal a true protection. Once he has left the ground of positive and dogmatic tradition, he is on his own. There are no chains of mystics, that is to say, of teachers who transmit the mystical tradition in an unbroken manner, with a related, adequate doctrine and practice. As a matter of fact, mysticism appears as a mainly sporadic and irregular phenomenon.

It develops above all in those traditions which have an incomplete character, that is to say, in which mere religion and exoterism do not find their integration and completion in Initiation and esotericism. Essentially, and in opposition to the character of the merely mystical experience, it is necessary to point out the conscious, noetic, and intellectual character attributed to the true Initiatory experience.

V. At this point, the essential pattern of what, according to some circles, 'regular' Initiation would be, may be mentioned. A discrepancy between the aforementioned theoretical premise (namely, that Initiatory teaching, denying the concept of 'creature', also denies the idea of a hiatus or ontological distance between the Being and the principle of the I) and the practical attitude seems to arise, given the assertion that Initiatory experience, insofar as it consists of an overcoming of the human condition and a passage to superior states, cannot be realised optimally with the resources of the isolated individual alone. Here, however, one usually puts forward a consideration which is more historical and practical than one of principle, that is to say, the existential situation in which the great majority of individuals are placed, owing to the involutionary process which, according to all Traditional doctrines, has occurred in the course of history. Thus, according to the indicated pattern, Initiation would require the transmission to the Initiand of a special force by the representative of an organisation which is the holder of it and which is also the trustee of esoteric and Initiatory teachings. In this context, the concept of 'Tradition' is specified in objective and technical terms as an unbroken 'chain' which refers to an original centre. Where the present situation makes it possible, it is maintained that this is the 'regular' form of Initiation, a form which, on its own plane, shows some analogies with that of baptism and even more with that of priestly Catholic ordination. But a different general premise concerning the ontological connections between the human and the supra-human is considered here, in the sense that, in the case of Initiation, it is, in the last analysis, a matter of a passage from potentia to actu (determined by the Initiatory operation) of a deep dimension of the very Being of the Initiand. This idea was also entailed in that of 'virtual Initiation', which, moreover, remains inefficient and ineffective (as in the case of the quality which is supposed to be infused by mere Catholic baptism), if a proper action does not intervene and is not added. However, if only in exceptional cases, it is not excluded that, in principle, this action alone may cause the disruption of level, the Initiatory opening, of consciousness, without the indicated 'regular' and, to a certain extent, external ritual, joining the Initiand to an organisation.

There exist certain conditionalities, existential or otherwise, for these exceptional cases, on which we cannot dwell here, since the argument is rather complex, and besides, the connection between asceticism and initiation would have to be examined. In the cases which we have just mentioned, this connection is significant, though asceticism should not be considered here in its mortifying, penitential forms, overwhelmed by secondary moral and religious elements, but as an action undertaken by the individual by his own means, which can provoke the 'descent' and the ingrafting into him of a force from above. In such a case, there is a connection which can be said to be 'vertical' or direct, contrary to the 'horizontal' connection through the medium of an Initiatory chain, an integrative meeting between the force which proceeds from below upwards and the supra-individual and supra-human one which proceeds from above downwards - on the religious plane, it would be called the 'gift of grace' - but here, among other things, there is an essential difference due to the determining character of the 'ascetic' action, insofar as it creates in man a quality like that of the magnet which attracts a metal - here, the transcendent influence : this signification, among others, could be given to the saying that "the Kingdom of Heaven can be taken by storm." When such forces meet, the way to Initiatory development is opened, and the premise for the change of state in an autonomous manner is realised.

However, for 'regular' initiation with its 'horizontal' joining, there are also some conditions, with respect to the qualification required in the Initiand. This qualification has got nothing to do with qualities of a profane character ; thus, an eminent representative of culture, a scientist, or a modern philosopher, may be less qualified for Initiation than an almost illiterate person, while, as far as moral qualities are concerned, we have already explained in what sense they can come into play and have a value on the Initiatory plane. In general, the qualification for Initiation pertains to a special existential situation, and it refers to a virtual tendency to self-transcendence, to an active opening beyond the human. When it is lacking, the individual is not open to Initiation because either the Initiatory action would not have any effect, or it would be dangerous and destructive.

It would not have any effect in the case of the 'virtual Initiation', namely, when what is merely transmitted is a spiritual influence as a germ which the individual should develop alone (assuming immediately an active realisatory autonomous part - which corresponds to a more or less articulated development in the follower). It would act in a destructive manner in the case of a direct and gross initiation by a master. If the power, which is attributed to some personalities, especially in the East, to provoke directly the Initiatory opening of consciousness, by means of one technique or another, met a rigidity in the structure of the I of the neophyte, the effect would be a trauma, a destruction of the unity of the person. Hence the importance of various preliminary initiatory tests, sometimes described in spectacular terms ; they are always aimed at testing the capacity of supporting self-transcendence leading the individual even on the boundary of death and insanity. The affinity between initiation and death has always been underlined. The expressions which can be found in Plutarch and Porphyry are classical in this respect.

In essence, the Initiatory qualification is that which is required to be able to face actively and 'triumphantly', within one's lifetime existence, an experience corresponding to that of death. Often, a certain unification and harmonisation of the Being is indicated as the requirement for Initiation. It is explained that, when there are imbalances and splits in the individual, they become exacerbated by the contact with transcendent forces and, instead of the integration of the Being, the effect can be its disintegration and ruin. In passing, this shows the mistake of the interpretations of psychoanalysis, which has 'valued' some Initiatory processes as equivalent to psychoanalytic therapy : they have claimed that Initiation would have aimed at restoring a split individuality, an I grappling with the unconscious, with the libido and so on, but by 'pre-scientific' means. In fact, every Higher Initiation requires as point of departure and as 'qualification' the healthy, unified and perfectly conscious, man. The sole exception is constituted by cases in which certain diseases offer some virtual possibilities of self-transcendence, and have the character of diseases only because these possibilities do not work as such. Then, Initiatory techniques use them by giving them the right direction and integrating them into the process as a whole. This is attested in the specific case of shamanistic Initiations. One can refer also, in part, to what was called in Antiquity 'sacred diseases' and here a new task would be the clarification of things with respect to those psychiatric 'positivist' interpretations which, especially in the recent past, have claimed to throw a scientific light on many facts of ancient Initiations, of mysticism, and also of demonology, but have actually given rise to extremely serious misapprehensions.

VI. To have spoken about a noetic (intellectual in the superior sense) content of Initiatory, as opposed to mystical, experience should not lead the reader to think of something like theoretical comprehension of a teaching, even of a special or secret character. The attribute here is only meant to indicate the character peculiar to this experience as such : always as experience, essentially, of a state. It is about the superior character of lucidity which was referred in the Antiquity to the nous, to the intellect in the eminent sense : and here what we have said elsewhere about the mistake of irrationalism can be recalled. Nevertheless, the new state created by Initiatory rebirth has always been considered as the indispensable premise and the principle of a knowledge of a superior character. It is a knowledge for which symbols, myths and signs above all (the 'language of silence') appear as paths, in which their true signification is revealed. For this knowledge, the word 'Attainment' is often used, with reference to direct grasp, through identification, of the essences, in sensible and direct experience ; with an overcoming of the dualistic state by means of which 'common knowledge', when it is not mere conceptual abstraction, is always under the object-subject law. But here it is immediately necessary to re-emphasise the indicated noetic character, in order to oppose the tendency to confuse what is being discussed with that which is peculiar to a sub-intellectual, vital and emotional identification, similar to that supported by modern irrationalism.

Where the cognitive aspects of Initiatory development have been considered in a special and systematic manner - one can refer, for example, to the classic jnâna-yoga in its divisions - a process has occurred which, gradually, has led to the achievement of that intuitio intellectualis, or noumenal knowledge, which represents in Kant a limiting concept introduced only to characterise by contrast that which, according to him, is the only possible form of knowledge for man.

Knowledge as Attainment is knowledge which transforms and illuminating knowledge. In this respect, what is called 'esotericism' can be considered in a special light. Esotericism does not deal with a knowledge monopolised and held secret in an artificial manner, but rather with a truth which becomes obvious only at a level of consciousness different from that of the common man, of the profane man, and also of the simple believer. The 'secrecy' in which esoteric truth can be held pertains precisely to the fact that, in relation to the common man, this truth ceases to be true, becomes indeed rather dangerous, and can bring about his ruin. It is claimed that the conviction and execution of some Initiates, the dignity of whom was far from being ignored (as a typical case, that of Al-Hâllaj in Islam is produced) was due to their not having recognised this requirement : it is not a matter of 'heresy', but of practical and pragmatic reason. A typical saying in this respect goes like this : "That the wise with his wisdom does not trouble the minds of those who do not know."

When, however, Initiatory knowledge is applied to the disclosure of Traditional material, a beneficial side effect analogous to the acquisitions of the science of comparative religion on the cultural plane may be mentioned. On the Initiatory level, what a modern representative of the Traditionalist current called 'the transcendent unity of religions' is valid, although, in this connection, the word 'religion' has too restrictive a character. Different symbols, myths, rites, dogmas and teachings reveal a constant content, according to an identity which is not derived from an extrinsic process of borrowing and of historical transmission, but essentially from a common metaphysical and a-temporal content. The point of departure being, in the case of esotericism, the direct, experiential perception of this content, the correspondences which can be established here assume a special character of evidence which distinguishes them clearly from exterior comparisons, so to speak quantitatively based, such as can be found in the expositions of the science of comparative religion.

As a counterpart to this intuitive penetration of the constant contents beyond the multiplicity of historical and exoteric forms, what has been called the "gift of tongues" (some people would say that there is an allegorical and exoteric reference to it in the well-known episode of the Old Testament) is regarded, in general, as a distinguishing mark of the true Initiate. Just as the one who knows many languages knows how to exhibit the same concept in the words of one language or another, so is regarded the ability to exhibit, in the words of one tradition or another, the same content from the plane which is anterior and superior to the multiplicity of these traditions. However, it should be borne in mind that not every language has the same expressive possibility and an equally complete vocabulary.

VII. The last point to which we shall allude in these short notes no longer pertains to the definition in itself of the pure concept of Initiation, but to the connection between the plane of Initiation and that of mundane reality and of history. Above all in recent times the conception of the secret character of the quality of Initiate has prevailed. Thus, this saying of a Sufi (Islamic Initiate) could be cited : "That I am a Sufi is a secret between me and God".

The 'Hermetic' character of the Initiate is clear, moreover, from the same Initiatory current - alchemical Hermeticism, one of the main currents in the post-Christian West - from which this adjective is specifically derived. In this respect, if we go back further in time, a different possibility is also attested. Having a look at the civilisations which, in an eminent sense, we can call Traditional - to those civilisations, thus, which had an organic and sacred character and in which "all activities were ordered adequately from top to bottom" - at the centre of such civilisations we often find, quite visible, figures with features similar to those attributed to the Initiates. This centre being constituted, if we way put it this way, of an 'immanent transcendence', that is to say, of the real presence of the non-human in the human, it presupposes particular beings or elites, there is precisely a correspondence with the form of spirituality which defines the Initiate and distinguishes him, for example, from the priest, because the priest, at best, is a mediator of the divine and the supernatural, but does not incorporate it in himself with a character of 'centrality'.

The 'divine royalty' at the origins in a great number of civilisations had indeed this metaphysical character (4). A typical case is that of ancient Egypt, where the rites which established or confirmed the quality of the sovereign did not differ from the rites of Osirification and, in general, from the rites which ensured the change of nature, rebirth and privileged immortality. Many other testimonies of the same type could be produced, even if each individual case would require special consideration. Besides, residual traces of this primordial tradition are still attested in the Western medieval age, in the context of Christianity itself, because the rite of consecration of the king originally only differed in matters of detail from that of consecration of the bishops, which was held to bring about a transformation of the nature of the one who was the object of it, and the ingrafting into him of a new character indelebilis (in this comparison, we only consider the mere formal correspondence - and the indicated difference between the orientation of the priest, that of the Initiate, and that of the King in the original Tradition is not compromised by this) (5).

Thus, in other periods, besides the secret or 'Hermetic' type of the Initiate, a type is attested who, finding his natural and legitimate place at the top and centre of an organisation which was sacral and also political, also acted as a symbol, and who, by incorporating a superior force or principle, was believed to be able to exercise a direct action, visible and invisible, on historical, political and social reality (this idea was particularly emphasised in the Far East). The type of civilisation which has come to predominate in historical times has however increasingly denied the unity of the two powers, spiritual and political, and has suppressed therefore this function too, which, in general, was attributed to a visible leader known to have Initiatory features. Besides, in Europe, the character of its religion, Christianity, has progressively driven underground any strands or centres of Initiatory tradition which might have survived. In fact, historical Christianity not only does not have an Initiatory tradition, but its specifically religious orientation (in the main sense of the word 'religious' which we have defined above) has opposed any such tradition. We have already pointed out the weird phenomenon that we meet in Catholic Christianity : a sort of imitation of the Initiatory pattern. Baptism conceived as a rite which will transmit a principle of supernatural life to the Christian by differentiating him essentially from every non-Christian and providing the necessary condition for salvation ; supernatural influences linked to the apostolical and pontifical traditions and claimed as basis for the efficacy of the sacraments ; the objectivity of the character indelebilis created by priestly ordination ; and so on - all this shows obvious formal analogies with Initiatory structures. But the plan is different, the orientation is different. It can be said that an image or reproduction has replaced reality and has been used to try to create an order on a different existential plane (6).

This is not the matter we wish to discuss here, nor is the organising function which Catholicism was able to develop in the Western world. We will note, however, that the latter has not been able to hinder the birth of the modern world, and of the modern 'civilisation', in the Christianised area, nor the progressive destruction of any traditional order and the affirmation of forms of subversion and materialism which, starting from the West, are becoming planetary in scope and are showing an increasing irreversibility. A problem, rather, would be posed when the real existence in the world of the most recent times of true Initiatory centres, and therefore also of persons in virtual possession of these powers which are derived from the very concept of Initiation, is asserted. Then, it would be necessary to ask ourselves whether any connection exists between these persons and historical developments. Given the course taken by such developments, no longer only in the West, the idea of a secret influence from behind the scenes would be problematic ; for many reasons, an action of this type would be better attributed to opposite powers, to those of an anti-Traditional destructive force, called, in certain circles, a 'counter-initiation'.

In general, in this respect, the idea of a 'withdrawal' of Initiatory presences from the process of history has been put forward. But even without considering the domain of history, limiting oneself to the spiritual plane alone, most of those who have some qualification to give a decision on this matter agree that the Initiatory organisations in a position to claim an authentic filiation in Europe are now either non-existent or in a phase of degeneration (the possibility of such degeneration poses, in its turn, a difficult problem), and that even the few existing outside Europe have become more and more inaccessible, while the falsifications and the mystifications proliferate : which corresponds to one of the features of what has been called the 'dark age'.

Such a situation has its effects upon the concept of Initiation itself, in the sense that anyone today who has Initiatory aspirations, by force of necessity, should consider a different path from that still termed 'regular', constituted by the 'horizontal' joining with an existing living chain. Thus, it seems that the perspective of an essentially 'vertical' and autonomous joining becomes the more possible, by virtue of an exceptional individual qualification and by that action, to a certain extent violent, which we have already mentioned when we talked about the connections between Initiation and asceticism. On this matter, in circles seriously interested in the problems of Initiation, controversies have developed lately and those who insist on asserting exclusively the 'regular' patterns of initiation in abnormal times like ours have been accused, not unjustly, of formalist bureaucratism distant from reality.

It is not eccentric on our part to question their view. In fact, in addition to the importance, for the reasons we indicated at the beginning, of the formation in abstract terms of a clear idea of what Initiation is and of the differences between its domain and other spiritual domains, today it would be interesting to establish if, to what extent and in what contexts, Initiatory attainment is still possible at all. The problem is of essential importance to those who have made an absolutely negative assessment of all the cultural, social, ideological and religious values existing today, and are at a dead point ; for them, perhaps, the superior freedom which has always been the aspiration of whoever tried the Initiatory path constitutes the only alternative to the forms of revolt peculiar to a destructive, irrational and even criminal nihilism.

These last considerations fall, naturally, outside the topic of the theoretical definition of the concept of Initiation (and it is this definition in which, in general, most of our readers will be interested), but perhaps they can provide the necessary context for a comprehensive evaluation of it.

Since we have mentioned the contribution to the study of Initiation made by René Guénon and the Paris-based group inspired by him, it is perhaps advisable to mention the special case constituted by a small group which has formed in Turin at the time of this writing, which would like to be 'Traditional' and devoutly Guénonian (7). Although it cannot be relegated to the plane of the numerous neo-spiritualistic conventicles, nevertheless it makes Guénonianism into a veritable scholasticism (in the second-rate sense). As true aspirants to the 'top of their class', its members slavishly follow their teacher, with tedious and stereotyped repetitions, to the point of suffocating the more lively elements of his doctrine instead of developing them, going deeper into them, or achieving any eventual revisions and integrations of those points in Guénon where, despite all his efforts, problems remain which are not by any means about 'metaphysics' (in his sense), but about simple philosophy, and where some consequences, often simplistic, of his personal equation can be felt.

In the meantime, in a magazine, they presume to be able to start judging Traditionalist 'orthodoxy' ex cathedra and calling whoever does not follow their line 'profane' and deviationist, avoiding naturally the production of any entitlement which would justify this frivolous pretence of theirs. As a matter of fact, neither their passive, easy theoretical conformism, nor their being - according to what they claim - on good terms with Freemasonry, can authorise them to regard themselves as 'non profanes' : since, in Freemasonry, there is no real, actual and experiential initiation whatever, but only empty, ineffective, debased, ritualistic remains, if not something even worse (compare what we have brought forward on this subject in the last chapter of our 'Mystery of the Grail') All this shows a definite lack of sensibility or qualification.

This brief clarification may have assisted the orientation of our readers. One merit of the conventicle in question, whose existence is likely to be ephemeral, must be granted to be the production of editions of some books and writings by Guénon in Italian, although it would have been useful to have provided introductions specifically for these editions outlining the contents of the texts and their limitations point by point.


Notes:

(1) Edouard Schuré : 'The Great Initiates : A Study of the Secret History of Religions' (Steinerbooks, New York, 1961)

(2) Exactly these two tendencies, almost as a reflection, can be discerned on a more exterior plane completely outside the Initiatory domain, in the life itself of the man of our days. Thus A. Huxley (and also Jean Wal), referring to this man, has also talked about an "upward self-transcendence" and a "descending self-transcendence", adding a third direction called by him "horizontal" or "lateral self-transcendence". For Huxley, today, the most widespread experiences in the descending direction are linked to the use of alcohol, of drugs and of a pandemic sexuality ; horizontal or lateral self-transcendence would manifest itself in the collectivising phenomena, in the passive and irrational identification of the individual with assorted fanatical currents or movements or ideologies, with the manias of the day. For the man of today, both the descending self-transcendence and the lateral one are, according to Huxley, forms of escapism (we would add : and of regression). However, both mix because, in all which is collective, 'infernal' powers, that is to say powers of the sub-personal level, always act, and are perceptible upon the surface. To give everyone his due, Jung is right when he says that the ancient demons against possession by which one sought in other times to defend oneself, today, in the "illuminated and progressed" world, have not disappeared but continue to function in disguise at the root of the various 'isms' (nationalism, progressivism, communism, racism, and so on), as collectivising forces of 'horizontal' escapism.

(Note by editors : Even though to give everyone his due is the least that one can do, the fact that both 'nationalism' and 'racism' are included in this list of pernicious 'isms' will come, to say the least, as a surprise to the reader who is familiar with Evola's writings on nationalism and race in the thirties and in the early forties. We may explain the apparent contradiction by distinguishing unacceptable from acceptable 'nationalisms' and 'racisms' thus : regarding 'nationalism', the reader will recall the pertinent distinction made by Evola as early as in 'Revolt against the Modern World' between a 'catagogic nationalism', for which the nation is conceived of as a mere mystical-biological collectivity, as a more or less abstract national consciousness distinct from others, the one which was actually used by the forces of subversion to undermine and to destroy the remains of the European traditional society throughout the XIXth century, and, on the other hand, a nationalism which may constitute a putting right, a recovery, a reintegration with respect to the latter situation, 'anagogical nationalism', for which the nation is seen and felt as an entity in itself, a person, on the basis of a traditional hierarchical caste order ; and regarding 'racism' we recall that while rightly condemning biological racism, a racism only based on the colour of the skin, he also praised the superior form of racism which he upheld, going so far as to state, in 'The Elements of Racial Education' (1941) : "racism has the value of a test, of a reagent, even in its most general formulations. The reactions of this or that person towards the racist idea are a sort of barometer which show us the 'quantity' of race which is found in the person in question. To say yes or no to racism is not merely to differ intellectually, it is not something subjective and arbitrary. The one who says yes to racism is the one in whom race still lives : the one who has been internally defeated by the anti-race and in whom the original forces have been stifled by ethnic waste, by processes of cross-breeding and degeneration, or by a bourgeois, weak, and intellectualistic style of life which has lost for generations any contact with anything which is really originary, opposes it and searches in all directions for alibis in order to justify his aversion and discredit racism.")

(3) Naturally, the variety of the subjects will result in a variety of effects, just as the action of fire is different if it is exerted on water, on wood or on a metal.

(4) With respect to the indicated character of 'centrality', of 'immanent transcendence', the sovereign of such civilisations, structurally, can therefore be connected to the type of the Initiate more than to the type of the priest, even though his nature qualifies him for sacerdotal functions. This is what Guénon has not grasped, since he insists that, in normal traditional civilisations, the supreme representative of spiritual authority at the top and centre would have been the type of the priest, with entails the subordination of royalty to a sacerdotal caste. This, in reality, does not by any means describe the original and higher state, but pertains to a situation which is to be considered abnormal from the traditional point of view.

(5) Further on this topic consult the first chapters of our work 'Revolt Against the Modern World'.

(6) The question of the existence or non-existence of a Christian initiation was lately the object of discussion in some Traditionalist circles (cf. the review Etudes Traditionnelles, 1965. n. 389-390). To what we have just said, that is, that the sacramental Catholic corpus appears, in some respects, as a kind of representation transposed onto the religious plane of Initiatory structures, some have added that such structures existed originally on the plane of true Initiation, and even that they could also have continued to be such later on in Christianity. Some excerpts of the Greek Church Fathers, above all, were produced, where the distinction between the simple believers and those who are in possession of a superior knowledge (of the 'perfect gnosis') are met with, and where an esoteric interpretation of the Sacred Christian Writings is alluded to.

In more recent times, however, speculation has moved towards the Christianity of the Greek-Orthodox Church (because it is admitted that in the West, from the council of Nicea, the purely religious forms have completely prevailed), and the current of 'hesychasm' has been considered by some to be characterisable as a "Christian yoga" ; some expressions of one of the main representatives of this current, Saint Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022) were cited, concerning a rite of transmission of a power (the 'holy spirit') through the laying on of hands, distinct from baptism ; a rite which is thought to have had the aspect of an 'initiatory transmission".

However, originally, especially in Greek Patristics, the mixtures of Christianity with motifs belonging essentially to non-Christian mysteriosophy are obvious, and the example given by Origen shows what the alleged "esoteric interpretation" amounts to in fact. If, in the so-called Apocryphal Gospels, and also in everything which has passed under the name of gnosticism in the history of religions, elements of a superior knowledge are found, all this nevertheless falls outside the central and official current of positive Christianity, just as, for example, in later times, the current of the Brothers of the Free Spirit does. Hesychasm itself has to be considered as an isolated vein of Greek-Orthodox Christianity and the rite of the laying on of hands seems to us to have the generic character of 'Blessing', at best that of a 'virtual Initiation', not that of a real operation of Initiatory opening of consciousness. These are lateral phenomena.

Naturally, from within Christianity and sometimes also from within certain religious regular orders, some have managed to reach sporadically a level superior to that of theistic devotional religion (even in the Protestant area). But this is another question, which does not prove by any means the existence and continuation of an Initiatory Tradition, which, by its very nature, should have had its place at the centre and top of historical Christianity, especially of Catholic Christianity, and should have been the keeper of an 'Orthodoxy' in a superior sense. Against this, the arguments produced by those indicated above have no probatory force.

On the other hand, the question can to be resolved on the morphological and doctrinal plane : it is necessary to judge if what we have brought forward until now really corresponds to the essence of the Initiatory reality. If it corresponds to this reality, one must ask whether it is compatible with what can be said to be characteristic of the positive tradition and central conception of Christianity. The reply, we believe, is not in doubt, and shows other considerations to be peripheral. To put it drastically, in our opinion, what can be Initiatory in Christianity is not Christian and what is Christian in it is not Initiatory.

(7) Evola refers here to Edizioni Studi Traditionali, which, in the middle of the Sixties, printed various hitherto unpublished works by Guénon in Italy, and to their paper, the Rivista di Studi Tradizionali, which would regularly publish critical articles against him, and with which he often exchanged polemics. Evola's reply to them is constituted by an article called 'René Guénon e la scolastica guénoniana", which can be found in an English translation in 'René Guénon : a teacher for modern times' (N.D.T.)


Read more!

Rabbi Geoffrey W. Dennis, Angels (full text)

In Judaism an angel is a spiritual entity in the service of God. Angels play a prominent role in Jewish thought throughout the centuries, though the exact meaning of the word has been subject to widely, at times wildly, different interpretations.

A number of numinous creatures subordinate to God appear through the Hebrew Bible; the Malach (messenger/angel) is only one variety. Others, distinguished from angels proper, include Irinim (Watchers/High Angels), Cherubim (Mighty Ones), Sarim (Princes), Serafim (Fiery Ones), Chaiot ([Holy] Creatures), and Ofanim (Wheels). Collective terms for the full array of numina serving God include: Tzeva, (Host), B'nei ha-Elohim or B'nai Elim (Sons of God), and Kedoshim (Holy Ones). They are constituted in an Adat El, a divine assembly (Ps. 82; Job 1). A select number of angels in the Bible (three to be precise) have names. They are Michael, Gabriel, and Satan.

Angels can come in a wondrous variety of forms, although the Bible often neglects to give any description at all (Judges 6:11-14; Zechariah 4). They appear humanoid in most Biblical accounts (Numbers 22) and as such are often indistinguishable from human beings (Gen. 18; 32:10-13; Joshua 5:13-15; Judges 13:1-5) but they also may manifest themselves as pillars of fire and cloud, or as a fire within a bush (Ex. 3). The Psalms characterize natural phenomenon, like lightning, as God's melachim (Ps. 104:4). Other divine creatures appear to be winged parts of God's throne (Is. 6) or of the divine chariot (Ezek. 1). The appearance of cherubim is well known enough to be artistically rendered on the Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25). Perhaps the most ambiguous creature is the Malach Adonai, an angel that may or may not be a visible manifestation of God.

Biblical angels fulfill a variety of functions, including conveying information to mortals, shielding, rescuing, and caring for Israelites, and smiting Israel's enemies. The Book of Daniel includes a number of ideas about angels that would be elaborated upon in post-Biblical tests, including named angels and guardian angels, that all the nations of the world have their own angelic prince, that angels are arranged hierarchically, and that angels have delimited spheres of authority.
Jewish sources of the Greco-Roman period expand on the traditions of angels found in the Hebrew Scriptures. We especially see the first systematic organization of Biblical hosts of heaven into a hierarchy of different castes of angels governing and serving on different levels of heaven. Zechariah's reference to the seven eyes of God (4:10) is understood to refer to either seven archangels, or the seven angel hosts in the seven heavens (I Enoch 61; Testament of the Patriarchs, Levi).

We also see the resurgence of a quasi-polytheistic view of the divine order recast in monotheistic terms. Now instead of having minor gods with specific spheres of power, lists of angels appear, all subordinate to God, but each designated with their sphere of authority (3 Enoch). This is accompanied by a proliferation of named angels. For the first time we hear of Uriel, Rafael, Peniel, Metatron, and many, many others (I Enoch, Tobit, IV Ezra).

There also an increasing awareness of an affinity between angels and mortals. It seems that the boundary between human and angelic states is permeable. Elaborating on cryptic passages found in the Bible (Gen. 5:24; II Kings 2:11), it is taught that exceptional mortals, such as Enoch, may be elevated to angelic status (I Enoch).
A sense of dualism, stronger than what is found in the Hebrew Scriptures, appears in Late Antiquity and leads to angels being divided into camps of light and darkness, as exemplified by the angelology informing the Manual of Discipline found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The mythic allusion to the misadventures of the Sons of God in Gen. 6:2 becomes the locus classicus for this belief. Thus the legend of fallen angels first appears in the pseudo-epigraphic writings (I Enoch 6, from the section sometimes called the Book of the Watchers). It is here also we first see the idea that angels envy humanity. The mythos of fallen angels eventually becomes a major theological motif in Christianity, but remains largely in the background in Rabbinic Judaism, exerting far less influence over subsequent Jewish cosmology (see Demons and Satan). The belief that angels may be invoked and employed by human initiates, later a staple element of Merkavah mysticism, first appears are this time (Testament of Solomon).

Generally speaking rabbinic literature deemphasizes the importance of angels when compared with their role in the Apocalyptic and Mystical traditions. For the first time the idea is suggested that angels have no free will (Shab. 88b; Gen. R. 48:11). But they do have intellect and an inner life; they argue and are capable of errors (Sand. 38b; Midrash Psalms 18:13). Angels exist to do a single task (BM 86b; Gen. R. 50:2) and exalted as they may be, angels are subordinate to humanity, or at least the righteous (Gen. R. 21; Sand. 93a; Ned. 32a; Deut. R. 1).

Still, references to angels in rabbinic literature are almost as vast as the Hosts of Heaven themselves. Many divine actions described in Scripture were now ascribed to various angels (Deut. R. 9; Gen R. 31:8; Sand. 105b). Contrary to this trend, however, the Passover Haggadah pointedly denies that angels played any role in the pivotal event of delivering Israel from Egypt (Magid).

Angelic functions are revealed to be even more varied and their role in the operation of the universe even more pervasive. For the first time the figure of Mavet (Death) in the Bible is identified as the Malach ha-Mavet (the Angel of Death). The Early Jewish concept of personal angels, of melachei sharet, and memuneh, "ministering" or "guardian" angels and "deputies," also comes to the fore in rabbinic literature. The idea that the angels form a choir singing the praises of God also captures comment and speculation by the Sages (Gen. R. 78:1).

While rabbinic writings offer no systematic angelology comparable to that coming out of contemporaneous Christian and magical circles, certain parallel notions can be seen. Thus we learn in Talmud that Michael, the angelic prince over Israel, serves as High Priest in Yerushalyim shel malah, the heavenly Jerusalem (Chag. 12b). Legends concerning the prophet-turned-angel Elijah become one of the most commonplace angelic tales. Elijah frequently appears among mortals, bearing revelations from heaven and resolving inscrutable questions.

That all angels (and not just seraphim and cheruvim) have wings is first mentioned during this period (Chag. 16a). The size of angels may vary from small to cosmic (Chag. 13b).

There also emerges a fundamental disagreement about the nature of angels. Some consider angels to God's "embodied decrees," elementals made of fire, like an Islamic ifrit, or from an impossible combination of fire and water (Sefer Yetzirah 1.7; S of S R. 10; T.Y. Rosh. H. 58). Others regard them as immaterial, disembodied intellects.

Unlike the Biblical writers, the Sages allow themselves to speculate on the origins of angels. They teach, for example, that angels did not pre-exist creation, but were formed as part of the heavens on the second day (Gen. R. 1:3; 3). Another Rabbi posits they came into existence on the fifth day, along with all winged creations.
In late antiquity angelology becomes a major element in Merkavah mysticism. Any adept wishing to ascend the palaces of the heavens and achieve a vision of the Divine Glory needed to know how to get past the angelic guardians (usually by knowing and invoking their names) at each level. Perhaps even more important to this mystical tradition, angels can be summoned and brought down to earth to serve a human initiate. Many rituals and practices devoted to this end have been preserved in the Hechalot writings. Starting in late antiquity, angels are increasingly related to and bound up with the everyday life of individuals.

Medieval Midrash reiterates and further develops earlier teaching about angels, but it is during this period that individual philosophers start to offer systematic and idiosyncratic interpretations of angels. Maimonides, for example, talks about them at length in his Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yisodei HaTorah (Laws of the Foundations of the Torah). While he meticulously classifies angelic rankings (there are ten), in his rationalistic system Maimonides equates them with the Aristotelian "intelligences" that mediate between the spheres. As such they are conscious and govern the spheres in their motion, but in his Aristotelian context Maimonides is saying they are forms of natural causation rather than supernatural beings. He also expands his definition to include natural phenomenon and even human psychology (he refers to the libidinous impulse as the "angel of lust"). Based on his he concludes there are two types of angels, eternal and ephemeral, the latter of which constantly pass in and out of existence. He also denies that angels ever take corporeal form; the encounters described in the Bible are only the dream visions of the patriarchs and matriarchs. By contrast other thinkers, like the German Pietist Eleazer of Worms, adhere to esoteric and unapologetically supernatural angelologies. Because of the exalted status of Torah study among Ashkenazi Jews, rituals for summoning angels, especially angels who could reveal secrets of the Torah, like the Sar ha-Torah and Sar ha-Panim (The Prince of the Torah and the Prince of the Presence), became widely known.

The early Medieval magical work Sefer ha-Razim catalogues hundreds of angels, along with how to influence them and to use their names in constructing protective amulets, throwing curses, and otherwise gaining power. Zohar, along with continuing the tradition of angelic taxonomy, sorting them into seven palaces and ranking them according to the four worlds of emanation (1:11-40), assigns angels feminine as well as masculine attributes (1:119b).

Visitations by angels were widely reported among kabbalists. The mystic-legalist Joseph Caro wrote of his maggid, the genius of the Mishna, who visited him in the night and taught him Torah ha-Sod, the esoteric Torah.

The main contribution of Chasidic thought to angelology was a distinctly anthropocentric, even psychological, interpretation of angelic nature. Specifically, early Chasidic masters held that ephemeral angels were the direct result of human action. Goodly deeds created good angels, destructive behavior created destructive angels, etc. In other words, most angels are ontologically the creation, really a byproduct, of humans rather than God! Thus the balance between the angelic and demonic forces in the universe is a direct result of human decision and action.
In the last quarter of the 20th Century, there has been renewed interest in angels is evidenced throughout the Jewish community.

Magical uses: The names of angels have apotropaic properties and frequently appear on amulets, magical inscriptions and formula. In the bedtime ritual Kriat Sh'ma al ha-Mitah, the angels Michael, Gabriel, Uriel and Raphael are invoked for protection through the night. Angels have areas of specialization and can be summoned to assist mortals in these areas, such as learning and memorizing Torah.

Greek: angelos, messenger. Hebrew: Malach, Irin, Cheruv, Seref, Ofan, Chaiah, Sar, Memuneh, Ben Elohim, Kodesh.


Read more!

Julius Evola, Action, Contemplation and the Western Tradition (full text)

To the modern man, accustomed to consider spirituality as something woolly, abstract and conceptual, to hear of a spirituality of action could sound strange. However, where spirituality means an impulse of the human being towards an awakening, an inner presence, a liberation from the I and the mine, then action proves to be a powerful instrument of such a self-transcendence. According to Evola, this refers to action purified of selfishness, not subservient to desire but led by a lucid consciousness of 'doing what is to be done'. This is the path that the Western warlike world has always perceived as its own.

Evola obviously refers to a Western world which existed prior to the advent of the Levantine and Christian ideal of the so-called 'natural law' according to which any man is identical to others and his true nature unmodifiable. On the contrary, it is to the vision of the sacred of the white and Indo-European races that he refers when he says : "It was through action which Rome knew and achieved spirit, in the form of those who fight and not of those who pray, and achieved it in victory in the ultimate solar form of the Empire", or, when, quoting Nietzsche, he declares : "Beyond ice, North, death - our life, our joy".

The other path to the sacred, essentially oriental, to which Guenon attributed supremacy, is that of contemplation, of 'non-action' : the examination, at first sporadic and vague but thereafter increasingly continuous and crystalline, of one's body, voice, and ensemble of feelings and thoughts, acknowledging them as mere mirror-images, incapable of modifying in any way the mirror of consciousness, which identifies itself with the true 'I'.

Action and contemplation, joined in the sole figure of the Universal Sovereign in mythological epochs, subsequently bifurcated into two paths suitable for, and further constituting, two human types.

While Evola, paying more attention to man, attributes a supremacy to the spirituality of action, to royal initiation rather than to sacerdotal initiation, Guenon, taking into greater account man's function, grants only to the Brahmanic caste the exercise of spiritual faculties and considers the 'revolt of the Kshatriya' as a first step towards the decadence of man, who, forgetting his own origin and his own destiny, has 'abandoned the sky to pursue the earth'.

A.M.


Action, Contemplation, and the Western Tradition (*)

Esoterically, when we speak of 'tradition', we mean the 'transmission' (traditio) from generation to generation of a 'presence' of 'transcendent' nature, just as a flame lights another flame. A chain of individuals thus becomes the mediator of a continuity of contact with metaphysical reality and a non-human force.

This transmission can happen in an elite existing as an hidden vein behind the great historical and ethnic forces. But it can also occur that the occult shows itself and dominates, that is to say, that, in a given civilisation, all activities become organised around this elite, which becomes their manifest centre, the axis from which they draw their meaning and their orientation in a system of hierarchic participation.

All the original civilisations, albeit to varying degrees, have a traditional character in this sense. It must however be noticed that, from a certain point, a law of differentiation comes into play. When it appears as spirit of a given epoch or civilisation, the metaphysical identity bifurcates itself. In its most immediate manifestation, it produces two distinct trunks and gives rise to two fundamental forms.

The two trunks are : action and contemplation.

The two related forms are : royal initiation and sacerdotal initiation - hence there are two types of tradition: warlike-magic tradition and ascetic-contemplative or Brahmanic tradition.


The Two Traditions

Mortal life's rule is 'flow'. It does not possess Being, and, caught in varying external fortunes, it moves, restless, in the world of particular things and temporal interests. This law has been pointed out many times in these pages. Above this is the area of Being, according to which life becomes basis, reason and value in itself, gains stability, possesses in itself its own principle. Identical to that of the incorruptible and the eternal, this area can be reached either by means of Action as well as by means of Contemplative Knowledge.

Action can lead to it insofar as it is pure. At the inferior limit, there is the purity of the one who follows faithfully the rule of his own life and gives to his action the meaning of a rite and of a sacrificial offering. On a higher plane, there is the internalisation and development of this bent in the one who acts without aiming at contingent and particular fruits, considering as the same happiness and calamity, good and evil, even victory and defeat, looking neither at the 'I' nor at the 'you', overcoming love as well as hatred and any other pair of opposites. This man sets himself free from the individual condition ; in the supranatural certainty of a borderline intensity, here 'life' is reversed into a 'more-than-life' and the contact with a state of light and power is achieved, which surpasses, dominates and carries off everything that is of a merely human or material order, giving way to actions, excitements and visions which would be impossible otherwise. We may summarise this as : heroic state, magic state, state of the Master of the Law. By transposition : warlike caste - warlike-magic and warlike traditions - finally : royal and imperial traditions.

In contemplation the metaphysical state, rather than by the means of assertion and liberation of action, is achieved by rejecting action. In the higher forms it resembles the fire of an intellectual catharsis. The bond of individuation dissolves in knowledge, in universality, in a vision of an eternal kind. It is the impulse towards the One. It is the path of the mystic identifications whose direction is opposed to that which leads towards form and differentiation. To summarise : ascetic (in a specific sense) and sacerdotal state. By transposition : sacerdotal caste, mediator and bearer of the sacred - sacerdotal, hieratic-sapiental and religious-pontifical (the king-priest) traditions.

It should be noted that these two forms of tradition are to be considered as distinct not insofar as that each of them would be based on a term which the other would be deprived of, but, rather, insofar as that each of them has both but in a different hierarchical order. As a matter of fact, the heroic path and the magic path involve 'asceticism', yet according to action, achieved as a way of being of action. Conversely, high contemplation is realisation and as such entails the element 'action', which, however, remains here dependent on pure knowledge, interest in the universal and pure transcendence. In the same way, on the concrete and historical plane a tradition of a warlike kind can certainly admit sacerdotal castes, but subordinated to the royal and warlike castes, that is to say that it is characterised by a synthesis of what is sacred and what is royal which is determined by the predominance of the active and sovereign aspect of the force from above. The opposite occurs in the other case : for example, here the warlike caste is given the role of defending the sacerdotal caste and of being its secular arm.

The spirit of both traditions having been briefly and approximatively indicated, we offer a few suggestions as to what 'Western Tradition' may mean.


The modern world and Christianity

First of all, it must be borne in mind that it is not possible to speak in any way of 'Tradition' in the West if one identifies the West with the 'modern world', that is, with the civilisation which has developed in Europe from the century of the Renaissance onwards with the ideologies of the French revolution and the advent of science and technology.

Such civilisation, in fact, systematically destroyed the premise of any tradition, whatever type it may be, and, thus, the contact with the metaphysical reality and the hierarchical coordination of the activities and the ways of living based on the principles which are related to this reality. The 'modern world' is characterised by a development along purely material, practical and industrial lines, in which what is at work is completely human and social forces, and, moreover, by the fact that forces once turned towards transcendence, towards what in man goes beyond man, so as to at least counterbalance purely material and temporal interests, instead stir, incite and foment what has a practical, political and merely human character, so as to make every higher point of reference vanish.

What opposes the modern world to any traditional civilisation, what is at the root of all its crises and precludes it from healing is not so much its being a body without spirit as its being a body which has reduced the spirit to being its instrument. This is why it is meaningless to refer in any way to a 'Western Tradition' if it is the modern West that we have in mind. The modern West and antitradition are the same thing. The fact is nonetheless that there were still in Europe, at least until a certain period, centres in possession of esoteric knowledge, that is, of the occult tradition. However, even though those centres had a genuine Western character, they did not exert a direct influence on the formation of the overall civilisation, when it comes to tradition in the broad sense. The modern West has constructed itself by breaking from any influence of that kind. If anything, it is 'counter-initiation' (1) which has played this role of influence.

In the second place, it is a matter of not granting to the religion which has come to prevail in the West either the character of a true, complete tradition, or of a 'Western Tradition'. In support of the second point, Pietro Negri has already made some interesting observations (2). On the whole, what follows must be borne in mind.

No doubt, Christianity, and especially Catholicism, had for centuries the power to organise the various races in the West according to its unique corpus of doctrines and faiths. However, it is questionable whether this corpus retained within itself any higher elements of a truly metaphysical character and whether the organisation which is usually indicated generically as 'Christian civilisation' was ever 'traditional' in the complete sense of which we have spoken. We must distinguish very clearly between religion as a devotional, emotional and popular fact accompanied by theologising philosophy, dogma and apologetics, on the one hand, and spirituality as metaphysical realisation by means of regular initiation, on the other. Faith, hope, charity, the 'need of the soul', the 'fear of God' and all elements of that kind by themselves do not lead by an inch beyond what is merely human, nor have they had anything to do with true spirituality, either with a heroic spirituality or a tradition of sacred knowledge.

But it is precisely a body of elements of that kind which, in fact, makes up the substance of the Christian tradition, in which it takes the place of spirituality, and this results in the frequent and contaminating humanisation of the divine. That, in spite of this, in rites and symbols taken to a large extent from previous or different traditions, the consciousness of the most profound meaning of which is however almost always non-existent, the Christian tradition still retains traces of a metaphysical teaching - this is too little for a real and operative traditional 'orthodoxy', as opposed to a merely formal one.

The human, devotional plane, or rather the plane of theological speculation onto which these traditional traces have been transposed and within which they have been preserved, is not a plane on which they can be completely validated. And it is Catholicism itself which gives the confirmation of this : with the harsh loathing it has always nursed for any attempt to complete on esoteric lines its doctrines - from some 'non-orthodox' branches of the Greek Patristic Age and that of the Gnostics to that of the Templars and of various Christian Hermeticists, and to today. Nowadays, Catholicism worries much more about 'getting sorted out' with 'modern thought' than about gaining height in any way through elements of esoteric character.

Experientially, leaving aside the merely charismatic or sacramental life, whose significance we will speak of on another occasion, in Christianity everything comes down to the climactic achievements of some mystics, who do not form any tradition, any continuity or chain and do not have any determining, standard-setting, regular or direct relation with the centre of orthodoxy. Moreover, Christianity cannot claim, with respect to the West, the character of a native tradition, congenital to its races, as is the case for, for instance, Brahmanism for Hindus, Islam for the Arabs, or the whole Far-Eastern tradition. Christianity asserted itself in the West on the ruins of a previous Western tradition, which had its achieved heroic and sacred traditional character ; with that former world it has maintained only a very relative and apparent continuity, in spite of everything it has borrowed and has sought to absorb and ratify.

A great part has been played within Christianity by influences that are in no way Western or even, more broadly, Aryan: influences deriving either from Judaism or from the devious substratum of pre-Aryan and anti-Aryan Mediterranean spirituality. In some cases, these influences are limited to the superficial, to the most popular and sentimental aspects of Christianity. In other cases, however, they corrode the essence. The doctrine of Original Sin, the exacerbated dualism, the very concept of 'Redemption', the anti-Olympian root theme of the god who suffers, dies and rises again, all this shows the presence of external influences, neither Aryan, nor Western, in Christianity and in Catholicism itself (3).

This is why we think that, in regard to the 'modern world' and to the 'Christian world', it would be risky to speak, in general, of a 'Western tradition'.


The Real Western Tradition

This is no longer the case, however, if we return to the ancient Aryo-Mediterranean and Roman world. We find here, albeit interspersed with forces from various other traditions, traces of a formative force and of a spirituality to which the true face of the West can be specifically attributed. This force and this spirituality refer to a tradition of an essentially heroic type. If, from the principle, already indicated, which defines a warlike tradition we deduce its expression on the plane of conditioned events, we find forms and ideas which characterise precisely the Western civilisation and spirit. On the most external plane, the law of action actually finds expression in the style of races of navigators, conquerors, colonisers - in the Homeric and Roman epic world : a free, liberated, heroic world, devoid of uncertainties, of any idea of an 'infinite' in the romantic sense, constituted of simple forces and elementary purities : the Doric style, the Roman virtus, the monumental element, the solar ideal of the Imperium, the type of the Augustus.

Further, action requires objects, limits, boundaries : it implies form, difference, individuation. While within a sacerdotal tradition form is almost always only symbol, concealment of a mysterious, ineffable, incorporeal spirituality, in the opposite tradition the form almost always gains importance and value. Here the physical and the metaphysical, the material and the immaterial, the corporeal and the incorporeal coincide in the balance of two coessential terms, in very distinct and intensively individuated types and forms. In fact, here we find the classico-Aryan cult of form, strength, corporeal perfection, of beauty itself as expressions of spirituality ; here is a natural overcoming of the dualisms of Levantine character ; here is the anti-romantic doctrine, and, therefore, everything that is 'infinite' is seen as an abstract potentiality, an imperfection and the finite, on the contrary, is seen as a value, recognising in it the limit of a force which has managed to give a form, a law, an achieved individuality to itself. The particular value assumed by law refers, partly, to the same order of ideas.

The eye which stops at form and at limit sees harmony and number. Hence, from the time of Mediterranean antiquity, in Greece and in Rome, we see the blossoming of sacred sciences based on number and harmony ; a heritage perhaps esoteric, within which precedents in Chaldea, but, more immediately, Egyptian contributions of archaic Atlantico-Western origin, assume a very special development. If, compared with such sciences, the quantitative method of the modern exact sciences (which were formed almost exclusively in the West) represents a degenerative deviation, yet it is a degeneration which starts from the same stock. Something similar could even be said of Western rationalism, which started in Greece : the passion for the concept in the sense of distinct, definite, precise notion, which means this and nothing else, in the sense of notion which measures (mens could derive from mensurare, and a similar derivation can be supposed for ratio) is something specifically Western, which equally reveals the law of action, which, asserting itself, implies limit, difference.

When it prevails over contemplation, action thus moves in a definite world, constituted of forms, governed by a law of difference and, therefore, of plurality too : many forces, many consciousnesses, many types, distinct and unmistakable, almost 'Microcosms within the Macrocosm', since each of them contains and resolves in its own being the amorphous cosmic possibility. What is thus particularly significant for the Western Tradition is the Aristotelian vision of the world, which is characterised by the fact that, in a being, it considers what is 'universal' as less real, more abstract, incomplete (steresis - privation (of being)) ; the particular, on the contrary, it considers to be what has value, what is desirable, what is more than real, the fulfillment or end (telos) of a being. The Aristotelian doctrine of the sunolon is that, specifically classic, doctrine of the idea or of the 'engendering force' which is really real when it actualises itself, individuates itself, asserts itself as power and life of a form, in an indissoluble unity.

Naturally, this should not lead us to attribute to the Western vision of the world a mere pluralism or individualism. There is still a unity, the world is not pure plurality, but rather cosmos, uni-verse, divine order. However, in a warlike tradition, this unity does not have the exclusivist emphasis that the opposite tradition, the ascetic-contemplative one, grants it. Whence, too, the sense of polytheism of the pre-Christian Western world, considerably different from the Oriental one : it is focused, above all, on the concrete and individuated form of the divine powers at work in things, in heroes, in completed types as living works of art, within this clear and harmonious cosmos whose beauty the poets would sing and whose hidden laws and secret analogies the initiates would penetrate.

What is also typical is the importance that, especially in the ancient Roman world, the notion of numen had. The ancient Roman-occidental man was inclined to conceive any divinity not so much as deus but rather as numen, that is, as a force, a power, which was defined essentially through its action. Moreover, he would differentiate himself from the Greek spirit by the emphasis he would put on the political and historical element. While, in Greece, the contemplative tendency saw to it that the divine world was conceived of as a sort of atemporal supraworld and, so to speak, as absolute space, Rome strained to grasp this world in its manifestation in time, in history, in the state, in the actions and creations of men, without however diminishing its august character in any manner thereby. The Roman, much more than the Jew, had the sense of a sacred history. The Roman conception of the state, of law and of the Imperium was based essentially on this historical sense, active and sacred at the same time. The warlike and political caste in Rome typically held a sacred dignity.

Many traces of the 'heroic truth' were found in the West on the plane of initiatic myth too. Among the origin myths opposed to that, also present in the archaic Mediterranean, of the 'fall', there is that of the 'heroes' and of the sons greater than their fathers, who dominated the Mothers and reconquered the realm of the killed father.

This mysterious knowledge, which sometimes appears as that of the 'immaterial race of those without king', passed into certain initiatic currents, in the symbols of which new references to the active, creative spirit are not lacking.' We will limit ourselves to indicating the symbolism of building and to recalling how in Hermetism it is spoken of not as much as a knowledge but rather as an art, which was generally called ars regia. Its formula : 'corporealise the spirit, spiritualise the body', reconfirms the anti-mystical and anti-ecstatic classico-occidental ideal. The red and the gold, and not the white, mark here the supreme fulfillment. In the Graal tradition the warlike theme and the Regnum motif reappear, as they will continue to do in secret centres until the period of the later Rosicrucianism. More generally, we must note the persistence in the very Western Middle Ages of the symbol of magic, which, instead of exhausting itself on the lower plane of a mere science of psychic powers, was closely linked to a particular interpretation of the Initiatic ideal. And if, as pointed out, the development of positive sciences is a characteristic of the West, it is based on the tendency to an active knowledge and to a clarity which, even though it fell to a lower level and exerted itself only in a material and physical field, is nonetheless significant as a component of the Western spiritual attitude.

Christianity, whose external, non-Western and non-Aryan aspects have already been pointed out by us, is a maimed and truncated tradition of the hieratic-sacerdotal type which has managed to prevail over a tradition of the heroic type which predominated in the most ancient Mediterranean and, in general, Aryo-Western world.
But Christianity achieved this supremacy only insofar it adapted many forms peculiar to traditions different from it, especially that of Rome. It was more Roman Catholicism than Christianity which won in the West and, in its turn, Catholicism had its golden age in the feudal, knightly and crusading Middle Ages ; and, until it decayed into mere spurious forms, the active and conquering contribution found expression in the proselytising, missionary and supremacist instinct that Christianity displayed, from its beginnings to Protestantism and Calvinism.

The tradition to which the event in Palestine gave birth has thus the character of an ambiguous and almost contradictory thing. However, it is precisely to this contradictoriness that Christianity owes its force ; it has given to it, until lately, the means to control races congenitally inspired by a warlike tradition, such as the Western one, before their complete secularisation and terrestrialisation. If Christianity is a counterfeiting of a tradition of a really sacred, ascetico- metaphysical, Brahmanic type, the 'modern world', which from one day to the next is undermining what remains of the Western religion, represents in its turn, in many respects, a teratological counterfeiting of a tradition of a warlike type.

It is therefore clear that, if it had been at all possible to rebuild a 'tradition' in the West, it could only essentially have been done via forces of a heroico-initiatic character, on the basis of a vision of the world of a more or less magical type (in the special sense that is always given here to this word).

Any attempt at a traditional Restoration along other lines in the West would meet quite definite difficulties and would lack any point of application. If this body of barbarian grandeur that the West has built with its civilisation reacted against any soul, that is to say, against any supernatural element intended to recapture it, to hold it up and to lead it, this reaction would be particularly vigorous if the soul were different from that of the warlike and active races whose degenerated heir the West is.


Clarifications


Just as the West is mainly stamped by the tradition of action, the East is mainly stamped with the tradition of contemplation. We say 'mainly' because the East too has known heroic and imperial cycles, and, for instance, it is difficult to find elsewhere such advanced motifs of transcendent justification as in the Bhagavad-Gita. In addition, the example of imperial and warlike Japan, in which, until the collapse of 1945, the ascetic formation of life played a great part, not to mention the frankly esotericist Zen schools, must not be forgotten. Further, for those who understand the tradition in which action prevails over contemplation equally with the one in which we have the opposite relation, as two paths both possible and competent to reach something which is beyond both action and contemplation, independent, as it is, of any particular conditionality, there is no contradiction between the two. These people will abstain from judging either tradition, they will limit themselves to understanding them and realising the truths, the perspectives and the principles that must be asserted, once, according to one's own nature, one adheres to one tradition or the other.

There is on the other hand an opposition between them and those who insist on the 'orthodoxy' and supremacy of one of the two traditions, condemning the other as a deviation and an error. This would merely produce the effect of a mental limitation. Yet we must eliminate any cause of misunderstanding by underlining that the supremacy of action in the tradition which corresponds to it has nothing to do with the usurpation of temporal power, since action always amounts here to a means of liberation and has always as its point of reference something transcendent and supersensible.

Ancient royalty can give us points of reference in this connection. Others can be given by oriental traditions, for instance by the Hindu one, when it speaks of Rajarshi, those who used to be simultaneously clairvoyants and keepers of the tradition of 'solar' knowledge, or when, in the Upanishads, we see figures of Kshatriya (warriors) competing in sacred knowledge with the representatives of the Brahmanic caste. Besides, we must recall the forms of unity of the two powers which appeared in ancient Rome and reappeared, here and there, as residues, in the Middle Ages.

What can be called the primordial tradition is anterior and superior to the bipartition we have discussed. The active path and the contemplative path, let us repeat, are approximations to this supreme unity. When it comes to analogy, despite some people's views, the active and warlike path, as explained here, has at least as much dignity as the other, because, fundamentally, it comprises both principles joined in the supreme synthesis, which is not simply light and liberation, but light and liberation joined in power with the basic principle of any manifestation and determination and with sovereignty.

On that basis, it would be appropriate to mention something to which we may come back later: the idea that the warlike-royal tradition leads normally and legitimately only to the 'Lesser Mysteries'. This is an arbitrary limitation deriving from an abstract doctrinal scheme, which becomes completely absurd when, rather than speaking of 'Lesser Mysteries' and 'Greater Mysteries' as degrees in the same development but as attaining a transcendent character only in the latter, they speak of the duality of the lunar, Demetrian or telluric mysteries on the one hand, and the solar or Ouranic mysteries on the other ; since, according to a better founded doctrine, the 'Lesser Mysteries' can be associated with the former of these, it is obvious that there is a contradiction between them and the tradition of royalty, except in a few cases of evident degeneration.

In any case, we have now set forth succinctly the general principles on the basis of which the problem of the duality of traditions can be understood, before turning to what follows from it in the study of the metaphysic of history.

Ea

(*)The texts published in a series of booklets under the name of "Ur", from 1927 to 1928, and "Krur", in 1929, were compiled and published in 1955 and 1956 in three volumes by Bocca as 'Introduzione alla Magia quale Scienza dell'Io' ('Introduction to Magic as Science of the Self'), then, again in three volumes, by Edizioni Mediterranee in 1971, by Tilopa in 1980 and 1981 and by Fratelli Melita Editori in 1987. The latter of these, to quote the publisher, "can be considered as an updated edition of that collective work. Compared to the original, it differs in (the exclusion of) texts which have in the meantime been republished verbatim or in further developed form elsewhere by their respective authors, and in that certain monographs have been substituted for others of the same general nature, following a principle of greater coordination, completeness and essentiality, but in the same spirit as the original edition, which followed the criterion of organic and chronological progression". The currently available edition in English, 'Introduction to Magic, Rituals and Practical Techniques for the Magus' (Inner Traditions, 2001) contains only approximately one-third of the original texts, but not 'Sull'"Azione" e la "Contemplazione" e la Tradizione occidentale".

(1) Pietro Negri : "Della tradizione occidentale" ('Introduzione alla Magia quale Scienza dell'Io', Fratelli Melita Editori, vol II p. 58) - 'About the Western Tradition'.

(2) Arvo : "Sulla contro-iniziazione" ('Introduzione alla Magia quale Scienza dell'Io', Fratelli Melita Editori, vol. I p. 268) - 'On the Counter-Initiation', 'Introduction to Magic', Inner Traditions, 2001)

(3) It must also be noted that, while almost all the greater regular traditions had as their 'sacred language', that of the races in which they formed, this is not the case for the Christian-Catholic tradition, which, in this respect too, appears to be hybrid : its sacred language is Latin, the ancient language of Rome, while the Old and New Testaments, which are the basis of this tradition, were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Coptic.


Read more!

Claudio Mutti, L'Europa Musulmana - testo integrale

A Dio appartengono l’Oriente e l’Occidente; in qualunque direzione vi volgiate, ivi è il Volto di Dio; in verità Iddio tutto abbraccia e tutto sa.
(Corano, II, 115)

Gottes ist der Orient!
Gottes ist der Okzident!
Nord- und südliches Gelände
Ruht im Frieden seiner Hände.

(J. W. Goethe)


Europa cristiana ed Europa musulmana

Erano tempi belli, splendidi, quelli dell’Europa cristiana, quando un’unica cristianità abitava questo continente di forma umana, e un grande e comune disegno univa le più lontane province di questo ampio regno spirituale”. Così esordisce quel celebre frammento che Novalis scrisse nel 1799 e intitolò Die Christenheit oder Europa, enunciando una sinonimia che già allora appariva poco fondata.

Nella realtà, l’”unica cristianità” idealizzata dal poeta romantico non è mai esistita; tanto meno è esistita una cristianità coincidente con l’umanità europea. Nel cristianesimo, infatti, gli scismi sono stati numerosi, fin dai tempi apostolici: già San Paolo, nella prima Lettera ai Corinzi, lamentava le divisioni della Chiesa. Ma il primo grande scisma, lo scisma d’Oriente, avvenne nel 1054, quando Leone IX scomunicò il Patriarca Michele Cerulario e tutta la Chiesa d’Oriente: questa rottura fu il risultato di oltre mezzo millennio di attriti, di gelosie e divisioni che avevano scavato un fossato tra la Chiesa d’Oriente e quella d’Occidente. Compito della Chiesa greca era stato di formulare i dogmi relativi a Dio e al Cristo, mentre la Chiesa romana aveva definito la dottrina concernente la natura e i bisogni dell’uomo. La prima, erede della filosofia e della retorica dei Greci, aveva esteso la sua giurisdizione agli Slavi e ai Latini d’Oriente; la seconda, erede della sapienza giuridica romana, era diventata la religione dei popoli latini d’Occidente e dei popoli germanici. I motivi immediati dello scisma furono alcune innovazioni occidentali, come l’aggiunta del “filioque” al testo del Credo e le norme sul celibato del clero.

Lo scisma d’Occidente ebbe luogo nel 1378, in seguito all’elezione di due diversi papi: Urbano VI e Clemente VII. Quest’ultimo, che venne riconosciuto da una parte degli Stati cattolici, si stabilì ad Avignone e usò le armi per tentare di togliere al rivale lo Stato pontificio. Tale divisione turbò la Chiesa occidentale, finché l’unità venne ricomposta nel 1447 sotto Nicolò V.

Nel secolo successivo, però, la Riforma protestante provocò il distacco della maggior parte delle popolazioni germaniche – e non solo germaniche – dalla Chiesa di Roma, nonché la nascita di tutta una serie di chiese nazionali.

In questo panorama europeo, caratterizzato dalla frantumazione della cristianità e dalla presenza di due, poi di tre grandi confessioni cristiane ostili e in lotta fra loro, si era inserito, fin dall’VIII secolo d. C., l’Islam. Accanto all’Europa ortodossa, a quella cattolica e a quella protestante prese dunque forma, su un’area territoriale più ridotta, un’Europa musulmana.


La Spagna musulmana

L’Islam europeo si manifestò inizialmente nella penisola iberica. Su un preesistente fondo germanico (visigotico) e romanzo (ibero-latino) ebbe luogo l’”unico trapianto in grande stile della civiltà arabo-musulmana su suolo europeo(1). Si trattò di un trapianto più culturale che etnico, perché “i musulmani di Spagna, se discendenti di convertiti alla religione dei conquistatori, erano Spagnoli puri; altrimenti, per via dei frequenti incroci, prevaleva nelle loro vene l’antico sangue ispanico(2).

Veicoli dell’Islam in Spagna furono inizialmente i Berberi, i quali, dopo che gli Arabi di Mu’awiya ebbero fallito nel tentativo di forzare la porta orientale dell’Europa, riuscirono ad entrarvi dal versante opposto. Nel 711 un luogotenente del governatore dell’Ifriqiyya immortalò il proprio nome, Târiq, nella montagna che da lui prese il nome: Gibilterra (Gebel Târiq = “Monte di Târiq”). La spedizione contro il regno dei Visigoti, che in Ispagna avevano preso stanza nel V secolo, nel giro di sei anni diede luogo a un’occupazione stabile del territorio. Al-Andalus – questo il nuovo nome del paese – nel 756 si sottrasse alla sovranità del califfo omayyade di Damasco e diventò indipendente.

Nel 752 truppe arabe e berbere, che si erano concentrate a Pamplona per varcare i Pirenei attraverso il passo di Roncisvalle, furono bloccate tra Poitiers e Tours. Gli storici occidentali hanno spesso attribuito un’importanza eccessiva a questa battaglia e hanno voluto vedere in essa l’evento decisivo da cui dipese nei secoli avvenire la civiltà cristiana. Per i cronisti musulmani, si trattò semplicemente di un episodio sfortunato, che però non impedì ulteriori incursioni in territorio cristiano. Fatto sta che nel giro di pochi anni Carlo Martello e Pipino il breve riuscirono a strappare ai musulmani la Settimania, sicché l’Europa musulmana dovette fissare i propri confini settentrionali in corrispondenza dei Pirenei.

Sotto la dinastia degli Omayyadi (755-1031) la Spagna conobbe un periodo di grande splendore: il sovrano più importante fu l’emiro ‘Abd ar-Rahmân III (912-961), che consolidò il suo potere e assume il titolo di califfo (929); ma dopo al-Mansûr (Ibn Abî Amir, 977-1002), che ristabilì la signoria araba su tutta la Spagna, scoppiò una serie di contese dinastiche (1008-1031), sicché l’Andalusia si frazionò in piccoli regni autonomi (i reinos de taifas, 1031-1086). Contro Alfonso VII di Castiglia, che riprese l’offensiva cristiana, vennero chiamati in Spagna gli Almoravidi berberi (1086-1147), ai quali succedettero gli Almohadi (1150-1250). L’emirato di Granada (1246-1492), ultimo baluardo dell’Islam nell’Europa occidentale, cadde con la conquista della città da parte di Ferdinando e Isabella di Castiglia.

Per un bilancio della presenza dell’Islam in Spagna, possono valere queste poche parole di Sigrid Hunke: “L’esempio della Spagna mostra che duecento anni di sovranità musulmana furono sufficienti perché un paese impoverito, desolato e asservito venisse a trovarsi alla testa dell’Europa e del mondo occidentale, e ciò grazie ad una cultura diffusa in tutti i ceti della popolazione e grazie al fiorire delle scienze e delle arti. Questo primato, la Spagna lo conservò per cinque secoli, finché l’Islam non venne estromesso(3).


L’Italia musulmana

L’Italia cominciò ad attrarre l’interesse dei Saraceni (si trattava soprattutto di Berberi) verso la metà del VII secolo, cioè in un periodo in cui la penisola era politicamente divisa tra i Longobardi, i Bizantini e il Papa. La prima incursione ebbe luogo in Sicilia nel 652, durante il califfato di ‘Othmân, che ne affidò l’esecuzione a Mu’awiya ibn Hudaig. La Sardegna e la Corsica furono assalite nel primo decennio dell’VIII secolo, nel contesto di quella grande ondata espansiva che, a cavallo dei secoli VII e VIII, sottomise all’impero omayyade l’Egitto, il Nordafrica e la penisola iberica. Anche se non ci è dato di sapere con precisione quando le due isole siano cadute in potere dei musulmani, pare che questi si siano impadroniti totalmente della Corsica verso la metà del secolo IX e della Sardegna cinquant’anni più tardi. In seguito, all’inizio del secolo XI, un condottiero di nome Mujâhid (Mugetto per le cronache italiane), proveniente dalla Spagna o dalle Baleari, sbarcò in Sardegna e riconquistò Cagliari, che i Saraceni avevano perduta. Ripresa la Sardegna e aspirando a più ampie conquiste, Mujâhid occupò la Lunigiana, restaurò Luni e vi si insediò. Perduta e quindi ripresa la Sardegna, i musulmani dovettero abbandonarla definitivamente nel 1050, dopo averla occupata, tutta o in parte, per più di tre secoli. Quanto alla Corsica, su di essa avrebbero regnato sei sovrani mori, finché il patrizio romano Ugo Colonna la conquistò verso l’anno 800 per conto del Papa.

Più lunga fu la presenza dell’Islam in Sicilia, e più gloriosa: “non può rincrescerci il conquisto musulmano che la scosse e rinnovò(4), scriveva nell’Ottocento Michele Amari, insuperato storico della Sicilia musulmana. La conquista dell’isola, cui parteciparono Arabi, Berberi e Andalusi guidati dal settantenne Asad ibn al-Furât, fu iniziata nell’827 da quella dinastia aghlabide che, insediatasi nell’Ifriqiya e acquisito il controllo del Mediterraneo centro-orientale, nell’813 aveva organizzato una scorreria in Calabria e aveva sbarcato un contingente di armati a Civitavecchia. Nell’831 fu espugnata Palermo, che diventò la capitale della nuova provincia aghlabide; nell’843 fu la volta di Messina; poi toccò a Castrogiovanni e a Siracusa, finché nel 902 la presa di Taormina completò la conquista dell’isola, che diventò la base per ulteriori spedizioni, sia verso le coste calabresi sia verso quelle adriatiche. Rimasta legata agli Aghlabidi fino al tramonto della loro fortuna politica, nel 910 la Sicilia passò nell’orbita dei Fatimidi sciiti, che si erano insediati nel Nordafrica. Su mandato fatimide i Kalbidi assunsero il governo dell’isola, che sotto di loro conobbe un periodo di grande prosperità. “L’agricoltura e il commercio ridiventarono fiorenti; le conversioni si moltiplicarono, non per costrizione, ma per il desiderio spontaneo suscitato dagli uomini pii e per l’ammirazione destata dal superiore livello di civiltà degli occupanti. La prosperità e le raffinatezze dell’Oriente, la vita culturale di Baghdad, di Cordova e del Cairo si riflettevano anche a Palermo(5). Tra autoctoni, berberi e persiani (numerosi questi ultimi nell’esercito e nella burocrazia), la popolazione palermitana superava i 300.000 abitanti; col suo mezzo migliaio di moschee, nella più grande delle quali venivano custoditi i presunti resti mortali di Aristotele, la metropoli siciliana poteva benissimo reggere il confronto con Cordova.

I musulmani di Sicilia si inserirono ben presto nella politica italiana, stringendo frequenti alleanze coi signori longobardi. Nell’835 la repubblica di Napoli fece ricorso all’aiuto dei Saraceni contro i Beneventani; nell’842 i Napoletani restituirono il favore aiutando i musulmani che attaccavano Messina. Nell’agosto dell’846 un gruppo di Berberi, forse proveniente da una base sarda, sbarcò ad Ostia e arrivò a Roma, dove penetrò in San Pietro e ne saccheggiò i tesori. Nel secolo IX il basso Tirreno era così entrato nella sfera d’azione dei musulmani, che nell’848 occuparono anche Cuma; rimasta in loro possesso per un paio di secoli, questa città fu un importante scalo commerciale che godette della protezione delle vicine repubbliche di Napoli, Amalfi e Gaeta.

Quanto al litorale adriatico, nell’847 il berbero Khalfûn conquistò Bari. Sei anni più tardi il suo successore chiese al califfo di Bagdad di legittimare il suo potere, ma l’investitura arrivò solo a Sawdân, che fu titolare dell’emirato di Bari fino all’871 (6). Non solo Bari, ma anche Taranto si trovò in quel periodo sotto il dominio musulmano e diventò anch’essa un fiorente centro commerciale; d’altronde, “le vie di comunicazione fra il Mediterraneo occidentale e quello orientale sia pure controllate dai musulmani non furono mai interrotte completamente, almeno per quello che interessava le città costiere italiane(7).

Con la caduta dei Kalbidi, la controversia tra i due signorotti rivali di Catania e di Girgenti favorì l’ingresso dei Normanni in Sicilia, sicché alla fine del secolo XI l’egemonia musulmana sull’isola era terminata. Nel regno normanno i musulmani non assommavano a più di 100.000 persone, alle quali fu concessa la possibilità di autogovernarsi; tuttavia l’esodo verso l’Africa ridusse ulteriormente il loro numero. In ogni caso, l’impronta culturale che l’Islam aveva impressa alla Sicilia caratterizzò anche l’epoca normanna: “i Ruggeri e i Guglielmi, a differenza degli Asburgo in Spagna, seppero raccogliere ogni positivo elemento dell’eredità musulmana, e incorporarla alla composita cultura del loro Stato: onde proprio quell’età normanna ci ha serbato i più vivi ricordi della presenza degli Arabi in Sicilia, in istituzioni, titoli, documenti, iscrizioni, monete, opere di scienza come la Geografia di Edrisi, e versi di poeti di corte(8). Parafrasando il poeta latino, si potrebbe dire: Sicilia capta ferum victorem cepit.

Ma l’impronta islamica non scomparve nemmeno nel periodo successivo; anzi, fu proprio nel periodo svevo che essa acquisì un ulteriore risalto.

Con Federico II di Svevia il baricentro del Sacro Romano Impero si spostò nel Mediterraneo; nel 1229, in seguito all’intesa col Sultano, l’Imperatore estese la sua autorità a Gerusalemme e ad altri luoghi della Palestina, sicché l’impero federiciano sembrò recuperare, anche se in misura poco più che simbolica, quella dimensione mediterranea ed eurasiatica che aveva caratterizzato le grandi sintesi imperiali a partire dal tentativo di Alessandro Magno (al quale d’altronde Federico II venne paragonato dai musulmani; e si tenga presente l’importanza che ha per l’Islam Alessandro Magno, il “Bicorne” di cui parla la coranica Sura della Caverna). In quanto sovrano dei regni di Sicilia e di Gerusalemme, in un’epoca in cui l’impero bizantino era crollato sotto i colpi della IV Crociata e i poli geopolitici del Mediterraneo erano il Califfato di Bagdad e il Sultanato d’Egitto, il grande Svevo fu costruttore di una politica di pace e di convivenza, mediatore fra culture e fedi religiose diverse. Se il panorama germanico era un’immagine dell’imperium ideale, in quanto comprendeva una comunità di stirpi diverse (Sassoni, Franchi, Svevi), il versante mediterraneo dell’impero federiciano presentava un quadro di differenze molto più profonde. Per quanto concerne l’aspetto etnico, nell’Italia meridionale e insulare troviamo infatti popolazioni di origine latina, greca, longobarda, araba e berbera, normanna, sveva, ebraica. La situazione linguistica è ben rappresentata non solo trilinguismo della cancelleria imperiale, coi suoi notarii greci, saraceni, latini, ma anche dal poliglottismo di Federico II, il quale, oltre a parlare latino, tedesco, greco, arabo e provenzale, scrisse poesie nel volgare siciliano, recando un contributo anche personale alla nascita della letteratura italiana. Dal punto di vista religioso, nell’impero federiciano convivevano cattolici, ortodossi, musulmani e anche ebrei. Federico II volle che i musulmani vivessero in maniera conforme alla loro tradizione, in comunità cittadine governate da organismi autonomi: a Lucera, Aderenza, Girifalco ed altrove.


L’Islam nei Balcani

Nel 1492, quando Granada cadde nelle mani dei Re cattolicissimi, il numero dei musulmani spagnoli si aggirava intorno ai due milioni. Centoventi anni più tardi, Filippo III espulse dalla Spagna gli ultimi moriscos, mezzo milione all’incirca. I loro discendenti abitano oggi nel Maghreb e talvolta recano cognomi che rivelano l’origine spagnola: Ibn Qûtî (“Figlio della Visigota”), Ibn Qûtiyyah (“Figlio della Visigota”) ecc.

Ma il medesimo secolo che vedeva tramontare la stella dell’Islam all’estremità occidentale dell’Europa, assisteva al sorgere della Mezzaluna sull’Est europeo.
Nell’Europa balcanica, l’Impero ottomano ereditò i territori che erano stati precedentemente soggetti a Roma e a Bisanzio. Il limes danubiano, che aveva separato i territori dell’Impero romano dallo spazio abitato dai barbari, costituì per tutto il XV secolo la linea di demarcazione tra il dâr al-islâm e il dâr al-kufr. Poi, come Traiano si era spinto a nord del Danubio e aveva acquisito all’Impero di Roma la Dacia, così Solimano I conquistò la regione danubiana tra Belgrado e Buda, rinsaldando l’influenza della Sublime Porta su Valacchia, Moldavia e Transilvania. Come ai tempi di Roma, così pure allora rientravano in un unico spazio imperiale, oltre alla regione balcanico-danubiana, anche il Mar Nero e le sponde circostanti, l’Armenia e la Mesopotamia, l’Anatolia, la Siria e la Palestina, l’Egitto e tutto il Nordafrica fino ai confini del Marocco. Conquistata Rodi nel 1522, Cipro nel 1571 e Creta fra il 1645 e il 1669, l’egemonia della Porta si estendeva sulla metà orientale del Mar Mediterraneo; nell’altra metà, le acque a sud della Sicilia e di Malta, della Sardegna e delle Baleari erano anch’esse sotto il controllo ottomano.

La sconfitta subita a Lepanto nel 1571 non fu quell’evento epocale che ancor oggi molti tendono a vedervi, tant’è vero gli Ottomani, oltre a conservare Cipro, passarono al contrattacco e tre anni più tardi riconquistarono Tunisi. Più che non Lepanto, fu la sconfitta subita nel 1683 dal gran visir Qara Mustafa a Kahlenberg, nei pressi di Vienna, il fatto d’armi decisivo che segnò l’espansione massima della potenza ottomana. In seguito, la perdita di Buda nel 1686 e la sconfitta subita a Zenta nel 1697 determinarono la situazione che venne sancita nel 1699 con la pace di Karlowitz: la regione del Temes, compresa tra la Transilvania, il Maros, il Tibisco e il Danubio, rimaneva sotto la sovranità ottomana, come pure la parte meridionale del Sirmio, tra Belgrado e il fiume Bosut, ma la Porta doveva rinunciare ai territori ungheresi conquistati da Solimano un secolo e mezzo prima. Ciononostante l’Impero ottomano sarà un fattore di stabilità nell’Europa balcanico-danubiana anche nel secolo XVIII.

Nicolae Iorga, autore di una monumentale Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, ha visto nell’Impero ottomano la “Roma musulmana dei Turchi” (9), ovvero “l’ultima ipostasi di Roma(10), in quanto “il dominio ottomano non significava altro che una nuova Bisanzio, con un altro carattere religioso per la dinastia e per l’esercito(11); analogamente, Arnold Toynbee ha parlato di “Impero Romano turco-musulmano(12), mentre Franz Babinger ha potuto scrivere: “Pareva veramente che al tempo del Conquistatore fosse tornata la sicurezza bizantina del glorioso passato, la pax Romana, e che tutti potessero goderne(13). D’altronde lo storico tedesco ha fatto notare come nell’Impero ottomano fossero presenti istituzioni molto simili ad analoghe realtà della Roma antica (14).


L’Islam in Russia

Alla morte di Gengis Khan, nel 1227, gli eredi si divisero il compito di proseguire l’espansione dell’impero mongolo. La conquista dell’occidente toccò a Batu, il quale, varcato l’Ural e abbattuto il regno dei Bulgari bianchi della Volga (islamizzati fin dal sec. X), attaccò i principati della Rus’ nordorientale. Prese e distrutte numerose città, nel 1240 Batu espugnò la capitale stessa, Kiev. Quindi i Tartari (così venivano chiamati i conquistatori, ché tatara era la truppa agli ordini dei Mongoli) investirono la Polonia meridionale, la Germania e l’Ungheria: l’impero dell’Orda d’Oro venne così ad estendersi dall’Irtysh al Danubio e dal nord della Rus’ al Caucaso. Al di qua degli Urali, i Tartari si insediarono nella regione della media Volga e della Kama, nella penisola di Crimea e nella soprastante steppa dei Qipciaq, compresa tra l’Ural e il Dnestr. Successivamente l’Orda d’Oro si sarebbe divisa a causa dei contrasti interni e nel XV secolo avrebbe dato nascita a nuovi canati: quello di Kazan’, quello di Astrakan e quello di Crimea. Su quest’ultimo regnò la famiglia gengiskhanide dei Ghiray, la quale, per quanto nominalmente vassalla della Sublime Porta, agì spesso in maniera autonoma, volgendosi verso la Polonia o verso Mosca. Nel 1571 Mosca fu saccheggiata e Ivan il Terribile fu costretto a versare un tributo che sarebbe rimasto in vigore fino a Pietro il Grande. Nel 1577 i Tartari assediarono Tallinn, che allora era svedese come tutta l’Estonia: risale a quel periodo la presenza di gruppi tartari in Scandinavia e in Finlandia (15), oltre che in Polonia. Ma i rapporti fra i Tartari e il nord dell’Europa non furono improntati esclusivamente all’ostilità. Una volta costituito il loro stato, i Tartari avevano imposto il vassallaggio ad alcuni principi cristiani e quindi avevano permesso alla Chiesa ortodossa di mantenere la cultura locale tra le popolazioni slave a loro assoggettate. In relazione alla dinastia dei Ghiray, va detto a questo proposito che il suo fondatore era nato in Lituania e che a Vilna furono educati molti esponenti dell’aristocrazia tartara. Nel XVIII secolo i Tartari di Crimea si allearono coi Polacchi e coi Cosacchi del Dnepr, finché nel 1783 diventarono sudditi di Caterina II. Deportati in Kazachistan e in Usbechistan dopo la seconda guerra mondiale, oggi i Tartari di Crimea ritornano a casa.

Attualmente i Tartari (circa tre milioni) sono il più numeroso dei popoli di lingua turco-tatara insediati tra la Volga, la Kama e la Belaja; dopo di loro vengono i Ciuvasci, che però sono quasi tutti cristiani ortodossi, e i Baschiri (un milione e quattrocentomila). Anche se l’etnogenesi dei Baschiri costituisce tuttora un problema, pare certo che si tratti di un popolo ugrico rimasto nell’area originaria, mentre nel IX secolo un popolo a loro affine, i Magiari, si spostava verso occidente. Nel XIII secolo i Baschiri erano comunque già turchizzati e nel XVIII secolo erano ormai praticamente islamizzati.

L’altra grande area di diffusione dell’Islam russo al di qua degli Urali è quella caucasica. In tale area, la prima regione che abbracciò l’Islam fu quella sudorientale, corrispondente all’Azerbaigian persiano: essa venne conquistata dagli Arabi nel 643 assieme al resto della Transcaucasia, dove però Armeni e Georgiani rimasero cristiani. Nel sec. XI l’Azerbaigian fu turchizzato dai Selgiuchidi; nel sec. XVI optò per l’Islam sciita. Nel 651 gli Arabi introdussero l’Islam anche nella parte meridionale del Daghestan, mentre la parte settentrionale si convertì verso il XIII secolo. In Cecenia, l’Islam si diffuse a partire dal XVII secolo, ma l’islamizzazione del paese fu portata a termine nell’Ottocento, da alcune confraternite sufiche. La parte occidentale della Cecenia, che assunse il nome di Inguscezia, aderì all’Islam intorno al 1870, sempre per effetto dell’azione delle confraternite. Nel settore nordoccidentale del Caucaso (Caraciaia-Circassia e Ossezia) l’Islam cominciò a diffondersi verso la fine del XVI secolo, per influenza del canato di Crimea; oggi però la maggioranza degli Osseti, anche nell’Ossezia meridionale, si dichiara atea. Armenia e Georgia, come si è detto, sono rimaste cristiane, con minoranze musulmane di Azeri e di Curdi; invece l’Agiaria (ex Gurelia) diventò musulmana nel XVI secolo e l’Abcasia a partire dal XVII. In totale, nel Caucaso del nord e nella Transcaucasia vivono attualmente oltre nove milioni di musulmani. Il gruppo maggioritario è quello turco e sciita degli Azeri, che assomma a cinque milioni e mezzo di anime; seguono tre milioni di sunniti appartenenti a vari gruppi della famiglia ibero-caucasica (Daghestani, Ceceni, Cabardi, Ingusci, Abcasi ecc.), un mezzo milione di sunniti appartenenti a varie etnie turche, qualche centinaio di migliaia di iranici sia sunniti (Osseti e Curdi) sia sciiti (Talisci e Tati).

L’URSS, coi suoi cinquanta milioni di cittadini musulmani, era la quinta potenza musulmana del mondo, dopo l’Indonesia, il Pakistan, il Bangladesh e l’India. C’erano più musulmani nell’Unione Sovietica che in Egitto o in tutta la penisola arabica. Gli osservatori più attenti avevano cominciato ad avvertire il peso politico dell’Islam “sovietico” già una decina d’anni prima del crollo dell’URSS, quando Hélène Carrère d’Encausse dava alle stampe L’empire éclaté (10) e scriveva su “Le Monde” che la rinascita islamica nel Caucaso e nell’Asia centrale avrebbe determinato in maniera decisiva le scelte del Cremlino (16). Nello stesso periodo, di fronte alle fortune politiche di Aliev, Kunaev e Rashidov, sembrava lecito ai corrispondenti da Mosca domandarsi se l’elemento musulmano, così fortemente rappresentato fra le massime gerarchie sovietiche, sarebbe riuscito un giorno “ad affermarsi al vertice, come riuscì in passato un’altra minoranza, quella georgiana(17), con Stalin. Non è inverosimile che il progetto di distruzione dell’URSS abbia tratto origine anche dalla volontà politica di impedire che si realizzasse una eventualità di questo genere: lo scenario di un impero eurasiatico imperniato su quasi settanta milioni di musulmani (tanti ne prevedevano le indagini demografiche per l’inizio del XXI secolo) avrebbe impresso una ben diversa direzione alla storia del mondo. Non sono fantasie: fu un personaggio come Sergej Kurginian (consigliere dell’ex premier Pavlov e dell’ex segretario moscovita del PCUS Prokofiev) a dichiarare esplicitamente che l’obiettivo di Eltsin era “la liquidazione di questo Stato russo-turco (…) in cui ben presto i popoli di stirpe turca cominceranno a prevalere(18).

L’eventualità temuta da Eltsin è stata scongiurata. Tuttavia l’Islam continua ad essere una componente fondamentale della realtà socioculturale russa. “I musulmani censiti nel 2003 sono 14 milioni e mezzo, ma stime ufficiose, talvolta echeggiate dallo stesso presidente Vladimir Putin, optano per un totale di 20 milioni. Alla fine del 2000, nella Federazione Russa si contavano 4.658 moschee. (Si intendono qui solo gli edifici di culto registrati. In effetti, le moschee in Russia sono alcune centinaia di più. N.d.A.). Il sistema di istruzione religiosa musulmana è basato su oltre cento tra istituti e madrase. Solidi contatti sono stati stabiliti con i correligionari degli altri paesi, e nella coscienza dei musulmani russi la componente religiosa si è ormai notevolmente rafforzata(19).

Anche se la Federazione Russa non è più la quinta potenza musulmana del mondo, è pur sempre uno Stato in cui i cittadini di appartenenza islamica superano per numero quelli della Tunisia, della Libia, della Giordania o della Siria. Era quindi logico che la Russia chiedesse di aderire alla Conferenza Islamica.


La mezzaluna euroislamica

Nella storia europea, l’Islam si è manifestato secondo tre modalità diverse, alle quali corrispondono tre diverse tipologie geopolitiche.

Tra i secoli VII e IX prese forma quello che potrebbe essere definito un “Islam del mare”, un Islam che interessò isole e penisole dell’Europa mediterranea: soprattutto la Spagna e la Francia meridionale, le Baleari, la Corsica, la Sardegna, la Sicilia, alcune zone della penisola italiana, ma anche Creta (che per circa un secolo e mezzo fu sede di un emirato), l’Attica e l’Eubea. La sostanza etnica di questo Islam fu germanica, latina, greca, berbera, araba e anche persiana. Le sue lingue, accanto alla lingua di cultura rappresentata dall’arabo, furono i volgari latini regionali che si avviavano a dare origine alle rispettive parlate romanze. Sarà lo spagnolo, in particolare, a ereditare dall’arabo quella grande quantità di prestiti linguistici che esso ha integrato nel proprio vocabolario.

Fu invece un “Islam della terra” quello che, sorto nel XIII secolo sui territori della Russia compresi tra gli Urali, il Caucaso e il Mar Nero, si sviluppò nei secoli successivi e completò la sua formazione addirittura nel corso del XIX secolo. Sotto il profilo etnico, l’Islam delle pianure russe e delle montagne caucasiche ha presentato una certa varietà. Nei territori del canato di Crimea e nella zona compresa tra la Volga, la Kama e la Belaja, l’Islam animò una sostanza etnica di matrice turanica (popolazioni turche, tartare, ugriche); nel Caucaso, i musulmani (iranici, caucasici, turchi ecc.) composero un mosaico razziale e linguistico corrispondente alla grande diversificazione antropologica caratteristica di tutta quanta la regione.

A una sintesi imperiale di terra e di mare corrispose invece l’Islam ottomano, che ebbe il suo epicentro nella capitale dell’antico Impero Romano d’Oriente. Qui l’Islam impresse la sua forma a popolazioni d’origine illirica e greca, slava e turca. La lingua ufficiale dell’Islam ottomano fu ovviamente il turco; ma furono anche usate, come lingue di cultura, il persiano, l’arabo e il greco, mentre i popoli dell’Impero parlavano parecchi altri idiomi, tra i quali spiccavano il serbo, l’albanese, il bulgaro.

Dopo la scomparsa dell’”Islam del mare” e dopo il crollo dell’edificio imperiale ottomano, l’Europa musulmana si presenta geograficamente secondo una forma emblematica: quella di una mezzaluna che attraversa regioni popolate da genti slave, turche, caucasiche e tatare, inarcandosi tra Sarajevo e Ufa e passando per il Bosforo, il Caucaso e l’Ural. All’estremità occidentale di questa mezzaluna, in corrispondenza di Sarajevo, abbiamo un punto cruciale, verso il quale convergono tre grandi aree culturali: quella cattolica, quella ortodossa e quella musulmana; sul Bosforo si incontrano il nord slavo e il sud mediterraneo, i Balcani e l’Anatolia; nel Caucaso vengono a contatto l’Iran e il Turan; a Ufa, presso l’estremità orientale della mezzaluna, l’Europa si tocca con l’Asia.

La mezzaluna euroislamica (21) ci presenta dunque l’Islam europeo come un contrafforte meridionale dell’Europa, un elemento di continuità culturale che attraversa l’Europa saldando in una fascia ininterrotta una serie di regioni comprese tra la penisola balcanica e gli Urali. Vi è poi un’ulteriore continuità geografica ed etnico-linguistica, che lega indissolubilmente l’Islam delle zone al di qua degli Urali con l’Islam del Bassopiano Turanico e delle steppe transuraliche. Considerata in tale prospettiva, la mezzaluna euroislamica non è che la porzione europea di un Islam eurasiatico che si estende fino all’Indonesia.

1. Francesco Gabrieli, Gli Arabi, Sansoni, Firenze 1963, p. 142.

2. Claudio Sánchez-Albornoz, La España musulmana según los autores islamitas y cristianos medievales, Espasa-Calpe, Madrid 1978, p. 82. Per esemplificare questo fatto, lo studioso spagnolo riporta un brano dall’opera Iftitâh al-Andalus (La conquista della Spagna) di Ibn al-Qûtiyyah, uno storico cordovano discendente del penultimo re visigoto, Vitiza. Da un’antenata di Ibn al-Qûtiyyah ebbero origine alcune delle più cospicue famiglie dell’aristocrazia ispano-musulmana; ma, prosegue Sánchez-Albornoz, “non diverso fu il caso dei più illustri magnati della Spagna islamica. Gli antenati di sesso maschile erano arabi o siriani, le antenate erano spagnole” (ibidem).

3. Sigrid Hunke, Allah Sonne über dem Abendland, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 1960, p. 348.

4. Michele Amari, I Musulmani in Sicilia, Bompiani, Milano 1942, p. 136. Il bilancio positivo dell’Amari è stato confermato dagli studiosi successivi. Valga per tutti Francesco Gabrieli, che giudica il governo islamico in Sicilia “positivo e benefico per il rinsanguamento che operò sulla depressa compagine etnica della Sicilia bizantina, e soprattutto per i mutamenti introdotti nelle condizioni economiche e sociali dell’isola, dove spezzò il latifondo, promosse la piccola proprietà rurale, rinnovò e arricchì di nuove tecniche e culture l’agricoltura siciliana” (F. Gabrieli, Gli Arabi nel Mediterraneo, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma 1970, p. 15.

5. Gabriele Crespi, L’Europe musulmane, Zodiaque, Saint-Dié 1982, pp. 76-77.

6. Giosuè Musca, L’emirato di Bari 847-871, Dedalo Libri, Bari 1978.

7. Maria Giovanna Stasolla, Gli Arabi nella penisola italiana, in: AA. VV., Testimonianze degli Arabi in Italia, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma 1988, p. 87.

8. Francesco Gabrieli, op. cit., p. 145.

9. Nicholas Iorga, The Background of Romanian History, Cleveland, 17 febbraio 1930; cit. in: Ioan Buga, Calea Regelui, Sfântul Gheorghe-Vechi, Bucarest 1998, p. 38.

10. Ibidem.

11. Nicolae Iorga, Byzance après Byzance, Balland, Paris 1992, p. 48.

12. Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History, 2a ed., London – New York – Toronto 1948, vol. XII, p. 158.

13. Franz Babinger, Maometto il Conquistatore e il suo tempo, Einaudi, Torino 1967, p. 470.

14. Franz Babinger, op. cit., p. 478.

15. Giorgio Pieretto, Islàm in Finlandia: i Tatari, “Islàm. Storia e civiltà”, 21, a. VI, n. 4, ottobre-dicembre 1987, pp. 247-251.

16. Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, Esplosione di un impero?, Edizioni e/o, Roma, s. d. (ma:1980).

17. Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, Le renouveau de l’Islam en URSS, “Le Monde”, 4 gennaio 1980. Dalla successiva bibliografia concernente l’Islam “sovietico” citiamo: Alexandre Bennigsen e Chantal Lemercier Quelquejay, L’Islam parallelo, Marietti, Genova 1990, Sergio Salvi, La mezzaluna con la stella rossa, Marietti, Genova 1993, Gejdar Džemal’, Tawhid. Prospettive dell’Islam nell’ex URSS, Edizioni all’insegna del Veltro, Parma 1993.

18. Fabio Galvano, L’Islam alla conquista delle Russie, “La Stampa”, 19 dicembre 1982.

19. Marcello Villari, Mosca-Tokyo-Berlino, l’asse del Duemila?, “Micromega”, 3, 1992.

20. Aleksej Malašenko, La Russia terra di conquista, “Limes”, 1, 2004, p. 229.

21. Nel XIX secolo, Russia e Gran Bretagna elaborarono il concetto geopolitico della “Mezzaluna islamica”, indicando con tale termine quella fascia territoriale che dall’Asia centrale arriva fino al Caucaso. La cosiddetta “Mezzaluna islamica” era in sostanza una zona cuscinetto, suddivisa in due aree: un’area settentrionale sottoposta all’influenza russa (e successivamente sovietica) e un’area meridionale egemonizzata dagl’Inglesi (e poi dagli USA). A disintegrare questa “Mezzaluna” furono la Rivoluzione islamica iraniana e l’intervento sovietico in Afghanistan.


Read more!

Francis Parker Yockey, The Nature Of Politics (full text)

First, what is politics? That is, politics as a fact. Politics is activity in relation to power.

Politics is a domain of its own—the domain of power. Thus it is not morality, it is not esthetics, it is not economics. Politics is a way of thinking, just as these others are. Each of these forms of thought isolates part of the totality of the world and claims it for its own. Morality distinguishes between good and evil, esthetics between beautiful and ugly; economics between utile and inutile (in its later purely trading phase these are identical with profitable and unprofitable). The way politics divides the world is into friend and enemy. These express for it the highest possible degree of connection, and the highest possible degree of separation.

Political thought is as separate from these other forms of thought as they are from each other. It can exist without them, they without it. The enemy can be good, he can be beautiful, he may be economically utile, business with him may be profitable—but if his power activity converges on mine, he is my enemy. He is that one with whom existential conflicts are possible. But esthetics, economics, morality are not concerned with existence, but only with norms of activity and thinking within an assured existence.

While as a matter of psychological fact, the enemy is easily represented as ugly, injurious, and evil, nevertheless this is subsidiary to politics, and does not destroy the independence of political thinking and activity. The political disjunction, concerned as it is with existence, is the deepest of all disjunctions and thus, has a tendency to seek every type of persuasion, compulsion, and justification in order to carry its activity forward. The extent to which this occurs is in direct ratio to the purity of political thinking in the leaders. The more their outlooks contain of moral, economic or other ways of thinking, the more they will use propaganda along such lines to further their political aims. It may even happen that they are not conscious that their activity is political. There is every indication that Cromwell regarded himself as a religionist and not as a politician. A variation was provided by the French journal which fanned the war spirit of its readers in 1870 with the expectation that the poilus would bring car-loads of blonde women back from Prussia.

On the other side, Japanese propaganda for the home populace during the Second World War, accented almost entirely the existential i.e., purely political nature of the struggle. Another may be ugly, evil and injurious and yet not be an enemy; or he may be good, beautiful, and useful, and yet be an enemy.

Friend and enemy are concrete realities. They are not figurative. They are unmixed with moral, esthetic or economic elements. They do not describe a private relationship of antipathy. Antipathy is no necessary part of the political disjunction of friend and enemy. Hatred is a private phenomenon. If politicians inoculate their populations with hatred against the enemy, it is only to give them a personal interest in the public struggle which they would otherwise not have. Between superpersonal organisms there is no hatred, although there may be existential struggles. The disjunction love-hatred is not political and does not intersect at any point the political one of friend-enemy. Alliance does not mean love, any more than war means hate. Clear thinking in the realm of politics demands at the outset a strong power of dissociation of ideas.

The world-outlook of Liberalism, here as always completely emancipated from reality, said that the concept enemy described either an economic competitor, or else an ideational opponent. But in economics there are no enemies, but only competitors; in a world which was purely moralized (i.e., one in which only moral contrasts existed) there could be no enemies, but only ideational opponents. Liberalism, strengthened by the unique long peace, 1871-1914, pronounced politics to be atavistic, the grouping of friend-enemy to be retrograde. This of course belongs to politics—a branch of philosophy. In that realm no misstatement is possible; no accumulation of facts can prove a theory wrong, for over these theories are supreme, History is not the arbiter in matters of political outlook, Reason decides all, and everyone decides for himself what is reasonable. This is concerned however only with facts, and the only objection made here to such an outlook in the last analysis is that it is not factual.

Enemy, then, does not mean competitor. Nor does it mean opponent in general. Least of all does it describe a person whom one hates from feelings of personal antipathy. Latin possessed two words: hostis for the public enemy, inimicus for a private enemy. Our Western languages unfortunately do not make this important distinction. Greek however did possess it, and had further a deep distinction between two types of wars: those against other Greeks, and those against outsiders of the Culture, barbarians. The former were—and only the latter were true wars. An agon was originally a contest for a prize at the public games, and the opponent was the "antagonist." This distinction has value for us because in comparison with wars in this age, intra-European wars of the preceding 800 years were agonal. As nationalistic politics assumed the ascendancy within the Classical Culture, with the Peloponnesian Wars, the distinction passed out of Greek usage. 17th and 18th century wars in West-Europe were in the nature of contests for a prize—the prize being a strip of territory, a throne, a title. The participants were dynasties, not peoples. The idea of destroying the opposing dynasty was not present, and only in the exceptional case was there even the possibility of such a thing happening. Enemy in the political sense means thus public enemy. It is unlimited, and it is thus distinguished from private enmity. The distinction public-private can only arise when there is a super-personal unit present. When there is, it determines who is friend and enemy, and thus no private person can make such a determination. He may hate those who oppose him or who are distasteful to him, or who compete with him, but he may not treat them as enemies in the unlimited sense.

The lack of two words to distinguish public and private enemy also has contributed to confusion in the interpretation of the well-known Biblical passage (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27) "Love your enemies." The Greek and Latin versions use the words referring to a private enemy. And this is indeed to what the passage refers. It is obviously an adjuration to put aside hatred and malice, but there is no necessity whatever that one hate the public enemy. Hatred is not contained in political thinking. Any hatred worked up against the public enemy is non-political, and always shows some weakness in the internal political situation. This Biblical passage does not adjure one to love the public enemy, and during the wars against Saracen and Turk no Pope, saint, or philosopher so construed it. It certainly does not counsel treason out of love for the public enemy.

Every non-political human grouping of whatever kind, legal, social, religious, economic or other becomes at last political if it creates an opposition deep enough to range men against one another as enemies. The State as a political unit excludes by its nature opposition of such types as these. If however a disjunction occurs in the population of a State which is so deep and strong that it divides them into friends and enemies, it shows that the State, at least temporarily, does not exist in fact. It is no longer a political unit, since all political decisions are no longer concentrated in it. All States whatever keep a monopoly of political decision. This is another way of saying they maintain inner peace. If some group or idea becomes so strong that it can effect a friend-enemy grouping, it is a political unit; and if forces are generated which the State cannot manage peace-ably, it has disappeared for the time at least. If the State has to resort to force, this in itself shows that there are two political units, in other words, two States instead of the one originally there.

This raises the question of the significance of internal politics. Within a State, we speak of social-politics, judicial-politics, religious-politics, party-politics and the like. Obviously they represent another meaning of the word, since they do not contain the possibility of a friend-enemy disjunction. They occur within a pacified unit. They can only be called "secondary." The essence of the State is that within its realm it excludes the possibility of a friend-enemy grouping. Thus conflicts occurring within a State are by their nature limited, whereas the truly political conflict is unlimited. Every one of these internal limited struggles of course may become the focus of a true political disjunction, if the idea opposing the State is strong enough, and the leaders of the State have lost their sureness. If it does—again, the State is gone. An organism either follows its own law, or it becomes ill. This is organic logic and governs all organisms, plant, animal, man, High Culture. They are either themselves, or they sicken and die. Not for them is the rational and logical view which says that whatever can be cogently written down into a system can then be foisted on to an organism. Rational thinking is merely one of the multifarious creations of organic life, and it cannot, being subsidiary, include the whole within its contemplation. It is limited and can only work in a certain way, and on material which is adapted to such treatment. The organism is the whole, however, and does not yield its secrets to a method which it develops out of its own adaptive ability to cope with non-organic problems it has to overcome.
Secondary politics often can distort primary politics. For instance the female politics of petty jealousy and personal hatred that was effective in the court of Louis XV was instrumental in devoting much of French political energy to the less important struggle against Frederick, and little French political energy to the more important struggle against England in Canada and India and on the seas. Frederick the Great was not beloved by the Pompadour, and France paid an empire to chastise him. When private hostility exerts such an effect on public it is proper to speak of political distortion, and of such a policy as a distorted one. When an organism consults or is in the grip of any force outside of its own developmental law, its life is distorted. The relation between a private enmity and a public politics it is circumstanced to distort is the same as that between European petty-Statism and the Western Civilization. The collectively suicidal game of nationalistic politics distorted the whole destiny of the West after 1900 to the advantage of the extra-European forces.

The concrete nature of politics is shown by certain linguistic facts which appear in all Western languages. Invariably the concepts, ideas, and vocabulary of a political group are polemical, propagandistic. This is true throughout all higher history. The words State, class, King, society—all have their polemical content and they have an entirely different meaning to partisans from what they have to opponents.

Dictatorship, government of laws, proletariat, bourgeoisie—these words have no meaning other than their polemical one, and one does not know what they are intended to convey unless one knows also who is using them and against whom. During the Second World War, for instance freedom and democracy were used as terms to describe all members of the coalition against Europe, with an entire disregard of semantics. The word "dictatorship" was used by the extra-European coalition to describe not only Europe, but any country which refused to join the coalition.

Similarly, the word "fascist" was used purely as a term of abuse, without any descriptive basis whatever, just as the word "democracy" was a word of praise but not of description. In the American press, for example, both during the 1914 war and the 1939 war, Russia was always described as a "democracy." The House of Romanov and the Bolshevik regime were equally democratic. This was necessary to preserve the homogeneous picture of these wars which this press had painted for its readers: the war was one of democracy against dictatorship; Europe was dictatorship, ergo, anything fighting Europe was democracy. In the same way, Machiavelli described any State that was not a monarchy as a republic, a polemical definition that has remained to this day. To Jack Cade the word nobility was a term of damnation, to those who put down his rebellion, it was everything good. In a legal treatise, the class-warrior Karl Renner described rent paid by tenant to landlord as "tribute." In the same way, Ortega y Gasset calls the resurgence of State authority, of the ideas of order, hierarchy and discipline, a revolt of the masses. And to a real class warrior, any navvy is socially valuable, but an officer is a "parasite."

During the period when Liberalism ruled in the Western Civilization, and the State was reduced, theoretically, to the role of "night-watchman," the very word "politics" changed its fundamental meaning. From having described the power activities of the State, it now described the efforts of private individuals and their organizations to secure positions in the government as a means of livelihood, in other words politics came to mean party-politics. Readers in 2050 will have difficulty in understanding these relationships, for the age of parties will be as forgotten then as the Opium War is now.

All State organisms were distorted, sick, in crisis, and this introspection was one great symptom of it. Supposedly internal politics was primary.

If internal politics was actually primary, it must have meant that friend-enemy groupings could arise on an internal political question. If this did happen, in the extreme case civil war was result, but unless a civil war occurred, internal politics was still in fact secondary, limited, private, and not public. The very contention that inner politics was primary was polemical: what was meant was that it should be. The Liberals and class-warriors, then as now, spoke of their wishes and hope as facts, near-facts, or potential facts. The sole result of focusing energy onto inner problems was to weaken the State, in its dealings with other States. The law of every organism allows only two alternatives: either the organism must be true to itself, or it goes down into sickness or death. The nature, the essence of the State is inner peace and outer struggle. If the inner peace is disturbed or broken, the outer struggle is damaged.

The organic and the inorganic ways of thinking do not intersect: ordinary classroom logic, the logic of philosophy textbooks, tells us that there is no reason why State, politics and war need even exist. There is no logical reason why humanity could not be organized as a society, or as a purely economic enterprise, or as a vast book club. But the higher organisms of States, and the highest organisms, the High Cultures, do not ask logicians for permission to exist—the very existence of this type of rationalist, the man emancipated from reality, is only a symptom of a crisis in the High Culture, and when the crisis passes, the rationalists pass away with it. The fact that the rationalists are not in touch with the invisible, organic forces of History is shown by their predictions of events. Before 1914, they universally asserted that a general European war was impossible. Two different types of rationalists gave their two different reasons. The class-warriors of the Internationale, said that inter-national class-war socialism would make it impossible to mobilize "the workers" of one country against "the workers" in another country. The other type—also with its center of gravity in economics, since rationalism and materialism are indissolubly wedded—said no general war was possible because mobilization would bring about such a dislocation of the economic life of the countries that a breakdown would come in a few weeks.


Read more!

20 mai 2008

Moise Maimonide, Intelectul, Inteligentul, Inteligibilul (fragment)

Cunoşti celebra propoziţie pe care filosofii au enunţat-o în privinţa lui Dumnezeu, adică aceea că El este Intelectul, Inteligentul şi Inteligibilul, şi că aceste trei lucruri, în Dumnezeu, nu fac decât unul şi acelaşi lucru, în care nu există multiplicitate. La rândul nostru, şi noi am vorbit despre aceasta în marea noastră lucrare, căci aceasta este baza religiei noastre, aşa cum am expus-o, vreau să zic că El este unul, adică nu există nimic etern decât El. De aceea se spune ‘hay yhvh (pe Dumnezeu cel viu!), şi nu se spune héy yhvh (pe viaţa lui Dumnezeu!), căci viaţa Sa nu este nimic altceva decât esenţa Sa, aşa cum am explicat deja atunci când am îndepărtat atributele. Fără îndoială, celui care n-a studiat cărţile care tratează Intelectul, care n-a perceput esenţa Intelectului, care nu-i cunoaşte adevărata fiinţă şi care nu înţelege din el decât atâta cât pricepe din ideea de alb şi de negru, îi va fi foarte greu să înţeleagă acest subiect, şi când spunem că Dumnezeu este Intelectul, Inteligentul şi Inteligibilul, va fi pentru el ca şi cum i-am spune că albul, lucrul albit şi ceea ce albeşte sunt unul şi acelaşi lucru. Şi într-adevăr, câţi ignoranţi nu se vor grăbi să ne respingă prin acest exemplu şi prin altele asemănătoare! şi câţi nu sunt care, emiţând pretenţii de ştiinţă, vor găsi lucrul acesta dificil şi vor crede că este mai presus de spiritul nostru recunoaşterea adevărului său absolut! Totuşi, subiectul este demonstrabil şi evident, conform cu ceea ce au expus filosofii metafizicieni, şi am să te fac să înţelegi ce au stabilit ei prin demonstraţie.

Să ştii că omul, înainte de a se gândi la un lucru, este inteligent în potenţialitate. Dar atunci când s-a gândit la un anume lucru, ca de exemplu, atunci când s-a gândit la forma acestui lemn, când a abstras ceea ce-i este formă de ceea ce-i este materie, şi şi-a imaginat forma abstractă [căci în aceasta constă acţiunea intelectului], a devenit inteligent în act. Intelectul care a trecut la act este el însuşi forma lemnului abstractă în spiritul omului, căci intelectul nu este altceva decât obiectul inteligibil. Vei înţelege deci că lucrul inteligibil este forma abstractă a lemnului, care este ea însăşi intelectul trecut în act. Nu este câtuşi de puţin vorba aici de două lucruri, adică, intelectul şi forma gândită a lemnului, căci intelectul în act nu este deloc altceva decât ceea ce a fost gândit, iar lucrul prin care forma lemnului a fost gândită şi abstrasă, şi care este inteligentul, este el însuşi fără greş intelectul trecut în act. Într-adevăr, esenţa oricărui intelect constă în acţiunea lui, şi nu se poate ca intelectul în act să fie un lucru şi acţiunea lui un alt lucru. Căci adevărata fiinţă a intelectului, este perceperea. Nu trebuie deci să se creadă că intelectul în act este ceva care există de-o parte, separat de percepere, şi că perceperea este altceva [care există] în el. Dar [ceea ce constituie] intelectul în el însuşi şi realitatea sa, este perceperea, şi în consecinţă, când te gândeşti la un intelect existând în act, [te gândeşti] prin aceasta însăşi la perceperea unui obiect gândit. Acest lucru este foarte clar pentru cel care s-a ocupat de aceste speculaţii.

Apoi deci din faptul că este clar că acţiunea intelectului, care constă în perceperea sa, este [ceea ce constituie] adevărata sa esenţă, rezultă că lucrul prin care forma acestui lemn a fost abstrasă şi percepută, adică intelectul, este el însuşi inteligent. Căci cel care a abstras forma şi a perceput-o este intelectul însuşi, şi aceasta este acţiunea din cauza căreia este numit “inteligent”. Dar acţiunea sa fiind ea însăşi esenţa sa, nu există, în ceea ce a fost considerat ca intelect îna ct, decât forma lemnului în chestiune. Este deci clar (pe de o parte) că, de fiecare dată când intelectul există în act, acest intelect este el însuşi lucrul inteligibil, şi (pe de altă parte) s-a expus că acţiunea care constituie esenţa oricărui intelect, este să fie inteligent. De unde rezultă că intelectul, inteligentul şi inteligibilul sunt întotdeauna singurul şi acelaşi lucru de fiecare dată când este vorba despre o gândire în act. Dar atunci când se ia în considerare [o gândire] în potenţialitate, există în mod necesar două lucruri: intelectul în potenţialitate şi inteligibilul în potenţialitate. Dacă, de exemplu, vorbeşti despre intelectul hilic care este în Zeid, acesta este un intelect în potenţialitate, şi la fel acest lemn este inteligibil în potenţialitate, şi există indubitabil în acest caz două lucruri. Dar atunci când [gândirea] a trecut în act, şi forma lemnului a devenit inteligibilă în act, atunci forma inteligibilă este identică cu intelectul, şi prin acest intelect, care este intelectul în act, ea a fost abstrasă şi gândită. [Spun “intelect în act”], pentru că tot ceea ce există în acţiune, există în act. Astfel deci, intelectul în potenţialitate şi inteligibilul în potenţialitate sunt întotdeauna două lucruri. Dar tot ceea ce este în potenţialitate trebuie în mod necesar să aibă un substratum care să poarte această potenţialitate, ca de exemplu omul. Aşa încât vor fi acolo trei lucruri: omul care poartă potenţialitate la care am făcut referinţă şi care este inteligent în potenţialitate, potenţialitatea însăşi, care este intelectul în potenţialitate, şi lucrul apt să fie gândit, şi care este inteligibilul în potenţialitate. Sau, ca să vorbim în conformitate cu exemplul nostru: omul, intelectul hilic şi forma din lemn, care sunt trei lucruri distincte. Dar atunci când intelectul ajunge la act, cele trei lucruri nu mai sunt decât unul singur, şi nu se vor găsi niciodată în intelect şi inteligibil două lucruri diferite, altfel decât atunci când sunt în potenţialitate.

Or, aşa cum s-a demonstrat că Dumnezeu [fie El glorificat!] este Intelect în act, şi cum nu există în El absolut nimic care să fie în potenţialitate, - ceea ce este clar [în sine] şi va fi demonstrat din nou – astfel încât nu se poate ca El uneori să perceapă şi uneori să nu perceapă, şi că dimpotrivă El este întotdeauna Intelect în Act, rezultă că El şi lucrul perceput sunt unul şi acelaşi lucru, care este esenţa Sa. Şi [pe de altă parte] această aceeaşi acţiune de a percepe, pentru care este numit “Inteligent”, este Intelectul însuşi în esenţa sa. În consecinţă, El este perpetuu Intelect, Inteligent şi Inteligibil. Este clar şi că, dacă se spune că intelectul, inteligentul şi inteligibilul nu formează decât unul ca număr, aceasta nu se aplică doar Creatorului, ci oricărui intelect. Şi în noi, inteligentul, intelectul şi inteligibilul sunt unul şi acelaşi lucru de fiecare dată când posedăm intelectul în act. Dar trecem de la potenţialitate în act doar în anumite intervale. La fel, intelectul separat, vreau să spun intelectul activ, încearcă uneori o piedică în acţiunea sa. Şi, deşi această piedică nu vine din el însuşi, ci din afară, este o anume perturbare [care survine] în mod accidental la acest intelect. Dar noi nu avem acum ca scop să explicăm acest subiect, scopul nostru este mai degrabă [să expunem] că lucrul care îi aparţine lui Dumnezeu singur şi care îi este specific, este de a fi întotdeauna Intelect în act şi de a nu încerca nici o piedică în percepere, nici provenind de la El, nici de altundeva. Rezultă de aici că El este întotdeauna şi perpetuu Inteligent, Intelect şi Inteligibil. Esenţa Sa însăşi este Inteligenţa Sa, ea este Inteligibilul, şi tot ea este Intelectul, aşa cum se cuvine să fie cu orice Intelect în act.

Dacă ne-am repetat adesea în acest capitol, este pentru că era vorba despre un lucru pe care minţile îl concep foarte dificil. Nu cred că în tine concepţia intelectuală poate fi tulburată de imaginaţie, şi că tu ai putea, în facultatea ta imaginativă, să stabileşti în această privinţă o comparaţie cu lucrurile sensibile. Căci acest tratat nu a fost compus decât pentru cei care au studiat filosofia şi care cunosc ceea ce a fost expus în privinţa sufletului şi a tuturor facultăţilor sale.


Read more!

10 mai 2008

Jean-Claude Frère, Une vie en esprit, (texte intégral)





Une vie en esprit:

Il est des esprits qui bouleversent le cours de leur temps et secouent la succession des idées sans que pour autant ils deviennent les étincelantes vedettes des engouements fugitifs. René Guénon est de ceux-là. Humble et effacé, ayant mené une vie silencieuse, il semble passer lentement d'un clair obscur à la nuit complète sans s'occuper beaucoup des figures de son époque et des recettes qui assurent la célébrité. Ce solitaire amoureux éperdu des grandes perceptions spirituelle fut-il un philosophe? Assurémént pas. Il contempla la philosophie et put, chose insigne et légitime dans son cas, se permettre d'en sourire. Fut-il un orientaliste de talent, mais simplement un orientaliste quand même; un de ceux qui ont l'Inde facile? Non point, il "aperçut" l'Orient, et s'y arrêta bien moins qu'on se plait à dire. En fait, il le survola, mais le survola comme un aigle: en oiseau de proie qui plonge chaque fois qu'il découvre la victime qui assurera son alimentation. De toute façon son propos couvrait trop de choses et dévoilait trop de richesses pour qu'il soit possible d'en faire l'homme d'une spécialité. Nul "dada" ne fut son domaine. La synthèse de l'homme et de l'univers seule le préoccupait réellement. Et, ayant peut-être découvert des arcanes de la grande mécanique céleste, il put bientôt se moquer de nos agitations, de nos concepts sitôt remplacés par d'autres concepts tout aussi éphémères. Son style est celui des rois et des mages (toujours il courtise le "nous"). Son pluriel est celui de la majesté incontestable. Guénon ne propose pas, ne suggère pas. Il affirme. Sa devise serait bien celle de quelques Brahmane védique: "connaître et imposer". Nul dogmatisme pour autant, mais l'assurance de celui qui revient d'un voyage étonnant. Un voyage pendant lequel il aurait été transporté sur une montagne d'où il aurait pu découvrir, de l'extérieur enfin, les choses des astres pour, une fois revenu, pouvoir en rire délicieusement et assurer comme fait inexorable ce qui est gros encore dans le ventre de l'avenir. Car le chemin de Guénon passa par un sentier où l'instant dépasse le futur pour rejoindre le passé.

Peu d'oeuvres effacent avec autant de vigueur la figure de leur créateur, René Guénon. Mais peut-on même imaginer l'enfant qu'il fut? Nulle part ses angoisses ne transparaissent; toujours sa plume, qui est celle d'un des grands maître du style au vingtième siècle, glisse vers les contrées qui ne concernent pas le corps et ses caprices. Le monde est ébranlé par les plus violentes secousses que la civilisation ait eu à subir; pourtant l'oeuvre guénoniène se continue impavidement: il est là, sans colère, étranger à jamais aux caprices de l'actualité. Il a trente-et-un ans quand la sainte Russie, devenant la République des Soviets met fin au monde des certitudes et intronise le temps de l'angoisse. Il a cinquante-neuf ans quand la connaissance à rebours inonde le ciel de deux villes du Japon et que le néant nucléaire boucle la boucle des mythes et suscite, par son affirmation pratique de la désintégration matérielle, le vertige et l'attente de la réintégration en Dieu. Certes ces ouvrages sont là pour marquer les années, mais en aucun cas ils ne forment une maturation suivie et réellement chronologique. Dès son premier livre publié, "l'introduction générale aux doctrines hindoues", sa formation est structurée comme elle le demeurera jusqu'à sa mort. Rien n'aura évolué au sens fort de ce terme. Il y aura eu des approfondissements, mais l'âge de l'auteur disparaît devant sa création. René Guénon immole le temps pour que demeure l'immédiat de la réalité métaphysique. Tout son propos sera décidément construit dans cette oblation faite à l'immédiateté de thèmes à la fois immémoriaux et intemporels. Ses historiens, biographes ou hagiographes, ont bien mentionné ses origines profondement françaises et son appartenance ancestrale à ces pays de la Loire qui sont comme la quintessence de notre civilisation. René Descartes et René Guénon sont issus du même terroir; le premier naquit en Touraine et le segond en terre blésoise. Il n'y a là de hasard qu'en apparence; en réalité les deux formes d'intelligences sont proches et appartiennent à la même discipline intérieure, à la même horreur des formules vagues et des dissertations éperdues. La lumière austère de la Loire nous offre des écrivains épris d'absolu, pas un absolu facile, et surtout de dépouillement. La mystique n'est nullement dans le tumulte et les formules rodomontantes; elle réside dans l'absence de tout attrait extérieur à l'objet même de la quête, qui, en lui-même, s'évanouit dans la conscience ultime de l'être qui pénètre tout l'univers. Ni St Jean-de-la-Croix, ni René Guénon ne nous contrediraient. On nous parle trop de mystique, parce que le monde de la mystique est défunt; toujours l'on parle d'une chose, d'une entité, quand déjà elle n'est plus. Ce cahier sur Guénon nous offre bien la chance de pouvoir réajuster quelque peu les mots et leur sens. Trop de galvaudages proposèrent des vues inconsistantes sur les plus profondes réalités. Trop d'écrivains pris de spasmes névrotiques crurent "réinventer" un langage inspiré parce qu'ils étaient incapables de savoir encore ce que penser veut dire.

Des formes extérieures à la révélation intérieure:

Il est né le 15 Novembre 1886 à Blois; son acte de baptême porte les noms de Guénon René-Jean-Marie-Joseph, son acte de décés établi le 08 Janvier 1951 (lendemain de sa mort) porte les noms de Abdel Wahed Yahia. Quoi de plus chrétien d'une part, quoi de plus musulman de l'autre? Quels furent donc les évènements et les découvertes qui conduisirent cet homme sur des sentiers tellement éloignés de nos routines? En fin de compte cette brève étude n'aura d'autre but que de cerner ces questions en les esplicitant par le biais de la vie. Fils d'un architecte, Jean-Baptiste Guénon et d'une fille de la bourgeoisie bléroise, Anna-Léontine Jolly, il ne connut à Blois que les charmes d'une enfance et d'une adolescence feutrées, ponctuées par de très fréquents succès scolaires, mais aussi cependant par quantité de maladies dues à une santé qui, dès le départ, s'avèra délicate.

A la recherche d'un savoir authentique:

Brillant élève dans différents établissements religieux de la ville,il ne devait guère connaître que les plaisirs de la lecture et des rêveries quand ses condisciples ne parlaient que de plaies et de bosses. De tels détails le prédisposaient, certes, à n'être "pas comme les autres". Rien de plus mais le hasard existe. Ce genre d'enfant solitaire fait aussi bien de grands généraux que de profond religieux. Un choc, une rencontre, la lecture d'un livre ou une réaction impromptue risquent d'orienter toute l'existence d'un jeune timide, méditatif et doué. Pour René Guénon nous ne savons vraiment pas ce qui se passa. Pourquoi ce bon mathématicien ne devin pas un honorable savant ou un maître de la stratégie? La découverte de Paris en octobre 1904 à la suite de sa réussite au baccalauréat de 1903? Paris ne fut quand même que le catalyseur de virtualités plus profondes que le jeune homme charriait depuis les mystères de la naissance. Paris, ce fut tout d'abord le collège Rollin où il fut admis pour y préparer une licence mathématiques. Excellent élève à Blois, il ne désira plus, une fois dans la capitale, faire carrière. Nous sommes en 1906, il avait 20 ans. Quels sont les causes de ce changement, radical en apparence? Nous devinons seulement que dés lors la vie spiritualiste parisiènne possédait des attraits chaque jour plus puissants. Le mouvement occultiste avec son chef le docteur Encausse, mieux connu sous le pseudonyme de Papus et une multidude d'autres sectes se réclamant de l'ésotérisme, d'une pseudo-maçonnerie et des sciences traditionnelles donnaient alors au Paris des chercheurs de la "Parole perdue" un singulier aspect de ruche et de marché de la gnose. René Guénon allait désormais se mouvoir dans ce labyrinthe. Quelquefois il s'arrêtera dans une officine: ce sera le cas auprès de Papus et de son école Hermétique de la rue Séguier. Toujours il écoutera, voudra retrouver les fondements de la véritable tradition, et chaque fois il repartira vers son petit appartement du 51 de la rue Saint-Louis-en-l'Ile un peu sceptique, un peu plus acide. Il lui fallait le véritable enseignement, et les ésotéristes de cette grande foire lui offraient des bribes volées ci et là à quelques rêveries issues des différents fantasmes qui peuplèrent l'horizon spirituel de l' occident. Il guettait le maître, l'inconnu au pouvoir révélé, il se heurtait à quantité de petits papes aux prétentions paranoïques. Son acrimonie vis-à vis de tout savoir non étayé par une profonde connaissance et sa sévérité intellectuelle furent, pour une part, des réactions à ces expériences. Il convient de dire un mot de son séjour chez les papusiens, lequel séjour fut sans doute sa première véritable expérience néo-spiritualiste. Celle aussi qui devait, dès le départ, le mettre en garde contre les périls charriés par toutes les sectes. En 1906 il se fait admettre comme élève de l'école supérieure libre des sciences hermétiques dont Papus est le maître. Rapidement il gravit les échelons de la hiérarchie martiniste et devient "Supérieur inconnu". Successeur en titre-chez les Martiniste- de Saint-Yves-d'Alveydre (dont les oeuvres, les célèbres "missions", qui sont au départ de l'idéal synarchique, inflencèrent Guénon, notamment dans le "Roi du Monde", Encausse Papus prétendait que son Ordre martiniste était bien le descendant régulier de celui des "Elus-Coens" de Martinez de Pasqually qui, fondé au XVIIIème siècle, compta parmi les plus illustres membres, Louis Claude de Saint Martin- dit "le philosophe Inconnu"- et Joseph de Maistre.

Bien vite René Guénon s'aperçut à quel point cette transmission était fictive. Rien dans l'enseignement de Papus ne pouvait le satisfaire. Une incompatibilité réelle existait déjà entre l'austérité intellectuelle du jeune homme et les brumes occultistes. Pourtant il cherchait encore. Parallèlement aux occupations papusiennes, il entreprit de se faire initier par les francs-maçons d'obédiances irrégulières. Ainsi ceux de la maçonnerie espagnole, Loge Humanidad, et ceux du Rite primitif et originel swédenborgien. Auprès de ces derniers il reçut de Théodore Reuss, grand maître du Grand-Orient et souverain sanctuaire de l'Empire d'Allemagne, le cordon de Kadosh. Le fait ne manque pas de piquant quant on sait que le même Reuss devait observer, un peu plus tard, avec curiosité et sympathie la création de Thulé. Laquelle fut, avec des membres tels que Rudolf Hess, pour une part dans l'origine du phénomène national-socialiste Allemand. Pendant deux années Guénon supporta les vues obscures et pathologiques de ces gens. En 1908 il devait même assister, en tant que secrétaire du bureau, au Congrès Spiritualiste et Maçonnique. Choqué par les outrances de Papus, qui voyait dans la doctrine de la survivance et de la réintégration la panacée des futures générations, il se retira, non sans avoir reçu une patente de haut grade pour le rite de Memphis-Misraim. Ce qui fut important c'est la rencontre en ces circonstances avec Fabre des Essarts, connu sous le nom de Synésius, le patriarche de l'église Gnostique, puisqu'il demanda aussitôt à celui-ci à être admis au nombre des adeptes de cette curieuse "église".

Des expériences décevantes mais nécessaires:

Ses nouvelles occupations gnostiques allaient le détacher peu à peu des premières sollicitations. Vers 1909 les martinistes et les maçons irréguliers l'exclurent. Il n'en avait pas moins vu ce qu'il voulait voir: la caricature occidentale des antiques initiations. Par la même occasion il constatait que grande était encore la nostalgie des ordres chevaleresques et des cérémonies mystiques parmi tous ces petits bourgeois qui se jouaient la grande comédie à force de titres mirobolants et et de fausses décorations maçonniques. Toutefois son attitude par trop curieuse peut choquer ceux qui ne connaissent de lui que ses oeuvres, qui jamais ne s'attardent auprès des choses communes et quotidiennes. On le croit trop volontiers sans autres préoccupations que celles qu'il édictera dans des oeuvres magistrales. Pourtant dans les premières années de son séjour parisien il tirera peut-être ses aliments d'une nourriture trop facile qui ne pourra satisfaire son goût profond et absolu. Dans la suite on lui chercha injustement grief pour ses engouements du début. Sa réponse fut haute et sans appel, laissant bien entrevoir à ses détracteurs combien il méprisait de telles mesquineries: "Si nous avons dû, à une certaine époque, pénétrer dans tels ou tels milieux, c'est pour des raisons qui ne regardent que nous" (in, "le voile d'Isis", mai 1932). En 1909, Synésius, (Fabre des Essarts) lui facilitera la création d'une revue, "La Gnose" qui tint jusqu'en février 1912. Grâce à cette revue Guénon allait pouvoir approfondir les idées qui lui étaient déjà chères et qui devraient rester les fondements de ses recherches métaphysiques. Au départ la "Gnose" se présentait comme "l'organe officiel de l'église gnostique universelle" et Guénon la dirigea sous le nom de Palingenius. Cependant il devait se dégager très vite de l'inflence de Synésius pour transformer sa revue en une continuation de la "Voie", revue qui avait paru de 1904 à 1907 sous la direction de Léon Champrenaud, qui avait adhéré à l'Islâm sous le nom de Abdul Haqq, et de Albert de Pouvourville qui avait adhéré à la tradition taoïste sous le nom de Matgioi.

L'apprentissage de l'expérience créatrice:

Champrenaud, par sa conversion à l'Islâm, devait marquer le jeune Guénon qui, peu après, allait en faire autant. De fait il se trouvait, grâce à cette rencontre, devant une perspective beaucoup plus riche, celle d'un véritable ésotérisme religieux guidé par une des grandes doctrine spirituelles des temps présents. Quant à Pouvourville-Matgioi, Guénon lui doit certains éléments de base qu'il puisa dans les ouvrages de cet étrange personnage, "la Voie méthaphysique" et "la Voie rationnelle". Si Matgioi écrivait aussi des romans de quatre sous pour les journaux de l'époque, il n'en reste pas moins vrai que ses vues métaphysiques sont pertinentes et proches du futur Guénonisme. Dans "la Voie métaphysique" (rééditée aux éditions Traditionnelles, 1956) il aborde les grands problèmes de la tradition chinoise, ceux-là que Guénon retrouvera, notamment, dans "la grande Triade". Il ne faut pas, néanmoins, exagérer le rôle de ces auteurs dans la formation de René Guénon. Au moment où nous le voyons "nager" de sectes en chapelles il passe tout son temps à vivre son expérience créatrice. Il se vit, se prépare et devine peu à peu les rouages de sa conscience. Toutes ses perceptions se décantent. Bientôt il offrira, après ces années d'apprentissage, une vue catégorique et affirmative des choses et du monde tels qu'il les voit. Dès le premier numéro de a "Gnose" il impose sa propre personnalité. Désormais il échappe aux influences passagères pour apporter à ses lecteurs une conception personnelle de l'être et des problèmes de l'unique et de la dualité. Son article, qui s'intitulait "le Démiurge" en est le cri profondément spirituel. Ses sources se forment. Déjà il utilise le "Traité de la connaissance" de Shankarâchârya: ouvrage qui restera une des références favorites. Par ailleurs "le démiurge", qui proclame "le caractère relatif du mal" et "la fatale illusion du dualisme", n'est ni plus ni moins qu'un article où l'Occident et l'Orient se heurtent et s'équilibrent à travers des enseignements puisés aux sources mêmes des plus profonds mystères religieux d'Europe et d'Asie. Le but de la "Gnose" ayant été de rassembler autour de lui différents éléments ayant échappé à l'occultisme, il créa parallèlement à la fondation de sa revue un "ordre du temple rénové" qui comprenait sept grades théoriques (selon le principe de la maçonnerie du rite écossais rectifié). Cet ordre n'eut qu'une existance éphémère, et son seul mérite semble d'avoir permis le rassemblement en cercles d'études de quelques chercheurs avides de véritables connaissance. Quoi qu'il en soit ces agitations restaient bien vaines et loin de ce que Guénon aurait voulu trouver, ou créer réellement. Les années allaient passer encore avant qu'il puisse trouver son équilibre profond, celui-là qui lui permettra de composer ses livres et son plan de certitude. "La Gnose", qui continuait son humble carrière (elle ne dépassa jamais cent-cinquante abonnés) publia bientôt deux articles de René Guénon qui servirent de fondements à deux des plus importants ouvrages, "l'Homme et son devenir selon le Vedânta" et "le Symbolisme de la croix". Les grandes lignes de la doctrine orientaliste qui allaient être la sienne sont ainsi très tôt définies. A ving-cinq ans son point de vue est fixé, il ne lui manque plus que le recul indispensable qu'il allait trouver après avoir quitté définitivement gnostiques et autres occultistes. Pour l'instant il en est loin encore, et après la création de l'Ordre du Temple, il fera son entrée dans la maçonnerie officielle, à la Grande Loge de France, section Thébah du rite écossais ancien et accepté. Selon d'autres renseignements il appartint au même moment au "Suprême conseil général des Rites unis de la Maçonnerie ancienne et primitive et Grand Orient pour la France et ses dépendances". En fait son activité maçonnique (surtout représentée par quelques conférences, dont une sur "l'Enseignement initiatique" publiée en Janvier 1913 par la revue "le Symbolisme") se limita à peu près à Thébah où il se rendit régulièrement jusqu'à la guerre de 1914-1918.

Un militant de l'éveil métaphysique:

Après la guerre il n'assista plus à aucune tenue de Loge, pourtant il ne cessa pas de s'intéresser au problème maçonnique. La franc-maçonnerie, il en était convaincu, est l'ultime survivance initiatique occidentale, la seule qui avec l'église catholique peut encore sauver notre civilisation de l'aveuglement matérialiste. Néanmoins la dégénérescence maçonnique est telle que les actuels dépositaires ne pressentent même plus toute la force et la continuité des rites sacrés dont ils sont les dépositaires inconscients. Ce qui en rien n'altère la valeur propre des emblèmes et des symboles dont la maçonnerie a toujours l'entière responsabilité (voir notamment l'article de Guénon dans les études Traditionnelles de Juin1934). Catholiscisme et franc-maçonnerie devraient s'entendre en Europe pour les préserver et vivifier les trésors initiatiques et les enseignements divins qu'elles conservent sans trop savoir pourquoi. L'horreur du secret, de l'ésotérisme, fait que l'Occident se meurt dans un monde entièrement profane, et c'est cette "profanation" qui est la cause première du grand malaise de la civilisation. Voilà l'avis de Guénon qui, par la maçonnerie, militera un moment pour l'éveil de la connaissance méthaphysique occidentale au sein d'une élite élargie. Il entrevoit alors son action comme double: il faut ramener les maçons à l'entendement de leurs principes et des fondements de leur hiérarchie chevalresque et faire admettre aux catholiques qu'ils ont tort de combattre la maçonnerie, puisque le rôle authentique de la religion serait, en l'occurence, de restituer une maçonnerie sacrée et liée aux cultes de l'église, ainsi que cela se passait au Moyen Age. Par cette position juste et courageuse Guénon devait s'attirer le mécontentement à la fois des maçons et des catholiques. Pourtant il ne s'avoua pas vaincu et entreprit aussitôt une série d'articles qu'il fit paradoxalement publier dans une revue antimaçonnique dirigée par Clarin de la Rive, "la France Antimaçonnique" sous le pseudonyme, "le Sphinx" qui fut très vite éventé par les Francs-maçons qui ne voulurent plus voir en lui qu'un "agent des jésuites".

Il n'en persista pas moins dans cette attitude profondément cohérente. De fait cette revue qui lui ouvrait ses colonnes était catholique, antimaçonnique dans la mesure où la maçonnerie du début de ce siècle n'était qu'un ramas de matérialistes, mais elle était toutefois assez lucide pour faire sienne une opinion aussi peu matérialiste que celle du maçon René Guénon. La pensée et les réflexions maçonniques de Guénon devaient marquer les franc-maçons. Certes ils mirent beaucoup de temps avant d'admettre plus ou moins son comportement et le sens de certains de ses articles (qui furent rassemblés en 2 volumes aux éditions traditionnelles-1968-). Néanmoins on peut affirmer, de l'avis même des francs-maçon hautement qualifiés, que la maçonnerie contemporaine doit une part importante de sa rénovation spirituelle à l'audace de l'oeuvre guénoniènne. Certaines loges-dont "la Grande Triade" et "Thébah"- vivent aujourd'hui encore dans le souvenir de son enseignement. Il semble que la Grande Loge Nationale Française, qui est singulièrement symboliste, doit l'esprit ésotérique de ses travaux aux principes fondamentaux insufflés par Guénon. Il est du reste remarquable de constater que, malgré sa collaboration à "la France antimaçonnique", jamais il ne fut exclu de la maçonnerie officielle. Et il se trouva même des maçons pour adopter sa position et commencer le combat pour la restauration initiatique dès avant 1914. Notons, en passant, que les développements guénoniens rejoignaient alors, en une certaine mesure, les vues initiatiques d'un autre illustre francs-maçon, Oswald Wirth. Peu avant la grande guerre, le monde des sciences traditionnelles devenant majeur, la maçonnerie sous l'égide de puissants esprits allaient connaître un renouveau dont les effets se font encore sentir.

A la même époque, c'est à dire en 1912, Guénon s'engage décidement dans la voie islamique. Son initiation musulmane remonte à cette année, ainsi qu'en témoigne la dédicace du "Symbolisme de la croix" qui porte la mention "a la mémoire vénérée de Esh-Sheikh Abder-Rahman Elish el-Khebir el-Alim el-Maghribi" avec la date, 1329 de l'Hégire. Ce qui donne bien 1912. Il reçut le nom musulman d'Abdel Wahed Yahia ("Le Serviteur de l'Unique"), nom qui le rattache à la tradition soufi d'Egypte. Les causes profondes de l'initiation islamique de René Guénon restèrent toujours fort vagues. Il est un fait que l'hindouisme semblait plus proche de ses sollicitations que le monde arabe. Toutefois sa propre conviction, qui en appelle à une "Tradition Primordiale", accorde bien moins d'importance à une religion précise qu'à l'ésotérisme antique dont elle peut être encore la détentrice. Aussitôt on peut se demander, avec bien des chrétiens qui se sentent proches de l'oeuvre guénoniène, pourquoi ce Blésois choisit soudain d'abandonner les cultes ancestraux de son pays pour entrer dans une religion attachée à une affectivité toute différente. La réponse reste difficile, quoiqu'il semble évident que le christianisme ne répondait pas réellement à ce que Guénon attendait comme réalisation initiatique. Bien qu'il ait écrit un livre intitulé "Aperçus sur l'ésotérisme chrétien", la religion chrétienne, qui est une "voie du coeur", un chemin essentiellement occidental, était à ses yeux une doctrine presque exclusivement exotérique. Recherchant les sentiers arides de la pure spiritualité orientale, s'arrêtant devant les feux de Shiva et d'Agni, il ne pouvait guère supporter les aspects si féminins de la chrétienté qui fait, par la présence de Marie, une si large part à l'affectivité, à l'élément humide et terrestre. Ses aspirations hindoues n'en restaient pas moins sans solution, puisque les règles de l'hindouisme interdisent les conversions. On naît Hindou, on peut, à la suite de graves manquements culturels, perdre la qualité d'Hindou, mais on ne devient pas Hindou. Ce principe procède de l'essence même des dogmes védiques et des lois qui s'y rapportent. Dès lors, René Guénon ne pouvant espérer entrer dans l'hindouisme par une conversion, se tourna vers un moyen-terme: l'Islâm, voie d'équilibre entre l'Orient et l'Occident, mais dont le noyau ésotérique reste puissant et comme le fondement même de la religion. La sécheresse dénuée de rides du monde musulman ne pouvait que séduire notre dévot de l'absolu. Il quittait les ornières de la représentation pour pénétrer dans un univers où le sanctuaire réside dans le non-manifesté, dans la force de connaissance pure. L'intellect domine dans la méditation que René Guénon allait quémander chez les enfants de Mohammed; non que nous voulions dire qu'il en est ainsi pour l'Islâm. La recherche islamique de Guénon prit cette inclinaison qui est loin d'être la plus répandue. Toutefois seule la religion du Prophète dans sa formulation ésotérique pouvait satisfaire son horreur de l'affectif, du sensible. Dieu pour l'Islâm dans sa formulation initiatique reste l'indicible, celui qui ne peut être ni décrit, ni représenté. Pureté et dépouillement, Guénon découvrait là des possibilités spirituelles établies proches enfin de ce qu'il guettait dans l'inaccessible hindouisme et qu'il désespérait de trouver dans un christianisme aujourd'hui trop dominé par l'exotérisme. Son horreur des grandes civilisations de notre antiquité classique est la base de ce comportement. Refusant de découvrir la quintessence religieuse sur les pentes de l'Accropole, dans les cris des mystiques mithraciques, savait-il même les profondeurs du message héractitéen, savait-il reconnaître l'intemporalité des doctrines de Philon ou de Plotin? Avait-il pu frémir à la lecture de la quête solaire de l'Empereur Julien? Et parmi les premiers chrétiens que n'avait-il continué la lecture d'Origène, dont il avait pourtant, en collaboration avec Synésius, traduit le Premier Livre des Philosophumena en y apportant de nombreuses et pertinentes notes. (Les philosophumena sont attribués sans certitude à Origène. Quoi qu'il en soit, ils s'inscrivent bien dans la tradition de ce théologien du IIIème siècle.)

Initiation à la vérité de l'Islâm:

Quelles furent les sources de sa conversion islamique? Nous savons déjà que son ami Léon Champrenaud s'était converti sous le nom d'Abdul-Haqq ("Le serviteur de la Vérité") et l'influence de ce dernier ne fut pas pour peu dans la décision de René Guénon. Par ailleurs une étrange figure apparaît au même moment en la personne d'Abdul-Hâdi ("Le serviteur du Guide") un des collaborateurs de la "Gnose", suédois d'origine, né non loin de Stockholm en 1869, et qui s'appelait John-Gustaf Ageli dans le monde profane. Angeli, qui fut un homme remarquable, mérite que l'on s'attarde un instant sur sa biographie. Peintre de l'école suédoise, venu à Paris pour étendre ses expériences et ses recherches, considéré aujourd'hui encore en Suède comme un des initiateurs de la peinture moderne, il fut arrêté par la police française pour avoir donné asile à un anarchiste. Ce temps de réclusion lui fut propice. De fait il s'en servit pour étudier les diverses traditions religieuses, pour assimiler l'hébreu et l'arabe. A sa sortie de prison il mènera parrallèlement des recherches religieuses et artistiques. En 1895 il entreprend de pénétrer dans l'ésotérisme musulman. Ce sont des études en Sorbonne et puis des voyages qui le conduiront d' Egypte en Inde. En 1905 lors d'un séjour au Caire il rencontrera le Sheikh Abder-Rahman el Kébir, le dédicataire du Symbolisme de la Croix, qui était un des maîtres les plus réputé de l'Islâm, fils du restaurateur du rite Malékite et appartenant à la Tariquah Shadhilite de la branche Mudhhat Mâliki.

A l'université d'El-Azhar, Abder-Rhaman el Kébir conféra à Angelii l'initiation du "Tàçawwuf" sous le nom d'Abdul-Hâdi. Dès lors ce dernier devin "Moqqadam" (Représentant) de l'Islâm en général et Abder-Rhaman en particulier; faculté d'initier lui était donnée. En 1910 Abdul-Hâdi rencontre René Guénon. Les deux hommes se lient d'amitié. Le Suédois collabore à la "Gnose" pour les domaines musulmans (collaboration qui durera jusqu'à la fin de cette revue, en 1912). C'est selon ce que nous avons pu savoir, dans la seconde partie de l'année 1912 qu'Abdul-Hâdi, au retour d'un voyage en Suède, octroya à Guénon la "Barakah" du Sheik Abder-Rhamam. Ce qui aussitôt, explique pleinement la dédicace du "Symbolisme de la Croix". Ainsi entrait-il dans la religion du Prophète par une des branches les plus nobles, celle qui fut fondée au VIIème siècle de l'Hégire par Hasan ash Shâdhili qui se réclamait directement des oeuvres du Sheikh el-Akbar que l'on connait mieux sous le nom d'Ibn-Arabi (1165-1240). Guénon devenait musulman, certes; mais de la façon qui convenait à sa profonde nature spiritualiste, c'est-à-dire par l'ordre initiatique dans ce qu'il y a de plus dépouillé et de plus transcendant. Cet Islâm-là dépassait le simple fait de la conversion pour accéder au stade de la quintessence des religions, car à ce niveau de maturation mystique il n'est plus de sectes et de conflits dogmatiques. Il reste l'unique poursuite de l'absolu dans la dissolution de toutes choses dans le principe. Alors Islâm ou hindouisme le fait importe bien moins que la réalisation intérieure à laquelle Guénon accédait tout à fait dès avant avant sa ving-septième année. Et l'on peut dire qu'à cette époque déjà sa pensée avait accédé au degrès de l'intangible: elle allait se développer dans ses livres, mais suivrait désormais une voie qui ne connaîtrait plus les hésitations de l'expérience. L'étonnement "exotérique" devant la conversion de René Guénon est un étonnement de surface qui n'entend rien aux sollicitations puissantes d'une âme éprise d'unicité en Dieu et non de dissolution dans le multiple.

Un mariage paradoxal? Plutôt dépassant le paradoxe:

1912 fut aussi l'année du mariage religieux de Guénon avec une jeune fille originaire du Chinonais, Berthe Loury. Le mariage, civil et religieux, eut lieu à Blois en Juillet 1912. Il se place paradoxalement à la même époque que son entrée dans l'Islâm. Cequi ne laissa pas de choquer quelques chrétiens après coup. En effet, l'acceptation de la cérémonie religieuse catholique dénote une puissante indifférence pour tous les aspects extérieurs des cultes. Guénon accepta la cérémonie religieuse, mais déjà il était définitivement ailleurs. Manque de cohérence? Non, lucidité. Comprenant combien le profane n'allait pas saisir le sens de sa vocation islamique, il préféra justement la taire et accepter une complaisance catholique. Est-ce quand même un de ces formidables débats qui font la richesse de quelques esprits d'exception, torturés et constamment traqués, dans le silence de leur retraite intérieure, par l'ironie des évènements? Et l'on ne peut manquer de penser que cette opposition, dans son existence, entre la cérémonie exotérique et la vie intérieure fut à l'origine d'une féconde dialectique qui allait promptement nourrir ses oeuvres. Madame Noële Maurice-Denis Boulet, qui connut le couple Guénon à cette époque, affirme que jamais Berthe Loury ne sut que son mari appartenait à la religion du Prophète. (Pensée Catholique, N 77-1962- "l'ésotériste René Guénon"). Que se passait-il alors en cet homme âgé de 26 ans? Cultiver le paradoxe à ce point relève de la suprême ironie, digne de Dostoïewski, ou d'une résolution intérieure échappant aux contemporains et qui, par-là, prouverait plus que tout l'authenticité de la quête guénonienne. Cette position lui fut sans doute profondément pénible et le secret difficile à préserver. Au bout de quelques mois les époux Guénon vinrent s'installer dans l'appartement que René louait depuis des années au 51 de la rue Saint-Louis-en-l'Ile. Ils amenaient avec eux une nièce de quatre ans dont ils assureront l'éducation. Que fut leur existence dans cet immeuble qui, au XIXème siècle, abrita la résidence des archevêques de Paris? Petit, l'appartement de Guénon était réservé pour sa plus grande part au travail intellectuel. Et Chacornac (dans "la vie simple de René Guénon") de nous dire, "qu'ils vécurent dans un accord parfait, la vie intellectuelle les absorbant tous les deux". Il semble effectivement qu'hormis quelques promenades, Guénon ne sortait guère de son réduit insulaire, si ce n'était pour rencontrer des personnes avec qui il avait commerce intellectuel. Parfois aussi il se rendait à la Sorbonne ou au Collège de France pour assister à des cours sur la philosophie, avec Milhaud, ou aux leçons de Sylvain Lévi sur l'hindouisme. Attentif et discret, il attendait souvent la fin des exposés et le moment ou la salle se vide, pour s'adresser au professeur, lui faire ses remarques, lui exposer ses points de vue qui, souvent, étaient retenus comme pertinents. De toute évidence, Guénon fut fréquemment proche des enseignements de l'Université en matière de religions orientales. Son avis, dans la suite, allait seulement approfondir des perceptions admises par les facultés, mais auxquelles il manquait considérablement l'élan métaphysique qu'il allait réussir à leur donner.

Le professeur et ses marottes orientales:

Lorsque survint le suicide européen de 1914, Guénon, qui avait été réformé dès 1906 pour raison de santé, échappa à la mobilisation et put dès lors se consacrer tout à fait à l'édification manuscrite de sa pensée. Pendant que l'Europe écrivait quelques lignes de son histoire sur des amas de cadavres, René Guénon se préparait au long combat spirituel qui allait avoir pour conclusion l'éveil catégorique de la pensée traditionnelle et symbolique en Occident. La guerre qui correspondit également avec un état de gêne grandissant le força à travailler pour entretenir sa femme et sa nièce. Ainsi le voit-on bientôt professeur de philosophie dans différents établissements libres. Professeur à Saint Germain-en Laye en 1916 et 1917, nous le retrouvons en Algérie, à Sétif, pour la fin de l'année 1917 et les premiers mois de 1918. Puis en octobre 1918 c'est l'enseignement de la philosophie au collège de Blois. Revenu pour peu dans sa ville natale, il s'installe dans la maison de ses parents. Quel maître fut-il? si l'on en croit Jean Monet (René Guénon à Blois) "Guénon n'étant pas pédagogue, il dicte des heures durant, un cours qu'il a lui-même écrit... Aussi lorsque les élèves sont las d'écrire, ils s'efforcent de lancer leur maître sur les marottes (sic) orientales..."

Le premier ouvrage, base de l'ensemble:

Bref, il n'était pas plus fait pour l'enseignement que pour un autre métier profane. En 1919 il démissionne, reste quelques temps à Blois pour régler des affaires courantes. Déjà il n'a plus qu'un but, rassembler et composer tout ce qu'il a accumulé sous forme de notes. Seul Paris peut le satisfaire pour cette tâche: dès la fin de l'année 1921 il réintègre son appartement de la rue Saint-Louis de l'Ile. Désormais il sera tout à son oeuvre; ses jours et ses nuits passeront dans l'étude, la compilation et rédaction. Et dans tous ces travaux sa femme, silencieuse et assidue, l'aidera beaucoup dans la mise au point de ses premiers ouvrages. Le premier livre qui paraîtra sera une somme: "Introduction générale aux doctrines indoues". Chacorniac fait remarquer qu'en un certain sens le titre de cet ouvrage n'a peut-être pas été heureux, puisque les cent-cinquante première pages seront consacrées à l'étude de la Tradition dans ce qu'elle a de primordial et d'universel. Plus qu'une "introduction" avec tout ce que cela peut avoir de superficiel et de simplement érudit, c'est toute la conscience métaphysique de l'homme et de l'univers qu'il expose. L'Inde et ses doctrines y sont bien sûr largement représentées; toutefois son concept de l'évolution cyclique irréversible de l'humanité s'y retrouve déjà à part entière. Pour Guénon l'humanité poursuit une loi d'involution qui rend la décadence et les catastrophes inévitables. C'est une orthodoxie de l'eschatologie de la conscience historique qu'il jette soudain sur la scène du monde moderne. L'étonnement va cheminer durant des annèes, avant que l'on se rende compte que le "Kâli-Yuga" (l'Age Sombre): celui de la mort et du sang est bien notre âge et que nous en sommes arrivés aux extrêmes pulsations de cet âge là. Profondément védantiste "l'Introduction Générale" expose dans la seconde partie les grands fondements de la tradition hindoue et les bases de la civilisation qu'elle a engendrées. Ensuite viennent les "darshanas" (opinions, point de vue) suivant lesquels les hommes avides de connaissances (Jnâna) peuvent aborder la doctrine fondamentale de la spiritualité hindoue, partant, dans l'esprit de l'hindouisme, de la spiritualité universelle.

Enfin le livre se clôture par une analyse des vue occidentales sur l'hindouisme. Plus qu'une analyse, c'est une critique parfois acerbe. Pour Guénon, il y a, d'une part les historiens des religions qui ne comprennent assurément pas le contexte métaphysique du message oriental, et de l'autre les pseudo-spiritualistes qui veulent se faire les exégètes des doctrines hindoues alors qu'ils ne font qu'y transférer leurs propres obsessions occidentales sous d'autres noms. Quoi qu'il en soit,"l'Introduction Générale" reste un ouvrage de base, et comme le premier maillon d'une longue chaîne, celle de toutes les oeuvres de Guénon. Sans ce premier maillon, les autres seraient sans saveur, sans réalité et ne trouveraient de justification que dans la complaisance de chacun. Entendons-nous bien: nous voulons dire que "l'Introduction" constitue la charpente et comme la structure du grand oeuvre guénonien. Ainsi René Guénon avait-il été assez clair-voyant pour faire débuter son message par le livre qui vraiment "introduisait" le lecteur dans un monde de cohérence intérieure qui n'a de sens que dans la mesure où l'on sait replacer chaque oeuvre dans son cadre chronologique. On s'est souvent interrogé quant aux sources indiennes de Guénon. La conclusion est qu'il reçut non seulement un enseignement écrit, celui que tout érudit puvait trouver, mais surtout un enseignement oral délivré par des Hindous venus en Occident dans le seul but de découvrir des personnes susceptibles d'entendre le message authentique et secret de la spiritualité orientale.

Introduction à la critique de l'Age sombre:

Comment René Guénon fut-il mis en rapport avec ses sages au savoir si profond et si discrets dans leurs manifestations humaines? Sans doute Champrenaud et Pouvourville y furent-ils pour quelque chose. Sans doute reçut-il également la transmission de cette connaissance initiatique venue des Indes. Les premières rencontres eurent lieu en 1908; peu à peu il put pénétrer les subtilités de la "Gnose indienne", du véritable ésotérisme hindou, et de la même manière, par l'enseignement oral, il put aussi étudier le sanscrit afin de s'enfoncer bientôt dans une lecture textuelles des grands textes sacrés. Néanmoins, le secret qu'il laissa peser sur ces sources fait parfois que l'on croit se trouver en face d'une élucubration fantaisiste, ou d'indiscrétions qui auraient percé dans une histoire d'espionnage. Pourtant une seule position convient ici, celle de la confiance; le message transmis par Guénon recèle de telles nuances d'authenticité que l'on ne peut que l'admettre et le classer parmi les jalons qui nous relient encore à une véritable connaissance sacrée. Il semble bien que les Hindous, qui transmirent d'importants fragments de leurs savoir traditionnel à René Guénon, avaient également entrepris de semblables avances dans différents millieux "ésotériques" sans obtenir des résultats concluants. Ainsi, hormis St Yves d'Alveydre qui s'approche quelquefois de la tradition véritable, celle qu'il avait reçue d'un ami afghan, notamment lors de ses rêveries autour du thème de l'Agarttha, il n'y eut en Occident que Guénon pour s'apercevoir rapidement de toute la richesse des doctrines proposées et encore si mal connues. Comme St Yves l'avait fait, il allait, sous peu, en 1927, s'attaquer au problème de l'Agarttha dans son si curieux ouvrage "le Roi du Monde". Dès lors, il avait fait un pas vers la divulgation des faits essentiels, ceux-là mêmes que ses informateurs ne voulaient propager. Il s'en suivit-sans doute, car nous sommes en partie dans le domaine des hypothèses-une brouille entre les informateurs orientaux et Guénon qui, brutalement, se trouvait coupé de la source vive et des sources de ses grands ouvrages. Son découragement fut-il brutal et profond? Nul n'en sait rien. A la même époque se situe la mort de sa femme (1928). Ces évènements conjoints ne furent certainement pas sans rapport avec son départ pour l'Egypte en 1930.

"L'introduction générale aux doctrines hindoues", par son style d'une limpidité qui contrastait avec les brumes occultistes et le peu d'attrait de bien des grands travaux universitaires, ouvrait un chemin vers la notoriété. Mais un chemin qui fut lent, le même qui devait voir progresser patiemment chacun des livres que René Guénon fit publier. Désireux de parler des doctrines hindoue, non en Occidental, mais en Oriental il soutint la gageure d'exposer ces systèmes d'une richesse pléthorique à un peuple trop habitué à la seule méthode glaciale et univoque de Descartes. Dans "la Crise du monde moderne" (1927) il exprimera parfaitement cette idée: "il n'y a, à notre connaissance, personne qui ait exposé en Occident des idées orientales authentiques, sauf nous-mêmes; et nous l'avons toujours fait exactement comme l'aurait fait tout Oriental qui s'y serait trouvé amené par les circonstances, c'est à dire sans la moindre intention de propagande ou de vulgarisation et uniquement pour ceux qui sont capables de comprendre les doctrines telles qu'elles sont, sans qu'il y ait lieu de les dénaturer sous prétexte de les à leur portée..."

Lutte contre l'influence des pseudo-spiritualistes:

Parallèlement à "l'Introduction générale" qui parut chez Rivière, il fit publier par Desclée de Brouwer un livre nettement polémique, "le Théosophisme, histoire d'une pseudo-religion". C'est l'histoire (qu'il connaissait bien pour avoir fréquenté ces milieux) de la société "théosophique" fondée par Mme Blavatsky. Soudain il devient féroce et dénonce avec rage les impostures et le grotesque des théosophes. Les renseignements affluent et les notes dévoilant l'existence de telle secte pseudo-spiritualiste ne manquent pas. "Le Théosophisme" est un ouvrage qui constamment restera entre l'analyse des faits et des pamphlet. Alors que fréquemment la majesté de sa langue impose à son tempérament une profonde retenue, ici l'orage éclate. Les formes y sont certes, mais la condamnation est sans appel. "Voyant dans la théosophie une erreur des plus dangereuses pour la mentalité contemporaine, nous avons estimé qu'il convenait de dénoncer cette erreur au moment où par la suite du déséquilibre causé par la guerre, elle prenait une extension qu'elle n'avait jamais eue jusque là..."

"...nous proposant de donner dans d'autres ouvrages un exposé de doctrines hindoues authentiques, nous jugions nécessaire de montrer tout d'abord que ces doctrines n'ont rien de commun avec le théosophisme, dont les prétentions sous ce rapport sont, comme nous l'avons fait remarquer, trop souvent admises par des adversaires eux-mêmes..."

"...Ce que les théosophistes présentent comme leur doctrine apparaît, à un examen séreiux, comme rempli de contradictions... Pour écarter les confusions que nous savions avoir cours dans le monde occidental, il était indispensable de répudier aussi nettement que possible toute solidarité avec cette contrefaçon frauduleuse qu'est le théosophisme. Nous ajouterons même que l'idée de ce livre nous avait été depuis longtemps suggérée par des hindous, qui nous ont d'ailleurs fourni une partie de notre documentation..." En Janvier 1922, il pénètre dans la librairie du "Voile d'Isis" au quai St Michel, s'adresse à Paul Chacornac pour lui demander de bien vouloir prendre chez lui des livres et des brochures néo-spiritualistes qui l'encombraient. Dès lors une certaine amitié va se créer entre les deux hommes. Et à partir de 1925 René Guénon collaborera étroitement au "Voile d'Isis", revue qui déclarait avoir pour objet "l'étude de la tradition ésotérique et des divers mouvements du spiritualisme ancien et moderne". Au départ il contribuera au développement d'une rubrique intitulée "carnet de l'occultisme". Celle-ci aurait pu lui permettre bien des fantaisies littéraires, mais ici encore son esprit rigoureux permit à ses articles de ne se départir nullement de son style sobre et de l'extrême prudence de ses affirmations intellectuelles. On peut dire, sans faire oeuvre de thuriféraire, qu'il n'est pas un domaine de l'intellect qu'il toucha sans l'éclairer de son génie de synthèse et sans le rendre aussitôt vivant.

Sa contribution au "Voile d'Isis" ira rapidement en s'emplifiant. Jusqu'à sa mort il restera l'ami et le collaborateur de Chacornac, dont la revue allait prendre, en 1935, le nom d'études traditionnelles qu'elle conservera désormais. Parallèlement à ses occupations au "Voile d'Isis", il devait de 1925 à 1927, collaborer à la revue catholique "Regnabit", grâce à l'estime de Louis Charbonneau-Lassay, érudit qui connut son heure de célébrité lors de la parution de son ouvrage capital "le Bestiaire du Christ", Très vite le R.P. Anizan directeur de "Regnabit" put apprécier les travaux de René Guénon, qui n'interrompit sa collaboration, en 1927, qu'à la suite de "l'hostilité de certains milieux néoscolastiques", selon ses propres termes.

Afin de donner suite au "Théosophisme" Guénon publiera en 1923 un livre intitulé "l'Erreur spirite", qu'il pensa compléter un moment par une "Erreur occultiste", mais il y renonça par égard, sans doute, pour Papus et ses premières expériences spirituelles. Vaste étude du spiritisme dans son évolution historique et ses aspects internes, "l'Erreur spirite" s'attache à démontrer combien sont nombreuses dans cet Occident en déroute les pseudo-initiations. De ce fait, celles-ci ne sont qu'autant de contrefaçons destinées à illusionner des êtres faibles, sans formation, avides seulement de sensations vulgaires. Un des fondements du spiritisme reste la manifestation concrète d'entités sensées représenter des morts. Ceux-ci s'adressant aux vivants par le biais de différents signes plus ou moins grossiers. René Guénon cerne rapidement le problème; il souligne qu'une doctrine ne peut s'appuyer sur de tels phénomènes, qui ne prouvent rein au niveau de la conscience métaphysique et en restent au stade de l'information que l'on trouve dans les journaux à sensation ou les mauvaises revues du "fantastique". Par ailleurs le problème de la réincarnation, que l'on trouve déjà dans le "Théosophisme", est à nouveau repris et critiqué avec toute l'âpreté que l'on pouvait attendre d'un homme qui se préparait à devenir une authentique autorité spirituelle. Décidément tous ces domaines qui s'attachent seulement aux images et aux illusions spectrales, sont, non seulement radicalement opposés à la pensée guénonienne, mais René Guénon y voit de surcroît une des déviations majeures de la conscience occidentale et de son matérialisme outrancier. Pour lui ce sont des signes évidents d'une immense et irréversible crise qui emportera la civilisation jusqu'aux abîmes. Ainsi l'"Erreur spirite", comme "le Théosophisme", malgré leur caractère polémique sont des oeuvres trés documentées, qui s'inscrivent déjà dans le courant de sa réflexion postérieure. Celle-là qui l'amènera à discerner les stigmates de mort qui inondent le monde; ce monde dont la conscience spirituelle et symbolique s'est rapidement atrophiée depuis cette époque que l'on eut l'inconscience d'appeler... "la Renaisance"! Malgré leur qualité qui les fit remarquer par d'éminentes personnalités, la publication de ses différents ouvrages, ne put guère aider Guénon à subvenir à ses besoins et à ceux de sa famille. Ce qui l'amena, dans le courant de l'année 1924, à donner des leçons particulières, puis des cours dans une institution, "les Cours Saint-Louis". C'est encore l'année 1924 qui devait voir la réunion, sous la direction de Frédéric Lefèvre, Rédacteur en Chef des "Nouvelles Léttéraires", de René Grousset, Jacques Maritain, Ferdinand Ossendovski (l'auteur de "Bêtes, hommes et dieux", ce livre étrange qui ne sera pas pour peu dans le développement en Occident du mythe de l'Agarttha) et René Guénon, afin que chacun donne son point de vue sur les grandes questions philosophiques, spirituelles ou ésotériques dont il était le spécialiste.

Après qu'Ossendowski eût donné son avis sur la légende et la réalité du "Maître du Monde" (il est certain que l'expérience de cette table ronde servit beaucoup Guénon lors de la rédaction du livre qui porta ce titre) et sur la personnalité du Bogdo-Khan, ce fut le tour de Grousset qui se fit le héraut de la "compénétration" intellectuelle Orient-Occident. Aussitôt, Jacques Maritain admit toute la valeur des civilisations de l'Asie et le bien fondé des spiritualistes qui y cherchent de profondes doctrines de la transcendance. Néanmoins il fit comme reproche fondamental aux tenants de la supériorité spirituelle de l'Orient, d'oublier trop souvent le "dépôt hellénique, latin et catholique" dont nos terres sont les légatrices. La réponse de René Guénon ne se fit pas attendre, "l'Orient possède une vérité qui peut s'accorder avec la vérité des plus hautes traditions occidentales, la tradition aristotélicienne et la tradition catholique..." Cette conférence en resta là. Chacun demeurait convaincu dans son opinion. Nul ne voulait réellement concéder à l'autre que des victoires de courtoisie. Vanité du dialogue intellectuel quand il se fait public? Certes, mais aussi incompréhension réciproque. Tous ces gens poursuivaient une "formulation" de la vérité. Chacun était épris de mystique et de réalisation spirituelle. Chacun pourtant l'entendait à sa manière de l'autre (cette table ronde fut relatée dans "les Nouvelles Littéraires" du 25 mai 1924).

La nécessité du rapprochement avec l'Orient:

L'année 1924, qui fut décidément riche, devait également voir la meilleure amité entre Léon Daudet et René Guénon. En effet, le premier consacrait à l'auteur de "l'Introduction Générale aux doctrines hindoues" une large page tout à fait positive dans l'Action Française du 15 Juillet 1924: "...L'Occident est placé, depuis les Encyclopédistes, et au delà, depuis la réforme, dans un état d'anarchie intellectuelle qui est une véritable barbarie... Par des voies différentes, j'étais arrivé à une conclusion analogue dans l'examen du stupide XIXème siècle: mais mon ignorance de la philosophie orientale-que possède tout à fait M René Guénon-ne m'avait pas permis de dresser le redoutable parralèle qu'il nous expose. Il ressort, sans qu'il l'exprime de façon positive, que l'Occident est menacé, plus du dedans, je veux dire par sa débilité mentale, que du dehors, où cependant sa situation n'est pas si sûre..." Ces lignes répondaient à l'ouvrage "Orient et Occident" que Guénon venait de publier. Cet essai, néanmoins présenté sous forme de réalité traditionnelle et orthodoxe, annonçait déjà les grands motifs de la critique guénoniènne de la civilisation occidentale contemporaine. Déjà transparaît le message prophétique qui sera celui de "la Crise du monde moderne", et, surtout du "Règne de la Quantité". Tout dans cet ouvrage n'était pas négatif. Bien sûr l'Occident y était voué à un sort qui, aujourd'hui, se réalise. Bien sûr le pessimisme de Guénon l'oblige quelquefois à prendre une position nettement polémique et acide. Alors l'Occident n'est plus analysé que sous l'angle de la "contre-initiation". Il n'est plus question de la rédemption possible qui, à tout moment, peut survenir et le conduire jusqu'à une nouvelle assomption spirituelle, proche de ce que fut, notamment, sa réalisation médiévale. pourtant Guénon nous laisse entendre qu'il reste à l'Occident un espoir particulier dans la "dialectique" qui l'oppose-mais peut l'unir également- au monde oriental traditionnel.

"Dans un rapprochement avec l'Orient, l'Occident a tout à gagner; si l'Orient y a aussi son intérêt, ce n'est point un intérêt de même ordre, ni d'une importance comparable, et cela ne suffirait pas à justifier la moindre concession sur les choses essentielles... L'Orient véritable, le seul qui mérite vraiment ce nom, est et sera toujours l'Orient traditionnel, quand bien même ses représentants en seraient réduits à n'être plus qu'une minorité, ce qui, encore aujourd'hui, est loin d'être le cas... Si l'Occident possède encore en lui-même les moyens de revenir à sa tradition et de la restaurer pleinement, c'est à lui qu'il appartient de le prouver..." (Orient et Occident).

Une pénétration accrue de la méthaphysique:

C'est à la même époque que l'on voit René Guénon se lier avec Gonzague Truc, écrivain catholique qui était le directeur littéraire des Editions Brossard. Ce nouvel ami fit beaucoup pour la publication de l'oeuvre guénoniènne. Ainsi en 1925 il fera sortir il fera sortir "l'Homme et son devenir selon le Vêdanta". Ce livre, que nous connaissons déjà, puisqu'il n'est que le développement d'une série d'articles qui parurent dans la "Gnose" (cf. plus haut) s'attaque au grand problème vêdantique de l'évolution de l'être de l'homme par delà la mort. C'est le cycle des développements posthumes qui est envisagé selon les textes vêdantiques et les maitres vêdantins.

"...L'être humain, envisagé dans son intégralité, comporte un certain ensemble de possibilités qui constituent sa modalité corporelle ou grossière, plus une multitude d'autres possibilités qui, s'étendant en divers sens au delà de celle-ci, constituent ses modalités subtiles. Mais toutes ces possibilités réunies ne représentent pourtant qu'un seul et même degrè de l'existance universelle... Nous pourions encore ajouter que certaines extensions de l'individualité humaine, en dehors de sa modalité corporelle, échappent déjà au temps, sans être pour celà soustraites aux autres conditions générales de l'état auquel appartient cette individualité..."

"...La signification bien établie de tous les textes concernant le Vêdanta est que le "Soi" de tout être qui possède la connaissance même est identique à Brahma... Il ne peut pas être dit non plus que Brahma puisse être un objet de connaissance pour un autre que pour lui-même, car, en dehors de lui, il n'est rien qui soit connaissant (toutes connaissances, même relative, n'étant qu'une participation à la connaissance absolue et suprême)".

Cette pénétration profonde des doctrines de Sankarâchârya et de Ramanuja fut certainement une des grandes étapes de l'explication des doctrines hindoues en Occident. Que certains l'aient méprisée, et nous pensons à l'avis défavorable de Sylvain Lévi, il n'en reste pas moins vrai que cet ouvrage inspira bien des auteurs, et que nombre de recherches sans toujours l'admettre, s'ordonnèrent autour du foyer spéculatif shankârien après la publication de "l'Homme et son devenir selon le Vêdanta". Ce n'est pas sans un certain intéret que l'on vit M. Olivier Lacombe publier, quelques dix années après le texte guénonien, une remarquable recherche qui reçut le nom de "l'Absolu selon le Vêdanta", avec, comme sous titre, "les notions de Brahman et d'Atman dans les systèmes de Cankara et de Râmanoudja" (les orthographes des noms différents d'avec Guénon). Cette thèse, dédiée à Sylvain Lévi, qui comporten des chapitres, comme "l'Ame n'est pas essentiellement différente du Brahaman", ou, "Transformation réelle ou transformation illusoire?", évoque, dans un cadre plus vaste et soutenu par quantité de notes et de références, les thèmes que Guènon analysa dès les premières années de ce siècle (cf. "la Gnose", 1910-1912) avant de les rassembler dans son livre de 1925. Le 17 Décembre 1925, René Guénon devait donner sa seule véritable conférence dans un amphithéatre de la Sorbonne. Ce fut, "la Métaphysique orientale", qui était la reprise et le développement d'un exposé qu'il avait fait quelques années auparavant quant il suivait les cours philosophiques de Milhaud. Au cours de cette conférence, il s'en prend directement à l'enseignement occidental moderne. "C'est que dans les conditions intellectuelles où se trouve actuellement le monde occidental, la métaphysique y est chose oubliée... Tandis que, en Orient, elle est toujours l'objet d'une connaissance effective. Si l'on veut savoir ce qu'est la métaphysique, c'est donc à l'Orient qu'il faut s'adresser..." (Métaphysique orentale).

L'exposé fut court et tranchant. "L'Occident risque de périr par son abus matériel s'il ne se réveille promptement". L'Orient qui nous ouvre la voie de la connaissance initiatique établit aussi le pont avec ce que fut, vraisemblablement, les propres traditions ésotériques de la "métaphysique occidentale". Seules la réalisation de l'être et l'absorption dans le "Soi" universel ont les véritables fonctions méthaphysiques. "Cette réalisation de l'individualité intégrale est désignée par toutes les traditions comme la restauration de ce qu'elles appellent l'"état primordial", état qui est regardé comme celui de l'homme véritable, et qui échappe déjà à certaines limitations caractéristiques de l'état ordinaire, notamment à celle qui est due à la condition temporelle..." (Métaphysique orentale).

Oppositions entre les évolutions possibles:

Quand parut, en 1925 également, l'ouvrage d'Henri Massis, "la Défense de l'Occident", Gonzague Truc invita René Guénon à synthétiser ses critiques fondamentales contre la civilisation occidentale et moderne. Bref, il s'agissait de reprendre les grandes options et les critiques d'Orient et Occident, puis de les étayer par une vue plus engagée dans le débat de l'époque. Ainsi naquit, fondée sur l'analyse du matérialisme qui désacralise et sur le refus occidental de principe hiérarchique, "la Crise du Monde Moderne". On a assez parlé de cet ouvrage capital, qui, en son temps, heurta tant de sensibilités qui ne pouvaient comprendre toute la hauteur métaphysique des perceptions que Guénon venait de puiser dans l'intimité de l'Orient en général et de l'"Advaïta" (non-dualité) védantique en particulier. A lui seul le monde moderne dans lequel nous vivons est déjà une caricature des vues guénoniènnes. Ce qui pouvait être pris pour des outrances en 1927 a été, depuis tristement dépassé. La crise est terminée, et nous en sommes à l'agonie. Les vertiges spirituels qui happaient René Guénon concernent désormais tous ceux qui se sentent encore concernés par... "l'évolution possible" de l'homme. Les oppositions affluent entre le monde traditionnel, que Guénon illustre, et le monde désacralisé dans lequel nous subsistons encore. Nul savoir n'est plus recherche que dans des desseins de puissance matérielle ou de lucre. Le sens du métier est perdu. Chacun court d'un emploi à l'autre sans trop se soucier de la hiérarchie des fonctions. Et même! Ce sont là des mots interdits. L'ordre de la Cité, celui du monde, et, partant, celui de l'homme n'est plus connu. La seule valeur encore reconnue, l'efficacité matérielle qui s'appuie sur des notions fausses selon Guénon, celles de progrès et de primauté d'une civilisation particulière. Déjà le mot "civilisation" est un artifice de création récente: J. Bainville le soulignera dans un texte que, fort judicieusement, Guénon reprendra dans "Orient et Occident".

Mais à quel niveau se manifeste la connaissance?

Il semble que René Guénon se soit délibérément placé sur un plan supérieur. Il voyait la terre et le cours de ces époques historiques comme des chose inéluctables, dont le déroulement eut été établi bien longtemps à l'avance. Habitué qu'il était à l'entendement des "manvantaras", des Ages hindous du monde, il nous plaçait (suivant en cela la tradition) dans l'âge sombre, le Kali-Yyga, et même à l'extrême fin de cet âge. Alors que faire? Pour lui, le processus est irréversible comme nous venons encore de le dire. Les "progrès" techniques et l'expansion du matérialisme dans tous les domaines conduisent la "civilisation" occidentale à la ruine ultime. Rien n'en demeurera. Le fracas des derniers désordres résonne déjà dans nos têtes à travers les injonctions guénoniènnes. L'Occident moderne vit sur des idées fixes; celle de l'action n'est pas la moindre. On agit, il faut agir..., agir et s'agiter. Tout notre monde escalade l'échelle des agitations, et, chaque année qui passe affirmera un peu plus le primat de l'agitation et la régence de l'action-de la "praxis"- sur la connaissance, qui ne semble plus guère intéresser que quelques exilés dans ce chaos qui nie la toute puissance du "Logos". La connaissance n'a pas besoin d'action; elle est et se manifeste au niveau des constantes indicibles de la réalité intérieure. L'action a besoin de formalisme, de justifications ambiantes pour fonder son règne et refuser le droit de cité à quinconque veut connaître et n'agit point. La tyrannie de l'absurde a commencé, et les écrivains essayistes ou philosophes qui le ressentent aussi ne font, dans un courant tout à fait étranger à Guénon, puisque profane, que témoigner des signes terrifiants qui annoncent la rupture prochaine de la civilisation. Le divorce entre l'homme occidental et l'univers est complet. L'insubordination de l'apprenti-sorcier est allée jusqu'à sa propre parodie, et toutes les tares qui commencent à apparaître sous leur jour hideux nous disent combien notre temps est celui des derniers spasmes d'un cycle. Ce cycle, René Guénon nous dira qu'il est celui de Kâli, la déesse du sang, du désordre et de la mort. Le monde attend, sans vouloir le reconnaître, le grand silence qui rétablira, par-delà le Kâli-Yuga enfin exprimé jusqu'au bout, la subordination de l'homme et l'harmonie entre les créatures douées de forces spirituelles et le grand Souffle créateur.

"La civilisation moderne, comme toutes choses, a forcément sa raison d'être, et, si elle est vraiment celle qui termine un cycle, on peut dire qu'elle est ce qu'elle doit être, qu'elle vient en son temps et en son lieu; mais elle n'en devra pas moins être jugée selon la parole évangélique trop souvent mal comprise: "il faut qu'il y ait du scandale; mais malheur à celui par qui le scandale arrive!" ... Cet exposé permettra de comprendre tout ce qui manque au monde moderne sous le rapport de la science, et comment cette même science dont il est si fier ne représente qu'une simple déviation et comme un déchet de la science véritable qui, pour nous, s'identifie entièrement à ce que nous avons appelé la "science sacrée", ou la "science traditionnelle". (Crise du Monde moderne).

Le roi du monde - Mythe ou réalité?

"La Crise du monde moderne" suscita des curiosités et beaucoup de vaines ironies. Maurras, qui n'aimait guère l'Orient, se moquait de "M. René Guénon tout embrouillé dans ses Manvantarâs". D'autres portant dans les millieux de l'Action Française, Léon Daudet et Jacques Bainville, lui accordèrent leurs sympathies. Et l'on sait que Guénon, qui entretint des raports amicaux avec les disciples de Mauras et tout le courant de pensée "Action Française", remercia Daudet par un hommage dans "l'Homme et son devenir selon le Vêdânta". Aussi peu politicien que possible, les turbulences de la scène parlementaire ne l'intéressaient pas. Tout au plus voyait-il, peut-être, dans un mouvement qui en appelle à la royauté, une ultime, mais trop vague survivance de la tradition occidentale tant déflorée, surtout depuis la Révolution Française, qui devait rejeter le principe royal avec son sens encore initiatique du sacré et du rituélique. Cette époque de la vie de René Guénon fut silencieuse (mais, en fut-il jamais autrement?) A part sa collaboration au "Voile d'Isis", quelques discutions et des échanges de lettres, toute son activité était consacrée à ses livres. Sa production (si l'on peut oser ce terme à son propos) ne cessa de croître.

Après "l'Esotérisme de Dante", qui nous donne une vue secrète de l'auteur de "La Divine Comédie", grâce à d'intéressants rapprochements maçonniques et hermétiques, comme avec les cycles cosmiques, il devait nous donner "le Roi du Monde", cet ouvrage, qui reste son livre le plus déroutant, reprend la vieille doctrine du "Centre Caché", où serait préservée la Tradition primordiale. Mais il la reprend sous une forme beaucoup plus critique que ses prédécesseurs, et en y apportant des vues que seule pouvait lui donner sa connaissance des doctrines traditionnelles. D'aucuns ont vu dans ce livre une "rupture" de la loi du silence que Guénon aurait promis de respecter vis-à-vis de ses informateurs orientaux ce qui reste une thèse dénuée de fondement. Il n'est que trop évident, qu'il ne profanait rien. Au contraire, il faisait, une fois de plus, un considérable travail de nettoiement. La recherche de l'Agarttha obsédait bien des esprits depuis la parution -posthume- en 1910 de la "Mission de l'Inde" de Saint-Yves d'Alveydre. Tout à l'heure nous avons vu qu'Ossendowski ramenait d'Asie des informations qui, en un sens, corroboraient la sision agartthienne du monde. L'époque était pleine de ce mythe (en fait... mythe ou réalité?). A l'aube du mouvement National-Socialiste, l'Association Thulé recherchait, elle aussi, les traces de l'Agarttha. On a même voulu voir dans certains maîtres du IIIème Reich des "Initiés" de l'Agarttha. Et l'un des premiers gestes des Allemands lors des premières victoires de la campagne de Russie, fut d'aller planter le Drapeau frappé du Swastika noir au sommet du mont Elbrouz, berceau légendaire des Aryens, entouré d'une tradition qui, souvent, fait appel aux récits sur le "Centre du Monde", et son Maître, que Saint-Yves d'Alveydre appelait, le "Mahâtma".

Le quinze janvier 1928, la vie de René Guénon devait être cruellement secouée par la mort de son épouse qui, durant seize ans, avait été une si fidèle collaboratrice. Neuf mois plus tard, c'était Mme Duru, sa tante, qui habitait chez lui depuis de longues années, qui décédait à son tour. Enfin, pour comble d'infortune, la nièce qu'il avait élévée, et qui, maintenant avait quatorze ans, lui était enlevée: les bonnes âmes jugeant qu'il était peu concevable que cette jeune fille restât seule auprès de cet oncle veuf et quelque peu désemparé.

Autorité spirituelle contre pouvoir temporel:

A la fin de l'année 1928, Chacornac décida de donner au "Voile d'Isis" une tournure nettement guénoniènne. D'une revue de caractère général, quant à l'étude des traditions, elle devenait une publication dogmatique, dans le sens même où la plupart des articles allaient uniquement s'inspirer des lignes de faîte proposées par Guénon. Ce dernier accepta d'accorder sa collaboration régulière à la revue ainsi transformée. La seule condition qu'il y mit, fut qu'il n'occupât aucune fonction précise et que sa contribution fût envisagée comme celle d'un simple rédacteur. Comme nous l'avons déjà fait remarquer, René Guénon ne s'occupait guère de politique. Toutefois en 1929, à la suite du différent qui opposa le Saint-Siège à l'Action Française, et, compte tenu de l'amitié qui le liait encore à Léon Daudet, il crut le moment opportun pour définir ce que, selon les enseignements traditionnels, l'on peut entendre par "Autorité Spirituelle et Pouvoir Temporel", suivant le titre même de l'ouvrage qu'il publia alors chez vrin. Pour Guénon il est certain que les rapports entre le plan spirituel et le plan temporel sont exclusivement ceux qui peuvent exister entre la connaissance (envisagée dans son sens de gnose e l'homme, du monde et de l'univers) et l'action (définie comme mouvement qui va de la discorde à la concorde, pour se résorber enfin en un point d'équilibre qui transcende l'action elle-même). Et, il va sans dire, que dans une société traditionnelle seule la Connaissance domine. En aucun moment l'action et les hommes d'action-ceux qui accomplissent le "karma" de la fonction existantielle-ne peuvent prendre quelque initiative que ce soit. Seul le prêtre, celui qui connaît et impose, selon les termes mêmes des Védas, a le droit par la connaissance dont il est le détenteur, de proposer une action quelle qu'elle soit. Par Prêtre, nous entendons, bien entendu, tout homme vivant de la Connaissance dont il est le détenteur, non des rapports et des profits, et dont l'existence est tout entière tournée vers l'ascèse intérieure. A savoir, un essai d'interprétation de l'univers à partir d'un essai de réflexion sur la nature même de l'homme et de ses rapports avec le cosmos.

En termes politique, cela se traduit par l'hégémonie de la caste sacerdotale, (les brahmanes de l'Inde) sur la caste royale (celle des rajas, des rois et des guerriers de sang noble; les kshattryas) afin que l'ordre divin, qui est un ordre où prédomine la contemplation, la résorption, sur la dynamique d'évolution et la dissolution (prâlaya). Un tel état de faits est non seulement le cas pour l'Inde, mais il fut aussi celui de la chrétienté au Moyen Age. De telles constatations ne peuvent, dès lors, que renvoyer Guénon vers les sommets de la période médiévale, quand il s'agit de l'Occident chrétien. "...L'histoire montre clairement que la méconnaissance de cet ordre hiérarchique (l'ordre fondé sur la suprématie de l'autorité spirituelle sur le pouvoir temporel) entraîne partout et toujours les mêmes conséquences: déséquilibre social, confusion des fonctions, domination des éléments de plus en plus inférieurs, et aussi dégénérescence intellectuelle, oubli des principes transcendants d'abord, puis de chute en chute, on en arrive à la négation de toute véritable connaissance... Cependant, tant qu'il subsistera une autorité spirituelle régulièrement constituée, fût-elle réduite à n'être plus que l'ombre d'elle-même, cette autorité aura toujours la meilleure part... Parce que, même affaiblie ou endormie, elle incarne encore "la seule chose nécessaire", la seule qui ne passe point..." Cet ouvrage et la théorie du ¨Pouvoir qu'il pouvait ébaucher, poussa Guénon à s'interésser alors à la figure de Saint Bernard, inspirateur de la Règle du Temple, homme qui, constamment, étudia les fonctions et les rapports du spirituel et du temporel. Ainsi parut, en 1929, encore, une courte brochure, "St Bernard". "...Moine et Chevalier tout ensemble, ces deux caractères étaient ceux des membres de la "milice de Dieu", de l'Ordre du Temple; ils étaient aussi, et tout d'abord, ceux de l'auteur de leur Règle, du grand saint qu'on a appelé le Dernier des Pères de l'Eglise, et en qui certains veulent voir, non sans quelques raison, le prototype de Galaad, le chevalier idéal et sans tache..."(St Bernard).

Depuis quelques années René Guénon connaissait bien Mme Dina, une américaine née Marie W. Shillito, qui avait épousé un Egyptien, l'ingénieur Hassan Farid Dina. (Décédé à cette époque). Ces gens avaient été clients de la librairie Chacornac, avant que, Guénon se liant d'amitié avac Mme Dina, ils ne partent tous deux pour l'Alsace en 1929. Ce fut lors de ce voyage que Mme Dina décida de la création d'une librairie qui s'occuperait spécialement des oeuvres de René Guénon, ainsi que de différents grands textes ésotériques, soufis et hindous. Un voyage en Egypte fut décidé. René Guénon partit ainsi pour la terre des Pyramides le 5 Mars 1930. Il ne devait plus revoir la France. Dans ce voyage, Mme Dina l'accompagna encore, mais pour quelque temps seulement. De fait, au bout de trois mois, elle rentrait en France, tandis que Guénon prétendait qu'il lui était nécessaire de rester un peu plus longtemps afin de poursuivre ses recherches sur différents textes de l'ésotérisme musulman. De recherches en compilations, il s'emprisonna tout à fait dans un considérable travail d'érudition; et puis, alors qu'à Paris, il pensait la Tradition, il lui semblait tout à coup qu'en Egypte, il la vivait.

La tradition vécue en Egypte:

Une année se passa très vite. Déjà, il renonçait peu à peu à peu son retour en France. Son existence s'était organisée au Caire, non loin de l'université fameuse d'El-Azhar. Musulman depuis 1912, il trouvait enfin une terre de prédilection pour approfondir les données initiatiques de la religion qu'il avait adoptée. René Guénon était mort à la vie civile, désormais il n'était plus que le Sheikh Abdel Wahêd Yahia. Son nom français n'apparaîtra plus que sur des couvertures de livres ou dans des articles de revue. Se rendant à diverses réunions religieuses, discutant des grands problèmes de la théologie musulmane, tout à fait arabisé, René Guénon mit à profit ses deux premières années égyptiennes pour rédiger la version livresque de deux ouvrages qu'il travaillait depuis longtemps. L'un, "Le Symbolisme de la Croix" parut, nous l'avons vu, dans "la Gnose" en 1910-1911, l'autre, "les Etats multiples de l'être", dont le premier jet était de 1915, n'avait pas été publié. Considérables ouvrages d'érudition, ces deux livres, qui forment comme la maturation ultime de "l'Homme et son devenir selon le Vêdânta", ne souffriraient guère la brève analyse que nous pourrions en donner ici. Il est, néanmoins, utile de souligner que ces nouvelles publications s'écartent de la doctrine hindoue afin d'en arriver à une quintessence de la réalité ésotérique des religions. C'est ce qui apparaît tout particulièrement dans la conception spatiale de la Croix qui, pour la première fois, invite le lecteur à une réflexion sur l'Islâm. L'élévation métaphysique de Guénon éclate aux yeux de tous par la netteté tranchante de ces deux dernières publicatins. Rien n'est laissé à la polémique. Le monde problématique des "états multiples", il le vit et la Croix n'est plus un symbole religieux ou astronomique, elle est le lien entre la conscience de l'homme et l'intelligence universelle. Ceux qui avaient pu guetter son oeuvre afin d'y découvrir quelques faille, étaient décidément pris à leur propre jeu. Guénon échappait totalement à la critique facile du dilettante. Dès lors, il semble que son autorité commença un cheminement de plus en plus intense à l'intérieur même des intelligences qui, il y a peu, ne voyaient guère en lui qu'un "orientaliste". Il avait dû s'établir en terre d'Islâm pour que ses perceptions apparaissent enfin pour ce qu'elles étaient. A savoir, des vues métaphysiques à la fois intemporelles et libres vis-a vis de toute doctrine exotérique.

"...Les états de non-manifestation sont du domaine du Non-Etre, et les états de manifestation sont du domaine de l'être, envisagé dans son intégralité; on peut dire aussi que ces derniers correspondent aux différents degrès de l'Existence, ces degrès n'étant pas autre chose que les différents modes, en multiplicité indéfinie, de la manifestation universelle. Pour établir ici une distinction nette entre l'être et l'Existence, nous devons, ainsi que nous l'avons déjà dit, conserver l'Etre comme étant proprement le Principe même de la manifestation; l'existence universelle sera alors la manifestation intégrale de l'ensemble des possibilités que comporte l'Etre..." ("Les états multiples de l'être"). A la même époque, René Guénon collabora à une revue islâmique en langue arabe, "El-Marifah" (La connaissance). Cette collaboration, qui fut tout aussi éphémère que la revue elle-même, semble avoir été un de ses seuls apports à l'ésotérisme musulman dans la langue même de l'Islâm. Toutefois ce fait prouve sa parfaite maîtrise de la langue dès cette époque; de ce fait, il est connu qu'il écrivait alors ces textes pour "El-Marifah" directement en arabe.

1945: les signes du règne de la quantité:

En 1934, Guénon devait se remarier. Il épousa, en Juillet, une égyptienne, Fatma, la fille du Sheikh Mohammad Ibrahim, chez qui il alla habiter. Se sentant de plus en plus lié à sa nouvelle patrie, il abandonnait définitivement toute idée de retour en France et donnait congé de son appartement de la rue Saint-Louis-en l'Ile dans le courant de l'année 1935. La mort de son beau-père, survenue en 1937, décida René Guénon à quitter le centre du Caire. Selon ses propres termes (lettre écrite à Chacornac) il choisit un endroit "où on n'entend aucun bruit, et où on ne risque pas d'être dérangé sans cesse par les uns et par les autres". Cet endroit privilégié-qui resta à peu près inconnu de tous-il pouvait découvrir la masse sombre des grandes pyramides et les palmeraies de Gizeh. Malgrè son retrait, désormais total, le Sheikh Abdel Wahêd Yahia, alias "le français René Guénon", ne cessa de collaborer aux "Etudes Traditionnelles", qui recevaient régulièrement ses textes et ses analyses de livres. Seule la guerre de 1940 à 1945 devait suspendre ses rapports avec les milieux intellectuels français. Néenmoins, il mit ces sombre années à profit pour parachever son oeuvre et continuer également son périple intérieur. Selon les règles ésotériques de l'Islâm, il allait vivre "les noms de Dieu", afin d'accéder à l'entendement silencieux du "Nom secret" de la divinité, celui qui est indicible, qui est tous les mots et n'a aucun son, celui qui trouve sa justification en lui-même. Le seul aussi qui sépare encore Dieu de sa créature une fois qu'elle a découvert la voie de la déification. En 1945, Jean Paulhan créait chez Gallimard la collection "Tradition" afin de répondre aux sollicitations purement traditionnelles qui se développaient par-delà la tourmente apaisée. Et, c'est Guénon qui ouvrit cette série avec un de ses plus fameux ouvrages, "le Règne de la Quantité et les signes des Temps". Suite de "la crise du Monde Moderne", ce livre avait été mûri durant les années de guerres. Participant de la doctrine métaphysique et de la polémique, il faisait le point de la chute moderne et complétait des vues seulement ébauchées dans "la crise du monde moderne". On voit Guénon chercher les grandes données cosmologiques qui pouraient être la cause de notre décadence accélérée. Il ne se contente pas de le constater, il dit combien, selon lui, et selon les enseignements traditionnels, elle est dans l'ordre des choses, combien il est vain de lutter matériellement contre un état de désordre qui va aller en augmentant au cours des prochaines décennies. Notre fin de cycle (notre Kâli-Yuga) y est cernée plus que jamais, et la succession des évènements qui sont autant de "Signes des Temps" sont analysés les uns après les autres. L'opposition "Quantité-Qualité" atteint son paroxysme, et les vues de Guénon ne sont qu'autant de condamnations et du monde moderne et des systèmes qui en découlent. La démocratie y est systématiquement attaquée et reléguée parmi les phénomènes de la décomposition. La haine du secret, qui est symptomatique de notre société, est bien un des symboles de la profanation, de la "vulgarisation" de toutes choses. Rien ne peut, ni ne doit demeurer pur. Notre "Manvantara" est celui de la Fin. La conclusion ne peut être que sombre; le dernier chapitre du "Règne de la quantité" s'intitulera, "la fin d'un monde"... non la fin du monde pour autant!

Réaliser l'oeuvre dans la vie:

En 1945 encore, Guénon propose la réunion, sous forme d'un volume, des articles qu'il a pu écrire dans les "études traditionnelles" sur l'initiation. Ainsi naîtra un des fondements doctrinaux de son oeuvre, "Aperçu sur l'initiation"... "Il est des ignorants qui s'imaginent qu'on s'initie soi-même, ce qui est encore quelque sorte une contradiction dans les termes; oubliant, s'ils l'ont jamais su, que le mot "initium" signifie "entrée", ou "commencement"... L'initiation, ainsi accomplie, est ce que toutes les traditions s'accordent à désigner comme la "seconde naissance"; comment un être pourrait-il bien agir par lui-même avant d'être né?" (Aperçus sur l'initiation). 1946, c'est la parution de "la Grande Triade", ouvrage où la tradition chinoise sera plus particulièrement mise en valeur. Il ne fait aucun doute que l'intérêt de Guénon pour les grands thèmes de la spiritualité chinoise remonte au temps de son amitié avec Matgioï. En effet, "la Voie Métaphysique" de ce dernier n'est pas sans préfigurer les travaux de "La Grande Triade". Guénon nous fait vivre des symboles profonds et quelque peu inaccessibles en Occident. Les trigrammes de Fo-Hi, l'inventeur (si ce terme peut convenir...) du Yi-King, apparaissent. Ils sont le fondement de la transformation des êtres, de l'"alchimie" qui va de la nature à l'homme et de l'homme à dieu, en un équilibre de la tri-unité qui sera, "Spiritus-Anima-Corpus". En fait, Guénon cherche la "Voie", et consulte les maîtres de la sagesse chinoise afin de trouver le grand équilibre qui résorbera la tri-unité et unira le Ciel à la Terre, le Yin au Yang, K'ien à K'ouen. A cette époque René Guénon vit pleinement son oeuvre: il se réalise. La déchéance de la civilisation qui l'a vu naître le préoccupe, certes, mais le préoccupe seulement à titre de preuve pour les grandes visions cycliques de l'univers qu'il porte en lui depuis près de quarante années.

Le corps à même le sable, un autre rivage:

Sa vie est simple. En 1947, alors qu'il a quitté la Villa Fatma pour se réinstaller au centre du Caire, près du Palais Royal, il a deux filles qu'il aime et qu'il chérit tendrement. Pourtant la délicatesse de son intimité ne nous parvient jamais à travers ses livres. Il reste loin du message qu'il charrie; il est discret, lointain et silencieux. Sa vie n'aura été qu'un souffle doux et sans heurt. Il espère encore avoir un fils, et il en aura bientôt un. En septembre 1949, Ahmed, son troisième enfant vient illuminer la face énigmatique de ce prophète qui refuse d'en être un. Pourtant sa santé s'affaiblit de mois en mois, et son ami le Dr Katz s'inquiète de plus en plus. Guénon ne s'occupe guère des remèdes médicaux. A ce moment, comme il y a trente ans, seule son oeuvre compte. Il écrit sans trêve; sa collaboration aux "Etudes Traditionnelles" reste régulière. De surcroît plusieurs manuscrits seront encore terminés à cette époque -1949-1950- qui ne paraîtront qu'après sa mort. On oublie souvent que c'est à ce moment aussi qu'il sollicitera la nationalité égyptienne, afin disait-il que sa famille soit tout à fait égyptienne de droit et de fait. Il obtiendra bientôt cette naturalisation qui achèvera de la faire gagner l'autre rive des civilisations. Arrivé à son couchant, il sera un Oriental qui regardera le monde moderne avec ses immenses yeux bleus, et il n'y verra plus rien qui lui soit vraiment familier... Au milieu de décembre 1950, il est obligé de s'aliter. Il se plaint d'ulcérations à la jambe droite. On craint un empoisonnement. Pourtant, au bout de quelques jours sa santé s'améliore. Mais, brusquement, le sept janvier 1951, il est pris de spasmes violents et ne peut plus s'alimenter. Dès lors tout se déroulera très vite. Au soir il entre en agonie; ses dernières recommandations concernent son cabinet de travail: il désira qu'il soit maintenu avec ses meubles, tels quel, car, invisible il y sera quand même. A 22 heures, il se dresse sur sa couche, et crie "el Nafass Khalass" (l'âme quitte le corps). Et c'est à 23 heures qu'il séteindra en murmurant, "Allah, Allah". Les funérailles musulmanes eurent lieu le lendemain, lundi 8 Janvier 1951. Le corps du Sheikh Abdel Wahêd Yahia repose désormais dans le caveau de son beau-père, Mohammad Ibrahim. Il y fut déposé à même le sable, le corps voilé et la face tournée vers la Mecque.


Read more!

09 mai 2008

Jean Borella, La Beauté, nourriture de l’âme (texte intégral)





On s’accorde généralement à voir dans le mouvement New Age une sorte de nébuleuse où se rejoignent les courants les plus divers. Peut-être, cependant n’a-t-on pas suffisamment remarqué que ce confusionnisme généralisé n’est nullement considéré par les adeptes de ce mouvement comme une tare ; bien au contraire, ils s’en glorifient comme de leur caractéristique la plus positive et la plus légitime. Car, disent-ils, le temps est venu où s’effondrent les barrières, où tombent les oppositions et les contradictions apparentes, héritage de l’Age ancien en voie de décomposition. Jusqu’ici, la plupart des courants spirituels et religieux ont cru qu’il leur était nécessaire, pour s’affirmer, de s’opposer et de se définir par cette opposition même : opposition à d’autres religions ou à d’autres écoles de spiritualité; opposition également au monde profane, à l’impur, à la technique, à la vie matérielle et au progrès. Ce temps est révolu. New Age prend acte du passage imminent de l’humanité à l’ère du Verseau et prépare son entrée dans le monde futur, monde dans lequel l’esprit et le corps cesseront enfin d’être considérés comme des frères ennemis, où l’élévation de l’âme aux plus hauts états de conscience et l’épanouissement du corps dans le plaisir et le confort formeront le tout le plus harmonieux. Ainsi, les plus belles réalisations de la science pourront aider à la réalisation de nos aspirations spirituelles les plus transcendantes.

On le constate, le principe majeur qui définit l’esprit New Age dans sa plus grande généralité est en contradiction avec la signification, ou, du moins l’une des significations, du terme Kali-Yuga, par lequel la tradition hindoue caractérise l’âge dans lequel nous nous trouvons, puisque Kali, qui doit s’écrire avec un a et un i brefs, (et non pas avec un â et î longs, comme le nom de la déesse) signifie conflit, querelle, discorde. (Dict. sanskrit, Renou, p.182). Cette simple remarque suffit à dénoncer le caractère antitraditionnel et mensonger de l’appellation New Age : nous n’entrons pas dans le Nouvel Age, nous sommes dans l’Age des conflits. New Age est donc déjà par lui-même, la négation directe de la vérité de l’âge présent.

Mais ce mensonge et cette imposture répondent exactement aux vœux de nos contemporains, d’où leur extraordinaire succès. De quel vœu, de quel désir s’agit-il ? Il nous semble qu’on pourrait les caractériser assez nettement comme l’expression d’une lassitude pacifiste, ou d’un pacifisme lassé, altération et perversion du véritable désir de paix. Toute civilisation, toute culture authentiques exigent une lutte incessante, un combat permanent contre tout ce qui, dans l’homme et hors de lui, ne vise qu’à l’horizontalité et à l’aplatissement. Ce ne sont pas les principes qui nous font tenir debout. C’est nous-mêmes qui tenons et gardons les principes; et c’est seulement dans l’exacte mesure de notre fidélité à maintenir l’effort de notre garde et de notre vigilance, que nous est accordée la grâce de la verticalité. Certes la croix nous fixe dans l’immuable, mais à condition que nous acceptions de la porter.

C’est pourquoi il n’y a pas de société véritable qui ne soit bâtie sur un ensemble de refus et d’exclusion, et qui n’impose l’érection d’une muraille et la vigilance des sentinelles. Mais ces tâches requièrent aussi beaucoup d’énergie et de peine. Elles sont fatiguantes et la présente humanité est fatiguée de porter le poids de sa propre dignité. Qu’on vienne lui dire que la guerre est finie, que l’ennemi a disparu, que le combat est inutile, qu’au-delà des limites de la cité ne réside nulle menace, que la plaine du vase monde s’ouvre, pacifique, à toutes les bonnes volontés, alors le poids des armes se fait si lourd, l’absurdité d’un combat sans fin accable si fortement les hommes, qu’ils désertent les remparts et se prennent à espérer qu’après tout, le paradis n’est peut-être pas interdit.

Qu’on lise les textes nombreux dont New Age inonde les revues, qu’on s’informe des multiples stages et sessions qu’il nous propose, et l’on y percevra cette invitation souriante au désarment spirituel, cette confiance inconfusible dans la bonté des hommes et du monde, cette prédication inlassable en faveur de nos capacités psychiques, cet appel presque irrésistible à s’abandonner à nos possibilités spirituelles et à en faire l’expérience la plus immédiate, dans un climat d’optimisme décidé.

New Age correspond donc exactement à la phase dissolutive de la subversion moderne, telle que René Guénon l’a décrite et qui a désormais succédé à la phase coagulatrice. En même temps qu’à l’Est se liquéfient les grands blocs de la banquise matérialiste, à l’Ouest apparaît une nébuleuse panpsychiste où se noient les différences, où s’estompent les contours, où s’effacent les distinctions dans l’euphorie d’un brouillard doré. Comme on le voit, cette stratégie dissolutive se développe sur deux fronts : d’une part, dans l’ordre doctrinal des principes, elle s’attaque aux raisons qui justifient les refus de l’Ancien Age; d’autre part, dans l’ordre psychologique des besoins de la nature humaine, elle vulgarise les thèmes de vie les plus faciles et propose les satisfactions les plus immédiates, dans un climat d’innocence douçeâtre, mais avec le minimun d’ivresse indispensable. C’est pourquoi il nous a paru nécessaire de nous interroger précisément sur ces besoins de l’âme, leur nature, leur signification, car c’est très exactement à ce niveau que se situe le nœud du problème et que doivent intervenir les solutions éventuelles. Il est clair en effet que New Age pose un problème de société. En l’an 2000, on estime que les sectes pseudo-religieuses regrouperont plus de cent millions d’êtres humains. Or, il n’y a pas de société qui ne se propose de répondre aux besoins des hommes qui la constituent. Quels sont donc ces besoins ? et comment se manifestent-ils ? Faute de répondre à ces questions et à quelques autres, on risque de n’opposer au mirage du New Age, préfiguration de la religion de l’Antéchrist, que des déclarations de principe.

Nous partirons de la tripartition anthropologique traditionnelle qui nous donne, sur la structure de l’être humain, l’enseignement fondamental : l’homme est à la fois, corps, âme, esprit. Ces trois dimensions définissent les trois fonctions majeures de l’existence, ce que l’ancien catéchisme résumait en disant que l’homme a été crée par Dieu pour Le connaître, L’aimer et Le servir. De même l’Inde distingue essentiellement trois voies spirituelles : de connaissance, de dévotion et d’action. Si cette tripartition anthropologique décrit adéquatement la réalité de l’être humain, alors il en résulte que l’homme est défini par une triplicité de besoins : besoins de l’esprit, besoins de l’âme et besoins du corps, étant admis que ces trois instances sont envisagées ici dans ce qu’elles ont d’essentiel et non selon tel ou tel aspect relativement accidentel auquel elles sont souvent réduites. Ainsi le corps ne doit pas être identifié simplement à la forme corporelle, au sens anatomique du terme, mais doit être regardé comme le moyen de notre présence active au monde terrestre.

Cela étant admis, nous nous poserons la question suivante : y a-t-il une unité des besoins de l’esprit, une unité des besoins de l’âme, une unité des besoins du corps ?

Autrement dit, et pour prendre l’exemple de l’esprit – qui sera ici envisagé essentiellement en tant qu’organe de connaissance – demandons-nous si dans tout ce qu’il désire, il est possible de discerner une valeur ou un principe unique sous-jacent à toutes les formes dont son désir se revêt, présent en tous les objets vers lesquels il tend, et si, derrière la diversité de ses recherches et de ses attentes, il y a un seul et unique principe axiologique, un seul et unique orient ? La réponse ne fait aucun doute : en toutes choses, l’esprit cherche le vrai; la vérité est le pôle fédérateur de tous ses désirs et de toutes ses activités. De même, en toute chose, le corps cherche le bien, qu’il s’agisse du bien physique : le bon pain, le bon repos, le bien-être, ou du bien moral : la bonne action, le bon geste, car tous les devoirs et obligations morales mettent le corps en jeu. Quant à l’âme, il ne reste donc, de la triade axiologique traditionnelle, que le beau qui puisse la déterminer. Et en effet, nous croyons qu’en toute chose l’âme cherche, par-dessus tout, la beauté; qu’en toute chose, elle aspire à goûter la beauté. Et cela n’est évidemment pas sans rapport avec l’analogie profonde qui unit la femme à l’âme, comme à celle qui unit la femme à la beauté.

Le vrai, le beau et le bien sont donc respectivement les étoiles polaires de l’esprit, de l’âme et du corps, définissant et résumant leurs besoins fondamentaux. C’est pourquoi, très précisément, la beauté est la nourriture de l’âme, comme le vrai est la nourriture de l’esprit et le bon celle du corps. Et de même doit-on dire que la Vérité est la fin de la voie de la connaissance, la beauté de la voie de l’amour, la bonté, de la voie de d’action.

A ces trois premières Normes il conviendrait d’adjoindre, pour être complet, les deux autres transcendantaux (1) que sont l’être et l’un, dans lesquels nous verrions volontiers deux principes complémentaires, présents dans chacun des pôles de la triade Vérité-Beauté-Bonté et qui constituent l’aspect double sous lequel chacun de ces trois pôles peut être envisagé : ainsi, le vrai, en tant qu’être, c’est le réel, et en tant qu’un, c’est l’intelligible; le bon, en tant qu’être, c’est la substance nourricière et en tant qu’un, c’est l’agir efficace; le beau, en tant qu’être, c’est le repos et la suffisance de la forme en elle-même, en tant qu’un, c’est son harmonie et la puissance d’unification qu’elle communique par sa seule présence : la beauté pacifie en rayonnant d’une part et unifie en intériorisant d’autre part.

Mais il ne suffit pas d’avoir défini ces Normes et ces Principes, ni d’avoir caractérisé les aspects essentiels sous lesquels ils se présentent. Il y aurait d’ailleurs bien d’autres choses à dire à ce sujet, si l’on voulait compléter tant soit peu cette esquisse. Il faut aussi maintenant que nous nous interrogions plus précisément sur les rapports que l’homme entretient effectivement avec ses transcendantaux, du moins avec l’un d’entre eux, qui joue le rôle essentiel dans la question qui nous occupe, savoir, le beau.

S’il joue le rôle essentiel dans la question qui nous occupe, c’est précisément à cause de sa relation polaire à l’âme, ou, pour nous exprimer d’une manière plus classique, parce que le beau meut l’âme à titre de cause finale : la beauté est la nourriture de l’âme. Or, nous le savons, l’âme est intermédiaire entre l’esprit-intellect et le corps. Elle l’est en vertu même de la structure ontologique de l’être humain, mais aussi, et par voie de conséquence, elle est fonctionnellement intermédiaire entre l’esprit et le corps, ce qui signifie que c’est elle qui assure la communication de l’un à l’autre et donc leur correspondance. Si le corps peut se conformer aux exigences de l’esprit, c’est grâce à la médiation de l’âme. Si au contraire le divorce s’introduit entre l’un et l’autre, c’est encore l’âme qui en est la cause occasionnelle, c’est elle qui est le lieu même de la discorde, bien qu’en fin de compte, le dernier mot reste à l’esprit (qui est intelligence et liberté) et qui seul ratifie ou non les désordres de l’âme et porte ainsi la responsabilité du péché originel, lequel, nous dit S. Thomas, consiste bien dans la rupture de l’équilibre primordial qui soumettait le corps à l’âme et l’âme à l’esprit. Désormais, comme le dit S. Paul, par l’intellect, je connais la loi divine et je m’y soumets, mais je sens dans mes membres une autre loi. Je connais, parce que l’esprit est essentiellement connaissance, et qu’il ne peut pas ne pas reconnaître le vrai lorsqu’il le perçoit, et, en ce sens, le Serpent ne pouvait séduire Adam. Mais cette connaissance demeure stérile et impuissante, elle ne pénètre pas l’être même, à moins que l’âme ne découvre et n’éprouve quelque attrait pour le vrai qui l’aidera à désirer ce à quoi elle doit se soumettre. Le pur effort de volonté est en effet impossible à l’être humain qui ne peut vouloir que ce qu’il aime, que ce qui rayonne dans l’âme. Le beau est la splendeur du vrai. Ce qui signifie que le beau n’est rien d’autre que le rayonnement du vrai. Mais le vrai ne rayonne que si un espace, un milieu où rayonner lui est offert. En Dieu, ce milieu est la divine et suprême Mâyâ, la Shakti du Suprême Brahma, la Possibilité Universelle, la Matrice incréée en laquelle fusent sans confusion et sans contradiction toutes les Possibilités-Archétypes. Ou encore, en termes chrétiens, c’est l’Esprit-Saint dans l’unité duquel le Père engendre éternellement le Fils. Dans l’homme, ce milieu est l’âme en qui se prolongent les vérités perçues par l’intelligence, et dans laquelle elles peuvent éventuellement éveiller un écho attentif, un amour grâce auquel l’être lui-même (et non plus seulement l’intelligence) est porté à vouloir s’unir à ce qui le l’émeut. L’âme est semblable à la caisse de résonance du violon. Le violoniste peut bien reproduire sur les cordes les structures informantes qu’impose la partition musicale, rien ne se fera entendre sans la caisse de résonance.

L’amour de la beauté que suscite le vrai rayonnant dans l’âme est le mode propre selon lequel l’âme « connaît » le vrai. L’âme connaît en aimant; ou encore l’amour est la manière dont elle réagit à sa rencontre avec le vrai et à sa pénétration en elle. L’amour est la réponse du sujet à l’expérience de l’objet, c’est-à-dire à l’expérience de la séparativité existentielle. D’objet inaccessible et étranger, il devient alors objet désiré, terme d’une volonté d’unification. Et lorsque nous parlons d’amour, il faut comprendre aussi la crainte et la haine, autres modes affectifs de connaissance animique plus ou moins inséparables de l’amour.

Or, ce qui vaut pour l’individu, envisagé en lui-même, vaut aussi pour la société, ensemble d’individus régis par des lois et participant à la même culture, et devant obéir aux mêmes principes. S’il n’y a pas de raison pure pratique, malgré ce qu’affirme Kant, c’est-à-dire s’il n’y a pas de connaissance intellectuelle, ou même rationnelle, qui possède par elle-même et en tant que telle une efficacité pratique, bref, s’il ne suffit pas de connaître le vrai pour faire le bien, mais s’il faut aussi le vouloir, c’est-à-dire l’aimer, alors il n’y a pas non plus de société, fût-ce la société la plus parfaite où il suffirait d’enseigner la connaissance des principes pour en assurer la présence et l’observance dans la totalité du corps social. En d’autres termes, il ne suffit pas d’enseigner l’esprit, il faut éduquer l’âme. Et toute éducation de l’âme revient à lui apprendre ce qu’elle doit craindre et haïr, d’une part, ce qu’elle doit désirer et aimer, d’autre part. Nous disions en commençant que toute société véritable exigeait, de la part de ses membres, la fidélité aux principes. Les principes sont connus par l’intellect, et c’est la tâche première de la fonction sacerdotale. Mais ils sont incarnés et mis en œuvre par le corps : il n’y a pas de vertu qui ne soit conformité du corps à des réalités métaphysiques, et toute fidélité à des principes s’éprouve en fin de compte au risque de notre vie. Le Christ lui-même ne pouvait obéir à la volonté du Principe qu’au prix de son sang. Mais cette incarnation sacrificielle des principes qui est le propre de la voie d’action et qui relève de la troisième caste, serait en réalité impossible si l’âme ne médiatisait l’obligation sous la forme de l’amour et du désir de la beauté, et c’est la tâche de la seconde caste; et c’est pourquoi « noblesse oblige ». Plus encore : il n’y a que la noblesse qui oblige, il n’y a que la perception de la beauté de cette image théomorphe qu’est l’essence humaine, par l’homme lui-même en lui-même, qui puisse l’amener à respecter les principes grâce auxquels cette image divine sera honorée et réalisée activement, et rayonnera dans l’existence elle-même.

Ainsi aucune société traditionnelle n’est possible si elle n’accompagne l’enseignement des principes de formes, de signes, de symboles propres à les présenter aux yeux de l’âme médiatrice, grâce à laquelle le rayonnement du vrai sera fixé et cristallisé dans la substance et l’activité du corps. S’il n’en était pas ainsi, si l’âme en se nourrissant de la beauté du vrai, ne médiatisait pas les principes que perçoit l’intellect, la tâche du corps serait impossible et insupportable. Se tenir debout, garder la verticalité qui est le propre de l’homme corporel, c’est, d’une certaine manière, « tomber vers le haut ». Cette chute vers le haut, inverse de la chute originelle vers le bas, ne serait pas possible si le corps ne subissait à sa façon l’attraction polaire des principes par la grâce d’une âme aimantée par la beauté, laquelle, en cet état d’aimantation, peut rassembler les forces du corps et les orienter et les transformer en désirs.

On le conçoit, la crise de la société moderne peut se décrire comme une crise des symboles par lesquels les principes et les exigences fondatrices de la cité étaient signifiés à l’âme, éveillant en elle le désir de les vénérer et de s’unir à eux, dans une fidélité sans éclipse. La cité moderne, dépouillée de toutes ses parures, de toutes ses images, de toutes ses figures, de tous ses enchantements, entend ne soumettre ses citoyens qu’à la pure nécessité de la raison politique. Plus de carosses, de panaches, de châteaux, de costumes traditionnels, de couronnes, de blasons, de sceptres et d’oriflammes, rien que la pure conscience, en chaque homme, des exigences de la loi commune. Comment cet homme ne ressentirait-il pas en lui-même comme une immense fatigue d’être citoyen, d’autant que l’empire de la nécessité ne cesse de s’étendre et de se renforcer, l’ordre social étant démultiplié par les ordinateurs qui imposent désormais à chaque sociétaire des obligations croissantes, de plus en plus minutieuses et de moins en moins intelligentes. Ajoutons enfin que rien n’échappe à cette crise du symbolisme qui marque essentiellement notre société. L’institution religieuse elle-même, qui aurait dû garder la beauté des formes où l’âme s’abreuve de certitudes, depuis plusieurs siècles en Occident semble avoir perdu le secret des médiations sacrées, et, depuis trente ans – mais nous reviendrons in fine sur ce point – revendique même le dépouillement des symboles comme une exigence de la foi nue, sincère et véritable: plus de latin, plus de grégorien, plus de couleurs ni de vêtements liturgiques, plus de hiératisme, plus de processions, plus d’encensements, plus de ritualité, plus d’espace, de temps ni de formes sacrées, mais l’homme auto-célébrant son humanité socio-politique dans un désert de laideur et de vulgarité.

Or, nous le savons, la nature a horreur du vide. Cette zone béante que le monde moderne laisse subsister entre une intelligence obscurcie, réduite à l’analyse mécanique de l’éphémère, et un corps alourdi, réduit aux appétits élémentaires et aux satisfactions immédiates, ne saurait demeurer inoccupé. L’âme a toujours faim et soif, ses besoins demeurent et ce qu’elle ne peut plus trouver en se tournant vers le haut, puisque la philosophie a proclamé la mort de Dieu, c’est-à-dire le divorce radical, l’hétérogénéité constitutive du vrai, du beau et du bien, dont Dieu était précisément l’Unité mystérieuse et ineffable, l’âme doit le trouver ailleurs, à la périphérie de ses désirs, ou dans ses pulsions les plus inférieures. Comment une telle perversion du désir est-elle possible ?

Ici notre méditation doit devenir attentive, et notre discernement aigu. La conscience que l’âme a de ses besoins, la faim et la soif qu’elle éprouve ne sont point telles qu’elles puissent par elles-mêmes conduire infailliblement à ce qui seul peut véritablement les apaiser. La raison en est que seule l’intelligence connaît, l’âme ne connaît pas, elle reconnaît. L’intelligence est de soi infaillible, la vraie intelligence est l’intelligence du vrai; trouver son objet, pour l’intelligence, c’est savoir que cet objet est le vrai et qu’elle même est dans le vrai. L’intelligence ne peut pas se tromper elle-même sur l’objet de sa satisfaction. Certes elle peut être empêchée d’accomplir librement son acte, et momentanément égarée. Mais quand elle peut l’accomplir, non seulement elle atteint son objet, mais encore elle sait qu’elle l’a atteint. La certitude se joint nécessairement à l’évidence : quand il y a évidence, il y a certitude; évidemment, la réciproque n’est pas vraie.

Tout autre est le rapport que l’âme entretient avec ses besoins. Alors que l’intelligence ne se connaît elle-même qu’à travers l’autre qu’est son objet, l’âme ne connaît l’autre qu’est son objet qu’à travers elle-même et en elle-même. Ce qu’elle perçoit de l’autre c’est l’effet qu’il produit sur elle et en elle : l’âme est par nature expérience de sa propre subjectivité dans la rencontre de son objet; l’intelligence est par nature expérience de l’objectivité dans l’intériorité même de sa visée intellective. Il en résulte que l’âme n’est jamais assurée de la vérité objective de son amour. L’amour est aveugle, dit-on. Doublement aveugle : et quant à son objet et quant à lui-même; et cela bien nécessairement, puisque l’âme n’identifie cet objet, elle ne le connaît qu’en reconnaissant l’effet d’amour que cet objet suscite en elle. C’est pourquoi, quant à son objet, l’âme n’a de cesse qu’elle ne s’en approche toujours plus et qu’elle ne s’unisse à lui le plus intimement possible, seul moyen qu’elle ait de le connaître vraiment; et c’est pourquoi d’autre part, quant à elle-même et à la certitude qu’elle a d’aimer, elle est toujours en doute et n’a de cesse qu’elle ne se prouve à elle-même toujours davantage qu’elle aime vraiment, et ce jusqu’à en mourir.

Telle est la loi de l’expérience d’amour en mode psychique. Cette loi vaut pour toutes les formes de l’amour, des plus élevées aux plus simples et aux plus ordinaires. Sans doute, dans les formes les élevées (dans l’amour de Dieu, par exemple, ou dans l’amour conjugal et filial) ce mode psychique peut-il être dépassé et devenir amour spirituel. Mais ce dépassement exige de l’âme le renoncement à la certitude qu’elle possède de sa vérité d’âme aimante, pour entrer dans une sorte d’ignorance et d’abandon total, ceux-là mêmes que nous enseigne le Christ en croix. On en conviendra, c’est un sommet difficilement accessible et que l’on ne saurait exiger d’une société entière. Pour l’ordinaire de nos amours et de nos désirs, de ce nous ressentons en nous le besoin, et que nous satisfaisons avec les objets dont nous disposons, nous nous guidons sur un certain goût que les expériences antérieures ont déposé en notre âme, seul critère nous certifiant qu’en effet, c’est bien cela que nous aimons et que nous ne nous trompons pas sur le besoin que nous en avons. Dans les domaines de notre vie la plus quotidienne, qu’il s’agisse du cadre de vie, de la décoration de nos intérieurs, d’habillement, d’attrait pour une ambiance déterminée, pour une musique, pour des couleurs, des lieux, des paysages, des amis, des activités, etc., nous cherchons toujours à retrouver le goût que la première expérience a éveillé et déposé dans notre âme, l’effet que cette première rencontre a produit en nous et qui nous a révélé, par la satisfaction éprouvée, ou la déception ressentie, que nous attendions cette rencontre sans le savoir.

On l’aura compris, ce dont nous venons de parler, c’est de l’éducation de l’âme, ou moins de ce qui devrait être l’éducation de l‘âme, et que l’on pourrait définir comme la formation du goût, puisque le goût est, pour l’âme, l’équivalent de ce qu’est la certitude pour l’intelligence. Il n’est pas possible de développer tous les aspects de cette doctrine du goût, entendue au sens d’un état déterminé de jouissance – ou de souffrance – de l’âme, caractérisé par la perception intérieure d’une saveur. Cette doctrine porte exactement sur ce que l’hindouisme appelle rasa, notion fondamentale pour tout ce qui ressortit à la musique, à la danse, à la poésie, et même à l’alchimie. Si l’Inde, et toutes les doctrines traditionnelles, en particulier celle de Platon, accordent une telle importance à cette formation du goût, du rasa, c’est qu’en effet il y va du destin de l’âme entière, et donc aussi de celui de l’esprit qui est comme l’âme de l’âme et sa fleur lumineuse. Encore une fois, l’âme n’a pas d’autre connaissance de ce qui lui convient que l’expérience du goût que les choses éveillent en elle. Or, toutes les rencontres que fait l’âme durant sa vie laissent en elle une trace. Cette trace ne doit pas être identifiée seulement au souvenir plus ou moins conscient du fait ponctuel de l’événement de la rencontre. En réalité, le phénomène est double et présente deux faces, objective l’une, subjective l’autre. S’il y a « trace », « impression », « imprégnation » psychique (ce que l’Inde appelle samskâra et vâsanâ, termes presque synonymes) laissant dans l’âme un goût déterminé, c’est qu’il y a dans l’âme elle-même une attente déterminée de cette expérience, un besoin et un désir (c’est aussi un sens possible de vâsanâ) qui dessinent en creux cette expérience, à l’état « préformé », sans quoi l’expérience, le remplissement de l’attente, ne pourrait se produire : nous ne connaissons que ce que nous reconnaissons, qu’il s’agisse de la saveur d’une cerise, de celle de l’amour maternel, ou d’une partita de Bach. Il s’ensuit que la première imprégnation, la première information "vasanique" a une importance décisive. C’est elle, en effet, qui définit dans l’âme, ineffaçablement, la forme identificatrice de l’objet attendu et désiré, sa forme en quelque sorte prototypique – son pattern diraient les psychologues – puisque c’est la première expérience qui révèle à l’âme le besoin qu’elle avait de cet objet : nous ne reconnaissons que ce que nous connaissons. La forme de mon désir, c’est la forme même de sa première satisfaction, étant donné qu’il n’y a aucun autre moyen de connaître cette forme que par et dans la satisfaction qu’elle nous apporte. Or, il est bien évident qu’en réalité les expériences que nous faisons sont loin de répondre adéquatement à notre attente. Mais, parce que l’âme ne connaît la nature (ou essence) spécifique de son désir qu’au moyen de l’expérience de sa satisfaction, elle doit bien se contenter de ce qu’elle a expérimenté, fût-ce dans une grande déception : le désir, nécessairement fait flèche de tout bois.

L’âme cherche donc à retrouver ce goût déposé en elle, seul guide d’identification dans la quête de son désir, car, pour l’insatisfaction océanique qui accompagne cette quête et la déborde, elle ne saurait précisément en dire le nom : le manque n’a pas de visage. En résumé, c’est dans la mesure même où toutes les expériences de l’âme sont informantes qu’elles peuvent être aussi déformantes : l’éducation de l’âme, l’hygiène ou la diététique psychiques devraient être le souci majeur d’une société. Nous sommes, on en conviendra, fort loin de compte, puisqu’au contraire la multiplication des expériences de toute sorte est un véritable mot d’ordre des sociétés modernes : placet experiri.

Quels devraient donc être les principes d’une telle éducation ? et comment les appliquer ?

Quant à la première question, on peut, croyons-nous, y répondre de la manière suivante.

Toute éducation se propose de rectifier ce qui est dévié, de prévenir les risques de déviation, d’accomplir ce qui n’est qu’ébauché dans la nature humaine. Quels sont donc les risques de déviation encourus par l’âme au cours de ces expériences formatrices, les plus formatrices se situant évidemment au cours de l’enfance et de la jeunesse ? Ils sont inhérents à ce qui fait la qualité première de toute expérience psychique : son caractère subjectif, alors qu’inversement le risque de l’expérience intellective est son objectivité même, qui porte le sujet à se contenter trop aisément d’une connaissance simplement abstraite. La subjectivité de l’expérience psychique est l’expérience de l’envahissement du sujet par les effets en lui d’un objet qui, en tant que tel, dans son être propre, demeure extérieure à l’âme, alors que l’intelligence saisit son objet en lui-même. Toute expérience de l’âme est ainsi à la fois rencontre d’un objet unique et fini, un objet déterminé, et conscience affective d’un prolongement indéterminé et jamais fini des effets qu’il produit sur elle. Expérience ponctuelle, et même parfois expérience-choc, l’âme est affectée, d’une part ; et d’autre part, expérience-écho, expérience-ambiance, expérience-océanique même, qui est relativement indéterminée parce que l’âme, par nature, n’a jamais fini de se déterminer à son objet. Ainsi, toute expérience de l’âme – et même les expériences négatives – participent d’une certaine infinité. Par là-même que l’âme est subjectivité et finitude, elle éprouve et vit son envahissement par l’objet désiré comme un élargissement, une illimitation d’elle-même. Toute satisfaction psychique emplit l’âme tout entière, et, par là-même, efface momentanément les limites du sujet, ou, du moins, efface le sentiment de ces limites, limites dont, par ailleurs, l’âme fait précisément l’expérience dans la rencontre ponctuelle, en tant même qu’elle est affectée de l’extérieur. Ainsi la vie de l’âme se déroule entre ces deux pôles : crainte, voire souffrance dans l’expérience ponctuelle de l’objet (découvrir qu’il y a un non-moi, c’est un peu mourir à soi-même) et, d’autre part, joie, et même béatitude, dans l’expérience océanique d’une illimitation interne. Toute la question consiste à savoir si l’effet illimitant que produit en nous la possession de l’objet désiré est participation véritable à l’infinitude de la Béatitude divine, ou si elle n’en est que la contrefaçon, savoir, une indéfinitude, par indétermination et débordement illusoire du fini.

A ne suivre que sa propre expérience, l’âme est incline à rechercher sans cesse cette sensation, cette saveur d’illimitation, d’infinitisation, dans laquelle elle s’imagine expérimenter, ou expérimente véritablement, un certain dépassement de la finitude créée, de ses limitations et de ses contradictions. En elle-même et par elle-même, nous l’avons assez dit, l’âme ne dispose pas d’un critère de discernement qui lui permettrait de distinguer entre les effets d’une ivresse trompeuse et ceux d’une participation déifiante. Qu’on propose à l’âme, et c’est ce que fait New Age, des perspectives nébuleuses, des thèmes confus et merveilleux, des techniques d’extases, des extensions quasi-illimitées de ses états de conscience où s’effacent les oppositions et les barrières des religions traditionnelles, aussitôt elle y reconnaîtra ses propres désirs, ses propres rêves, cet univers plus ou moins onirique qu’elle ressent comme son milieu originel et ravissant, et dont elle s’enchante, et se déçoit, indéfiniment.

D’autant, et nous l’avons souligné aussi nettement que possible, que ce chant des sirènes s’exerce sur une âme à la fois assoiffée de nourriture infinitisante (puisqu’elle est soumise socialement à l’emprise de la pure nécessité rationnelle, à un monde dépouillé de toute forme qualitative, de tout mythe, de toute légende, de tout enchantement), et, d’autre part, sur une âme pervertie par trois siècles de formes mensongères, abâtardies ou franchement sataniques. Car le mensonge de la forme, c’est de prétendre réaliser l’informel sur son propre plan, par oblitération de ses limites et contours, ce qui la conduit à l’informe, alors que la forme doit et peut communiquer l’informel par la vérité intelligible de sa structure et par la participation de son contenu qualitatif aux archétypes métaphysiques qui se manifestent en elle. La plupart des formes d’art qu’a expérimentées l’âme européenne depuis trois cents ans ont prétendu exprimer le faux infini par gonflement, destruction, dislocation, anéantissement de la finitude. Alors qu’une église romane, une cathédrale gothique, un chant grégorien, une icône ne délivrent le message d’infinitude qui les habite qu’au moyen de formes rigoureuses, mesurées, ordonnées, nombrées, des formes qui ne mentent ni aux matériaux dont elles sont faites, ni aux conditions dans lequel elles se manifestent.

Voilà ce qui pouvait éduquer l’âme de l’homme traditionnel. Pendant près de mille ans, l’art religieux d’Occident a enseigné aux hommes la sobriété, la vérité, l’humilité, la cohérence des formes, en même temps que par son contenu divin et transcendant, il transmettait à l’âme la vibration déifiante du Verbe originel. Ascèse à l‘extérieur. Jubilation à l’intérieur. Finitude de la forme, infinitude du message : le contraire de l’art moderne qui n’enseigne que la finitude humaine, ou même infra-humaine, moyennant l’effacement illusoires des limites formelles.

Dans cette contre-éducation de l’âme moderne, l’Eglise « post-conciliaire », il faut bien le reconnaître, a joué un rôle non négligeable. C’est ce dont nous devons dire un mot pour terminer.

La réforme liturgique fut entreprise à la demande du Concile Vatican II, mais elle est allée bien au-delà de ce que demandait le Concile, et, parfois même, a contrevenu à ce qui avait été clairement disposé : ainsi du latin qui aurait dû demeurer l’usage normal dans les rites de l’Eglise latine (Constitution sur la liturgie, XXXVI, 1). Cette réforme toutefois paraissait accomplir les promesses d’un mouvement plus ancien de restauration qui avait débuté avec Dom Guéranger, vers 1840, et qui s’est poursuivi, plus ou moins fidélement, durant plus d’un siècle. Ce mouvement visait à retrouver, par une connaissance appronfondie de l’histoire de la liturgie et de ses anciens monuments (surtout le Missel Romain), la vérité de l’action liturgique telle que la concevaient et la mettaient en œuvre les premiers siècles de l’Eglise. Il apparaissait, en particulier, que la messe n’avait pas alors pour fin première de « fabriquer des hosties consacrées », mais de réaliser sacramentellement le saint sacrifice du Corps et du Sang du Christ crucifié et ressuscité. Sans doute le doctrine n’avait-elle à ce sujet jamais varié ; mais on ne pouvait nier que la piété, au moins en Occident, n’eût tendu progressivement à faire prévaloir l’aspect « chose sacrée » sur l’aspect « action liturgique », ou « célébration rituelle du mystère » -- cela dit sans qu’il soit aucunement question de remettre en question la dévotion au Saint-Sacrement. Au terme de cette longue restauration, on attendait Saint-Jean Chrysostome, ce fut Luther qui arriva. Loin de mettre en valeur la dimension sacrale d’action liturgique, la réforme, gauchie et pervertie, en limita les signes au minimun indispensable pour ne pas compromettre définitivement la Validité du rite. On réduisit la ritualité de la liturgie eucharistique aux paroles de la Consécration, seul élément immuable au milieu de célébrations toujours changeantes, ce qui risque de ramener la messe à n’être plus que la commémoration de la Sainte-Cène (Jeudi-Saint), alors que la doctrine catholique y voit la réalisation sacramentelle, non seulement du Banquet sacré, mais aussi du Golgotha et de la Résurrection (Vendredi-Saint et Pâques). Toutes ces innovations trahissent un affaiblissement, sinon un rejet, de la théologie du sacrifice eucharistique, et donc du mystère de la Rédemption. Et il faut bien reconnaître que cette théologie, sauf dans quelques instructions papales, a entièrement disparu de l ‘enseignement doctrinal, quoiqu’elle soit réaffirmée par le Concile (II, 47).

D’autre part, et en conséquence, les formes liturgiques destinées à signifier la vérité de ce qui est invisiblement accompli et à nous permettre d’y participer, ont été modifiées ou supprimées. Tout geste, tout langage, tout vêtement, toute posture, toute musique, tout parfum, toute rubrique qui rendait manifeste la nature sacrée du rite, c’est-à-dire sa réalité non-humaine, son inhabitation divine, a été, autant que possible, écarté, révoqué, rejeté. Un millénaire et demi d’art liturgique a été anéanti en quelques mois. Des formes de prières grâce auxquelles, durant vingt siècles, des millions de catholiques avaient été éduqués et éveillés au sens de Dieu, de son inaccessible transcendance et de sa miséricordieuse immanence, particulièrement ce chant grégorien, unique au monde, d’une insurpassable beauté, en instant, cessèrent d’exister. Il n’y a , semble-t-il, dans l’histoire des civilisations connues, rien de comparable à ce qui fut ainsi accompli dans l’indifférence générale. Des cultures ont disparu lors de cataclysmes ; des guerres, ou des pouvoirs politiques ont anéanti des chefs-d’œuvre ; mais ici, ce sont les gardiens du trésor, les serviteurs de la beauté qui, en toute inconscience, sûrs d’eux-mêmes et pleins d’enthousiasme, ont procédé au « nettoyage » du Temple. Ils ne doutaient pas un instant que ne floriraient, dans l’espace ainsi libéré des vieilleries anté-conciliaires, les formes modernes d’une foi renouvelée, des formes pleines de sens, accordées à la sensibilité de l’homme d’aujourd’hui. Quelle redoutable naïveté ! Mais aussi, qui les avait prévenus des difficultés presque insurmontables de la tâche qu’ils osaient entreprendre ? Quel philosophe, quel théologien avait, au XX ème siècle, réfléchi aux fondements métaphysiques d’une véritable poétique sacrée, c’est-à-dire aux conditions naturelles et surnaturelles qui règlent les productions des œuvres liturgiques ?

Ce magistère de l’intelligence, dont la fonction est pourtant indispensable dans l’économie d’un religion, qui l’exerçait ? Sans doute ne manquaient pas les considérations sur l’esthétique religieuse, non plus que les analyses philosophiques du Beau, le plus méconnu des transcendantaux. Mais le Beau ne saurait être seulement l’objet d’une science contemplative, fût-elle à visée spirituelle. Il doit être aussi l’objet d’une science productive, d’une véritable poiésis, et c’est là, assurément, la plus ignorée des sciences sacrées. C’est d’ailleurs, notons-le en passant, dans la philosophie d’Aristote que s’est opéré le divorce de la theoria et de la poiésis. En tout cas, s’imaginer qu’il suffit d’une grande chaleur de sentiment au service d’une doctrine correcte, pour produire des formes belles et liturgiquement efficaces est une dangereuse illusion : ici, les bonnes intentions sont toujours trahies. Quant à s’en remettre au miracle du génie, c’est s’abandonner aux caprices de l’improbable, et c’est en outre ignorer que les sublimités d’une messe de Mozart, et même de Bach, sont encore très loin d’atteindre à la vérité et à la profondeur spirituelle d’une simple mélodie grégorienne.

Quel est donc le lien mystérieux qui unit la vérité théologique à sa manifestation sensible ? Si le Beau est la splendeur du Vrai, d’où vient au Vrai le rayonnement de sa gloire ? De quelle secrète alchimie a donc surgi ce « blanc manteau d’églises », et, qui, en quelques siècles a couvert le sol de France ?

De quelle nuée séraphique a coulé la calme et bondissante pluie du planus cantus, ruissellement d’amour et de contemplation, où l’esprit chante son cantique le plus intérieur ? Ne l’oublions jamais : il fut un temps où cela n’était pas, et pourtant Dieu fit que cela parut.

La réponse a ces questions ne fait aucun doute : seul l’Esprit-Saint peut être l’opérateur de cette alchimie, seul Il est la force qui fait descendre la forme dans la matière et l’unit à elle, seul Il est le révélateur du Vrai. Celui qui, couvrant de son ombre puissante la pure substance mariale y opère l’incarnation du Verbe, de la Forme des formes dans la maternelle materia, édifiant ainsi le Temple du Corps divin. C’est donc Lui le rayonnement d’amour du Vrai, l’illumination de sa gloire, le flamboiement de son cœur ; et sans Lui, toute langue est muette.

C’est donc à Lui qu’il convenait d’en appeler, dans la prière inlassable, le silence et le jeûne, non aux suggestions des sciences de l’homme, ce « savoir ignorant », sans noblesse et sans espoir. Car Lui seul peut étancher la soif de l’âme, la nourrir d’une nourriture savoureuse et secrète, et l’introduire dans son nouvel âge. Lui seul peut la charmer, l’attirer dans les rets de la Beauté divine et la détourner de succomber à la séduction des sirènes du New Age. En supprimant le magnétisme divin des formes sacrées, les réformateurs, sans le savoir, livraient l’âme occidentale aux ivresses inférieures, aux fascinations des ténèbres cosmiques, au pouvoir de la dissolution. En abolissant les formes liturgiques de la tradition sacrée, du moins là où l’on est parvenu à le faire, on n’a pas seulement modifié un élément mineur de la société occidentale, on a aussi obscurci ce qui en était l’unique Soleil visible et le Cœur sanctifiant.

(1) Ce terme désigne, en philosophie, des notions qui transcendent toutes les catégories. Ces notions transcendantales (les transcendantaux) sont au nombre de cinq : l’être, l’un, le vrai, le bien, le beau. Ils sont convertibles l’un dans l’autre : tout ce qui est (réellement) est un, est vrai, est bon, est beau ; et réciproquement.

Texte publié lors d’un colloque de la revue Vers la Tradition sur René Guénon


Read more!

René Guénon, Capitolul VII. “Nivelurile de infinitate” (Principiile calculului infinitezimal)

Nu am avut încă ocazia să vedem, în cele precedente, toate confuziile care apar inevitabil atunci când se admite ideea de infinit în accepţiuni diferite de singurul său sens veritabil şi strict metafizic. S-ar putea găsi mai mult de un exemplu, mai cu seamă în lunga discuţie pe care o avu Leibnitz cu Jean Bernoulli asupra realităţii cantităţilor infinite şi infinit de mici, discuţie care de altminteri nu conduse spre nici o concluzie definitivă, şi care nu putea să ajungă la aşa ceva, dat fiind confuciile însele comise la fiecare moment atât de unul cât şi de celălalt, şi din lipsa de principii de la care pornise. În rest, oricum ne-am raporta, întotdeauna lipsa principiilor este aceea care face problemele insolubile. Oricine se poate mira, printre altele, că Leibnitz a făcut o diferenţă între “infinit” şi “neterminat”, şi că astfel n-a respins deloc ideea, totuşi evident contradictorie, unui “infinit terminat”, într-atâta încât să se întrebe “dacă este posibil să existe de exemplu o linie dreaptă infinită, şi totuşi terminată de-o parte şi de cealaltă” [1]. Fără îndoială, îi repugnă să admită această posibilitate, « cu atât mai mult cu cât mi-a părut, spune el altundeva, că infinitul luat în sensul riguros al termenului trebuie să-şi aibă sursa în neterminat, fără de care nu văd mijlocul să găsesc un fundament propriu care să-l distingă de finit.” [2] Dar, chiar dacă cineva spune, într-un mod mai afirmativ decât o face el, că “infinitul îşi are sursa în neterminat”, este pentru că nu-l considerăm ca fiind absolut identic cu acesta, distingându-l de el într-o anumită măsură. Şi, în această situaţie, acela riscă să fie blocat de o mulţime de idei ciudate şi contradictorii. Aceste idei, Leibnitz declară, este adevărat, că nu le-ar admite cu plăcere, şi că ar trebui “să fie forţat în direcţia asta de demonstraţii indubitabile”. Dar este deja destul de grav să li se confere o anumită importanţă, şi chiar să fie prezentate altfel decât ca imposibilităţi pure. În ceea ce priveşte, de exemplu, ideea unei “eternităţi terminate”, care este printre cele pe care el le enunţă aici, nu putem să vedem în ea decât produsul unei confuzii între noţiunea de eternitate şi cea de durată, care este absolut nejustificabilă din punct de vedere metafizic. Admitem desigur că timpul în care se scurge viaţa noastră corporală este realmente indefinit, ceea ce nu exclude în nici un fel faptul că este “terminat de o parte şi de alta”, adică are concomitent o origine şi un sfârşit, conform concepţiei ciclice tradiţionale. Admitem de asemenea că există şi alte moduri de durată, ca ceea pe care scolasticii o numeau aevum, a căre indefinitudine este, dacă se poate exprima astfel, indefinitm mai mare decât cea a timpului. Dar toate aceste moduri, în toată extensiunea lor posibilă, nu sunt totuşi altceva decât indefinite, pentru că este vorba întotdeauna de condiţii particulare de existenţă, proprii cutărei sau cutărei stări, şi nici unul dintre ele, prin însuşi faptul că este o durată, adică implică o succesiune, nu poate fi identificat sau asimilat eternităţii, cu care nu are realmente mai multe raporturi decât finitul, indiferent cum ar fi el, are cu Infinitul veritabil, căci concepţia unei eternităţi relative nu are mai mult sens decât cea a unei infinităţi relative. În toate acestea, nu se pot concepe decât diverse niveluri de infinitate, aşa cum se va vedea încă şi mai bine în cele ce urmează. Dar Leibnitz, în absenţa distincţiilor necesare şi esenţiale, şi ignorând principiul care i-ar fi permis să nu se rătăcească niciodată, are mari dificultăţi în a respinge opiniile lui Bernoulli, care îl crede chiar, într-atât răspunsurile îi sunt echivoce şi ezitante, mai puţin îndepărtat decât este în realitate de propriile sale idei asupra “infinităţii lumilor” şi diferitelor “niveluri de infinitate”.

Această concepţie a pretinselor “niveluri de infinitate” se reduce până la urmă la a presupune că pot exista lumi incomparabil mai mari şi mai mici decât a noastră, părţile corespunzătoare ale fiecăreia dintre acestora păstrând între ele proporţii corespunzătoare, astfel încât locuitorii uneia oarecare dintre aceste lumi să poată s-o considere drept infinită cu atât mai mult cu cât asta facem noi în raport cu a noastră. Noi am spune mai degrabă, în ceea ce ne priveşte, cu atât mai puţin. Un asemenea mod de a privi lucrurile n-ar avea a priori nimic absurd dacă nu s-ar introduce ideea de infinit, care nu are desigur nimic în comun cu el: fiecare dintre aceste lumi, oricât de mare am presupune-o, nu este mai puţin limitată, şi atunci cum am putea-o numi infinită? Adevărul este că nici una dintre ele nu poate fi astfel, fie şi pentru faptul că sunt concepute ca fiind multiple, căci revenim din nou la contradicţia unei pluralităţi de infinituri. Şi de altfel, dacă li se întâmplă unora, fie ei numeroşi, să considere lumea noastră în acest fel, nu este mai puţin adevărat că această aserţiune nu poate oferi nici un sens acceptabil. În rest, putem să ne întrebăm dacă realmente este vorba despre lumi diferite, sau dacă nu sunt mai degrabă, pur şi simplu, părţi mai mult sau mai puţin întinse ale aceleeaşi lumi, pentru că, prin ipoteză, trebuie să fie toate supuse aceloraşi condiţii de existenţă, şi mai cu seamă condiţiei spaţiale, dezvoltându-se la o scară doar mărită sau diminuată. În cu totul alt sens decât acesta se poate vorbi cu adevărat, nu de infinitate, ci de indefinitatea lumilor, şi aceasta numai pentru că, în afara condiţiilor de existenţă, precum spaţiul şi timpul, care sunt proprii lumii noastre înfăţişată în toată extensia de care este susceptibilă, mai există o indefinitate de altele posibile. O lume, adică până la urmă o stare de existenţă, se va defini astfel prin ansamblul condiţiilor cărora li se supune. Dar, prin faptul însuşi că va fi întotdeauna condiţionată, adică determinată şi limitată, şi că nu va cuprinde toate posibilităţile, nu va putea niciodată să fie privită ca infinit, ci doar ca indefinit [3].

În fond, punctele de vedere asupra “lumilor” în sensul în care le înţelege Bernoulli, incomparabil mai mari şi mai mici unele în raport cu celelalte, nu sunt extrem de diferite de cele la care recurge Leibnitz atunci când îşi închipuie “firmamentul în raport cu pământul, şi pământul în raport cu firul de nisip”, şi acesta în raport cu “o parcelă de materie magnetică care trece prin sticlă”. Doar că, Leibnitz nu pretinde să vorbească aici de “gradus infinitatis” în sens propriu. El înţelege chiar să arate că dimpotrivă prin aceasta “nu este nevoie să se ia infinitul aici în sensul riguros al termenului”, şi se mulţumeşte să imagineze nişte “incomparabile”, lucru împotriva căruia nu i se poate nimic obiecta din punct de vedere logic. Eroarea comparaţiei sale este la un cu totul alt nivel, şi constă, aşa cum am zis-o deja, în aceea că ea nu putea da decât o idee inexactă, chiar complet falsă, asupra cantităţilor infinitezimale aşa cum apar ele în calcul. Vom avea în cele ce urmează ocazia să substituim acestei consideraţii pe cea a adevăratelor niveluri multiple de indefinitate, luate atât în direcţie crescătoare cât şi în direcţie descrescătoare. Nu insistăm deci mai mult în această privinţă pentru moment.

Aşadar, diferenţa dintre Bernoulli şi Leibnitz este aceea că, pentru primul, este vorba realmente de “niveluri de infinitate”, deşi nu le dă decât pentru o conjectură probabilă, în vreme ce pentru al doilea, care se îndoieşte de probabilitatea şi chiar de posibilitatea lor, se limitează la a le înlocui prin ceea ce s-ar putea numi “niveluri de incomparabilitate”. În afara acestei diferenţe, de altfel categoric foarte importantă, concepţia unei serii de lumi asemănătoare între ele, dar la scări diferite, le este comună. Această concepţie are un anume raport, cel puţin ocazional, cu descoperirile datorate folosirii microscopului, în aceeaşi epocă, şi cu anumite viziuni pe care le sugerară atunci, dar care nu fură deloc justificate de observaţiile ulterioare, precum teoria “articulării germenilor”. Nu este adevărat că, în germene, fiinţa vie ar fi actual şi corporal “preformată” în toate părţile sale, şi organizarea unei celule nu are nici o asemănare cu cea a ansamblului corpului al cărui element este. În cazul lui Bernoulli cel puţin, nu pare îndoielnic că acolo era, de fapt, originea concepţiei sale. El spune într-adevăr, printre alte lucruri foarte semnificative în această privinţă, că particulele unui corp coexistă în totul “aşa cum, după Harvey şi alţii, dar nu după Leuwenhœck, există într-un animal nenumărate ovule, în fiecare ovul un animalcul sau mai multe, în fiecare animalcul încă nenumărate ovule, şi tot aşa la infinit” [4]. În ceea ce-l priveşte pe Leibnitz, după câte se pare la el cu totul altceva a servit drept punct de pornire. Astfel, ideea că toate astrele pe care le vedem ar putea să nu fie altceva decât elementele corpului unei fiinţe incomparabil mai mare despre care ne aminteşte concepţia “Marelui Om” al Kabbalei, dar în mod ciudată materializată şi “spaţializată”, printr-un soi de ignoranţă în privinţa adevăratei valori analogice a simbolismului tradiţional. În egală măsură, ideea “animalului”, adică a fiinţei vii, subzistând corporal după moarte, dar “redusă la mai puţin”, este în mod clar inspirată de concepţia de luz sau “nucleu al importalităţii” din tradiţia iudaică [5], concepţie deformată şi ea de Leibnitz prin punere în raport cu cea a lumilor incomparabil mai mici decât a noastră, căci, spune el, “nimic nu împiedică faptul că animalele murind să fie transferate în asemenea lumi; mă gândesc într-adevăr că moartea nu este nimic altceva decât o contracţie a animalului, la fel cum generarea nu este altceva decât o evoluţie” [6], acest ultim cuvânt fiind luat aici doar în sensul său etimologic de “dezvoltare”. Aceasta nu este, în fond, decât unul dintre exemplele pericolului care apare atunci când cineva vrea să stabilească nişte corespondenţe între noţiuni tradiţionale şi viziuni ale ştiinţei profane, lucru care nu se poate face altfel decât în detrimentul primelor. Acestea erau în mod sigur independente de teoriile suscitate în urma observaţiilor microscopice, şi Leibnitz, apropiindu-le şi amestecându-le unele cu altele, acţiona deja aşa cum aveau s-o facă mai târziu ocultiştii, care sunt deosebit de încântaţi de aceste apropieri nejustificate. Pe de altă parte, superpunerea “incomparabilelor” de nivele diferite îi părea conformă cu concepţia sa privind “cea mai bună dintre lumi”, ca furnizându-i un mijloc de a plasa în ea, după definiţia pe care i-o dă, “atâta fiinţă sau realitate câtă este posibil”. Şi această idee a “celei mai bune dintre lumi” mai provine, la rândul ei, dintr-o altă cunoştinţă tradiţională prost aplicată, împrumutată din geometria simbolică a pitagoricienilor, aşa cum am indicat-o altundeva [7]: circumferinţa este, dintre toate liniile de egală lungime, aceea care cuprinde suprafaţa maximă, şi la fel sfera este, dintre toate corpurile de suprafaţă egală, cea care conţine volumul maxim, şi acesta este unul dintre motivele pentru care aceste figuri erau considerate drept cele mai perfecte. Dar, dacă există în această privinţă un maxim, nu există şi un minim, adică nu există o figură care să cuprindă o suprafaţă sau un volum inferior tuturor celorlalte, şi din această cauză Leibnitz a ajuns la ideea că, dacă există “cea mai bună dintre elumi”, atunci nu există “cea mai rea dintre lumi”, adică o lume care să conţină mai puţină fiinţă decât orice altă lume posibilă. Se ştie de altfel că această concepţie a “celei mai bune dintre lumi”, alături de cea a “incomparabilelor”, care ţin de comparaţiile sale bine cunoscute dintre “grădina plină de plate” şi “heleşteul plin de peşti”, în care “fiecare ramură de plată, fiecare membru de animal, fiecare picătură a umorilor sale este încă o asemenea grădină sau un asemenea heleşteu” [8]. Şi aceasta ne aduce în situaţia abordării unei alte chestiuni conexe, care este cea a “diviziunii materiei la infinit”.

Note:

[1] Scrisoare către Jean Bernoulli, 18 noiembrie 1698.

[2] Scrisoare deja citată către Varignon, 2 februarie 1702.

[3] A se vedea în jurul acestui subiect Stările multiple ale Fiinţei.

[4] Scrisoarea din 23 iulie 1698.

[5] A se vedea Regele lumii, paginile 87-89.

[6] Scrisoarea deja citată către Jean Bernoulli, 18 noiembrie 1698.

[7] Simbolismul Crucii, pagina 58. Asupra distincţiei dintre “posibile” şi “composibile”, de care depinde de altfel concepţia “celei mai bune dintre lumi”, cf. Stările multiple ale Fiinţei, cap. II.

[8] Monadologia, 67. Cf. ibid. 74.


Read more!

06 mai 2008

Ibrahim Kalin, René Guénon, (full text)





Considered to be the founder of the Traditionalist school, Guénon was born in Blois, France on November 15, 1886. He devoted the early years of his life to the study of mathematics and philosophy. He went to Paris in 1906, where he maintained regular contact with various spiritualist groups. In 1909, he edited and published a review journal called La Gnose for which he wrote a number of essays and reviews on spirituality and esoterism. In 1910, he met the famous French painter Gustav Ageli, who had by that time embraced Islam and taken the name Abd al-Hadi. Guénon was initiated into Sufism in 1912 and became Muslim, taking the name Abd al-Wahid Yahya.

He finished his university education in 1916 with a thesis called "Leibniz and Infinitesimal Calculus". The same year, he met Jacques Maritain, one of the most influential Catholic thinkers of the 20th century. In 1921, he prepared his doctoral dissertation under the title "General Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines". Guénon’s thesis was rejected by his doctoral committee, which led to his eventual abandonment of academia in 1923. The dissertation was later published as a book under the same title. In 1924, he published Orient and Occident, one of his major works on comparative philosophy and spirituality. This was followed by The Crisis of the Modern World (1927)--perhaps his most famous and widely read book.

A year after the publication of The Crisis of the Modern World, Guénon’s wife died. He went to Egypt in 1930 as part of a project for the study and publication of some Sufi texts. He never left Egypt again. He married Fatima, the daughter of the Sufi Shaykh Muhammad Ibrahim, in 1934 and settled in a house near al-Azhar University where he had regular contact with ‘Abd al- Halim Mahmud, the famous president of al-Azhar and scholar of Sufism. Although Guénon received occasional visits from such members of the Traditionalist School as Titus Burckhardt, Frithjof Schuon and Martin Lings, he remained largely reclusive during his years in Egypt, working on his major books and articles. Towards the end of his life, Guénon’s poor health, which had accompanied him throughout his life, deteriorated further, leading to his death on January 7, 1951.

Guénon’s writings span a wide array of subjects from metaphysics and symbolism to the critique of the modern world and traditional sciences. One of the constant themes of his corpus is the sharp contrast between the traditional worldview shared by various religions of the world and modernism, which he considered to be an anomaly in the history of mankind. His writings devoted to the critique of modernism and the modern world contain some of the most profound and enduring analyses of the modern world and its philosophical outlook. Orient and Occident and The Crisis of the Modern World, both published in the first half of the 20th century, are still widely read today and have been translated into various languages. In addition to these two books devoted exclusively to the critique of the modern world from a traditionalist point of view, Guénon’s other writings contain many references to metaphysical and philosophical misconceptions prevalent in modern Western societies.

The second part of Guénon’s corpus deals with traditional doctrines and it is in these works that Guénon attempts to revive traditional concepts and sciences that have been either ignored or lost with the rise of modern philosophy. Such works as The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, Multiple States of Being and Fundamental Symbols of Sacred Science are devoted to the revival of traditional doctrines and have been instrumental in the rise and spread of the Traditionalist School represented by such figures as Frithjof Schuon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Titus Burckhardt, Marco Pallis, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Martin Lings. In addition to these, some of Guénon’s writings deal with certain themes and specific religious traditions, all of which have been written from the same perspective of traditional metaphysics and esoterism. For this category of writings, we can mention The Symbolism of the Cross, Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, and The Grand Triad.

Guénon’s view of science is an integral part of his endeavor of reviving the traditional worldview and cannot be properly understood in isolation from the general purview that he adopts throughout his works. The gist of Guénon’s metaphysical views also lies at the heart of the Traditionalist School: the primordial and perennial Truth, which manifests itself in a variety of religious traditions and metaphysical systems, has been lost in the modern world. The modernists seek to reduce all higher principles and levels of reality to their manifestation in the world of multiplicity and relative existence. Modern philosophy carries this out by reducing everything to the individualistic horizon of the subject and by relegating objective reality to the discursive constructions of the knowing subject. In the field of natural sciences, positivism and its scientistic allies similarly reject any reality that is beyond the reach and scrutiny of the quantitative measurement of physical sciences. In the social realm, the moral and aesthetic principles are left to the arbitrary decisions and consensuses of the majority, thus jeopardizing the objective reality of the truth. For Guénon, the malaise of the modern world is its relentless denial of the metaphysical realm, the metaphysical world being comprised of both philosophy and spirituality. Guénon sees everything in the world of creation as an application and manifestation of metaphysical principles that are contained in the perennial teachings of religions, and applies them to every single subject that he addresses in his works. Both the value of traditional sciences of nature and the misguided claims of modern secular science are judged in proportion to their proximity or distance from these principles. In this sense, Guénon is a metaphysician par excellence who has devoted his life to the diagnosis and correction of the metaphysical mistakes of the modern world.

As far as Guénon’s writings on science are concerned, we can apply the aforementioned two-fold distinction and analyze his views in two broad categories. While the first category of writings pertains to the critical analysis of modern science and its philosophical viewpoint, the second group of writings deals with traditional sciences of nature, such as cosmology, alchemy, philosophy of numbers, and the science of the soul, which Guénon elucidates as numerous applications of metaphysical principles to the domain of the relative and the physical.

To emphasize the deep contrast between the traditional and modern sciences, Guénon calls the former ‘sacred science’ and the latter ‘profane science’ (The Crisis of the Modern World, p. 37, 47). Sacred science, which, in this particular context, is synonymous with traditional science, is based on "intellectual intuition" on the one hand, and the acceptance of the hierarchy of being, on the other. For Guénon, intellectual intuition, which lies at the foundation of traditional societies, precedes discursive knowledge for it is directly related to the knowledge of the Absolute. The relative, which is the domain of physical sciences and their applications in the form of various quantitative methods and technology, is not to be denied but placed in its proper position in the great chain of being. Sciences of nature deal with the relative in the total economy of things, and in this sense they pertain to the world of multiplicity. This explains, according to Guénon, the existence of various traditional sciences that display significant differences in form and language from one traditional civilization to another but remain the same in essence and principle. When construed as multifarious adaptations and "illustrations" (Ibid., p. 48) of metaphysical principles to the realm of corporeal existence, the traditional cosmological and scientific systems that use different methodologies and languages within and across civilizations become justified. In understanding Guénon’s notion of science, therefore, one can hardly overemphasize the significance of the relation between the Principle and its adaptations. For Guénon, metaphysics studies the Principle and provides principial knowledge whereas the sciences of nature investigate its earthly, relative, and multi-layered manifestation in the cosmos. Scientific theories, even when enunciated as empirically established and universal truths, cannot function as substitutes for higher principles but only as further corroborations of the principles of which they are but applications. In this regard, metaphysics, as Aristotle has said, is the science of all sciences, namely it is a knowledge that provides a total framework for all other forms of knowledge, whether based on theoria or praxis. Consequently, metaphysics connects all branches and forms of knowledge, supplying a frame of reference within which the physical sciences function. To carry this point a step further, Guénon reverses the relation between theory and experiment and gives priority to "preconceived ideas" - a point of view remarkably close to Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigm. For Guénon, it is a "peculiar delusion, typical of modern ‘experimentalism’, to suppose that a theory can be proved by facts whereas really the same facts can always be equally well explained by a variety of different theories" (Ibid., p. 42).

Guénon attributes this mistake to what he calls the "superstition of facts", a creation of modern profane science, which supposes that science investigates "bare facts" devoid of any subjective, theoretical or supra-sensual ingredients. By contrast, Guénon makes a radical intellectual claim and grounds all human understanding, theoretical, experimental or aesthetic, in intellectual intuition, which is also the main gateway to metaphysical knowledge. All knowledge is a form of understanding in one way or another - a conclusion voiced and articulated by many philosophers of modern hermeneutics. To use the terminology of the philosophy of science, we can assuredly say that Guénon would agree with the basic postulate that all observation is theory laden, i.e., it is preceded by a set of preconceived ideas and suppositions that cannot be accounted for within the exclusive purview of physical sciences. As we have pointed out before, sciences of nature are applications and adaptations of metaphysical principles to particular fields of study and as such derive their philosophical justification not from their subject matter, as the positivists would argue, but from those principles that inform and determine their purview. In this sense, scientific knowledge, insofar as it derives its justification from principles, is neither false nor useless. Thus Guénon emphatically states that "there is no question of maintaining that any kind of knowledge, however inferior, is illegitimate in itself; what is not legitimate is simply the abuse which occurs when subjects of this kind absorb the whole of human activity, as is the case today." (Ibid., p. 43).

It is from this point of view that Guénon takes up the question of the rise of the experimental method in modern sciences. He puts the question in the following way: "Why have the experimental sciences received a development in the modern civilization such as they have never received at the hands of any other civilization before?" (Ibid., p. 42). Guénon answers this crucial question by underscoring a powerful tendency of the modern world, and it is the exclusive concern of the modern mind with what is given to us in our immediate sense experience. Natural sciences by definition confine themselves to the corporeal realm and provide a systematic access to what can be tested only in the sensible world. The sciences thus deal with the most minimal aspect of reality, which is what is immediately available to us in terms of sensation, feelings, experiences, and so on. Once the quantitative dimension of things is construed to be the ultimate foundation of what can be known and studied, philosophy, following Kant and his students, becomes a handmaid of physics, viz., a mere interpreter of the data supplied by physical sciences.

For Guénon, this represents the peak of modern reductionism, which turns all intellectual endeavors into bad philosophy. This is what Guénon calls "the reign of quantity" as the title of his most important work on traditional sciences of nature states (See his The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, Introduction). As Guénon puts it, the reason why the experimental method has gained an unprecedented prominence in the modern world is that the physical sciences "confine their attention to things of the senses and to the world of matter, and also that they lend themselves readily to the most immediate practical applications; their development, going hand in hand with what may well be termed the "superstition of facts", is thus quite in accordance with the specifically modern tendencies, whereas preceding ages would, on the contrary, have been unable to find sufficient inducements for becoming absorbed in this direction to the extent of neglecting the higher orders of knowledge." (The Crisis of the Modern World, pp. 42-3).

Thus Guénon considers the rise of modern science not as a natural outcome of advances in experimental methods but rather as a result of a fundamental change in modern man’s Weltanschauung, which Guénon takes to be a "process of degeneration" from the point of view of intuitive-metaphysical knowledge. By the same token, the infinitely detailed data gathered by the sciences about the quantitative dimension of reality signifies, for Guénon, not a deepening of knowledge but "dispersion in detail...which can be pursued indefinitely without advancing a single step further in the direction of true knowledge." (Ibid., p. 41). As Guénon has explained in the Reign of Quantity and his other writings, this is a result of the severing of scientific knowledge from higher principles outlined by traditional metaphysics. Another important outcome of this process is that the natural sciences are now concerned primarily with practical applications, and in many cases this is combined with a will to power. This is the common confusion between science and technology. As Guénon puts it: "...it is not for its own sake that Westerners in general cultivate science as they understand it; their primary aim is not knowledge, even of an inferior order, but practical applications, as may be inferred from the ease with which the majority of our contemporaries confuse science and industry, so that by many the engineer is looked upon as a typical man of science" (Ibid., p. 41).

Guénon assigns two interrelated functions to the sciences of nature when they are conceived in their traditional setting. The first pertains to the fact that sciences as "applications of the doctrine... allow of linking up all the different orders of reality one to another and of integrating them in the unity of the total synthesis." (Ibid., p. 47). Said differently, natural sciences analyze the hierarchy of being and show the underlying unity that exists in various domains of the cosmos. The second function of the traditional sciences of nature is rather pedagogical in that they prepare us for higher forms of knowledge: "they [i.e., natural sciences] constitute, for some people at least, and in accordance with their own particular aptitudes, a preparation for a higher type of knowledge and a kind of pathway leading towards it, while from their hierarchical arrangement, according to the levels of existence to which they relate, they form as it were so many rungs of a ladder with the aid of which it is possible to raise oneself to the heights of pure intellectuality."

Guénon has further developed the above themes in The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times with more emphasis on the analysis of various scientific concepts from the traditional point of view. With great mastery and lucidity, Guénon deals with such concepts as quantity and quality, prime matter, "spatial quantity and qualified space", time, individuation, unity and simplicity, "solidification of the world", geometrical symbols, numbers, change and becoming, and a host of other concepts, all analyzed with a view towards underscoring the deep intellectual transformation that took place with the rise of modern secular science. In this particular book whose title summarizes a great deal of its message, Guénon focuses on the quantification of reality in the name of scientific measurement, prediction, exactitude.

As the most prominent defender of traditional metaphysics and philosophy of science in the 20th century, Guénon has played a key role in the development of a highly critical position towards what Wolfgang Smith has called modern ‘scientism’. Even though Guénon has remained somewhat unknown in Western academic circles owing to his scathing criticism of the modern worldview and uncompromising defense of tradition, his writings have made a deep impact on many intellectuals and writers in the West and the East.

Bibliography

René Guénon’s major works include the following:

The Crisis of the Modern World, tr. by A. Osborne, M. Pallis, R. Nicholson (London: Luzac, 1962).

The Multiple States of Being, tr. by Jocelyn Godwin (New York: Larson, 1984).

The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, tr. by Lord Northbourne (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972).

Symbolism of the Cross, tr. by Angus Macnab (London: Luzac, 1958).

East and West, tr. by William Massey (London: Luzac, 1941). See also the new translation by Martin Lings (New York: Sophia Perennis, 2001).

The Esotericism of Dante, tr. by Henry D. Fohr (New York: Sophia Perennis, 2001).

The Great Triad, tr. by Peter Kingsley (Cambridge: Quinta Essentia, 1991).

Insights into Islamic Esoterism and Taoism, tr. by Henry D. Fohr (New York: Sophia Perennis, 2001).

Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, tr. by M. Pallis (London: Luzac, 1945).

Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, tr. By R. Nicholson (London: Luzac, 1946).

The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus, tr. by Henry D. Fohr (New York: Sophia Perennis, 2001).

Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power, tr. by Henry D. Fohr (New York: Sophia Perennis, 2001).

Fundamental Symbols: The Universal Language of Sacred Science, tr. by Alvin Moore, revised and edited by martin Lings (Cambridge: Quinta Essentia, 1995).

One may also refer to the following sources for Guenon’s life and writings:

Rene Alleau and M. Scriabine, René Guénon et l’Actualite de la Pensee Traditionnelle: Actes du Colloque International de Cerisy-La-Salle; 13-20 Julliet 1973 (Paris: Dervy Livres, 1981).

Robin Waterfield, René Guénon and the Future of the West: the Life and Writings of a 20th-century Metaphysician (Wellingborough: Crucible, 1987)

Jean Robin, René Guénon: Temoin de la Tradition (Paris: G. Tredaniel)


Read more!

Anonymous, René Guénon and the "Reign of Quantity" - (full text)





René Guénon was a man who did not like biography, he had contempt for the cult of personality and believed that the age-old wisdom should stand or fall by itself. That being said, some introduction to him may prove prudent. Rene Guénon was born on the 15th November 1886. He received an excellent education, yet suffered from many health problems throughout his youth. His mind proved astute and his quickly mastered the "classical" form of education common during that period, he particularly excelled at mathematics. However, that was not enough for Guénon. He located and joined a range of esoteric and gnostic organisations delving deep into the secret traditions, he wandered through this "wastelands" of secret societies for some seven years. In 1909 he was consecrated Bishop of Synesuis in the Gnostic Church founded by Papus under the name of Palingensuis. Guénon's life at this time was complex and complicated. While he was involved with many esoteric, occult and Gnostic organizations, he also undertook study (and initiation?) into many traditional esoteric bodies related to Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Taoism. He spent many years between 1912 and 1928 within the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church, while many also believe he became initiated into the Sufi school of Islam around 1912, it seems more likely this occurred during his later sojourn in Egypt during the 1930’s. In any event, during this foundation period he digests whatever knowledge he can gain and begins to develop a truly encyclopaedic knowledge and deep understanding of the esoteric traditions.

As time passes, Guénon seems to reach a crossroads, while acknowledging the value of esotericism, he comes to regard many of the prevailing movements of the period as anarchistic, idiosyncratic and distortions of the true perennial esoteric tradition. He makes a break with them and begins his own research. His life work begins to unfold at this moment; he starts to truly appreciate the real nature of esotericism and the importance of "living traditions". Between 1927 and 1930 he works to expound esotericism as the living heart of religion, however, he experiences a great disillusionment due to hostility within elements of Catholicism towards his work (especially towards his book Lord of the World) and after the death of his wife migrates to Egypt in 1930 and is initiated into the Sufi Order of Shadilities and takes the name Abdel Wahed Yahya. He publishes some of his most important works during this period on esotericism, criticism of modern society and symbolism, Rene Guénon died, living as a Sufi, in December 1950.

His work can be divided into four major categories - Esotericism, Symbolism, Social Criticism and Religious exposition. Guénon was not one to destroy the edifices of a belief or doctrine without also expounding the real teaching of which it is a distortion or corruption. His works on the modern world are the most astringent, critical and biting critiques of our modern way of life that have ever been written. Crisis of the Modern World and The Reign of Quantity demolish the false structures that we have created in the name of progress and "supposed evolution" and show just how far modern man has moved away from the perennial tradition. Guénon’s works on both religion and esotericism respond to modern "pseudo-intellectualism", theosophies and spiritualisms (including what we would describe as the new age) by re-asserting the pristine and original esotericism as found in the Vedas, Islam, Christianity and related canons. These works are astounding presentations offering erudite academic achievement coupled with a rare depth of insight and vision. However, to really appreciate the significance of Guénon’s work we must understand some of the key concepts found in what could be described as his "traditionalist esoteric" vision.

The book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times is pivotal to Guénon's worldview. It is an extremely dense book that has resulted from years of planning, it is as though every word had been carefully chosen and every page refined time and time again. It is not easy to read, but certainly rewards those who make the effort. Its central focus is Guénon's re-instatement of the traditional view of history. In this view history is a record of decline. Guénon’s uses as a foundation the age-old Vedic tradition of the Yugas or four ages. This tradition is based on periods known as Gold, Silver, Copper and Iron is are also found in many other traditions ranging from Buddhism to Greek Philosophy. These ages do not develop or evolve, but are a series of degenerative steps. The age of silver is less evolved, has less knowledge than the age of Gold or the "Golden Age". The Kali Yuga or Epoch of Iron, in which we are presently stranded, is the most dark, dense and degenerative of all. This model stands against the rationalist, scientific, model of evolution and progress, even if man’s (and it is a big "if") physical organism has been evolving (as well as his technology), his spirit, soul and culture has been heading in the other direction.

Perhaps the best illustration of his concept is found in Guénon’s elucidation of Quality and Quantity. For Guénon Quality is the epitome of the Age of Gold, when true spiritual experience was found by excelling in one’s exploration of Self as part of a vital spiritual tradition. The opposite of this is what is found today, an emphasis on quantity, units, and the "lowest common denominator". Instead of emphasizing how we can raise levels of education, skill and awareness, we talk about averaging, affirmative action, political correctness and "educational adjustments" due to minority status. Quality is embodied in skills, crafts and personal ability - in a word achievement. Quantity is embodied in reducing humanity to numbers, units, and a cog in a wheel. Modern employment, for example, has reduced most jobs to quantity, most people can fit into an office or factory job, no special skills are warranted or required. Modern man has become a faceless number or an equation; this is the reign of quantity. Guénon's anti-modernist worldview is found clearly expressed in both The Reign of Quantity and Crisis of the Modern World, for those who find heavy dense metaphysical contemplation overpowering, I would suggest that Crisis of the Modern World is the best place to start!

Coupled with Guénon’s persuasive arguments against the modern world, is his understanding of living religious traditions. For Guénon a religion is that which has a living link with the Perennial wisdom, the truth that began in the Age of Gold and has emanated, like ripples in a pond, throughout time. The core of that religion must be a living esoteric tradition. Every true vital religion is hence a dynamic balance between outer forms, sacraments and rituals (exotericism) and the inner, sometimes withdrawn, esoteric teachings. Guénon saw that within the Kali Yuga these teachings were becoming debased and that these traditions were loosing their link to the perennial wisdom, as such they were becoming atrophied and even, in some cases, becoming "counter traditions". Guénon worked to re-instate the esotericism behind the forms and traditions of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and other living religions. His perceptions and insight into these faiths and the true meanings of their symbols still stands the test of time today. Extending from the dynamics of exotericism and esotericism, Guénon was able to pinpoint and denounce false traditions and those that did not function from a point within the perennial wisdom. Guénon's works in this field are extensive and include such volumes as Man and his becoming according to the Vedanta, Studies in Hinduism and Introduction to the study of Hindu Doctrines. These volumes while focused the Hindu Esoteric tradition offers an insight into the inner life that is applicable within any living tradition.

If a living tradition must exist from a qualitative point within the perennial wisdom then Guénon reasoned that many (if not most) of the movements, cults, isms and philosophies of his day (and indeed of today) were embodiments of the spirit of the age rather than true spiritual traditions. Furthermore, he found by critically studying spiritualism, theosophy and other movements which now could be seen as "new age", that these movements were manifestations of the Zeitgeist of the Kali Yuga and hence were false traditions and operated in a counter initiatic manner. Guénon’s denouncements of these movements were venomous and without pity, he believed it was imperative to shine the light of wisdom on paths that were leading humanity towards destruction rather than illumination. At the same time Guénon also stressed the importance of a vital esoteric core to the living traditions. If you remove the esotericism of a living tradition then it atrophies and becomes a dead shell, if not a "counter traditional" movement itself. The tendencies within the living traditions of the present age illustrate how far the negativity of the present period is encroaching upon the very movements that are the lifeblood of our spiritual life. If we compare both fundamentalist Christianity (and the related forms of Protestantism) or the social-gospel of the left wing of the Church we can see how far it has moved from the mysticism and majesty of its original vision. At the same time this traditionalist vision is not reactionary, we are not talking about a return to "1950’s" homespun moral values as so many "so-called" traditionalists teach today. We are talking about a revitalization of real esotericism from within the vital bodies of the world’s religions, or perhaps, from within what is left of them.

Modern man is in a state of decline, the Kali Yuga is reaching a crescendo and the scientific/technological culture that he has created has stolen the mysticism from his soul and replaced it with consumerism and materialism. The most fashionable spiritual fads represent "lowest common denominator" movements which move the wallet rather than the mind and which accustom people to "counter initiatic" values. The esoteric traditions themselves have become isolated from their traditional exoteric "homes" and in isolation have become morally bankrupt and full of false promise. Guénon argued quite prophetically that in the Kali Yuga even the language and terminology of the Mysteries would be lost. Today this is undoubtedly so, concepts such as Karma, Soul, Magic, Alchemy, Hermeticism, occultism (we could continue indefinitely), have been countermanded and used in ways contrary to their transcendent nature. For modern man to survive the tumultuous upheavals that are occurring and will accelerate as we head into the future, he must regain his soul and in Guénon’s view, rediscover the vital esoteric traditions that are staring him in the face. There is no need for new fads, movements, nor to travel to foreign and exotic places, within our own heritage(s) is a life changing tradition if only we can rediscover it.

The following piece was found at http://pages.zoom.co.uk/thuban/html/guenon.htm. The author's name is unknown.


Read more!

03 mai 2008

René Guénon, Capitolul IV. Cele trei funcţii supreme (Regele lumii)

După Saint-Yves, conducătorul suprem al "Agartthei" poartă titlul de "Brahatma" (mai corect ar fi să scriem "Brahmatma"), «sprijinul sufletelor în Spiritul lui Dumnezeu»; iar cei doi adjuncţi ai săi sunt "Mahatma", «reprezentant al Sufletului universal» şi "Mahanga", «simbol al întregii organizări materiale a Cosmosului» [i]: aceasta este diviziunea ierarhică pe care doctrinele occidentale o reprezintă prin intermediul treimii «spirit, suflet, corp», şi care este aplicată aici conform analogiei constitutive a Macrocosmosului şi a Microcosmosului. Este important să observăm că aceşti termeni, în sanscrită, desemnează doar nişte principii şi nu pot fi aplicaţi unor fiinţe omeneşti decât dacă ele reprezintă aceste principii, astfel încât, chiar şi în acest caz, ei sunt legaţi îndeosebi de funcţii şi nu de individualităţi. După Ossendowski, "Mahatma" «cunoaşte evenimentele viitorului», iar "Mahanga" «determină cauzele acestor evenimente»; cât despre "Brahatma", el poate «vorbi cu Dumnezeu faţă în faţă» [ii], şi este uşor de înţeles ce înseamnă acest lucru, dacă ne amintim că el ocupă punctul central în care se stabileşte comunicarea directă a lumii terestre cu stările superioare şi, prin intermediul lor, cu Principiul suprem [iii]. De altfel, expresia «Regele Lumii», înţeleasă în sens strict şi exclusiv în raport cu lumea terestră, ar fi destul de inadecvată; mult mai exact, din anumite puncte de vedere, ar fi să i se atribuie lui "Brahatma" numele de «Domn al celor trei lumi» [iv] întrucât, în orice ierarhie adevărată, cel ce posedă gradul superior, are, în acelaşi timp, şi prin chiar această posesie, toate gradele subordonate, iar cele «trei lumi» (care formează "Tribhuvana" tradiţiei hinduse) sunt, după cum vom arăta mai târziu, domeniile ce corespund respectiv celor trei funcţii pe care tocmai le-am enumerat.

«Când iese din Templu,» spune Ossendowski, «Regele Lumii radiază Lumina divină». Biblia evreiască spune exact acelaşi lucru despre Moise când coboară de pe Sinai [v] şi, în legătură cu aceasta, să remarcăm că tradiţia islamică îl consideră pe Moise drept cel ce a fost «Polul» ("El-Qutb") epocii sale; de altfel, nu acesta este motivul pentru care Cabala spune că a fost instruit de "Metatron" însuşi ? Ar trebui chiar să facem o distincţie între centrul spiritual suprem al lumii noastre şi centrele secundare care îi pot fi subordonate şi care îl reprezintă numai în raport cu anumite tradiţii, adaptate special anumitor popoare. Fără a divaga prea mult asupra acestei chestiuni, să observăm că funcţia de «legislator» (în arabă "rasul"), proprie lui Moise, presupune în mod necesar o delegare a puterii, pe care o desemnează numele de "Manu"; iar, pe de altă parte, unul din sensurile inerente ale numelui "Manu" indică tocmai reflectarea Luminii divine. «Regele Lumii», i-a spus un Lama lui Ossendowski, «se află în legătură cu gândurile tuturor celor ce conduc destinele omenirii... Le cunoaşte intenţiile şi ideile. Dacă acestea îi plac lui Dumnezeu, Regele Lumii le va sprijini, cu ajutorul său invizibil; dacă nu îi plac lui Dumnezeu, Regele va face ca ele să eşueze. Aceasta este puterea dată "Agharţilor" prin intermediul ştiinţei misterioase a lui "Om", cuvânt cu care începem toate rugăciunile noastre». Urmează imediat o frază care îl lasă, fără îndoială, stupefiat pe oricine are o cât de vagă idee despre semnificaţia monosilabei sacre "Om": «"Om" este numele unui sfânt din vechime, primul "Goro" [Ossendowski scrie "goro" în loc de "guru"], care a trăit acum trei sute de mii de ani». Într-adevăr, această frază este absolut de neînţeles dacă nu ţinem seama de faptul că epoca despre care este vorba, şi care de altfel nouă ni se pare indicată într-un mod destul de vag, este anterioară cu mult erei prezentului "Manu"; pe de altă parte, "Adi-Manu" sau primul "Manu" al "Kalpei" noastre (în care "Vaivaswata" este cel de-al şaptelea) se numeşte "Swayambhuva", adică ieşit din "Swayambh–", «Cel care subzistă prin sine însuşi», sau "Logosul" veşnic; iar "Logosul", sau cine îl reprezintă în mod direct, poate într-adevăr să fie desemnat ca primul dintre "Guru" sau «Maeştrii spirituali»; şi, în realitate, "Om" este un nume al "Logosului" [vi].

Pe de altă parte, cuvântul "Om" ne dă imediat cheia repartizării ierarhice a funcţiilor între "Brahatma" şi cei doi adjuncţi ai săi, pe care noi am arătat-o mai înainte. De fapt, după tradiţia hindusă, cele trei elemente ale acestei monosilabe sacre simbolizează respectiv cele «trei lumi» la care făceam aluzie mai înainte, adică cei trei termeni ai "Tribhuvana": Pământul ("Bh–"), Atmosfera ("Bhuvas"), Cerul ("Swar"), sau, cu alte cuvinte, lumea manifestării corporale, lumea manifestării subtile sau psihice, şi lumea iniţială ne- manifestată [vii]. Acestea sunt, de jos în sus, împărăţiile lui "Mahanga", "Mahatma" şi "Brahatma", după cum putem constata uitându-ne la interpretarea titlurilor lor, pe care am făcut-o anterior; iar raporturile de subordonare existente între diferitele împărăţii justifică, pentru "Brahatma", apelativul de «Domn al celor trei lumi» pe care l-am folosit deja [viii]: «Acesta este Domnul tuturor lucrurilor, atotştiutorul (care vede imediat toate efectele prin prisma cauzei lor), ocârmuitorul interior (care stă în centrul lumii şi o conduce dinăuntru, dirijându-i mişcarea fără a lua parte la ea), izvorul (oricărei puteri legitime), începutul şi sfârşitul tuturor fiinţelor (a manifestării ciclice a cărei lege o reprezintă el)» [ix].

Servindu-ne de un alt simbolism, la fel de precis, vom spune că "Mahanga" reprezintă baza triunghiului iniţiatic iar "Brahatma" vârful acestuia; între cele două, "Mahatma" încarnează într-un anumit sens un principiu mediator (vitalitatea cosmică, "Anima Mundi" a Hermeticilor), a cărui acţiune se desfăşoară în «spaţiul intermediar»; iar toate acestea sunt arătate foarte clar de literele corespunzătoare ale alfabetului sacru, pe care Saint-Yves le numeşte "vattan" iar Ossendowski "vatannan", sau, ceea ce este acelaşi lucru, de formele geometrice (linia dreaptă, spirala, punctul) la care se referă în mod special cele trei "matra" sau elemente constitutive ale monosilabei "Om". Să ne explicăm cu şi mai mare claritate: lui "Brahatma" îi aparţine deplinătatea celor două puteri, sacerdotală şi regală, considerate în principal şi într-un oarecare sens în stare nediferenţiată; cele două puteri se disting mai apoi, pentru a se manifesta, iar atunci "Mahatma" reprezintă puterea sacerdotală iar "Mahanga" puterea regală. O atare distincţie corespunde celei a "Brahmanilor" şi a "Kshatriya"; situându-se însă «dincolo de caste», "Mahatma" şi "Mahanga" au în ei înşişi, ca şi "Brahatma", un caracter sacerdotal şi regal în acelaşi timp. În legătură cu aceasta, să lămurim un lucru rămas poate fără o explicaţie satisfăcătoare, dar care este totodată important: am amintit mai devreme de «Regii Magi» din Evanghelii, spunând că aceştia reunesc în ei cele două puteri; vom spune acum că aceste personaje misterioase nu reprezintă altceva, în realitate, decât pe cei trei conducători din "Agarttha" [x]. "Mahanga" îi oferă lui Christos aur şi îl salută ca pe un «Rege»; "Mahatma" îi oferă tămâia şi îl salută ca pe un «Sacerdot»; înfine, "Brahatma", îi oferă mirul (adică balsamul incoruptibilităţii, imagine a"Amritei") [xi] şi îl salută ca pe un «Profet» sau Maestru spiritual prin excelenţă. Omagiul adus astfel Christosului de-abia născut, în cele trei lumi care sunt şi împărăţiile acestora, de reprezentanţii autentici ai tradiţiei primordiale, este în acelaşi timp, după cum se vede, simbolul perfectei ortodoxii a Creştinismului faţă de aceştia. Desigur, Ossendowski, nu se putea gândi la astfel de interpretări; dar, dacă ar fi înţeles anumite lucruri mai profund decât a făcut-o, ar fi putut măcar sublinia analogia strictă care există între ternarul suprem din "Agarttha" şi cel din Lamaism, după cum îl descrie chiar el: "Dalai-Lama", «care realizează sanctitatea (sau spiritualitatea pură) a lui "Buddha"», "Tashi- Lama", «care realizează ştiinţa acestuia» (nu «magică», ci mai degrabă «teurgică»), şi "Bogdo-Khan", «care reprezintă forţa materială şi războinică»; exact aceeaşi împărţire, conform celor «trei lumi». Ar fi putut face această observaţie cu foarte multă uşurinţă, întrucât i se spusese că «capitala "Aghartei" seamănă cu Lhassa, unde palatul lui "Dalai-Lama", "Potala", se află pe vârful unui munte acoperit de temple şi de mănăstiri»; de altfel, acest mod de a expune lucrurile este greşit, pentru că răstoarnă raporturile: astfel, putem spune despre o imagine că aminteşte de prototipul ei, şi nu invers. Or, centrul Lamaismului nu poate fi decât o imagine a adevăratului «Centru al Lumii»; însă toate centrele de acest fel prezintă, în ce priveşte locurile în care sunt situate, anumite particularităţi topografice comune, care, departe de a fi irelevante, au o valoare simbolică incontestabilă şi, în plus, trebuie să se afle în legătură cu legile după care acţionează «influxurile spirituale»; însă această problemă priveşte tocmai acea ştiinţă tradiţională care poate fi numită «geografie sacră». Mai există şi o altă potrivire demnă de a fi notată: Saint-Yves, descriind diversele grade sau cercuri ale ierarhiei iniţiatice, care sunt în legătură cu anumite numere simbolice ce se referă mai ales la diviziuni ale timpului, termină spunând că «cercul cel mai înalt şi mai apropiat de centrul misterios se compune din doisprezece membri, care reprezintă iniţierea supremă şi corespund, între altele, zonei zodiacale». Această structură se află reprodusă în aşa-numitul «consiliu rotund» al lui "Dalai- Lama", constituit din doisprezece mari "Namshan" (sau "Nomekhan"); şi poate fi regăsit, de altfel, şi în anumite tradiţii occidentale, mai ales în cele ce privesc «Cavalerii Mesei Rotunde». Să mai adăugăm că cei doisprezece membri ai cercului interior din "Agarttha", din punctul de vedere al ordinii cosmice, nu reprezintă numai cele douăsprezece semne ale Zodiacului, ci şi (ba chiar, cu toate că cele două interpretări nu se exclud, am fi tentaţi să spunem «mai degrabă»), cei doisprezece "Aditya", care sunt tot atâtea forme ale Soarelui, în raport cu aceleaşi semne zodiacale [xii]; şi, desigur, aşa cum "Manu Vaivaswata" este numit «fiu al Soarelui», tot astfel «Regele Lumii» are printre simbolurile sale şi Soarele [xiii]. Prima concluzie care rezultă din toate acestea este că există cu adevărat legături foarte strânse între descrierile care, în toate ţările, se referă la centri spirituali mai mult sau mai puţin ascunşi, sau cel puţin greu accesibili. Singura explicaţie plauzibilă a acestui fapt, ţinând cont că aceste descrieri se referă, probabil, la centri diferiţi, este că aceştia nu sunt, ca să spunem aşa, decât emanaţii ale unui centru unic şi suprem, aşa după cum toate tradiţiile locale nu sunt, până la urmă, decât adaptări ale marii tradiţii primordiale.


Note:

[i] Ossendowski scrie "Brahytma", "Mahytma", "Mahynga".

[ii] Am văzut mai devreme că "Metatron" este «Îngerul Chipului».

[iii] După tradiţia extrem-orientală, «Mijlocul Invariabil» este locul în care se manifestă «Activitatea Cerului».

[iv] Cei ce vor fi uimiţi de o atare expresie vor trebui să se întrebe dacă s-au gândit vreodată la ce înseamnă "triregnum"-ul, tiara cu trei coroane care, alături de chei, este unul din principalele însemne ale Papalităţii.

[v] Se mai spune şi faptul că Moise trebuia să îşi acopere faţa cu un văl pentru a putea vorbi poporului, care nu putea suporta splendoarea acestuia (Exod, XXIV, 29-35); în sens simbolic, aceasta indică necesitatea unei adaptări exoterice pentru mulţime. Să mai amintim şi dubla semnificaţie a cuvântului «a revela», care poate să însemne fie a «scoate vălul», “a dezvălui”, fie a «reacoperi cu un văl»; astfel, cuvântul dezvăluie şi acoperă în acelaşi timp gândul pe care îl exprimă.

[vi] Acest nume se regăseşte, în mod mai degrabă surprinzător, şi în vechiul simbolism creştin, unde, printre semnele care serveau la reprezentarea lui Christos, se întâlneşte unul care a fost considerat mai târziu drept o prescurtare a lui Ave Maria, dar care a fost la origine un echivalent al semnului ce reuneşte cele două litere extreme ale alfabetului grec, alpha şi omega, pentru a arăta că Cuvântul este începutul şi sfârşitul tuturor lucrurilor; în realitate, acesta este chiar şi mai complet, pentru că semnifică începutul, mijlocul şi sfârşitul. Semnul (...) se descompune în AUM, adică în literele latine care corespund exact celor trei elemente constitutive ale monosilabei "Om" (vocala O fiind formată, în sanscrită, din unirea lui A şi a lui U). Asemănarea semnului "Aum" şi a "svasticii", luate amândouă ca simboluri ale lui Christos, ni se pare deosebit de semnificativă din punctul nostru de vedere. Pe de altă parte trebuie remarcat faptul că forma acestui semn prezintă doi ternari dispuşi reciproc în sens invers, ceea ce formează, sub anumite aspecte, un echivalent al «sigiliului lui Solomon»: dacă îl considerăm pe acesta din urmă ca având forma (...) în care linia orizontală mediană precizează semnificaţia generală a simbolului trasând planul de reflecţie sau «suprafaţa Apelor», se vede că cele două figuri cuprind acelaşi număr de linii şi nu diferă decât prin dispunerea a două din acestea, care, din orizontale în prima, devin verticale în cealaltă.

[vii] Pentru o dezvoltare ulterioară privind această concepţie a celor «trei lumi», facem trimitere la operele noastre precedente: "Ezoterismul lui Dante" şi "Omul şi devenirea sa după Vêdanta". În prima am insistat mai ales asupra corespondenţelor acestor lumi, care sunt tocmai stări ale fiinţei, cu gradele iniţierii. În cea de a doua am dat explicaţia completă, dintr-un punct de vedere pur metafizic, a textului "Mand–kya Upanishad" în care este expus integral simbolismul în cauză, din care vrem să menţionăm aici o anumită aplicaţie.

[viii] În ordinea princìpiilor universale, funcţia lui "Brahatma" se referă la "Ishwara", cea a lui "Mahatma" la "Hiranyagarbha", cea a lui "Mahanga" la "Viraj": atributele respective ale acestora pot fi cu uşurinţă deduse din această corespondenţă.

[ix] "Mand–kya Upanishad", shruti 6.

[x] Saint-Yves spune pe bună dreptate că cei trei «Regi Magi» veneau din "Agarttha", dar nu dă nici un alt detaliu despre acest lucru. – Numele care le sunt atribuite în mod obişnuit sunt, probabil, fruct al fanteziei, cu excepţia celui al lui "Melki-Or", în ebraică «Rege al Luminii», care este destul de semnificativ.

[xi] "Amrita" hinduşilor sau Ambrozia Grecilor (două cuvinte etimologic identice), băutură sau hrană a nemuririi, era prefigurată de "Soma" vedică sau de "Haoma" mazdeeană. – Arborii de cauciuc sau răşinoasele perene joacă un rol foarte important în simbolism, fiind uneori asimilaţi cu embleme ale lui Christos.

[xii] Se spune că "Aditya" (născuţi din "Aditi" sau «Invizibil») au fost şapte, înainte de a fi doisprezece, şi că erau conduşi pe atunci de "Varuna". Cei doisprezece,"Aditya" sunt: "Dhatri", "Mitra", "Aryaman", "Rudra", "Varuna", "S–rya", "Bhaga", "Vivaswat", "P–shan", "Savitri", Twashtri", "Vishnu". Este vorba despre tot atâtea manifestări ale unei esenţe unice şi indivizibile; se mai spune că aceşti doisprezece Sori vor apărea cu toţii simultan la sfârşitul ciclului, reintrând atunci în unitatea esenţială şi primordială a naturii lor comune. - La Greci, cei doisprezece mari Zei din Olimp corespund şi ei celor douăsprezece semne ale Zodiacului.

[xiii] Simbolul la care facem aluzie este tocmai cel pe care liturghia catolică îl atribuie lui Christos atunci când îi dă titlul de "Sol Justitiae"; Cuvântul este chiar «Soarele spiritual», adică adevăratul «Centru al Lumii»; în plus, expresia "Sol Justitiae" se referă în mod direct la atributele lui "Melki-Tsedeq". Să mai remarcăm apoi că leul, animal solar, în antichitate şi în evul mediu este o emblemă a dreptăţii şi a puterii luate împreună; semnul Leului, în Zodiac, este chiar domiciliul propriu al Soarelui. - Se poate înţelege că Soarele cu douăsprezece raze reprezintă cei doisprezece "Aditya": din alt punct de vedere, dacă Soarele îl reprezintă pe Christos, cele douăsprezece raze sunt cei doisprezece Apostoli (cuvântul "apostolos" înseamnă «trimis» iar razele sunt şi ele «trimise» de Soare). De altfel, în numărul celor doisprezece Apostoli putem vedea, printre altele, un semn al perfectei conformităţi a Creştinismului cu tradiţia primordială.


Read more!

02 mai 2008

Spartakus FreeMann, Le Nom de 72 Lettres ou Les 72 Noms de Dieu de la Kabbale (texte intégral)

Les 72 Noms de Dieu, dont dérivent les 72 Génies de la Kabbale chrétienne et occultisante, ont toujours fait rêver les mages, magiciens et occultistes, modernes ou anciens. Le Shem ha-Mephorash dont la connaissance fut possible grâce aux commentaires du Rashi, se retrouve, dès la Renaissance, dans les oeuvres de Cornelius Agrippa, de Pic de la Mirandole et des autres philosophes de l'hermétisme. On retrouvera plus tard ces 72 Génies dans de nombreux grimoires et ouvrages de magie ou même de sorcellerie !

Au 19e siècle, les membres de diverses sociétés occultes et pratiquant la magie cérémonielle tentèrent de récupérer ces 72 Génies en les incorporant dans leurs cérémonies et rituels. Biensûr, ils se gardèrent bien de donner à leurs adeptes l'origine de ces « génies ». En France, on vit même paraître un ouvrage dédié à la Kabbale pratique cherchant à nous faire croire que les 72 génies ou Noms divins participaient des rites d'illustres ordres. Son auteur, Robert Ambelain pour ne pas le citer, sera même assez charitable pour nous donner les sceaux associés à 72 esprits, avant il est vrai se rétracter et annoncer dans les réédition le caractère démoniaque de ces sceaux (!)

L'occultisme contemporain ne restera pas en marge de cette récupération, puisqu'aujourd'hui, on trouve dans toutes bonnes librairies ésotériques de gros livres nous vantant les vertus de ces 72 anges et de leurs implications dans notre vie de tous les jours. Grâce aux travaux d'auteurs modernes comme Aryeh Kaplan et Virya, mais aussi en retournant aux ouvrages de Reuchlin et d'autres kabbalistes chrétiens, nous pouvons aujourd'hui voir une parcelle de la « vérité » dissimulée derrière ces Noms qui devinrent esprits, puis anges puis sources de profits pour des auteurs aimant profiter du besoin de merveilleux de l'homme de notre siècle.

Nous allons ici tenter de retracer l'origine traditionnelle des 72 Noms, ou plutôt Souffles (Ruachoth) en partant du Zohar et de la Torah. Ensuite, dans les annexes, le lecteur trouvera la liste des 72 Anges tels qu'apparaissant dans le Sefer HaRaziel, une table des Noms angéliques en alphabet Malachim (utilisé pour les talismans) et quelques éléments du Bahir et d'autres sources concernant les 72 Noms. Pour les amateurs de fantastique, je n'ai trouvé aucune base sérieuse aux sceaux que l'on trouve habituellement, donc je n'en ai inclus aucun dans ce travail.

En fait, le Zohar nous donne la première indication : « les cieux qui sont soixante-dix noms selon le secret de YHVH, relèvent du secret des soixante-douze noms issus des mots « et il voyagea » « et il vint » « et il entendit » (Exode 14:19:21) ». Ainsi, les 72 Noms de Dieu, constituant ce que l'on appelle aussi le Grand Nom de Septante-deux Lettres, sont dérivés de la Bible, Exode 14, versets 19 à 21 (dans le texte hébreu, ces versets comptent 216 lettres, chaque verset comprenant lui-même 72 lettres) :



Ce qui, dans la traduction de la Bible de Darby, nous donne :

19 Et l’Ange de Dieu, qui allait devant le camp d’Israël, partit, et s’en alla derrière eux; et la colonne de nuée partit de devant eux et se tint derrière eux;

20 et elle vint entre le camp des Égyptiens et le camp d’Israël; et elle fut pour les uns une nuée et des ténèbres, et pour les autres elle éclairait la nuit; et l’un n’approcha pas de l’autre de toute la nuit.

21 Et Moïse étendit sa main sur la mer: et l’Éternel fit aller la mer toute la nuit par un fort vent d’orient, et mit la mer à sec, et les eaux se fendirent;

Soit, mais alors comment trouver dans ce texte pour le moins « anodin », ces fameux 72 Noms ? Et bien, il suffit de lire attentivement ces trois versets : dans le premier, l'Ange d'Elohim va de l'avant vers l'arrière; le second verset nous parle de la nuée qui vient devant et repart vers l'arrière. En appliquant, à la lettre ce procédé, on obtient les triades des 71 Noms en écrivant toutes les lettres des trois versets en question, les unes sur les autres sans aucun point voyelle, ni espace ou signe de ponctuation. Le premier verset est écrit de la manière normale (note : c'est-à-dire de droite à gauche, puisque l'hébreu se lit de droite à gauche), le
second de gauche à droite et le troisième de droite à gauche. Il suffit alors de lire les lettres ainsi agencées colonne afin d'obtenir les triades. Par exemple, la première triade, ainsi composée de la première lettre du premier verset, de la dernière lettre du second verset et de la première lettre du troisième verset, se lit clairement VHV, .והו

Aryeh Kaplan, dans Meditation and Kabbalah p. 93, nous l'explique encore en ces termes : « Chacun de ces versets contient 72 lettres. On prend les lettres du premier verset dans l'ordre normal, celles du second dans l'ordre inverse et celles du troisième verset dans l'ordre normal. Ainsi, on commence avec la première lettre du premier verset, qui est un Vav. On prend ensuite la dernière lettre du second verset, qui est He, et enfin la lettre du troisième
verset qui est un Vav. En combinant ces trois lettres, on obtient le premier triplet VHV. Afin de construire le second triplet on procède de la même manière. On prend la seconde lettre Yod du premier verset, la seconde lettre de la fin du second verset, Lamed, et la seconde du dernier verset, Yod. Le résultat du second triplet est YLY. On continue ainsi jusqu'à obtenir les 72 triplets ».

Nous obtenons ainsi pour résultat le tableau suivant :



Comme nous pouvons le voir, ce tableau n'est pas très explicite en regard de ce que nous avons l'habitude de lire ou d'entendre au sujet des 72 Anges de la Kabbale. En effet, nous ne possédons ici que des racines trilitères, des triades de lettres sans aucune prononciation possible de prime abord du moins. Comment donc, à partir de cela parvenir à tous ces noms en Yah et en El qui enchantent les cérémonies rituelles du samedi soir ?

Tout d'abord, il est bon d'opérer ici une distinction entre ce que l'on nomme les « Anges de la Kabbale » et le « Nom de 72 Lettres ». Comme nous le rappelle Virya, « Les 72 Puissances de la Kabbale » p.8, « Les premiers kabbalistes chrétiens n'ont pas compris comment les kabbalistes juifs pouvaient situer ces 72 Noms... et les premiers kabbalistes chrétiens transformèrent les 72 Noms de 3 lettres en 72 Anges dont les noms ont 5 lettres, en ajoutant des terminaisons soit en El soit en Yah ». Dans son « De Arte Cabalistica », Johan Reuchlin explique ainsi la raison de l'addition des deux terminaisons : « Pour nous donc Dieu est très bon, car il est clément, et il est très grand parce que très fort, ce que représentent les deux Noms Divins Yah et El. Si vous joignez l'un des deux à l'un quelconque des 72 Noms, vous obtiendrez un nom particulièrement remarquable, avec l'accent sur la dernière syllabe. Il faudra toujours le prononcer de façon que les mots soient trisyllabiques... »

Il sera donc clair pour le lecteur de ne pas trouver ici les listes habituelles d' « Anges »...

Afin de découvrir la prononciation possible de ces triades, il faut faire un détour chez le Rabbi Abraham Aboulafia qui décrit dans son livre "Chayey haOlam haBa" une méthode afin de marquer les lettres des Noms de points voyelles, points voyelles qui permettent la prononciation des 72 Noms. « Utilise les voyelles naturelles de chaque lettre, commence en prononçant ces six trilitères : VahéVa – YoLaYo – SaYoTé – EaLaMé – MéHéShi - LaLaHé ». En hébreu, le nom de chaque lettre commence avec la lettre de son nom, c'est à dire que Aleph, qui s'écrit אלף , commence par un Aleph. Ainsi, les lettres des 72 Noms pourront se voir attribuer les mêmes points voyelles que ceux attribués par la lettre du Nom. Explicitement, l'Aleph est marqué d'un kamats, donc tous les Aleph des 72 Noms sont marqués d'un kamats.



Table: les voyelles naturelles selon Aboulafia

Le résultat est alors le suivant que nous comparons à la prononciation donnée par Moïse Cordovéro dans son Pardès Rimonim (Porte 21) :








QUALITE DES NOMS

Chaque Nom se voit attribué une qualité ou un pouvoir particulier. En voici une des variantes donnée par Virya.








UTILISATION PRATIQUE des NOMS

Athanasius Kircher en son « Oedipus Aegyptiacus » donne une liste de 72 Noms de Dieu tirés du Livre des Psaumes (sauf le 70e qui est tiré de la Genèse). Chaque Nom se voit attribuer un verset qui contient les 4 lettres du Tétragramme ainsi que les trois lettres du nom lui-même. Cette liste est donnée également par Virya dans « Les 72 Puissances de la Kabbale » ainsi que dans le « De Arte Cabalistica » de Reuchlin. Il suffirait donc de réciter le Psaume adéquat afin d'attirer sur soi la puissance du Nom qui y est relatif, et donc des qualités
qui lui sont propres. Par exemple pour le premier Nom VEHOU : le psaume qui s'y rapporte est le 3:4 ואְתַהָּ יהְוהָ, מגָןֵ בעַּדֲיִ; כבְּודֹיִ, ומּרֵיִם ראֹש י – en jaune le Tétragramme et en rouge nous avons les trois lettres du noms qui sont présentes dans le Psaume.









Athanasius Kircher – en haut on peut déceler les 72 Noms.

ANNEXES

TABLE des 72 ANGES avec l'ALPHABET MALACHIM par Galadriel






Le BAHIR et les 72 NOMS

Les passages qui suivent sont tirés de la traduction de Virya et sont insérés ici car il complémentent toute recherche sur les 72 Noms de Dieu.

§ 95 - Le saint béni possède un arbre, ayant 12 directions obliques : nord-est, sud-est, supérieure, inférieure, sud-ouest, nord-ouest, occidentale supérieure, occidentale inférieure, sud supérieure, sud inférieure, nord supérieure, inférieure, s’étendant à l’infini et éternellement. Ce sont les "Bras du monde", à l’intérieur desquels se trouve l’arbre. A ces diagonales, correspondent les 12 surveillants. A l’intérieur du galgal (sphère), il y a également 12 surveillants. En comptant les diagonales, cela fait 36 surveillants. Chacun d’eux a son vis-à-vis, comme il est écrit (Ecclésiastes 5:7) : "Et des plus haut placés au-dessus d’eux". Il y en
a donc 9 à l’Est, 9 à l’Ouest, 9 au Nord, 9 au Sud, c’est-à-dire, 12, 12 et 12 surveillants dans le Teli (Dragon), dans le Galgal (Sphère) et dans le Lev (Coeur). Il y a donc 36 surveillants. La puissance de chacun de ces 36 est dans chacun des autres. Bien que 12 se trouvent dans chacun des 3, ils sont reliés les uns aux autres. Par conséquent, chacune des 36 puissances est dans la première qui est le Teli (Dragon). Si tu les cherches dans Galgal (Sphère), tu trouveras les mêmes. Et si tu les cherches dans le Lev (Coeur), tu trouveras encore les mêmes. Chacun d’eux contient les 32 autres, mais tous réunis ils ne sont que 36 formes. Tous l’accomplissent dans le coeur. Ajoute 32 à ces 32 et de ces 36 il reste alors 4, ce sont les 64 formes. Comment savons-nous que 32 doivent être ajoutés à 32 ? Car il est écrit : (Ecclésiastes 5:7) : "des plus haut placés au-dessus d’eux". Nous en avons ainsi 64. Il en manque 8 pour avoir les 72 Noms du Saint, béni soit-Il. C’est à cela que fait référence le verset : "un au-dessus d’eux". Ajoutons-y les 7 jours de la semaine, mais il en manquera encore 1. Cela est signalé par le verset suivant (Eccl. 5:8) : "L’avantage de la terre sur tout, c’est le Roi…". Quel est cet avantage ? C’est l’endroit où la terre fut gravée, c’est un avantage par rapport à ce qui a existé avant. Quel est son avantage ? Tout ce qui existe dans le monde, car pour les gens qui voient sa radiance, c’est un avantage.

§ 108 - Qui sont les princes ? Nous avons appris qu’il y en trois, que Gvourah (Rigueur) est le prince de toutes les formes Saintes placées à gauche du saint, béni soit-Il. C’est Gabriel. A droite, c’est Mikaël. Au milieu se tient Eméth (Vérité) et c’est Auriel, prince de toutes les formes Saintes. Chaque prince règne sur 24 formes, mais ses légions sont sans nombre, car il est écrit : "Peut-on dénombrer ses légions ?" (Job 25:3). Ainsi, il y aurait 72 et encore 72. Il répondit : Ce n’est pas le cas, car lorsqu’Israël apporte un sacrifice devant Son père dans les cieux, toutes ses formes Saintes s’unissent. C’est l’unification de "Notre Dieu est un".

[Notes : ainsi, le Bahir nous informe que les 72 Noms sont répartis en 3 groupes de 24 Noms chacun, et que chaque groupe est dirigé par un Prince, à savoir, Gabriel, Mikaël et Auriel.]

§ 110 - Il y a un Nom qui dérive des trois versets "Vaysissa" (part), "Vayébo (vient), "Vayéit" (s’étend) (Exode 14:19-21). Les lettres du premier verset "Vaysissa" sont arrangées dans l’ordre où elles apparaissent dans le verset. Les lettres du deuxième verset "Vayébo" sont placées à l’envers et les lettres du troisième verset "Vayéit" sont disposées dans l’ordre où elles se trouvent dans le verset, comme pour le premier verset. Chacun de ces versets a 72 lettres, par conséquent, chacun des Noms qui dérivent de ces trois versets : "Vaysissa" (part),
"Vayébo (vient), "Vayéit", contient trois lettres. Ce sont les 72 Noms, qui se répartissent en trois sections, soit 24 par section. Sur chacune de ces section s’élève un prince. Chaque section veille sur les 4 directions du monde : Est, Ouest, Nord, Sud. Ils se répartissent donc par groupes de six dans chaque direction. Donc pour les 4 directions, il y a 24 formes. Il en va de même pour les deuxième et troisième sections. Toutes sont scellées par " Yhwh, Dieu d’Israël, Elohim vivant, Shadaï très haut, élevé, qui réside en toute éternité. Saint est Son Nom de la Gloire de sa Royauté à tout jamais" (Séfer Yetsirah 1:1).

[Notes : le Sefer haBhir offre donc la même entrée que le Zohar en ce qui concerne l'endroit de la Torah où trouver les 72 Noms. En outre, il nous indique la manière dont Kircher a pu associer les Psaumes à chaque Nom spécifiquement]

§ 111 - Rabbi Ahilei exposa : Quelle est la signification du verset : "Yhwh est roi, Yhwh était roi, Yhwh sera roi pour toujours" . C’est le Shem haMéforash (Non Ineffable), dont il est permis de le permuter et de le prononcer, car il est écrit: "Ils placeront Mon Nom sur les enfants d’Israël et Je les bénirai" (Nombres 6:27). Ceci se rapporte au Nom en 12 lettres, semblable au Nom de la bénédiction sacerdotale : "Que Yhwh te bénisse" (Nombres 6:24). Il y a trois noms et douze lettres, dont voici la vocalisation :Yafaal, Yefoel, Yifol. Celui qui le préserve et le prononce en toute sainteté, peut-être assuré que ces prières seront exaucées et
qu’il sera aimé en haut comme en bas et qu’il trouvera immédiatement écoute et secours. C’est le Shem haMeforah qui était gravé sur le front d’Aaron. Le Shem haMeforash contenant 72 lettres. Le Shem haMeforah contenant 12 lettres transmises à Masmariah, qui se tient devant le rideau et qui les a transmises à Elie sur le Mont Carmel, lequel s’éleva au ciel avec leur aide, sans avoir goûté à la mort.

§ 112 - Voici les Noms ineffables, précieux et magnifiques, qui sont au nombre de 12, en correspondance avec les 12 tribus d’Israël.

Ahatsitséharon Akelitharon Shemaqtaron Doméshéharon Otspatspasitron Hourmiron
Berah'iharon Arésh Gadron Besvah Manahon H'azhouiah Havahiréi Hah Ehyéh Vehareitahon

Ils surveillent dans le Teli, dans le Galagal et dans le coeur. Ce sont les sources de la Sagesse. Ils incluent le mâle et la femelle.

Ils surveillent le Teli, le Galgal et le Coeur. Tous sont sources de Sagesse.

LES 72 NOMS DU SEFER RAZIEL

Par Gabriel.

VHV – Vehou – Montre, dans la Grand et glorieux Nom, par son union et par sa
forme, 4 puissances administrant et englobant les richesses, ainsi que la couronne de
Tifereth, appelée V’H, et pour cela béni soit-Il, car l’abondance descend dans le
Sanctuaire de Yhwh, et de là descend dans le monde entier.

YLY – Yeli – Il fait allusion au Dieu suprême qui est au-delà de la miséricorde
absolue, entièrement blanc, qui est la vigueur suprême et la vigueur se répand par la
rosée de la bénédiction. Formant 4 puissance l’exprimant, et pour cela béni soit-Il. Car Il est l’origine de toute origine et sa connexion et sa forme le montrent.

SYTh - Seyat - Montre la grande miséricorde, pour les accomplis et les non accomplis,
dispensant en eux I'équité et la charité, dans la terre de la vie. Réunissant 3 puissances qui le prouvent et formant 4 puissances, dont 2 sont imbriquées et 2 sont I'une à I'intérieur, c'est la Shekinah a I'intérieur du Tabernacle, et une cinquième est issue d'elles. 7 dirige dans le lieu de vie éternellement, béni soit-Il pour cela. Il est la vie et ('existence pour I'éternité.

AyLM - Alam - Montre 2 existences en un lieu divin accompli. Dieu au-dessus de tous
les jugements célestes, aptes à juger. II forme 7 puissances attachées qui montrent
('ensemble de I'édifice, béni soit-Il pour cela. II présente et délègue Son pouvoir aux juges afin qu'ils accomplissent le Jugement (Din) en Egypte par les 3 versets qui les contient tous dans le secret de leur connexion, fonde sur la couronne des Tsevaoth de Dieu de Tifereth suprême au centre. Cela montre cette chose.

MHSh - Mehash- Montre le secret des 4 compartiments des Tefilins et relie a Yhwh
par la lumière suprême et cachée. Sa connexion montre la couronne de la splendeur
{Tifereth ) des Tefilins, splendeur (Tifereth) des Tefilins de Dieu, contenus dans le
tefilin Shin (de la tête). Et sa forme montre un édifice entier, reflété par les vêtements du Prêtre, béni soit-Il pour cela. Que I'éternité (Netsa'h) soit victorieuse en Dieu. II forme les vainqueurs qui s'attachent a la justice des Pères et en eux.

LLH - Lelah - Montre le char de la Merkavah de I'unité par le secret de deux
élévations et de sa connexion a Tifereth. Tifereth, par sa grande miséricorde, relie a I'unité de sa forme, 6 puissances qui le montrent, béni soit-Il pour cela, qui a crée le monde par la Miséricorde et par 10 paroles afin d'exprimer le dernier He et permettre de comprendre cela.

AKA - Aka - Révèle dans le fondement de toutes les âmes et tous les cycles, que
toutes les vies sont issues de Lui pour I'éternité, en adhérant a la Neshamah et a la
Shemitah. Sa structure révèle trois Sefiroth et trois points : H'olam, Shoureq et H'iriq. II forme 7 puissances montrant qu'il s'intègre a eux, béni soit-Il pour cela, car il révèle le pardon, la sérénité et la vie. Par ces puissances tu comprendras la force des oeuvres de ces attributs et de tout le reste.

KHT - Kehath - Enseigne, que cela a été exprimé par celui qui crée l’oeuvre. II forme
5 puissances se révélant toutes par le Yod, s'habillant dans un édifice, dont des
descriptions viennent de la Torah, et par leurs agencements tu comprendras qu'il va se placer au-dessus de Shalom Tsedeq (Paix justice), par la Justice. Béni soit-Il pour cela, car c'est ('alliance de notre Dieu qui est aux cieux, signée par des Sages supérieurs.

HZY - Hazaï- Révèle que I'Unique est rattaché a la H'essed (Bonté), Béni soit-Il pour
cela. Le He s'élève au-dessus de tous les degrés. II veut s'exprimer au-dessus de tous les attributs. II forme 4 Puissances se révélant par le Verbe et par l'Unité. II organise les deux He par le Yod, et I'éternité le démontre aux initiés, car le Yod s'élève vers le He et les deux s'unissent pour I'éternité.

ALD - Alad - Révèle la Merkavah à la Merkavah par la Tifereth supérieure, Béni soit-
Il pour cela, car il s'élève par degré. II agence 3 puissances : H'essed, Tifereth et
Tifereth Elyon dans Binah. II forme 6 formes couronnant Tifereth d'unité.

LAV - Lav - Révèle deux oeuvres reçues de Binah, béni soit-Il pour cela, car
I'élévation du Yod juge en Egypte le lieu, I'ordre et la peur. Il forme 6 puissances
organisées en une seule, se révélant par le Verbe, agençant 3 en une seule.

HHAy - Hahâ - Révèle ce que révèle le maître de I'oeuvre, dont I'agencement révèle
deux oeuvres.

YZL - Yezal - Révèle le Yod du Grand Nom par la puissance éternelle et forme quatre
puissances révélées par le Verbe a celui qui peut comprendre, et pour cela béni soit-Il. Par le Yod, tout agit et par sa volonté, chaque sphère et chaque ange possède une
puissance éternelle. Son organisation est révélée par deux actions contrôlant chaque
puissance par la puissance de I'éternité.

MBH - Mabah - Révèle que le Grand Nom est le Nom de sa puissance avec 70
appellations H' D'. II forme 6 puissances se révélant dans les six directions et par le Verbe, béni soit-Il pour cela. C'est la puissance du Saint, béni soit-Il, qui fut envoyée à Moïse par Lui-même et par Sa Gloire, en structurant Tifereth dans Hokhmah par la couronne et dans chaque parole unique et dans chaque puissance unique. Et à partir de ces puissances, tu comprendras la puissance de ces oeuvres.

HRY – Heri - Révèle le Nom de l'Unité et de I'organisation de chaque existence. Il
structure 3 puissances par le Verbe Unique, appelées : Terre (Eretz), Hayim (Vie) et
Debouqim (liens). II forme 4 puissances révélées par le Verbe, et béni soit-Il pour cela, car II est unique dans tous les degrés.

HQM - Heqam - Se révèle par deux actions et 12 frontières verticales pour s'appuyer.
Et organise la couronne rattachant Binah a Tifereth, révélant sur le Verbe, 6 puissances montrant dans Binah l'abondance des actions du coeur, et béni soit-Il pour cela, que rappelle le He de son Nom.

LAV - Leou - Révèle trois choses dans Tifereth et forme 6 puissances attachées dans
la couronne de Tifereth. Tifereth se trouve entre deux Sagesses, ainsi que cela est dit, entre deux Keroubim dans le Verbe. Tifereth, qui contient également une division de 3 saintetés, béni soit-Il pour cela, révélant la sainteté de I'en haut, réunissant a eux le Nom unique.

KLY - Kili - Révèle par le Nom, la totalité des 4 portes du monde supérieur, béni soit-Il pour cela, englobées dans la Miséricorde. Il forme 4 puissances révélées par le Verbe, dont I'agencement couronne Tifereth et Hokhmah, montrant ainsi I'ensemble de l'édifice.

LVV - Levou - Révèle que l'expression de la puissance divine est rassasiée dans le
Yod. Sa forme est gravée dans les 12 Signes [zodiacaux] d'Israël.

PHL - Pehil - Révèle par deux oeuvres l'une dans l'autre, béni soit-Il pour cela, que la miséricorde divine est éternelle, parce qu'elles sont imbriquées, et leur union le prouve. Il forme 6 puissances qui montrent que la couronne s'attache et se fixe dans la H'essed (Bonté) et dans Rah'amim (Miséricorde), approchant ainsi de l'accomplissement suprême.

NLK - Nalakh - Révèle dans le Grand Nom le serment par la puissance du bâton de
Moïse, avec sa puissance pour activer de redoutables choses. Son agencement révèle la
Binah de la Binah et forme les puissances révélées par le Verbe, l'une reçoit de l'autre et de là surgissent les actes.

YYY - Yeyaï - Révèle le grand secret des 3 points fondamentaux du Ehyéh suprême
traversant l'axe central pour prendre existence dans le Grand Shabbath. Béni soit-Il
pour cela, car le dernier est le supérieur et, par son action, le monde est au repos. Il s'agit ici d'un engagement pour tous, avec eux dans le jubilé de la puissance supérieure et de la puissance universelle, que l'allégorie et l'agencement révèlent. Et cela forme 3 puissances.

MLH - Melah - Révèle par deux actions, que tout tourne sous la direction de chaque
puissance unique et une seule singularité, ainsi que l'a dit le Saint béni Soit-ll. Son agencement le prouve et il forme 6 puissances le prouvant et la fille retourne à sa Mère.

ChHV - H'ahou - Révèle quatre fondements se trouvant sous le Yod, issus de la
puissance de Tifereth et béni soit-ll pour cela. Par la puissance des 4 fondements et par son agencement, il se révèle par l'attribut d'Aharon qui s'approche du He inférieur par Tifereth, et cela forme 5 puissances qui révèlent le Verbe et chaque expression.

NTH - Netah - Montre à Adam la façon de dominer un démon mais le force pour cela
à appréhender le monde avec Justice, comme un Juste. Béni soit-Il pour cela. Il est
contenu par deux puissances. Sa connexion le prouve. Il forme 5 puissances guidant
par le mystère des âmes et des émanations issues de Binah et des transgressions
autorisées au Juste rempli de foi et parlant avec une grande rigueur dans les
interconnections de Tifereth.

HAA - Haia- Montre, par trois proportions, la totalité du Nom Ehyéh entier. Beni soit-Il pour cela. Par sa puissance unique et par son attribut unique. Sa connexion se trouve dans les 6 [Sefirot de Zeir Anpin] et tout ce qui est issu d'elles. Il forme 5 puissances guidant la totalité avec la parole par Jacob, représentant de la Clémence et de la Vérité. C'est le secret des formes édifiant la totalité céleste du début a la fin, exprimant son terrible secret.

YRT - Yrath - Montre que dans la totalité du mouvement, il reste stable dans le lieu de Netsa'h, se préservant dans son unité, qui existe pour l'éternité. Sa connexion guide par les deux attributs kabbalistiques de la septième en partant de Malkouth (H'essed), jusqu'à Pah'ad (Guevourah). Sa forme montre que tout se rejoint en Dieu, dans pointe pliée (courbure du Yod) qui est éternellement immobile.

ShAH - Shah - Montre Netsa'h dans Tifereth par sa puissance d'action sur le plan de
I'Egypte externe. Beni soit-Il pour cela. Car il est sorti de son lieu pour juger I'Egypte, et a agrégé les 7 (Sefirot) en lui pour condamner I'Egypte au fléau. Sa connexion le prouve. Il forme 9 puissances agissant dans la totalité de I'Egypte, c'est ainsi que se comprend cet acte.

RYY - Reyi - Montre les lettres des Sefirot qui émergent de l'étoile et de Binah issue de Hokhmah. Beni soit-Il pour cela. Issue du dernier Shabbath de Hokhmah. Sa
connexion le prouve. II forme des puissances montrant l'héritage de Hokhmah et la
sagesse suprême.

AVM - Avam - Montre deux actions d'invocation du Nom divin, stimulées par Yessod.
Béni soit-Il pour cela. Le Juste est le fondement (Yessod) du monde. Sa connexion te
prouve. Ii forme 6 puissances dirigeant six extrémités.

LKB - Lekav - Montre le trône du Trône divin. Beni soit-Il pour cela. Il repose sur les Patriarches. Sa connexion montre le diadème entre Hokhmah et Binah. II forme 5
puissances attachées à Tifereth.

VShR - Veshar - Montre la confirmation du serment dans son dévouement et dans la
fin du lien. Ainsi, Dieu est le maître de la Kabbale. Sa connexion le prouve. Il forme 6 puissances guidant par le verbe.

YChV - Yeh'ou - Montre deux fonctions du Nom unique. II parle avec He. Sa
connexion guide avec eux et par leurs marques. II forme 4 puissances guidant par deux
lumières et deux actions spécifiques. Sa connexion le prouve.

LHCh - Leha'h - Guide par deux existences résidant dans le lieu de Hokhmah et de
Binah abondantes, par le Yod qui est dans le lieu de l'Adam suprême où il est préparé. Sa connexion montre la Binah abondant par le Yod. Il forme des puissances guidant par le verbe.

KVQ - Kevaq - Guide le Nom et les jugements avec une puissance unique. Sa
connexion guide par l'Atarah (Diadème) de Tifereth et de Binah. Il forme 5 puissances
montrant l'attachement de Malkouth à Binah, par deux actions et par la compréhension
de la force active.

MND - Menad - Montre comment Moïse s'est élevé vers le sommet et a assemblé
l'ineffable avec sa connexion et sa forme permettant à Binah d'agir dans H'essed, par
deux actions et pouvoirs.

ANY - Ani - Montre que le mot existe par le Yod et que tout est issu du Yod et des
cinquante portes. Béni soit-Il pour cela. Par le saint Noun graduel. Sa connexion est
dans Tifereth et au Yod lié à Binah. II forme 5 puissances guidant par le verbe.

ChAyM - H'am - Montre avec force les puissances des campements de la Lune, des 12
tribus d'Israël et en bas entre deux attributs divins. Béni soit-Il pour cela. Légiférant par le Nom, car tout dépend de lui. Sa connexion montre la totalité de l'édifice. Il forme 7 puissances guidant par le verbe.

RHAy - Riha - Montre la divinité chevauchant avec assurance sur le Yod vital, les
séraphins, les ramifications et la totalité de l’en bas. Il sert de fondement à l'ensemble de la Merkavah divine. Sa connexion et sa forme le prouvent.

YYZ - Iyaz - Montre par les 22 lettres la divine Merkavah, qui tire faveur de la relation entre le premier He et le dernier He. Béni soit-Il pour cela. Il connecte deux sagesses dans Nets'ah s'exprimant par le verbe. Ainsi est sa forme.

HHH - Hahah - Montre que Binah, Guevourah et Atarah, sont la puissance vitale du
diadème. Il connecte et forme par H'essed, les 6 puissances (suivantes de Guevourah à
Malkouth}.

MYK – Miyak - Montre 3 oeuvres de la sphère angélique qui parent le trône divin.
C'est la puissance des ramifications. Béni soit-Il pour cela. Car la totalité céleste est contenue dans YaH. Sa connexion relie le Nom à toute chose. Il forme 4 puissances dirigeant et édifiant la puissance active.

VVL - Veval - Montre par deux actions qu'il est le Nom en 42 unifié. Il s'appelle «
Fondement du monde » et enflamme les 12 directions diagonales. Béni soit-Il pour
cela. Car ils sont dans le YaH sacré. Il élevé le Nom. Sa connexion et sa forme le
prouvent.

YLH - Yelah -