Post by giovanni on Mar 30, 2006 13:34:03 GMT
THE IDEA OF THE CENTER IN THE TRADITIONS OF ANTIQUITY
Bro. René Guénon
Having previously had occasion to allude to the ‘Center of the World’ and to the various symbols which represent it, we must now return to this idea of the Center, which is of the greatest importance in all ancient traditions, and indicate some of the principal meanings attached to it. For modern humanity this idea in fact no longer immediately evokes all that the ancients saw in it; here, as in all else that touches on symbolism, many things have been forgotten, and certain ways of thinking seem to have become completely foreign to the majority of our contemporaries, so that there is good reason to insist all the more on this point since incomprehension is more general and complete in this regard than ever.
The Center is before all else the origin, the point of departure of all things; it is the principial point, without form, without dimensions, therefore indivisible, and consequently the only image that can be given to primordial Unity. From it, by its radiation, all things are produced, just as unity produces all numbers without its essence being modified or affected in any way. Here we have a complete parallelism between two modes of expression, geometric symbolism and numerical symbolism, such that it makes no difference which we use, and we can even pass quite naturally from the one to the other. Moreover, we must not forget that in either case it is always a question of symbolism: arithmetical unity is not metaphysical Unity, but only its image, an image however in which there is nothing arbitrary, for there exists between the one and the other a real analogical relation, and it is this relation which permits the transposition of the idea of Unity beyond the domain of quantity into the transcendent order. It is the same with the idea of the Center; the latter is susceptible of a similar transposition whereby it sheds its spatial character, which is thereafter evoked only as a symbol. The central point is the Principle, it is pure Being, and the space which it fills by its radiation and which exists only by that same radiation (the Fiat Lux of Genesis), without which it would be only ‘privation’ and nothingness, is the World in the widest sense of the word, the totality of all beings and all states of existence constituting universal manifestation.
The simplest representation of the idea we have just formulated is the point at the center of a circle (figure 1): the point is the emblem of the Principle, while the circle is that of the world. It is quite impossible to assign any temporal origin whatsoever for the use of this figuration, for it is frequently met with on prehistoric objects; no doubt we should see in it one of the signs directly linked to the primordial tradition. Sometimes the point is surrounded by concentric circles which seem to represent the different states or degrees of manifested existence, arranged hierarchically according to their greater or lesser distance from the primordial Principle. The point at the center of the circle has also been taken, probably from very ancient times, as a figure of the sun, because in the physical order the latter is truly the Center or ‘Heart of the World’; and this figure has remained until our own time as the usual astrological and astronomical sign for the sun. It is perhaps for this reason that most archaeologists, wherever they encounter this symbol, assign it an exclusively ‘solar’ significance, whereas in reality it has quite another, far vaster and deeper, meaning. They forget, if ever they knew, that in all the ancient traditions the sun is itself only a symbol, that of the true ‘Center of the World’, which is the Divine Principle.
The relationship that exists between the center and the circumference, or between what they respectively represent, is already indicated quite clearly by the fact that the circumference cannot exist without its center, while the latter is absolutely independent of the former. This relationship can be represented even more plainly and explicitly by rays issuing from the center and ending at the circumference. The number of these rays can of course vary, since they are really indefinite in number, as are the points on the circumference which are their extremities, but in fact numbers that have in themselves a particular symbolic value have always been chosen for figures of this kind. The simplest of such forms has only four rays dividing the circumference into equal parts, that is, two diameters at right angles forming a cross inside the circumference (figure 2). This new figure has the same general meaning as the first, but has in addition certain secondary significations that complete it: if represented as traversed in a particular direction, the circumference is the image of a cycle of manifestation, such as those cosmic cycles of which Hindu doctrine in particular provides an extremely well-developed theory. The divisions fixed on the circumference by the extremities of the branches of the cross will then correspond to the different periods or phases into which the cycle is divided, and such a division can be envisaged on diverse scales, so to speak, according to whether the cycles in question are of greater or lesser extent. Thus, for example, keeping to the order of terrestrial existence alone, there are the four main periods of the day, the four phases of the moon, the four seasons of the year, and also, following the idea found in the traditions of India, as well as in Central America and Greco-Latin antiquity, the four ages of humanity. We indicate these considerations only summarily in order to give an overall idea of what is expressed by the symbol in question; they are in addition connected more directly to the remarks that follow.
Among the figures comprised of a greater number of rays, we must mention especially the wheels or ‘rounds’, which most commonly have six or eight radii (figures 3 and 4). The Celtic ‘round’, in use throughout almost all the Middle Ages, is found in both these forms; these same figures, especially the second, are often found Eastern lands, especially in Chaldea and Assyria, in India (where the wheel is called the chakra), and in Tibet. On the other hand, there is a dose kinship between the wheel of six spokes and the chrismon,[1] which finally differs from it only in that the circumference marking the extremities of the rays is not usually drawn. Now, the wheel instead of being, simply a ‘solar’ sign as is commonly taught in our day, is above all a symbol of the World, which can be understood without difficulty. In the symbolic language of India, one speakes constantly of the ‘wheel of things’ or of the ‘wheel of life; which clearly corresponds precisely to this meaning; there is also the ‘wheel of the Law’, an expression that Buddhism borrowed, as it did many others, from earlier doctrines and. which, originally at least, referred especially to cyclical theories. And we should add that the zodiac is also represented in the form of a wheel of twelve spokes, naturally—and also that the name given it in Sanskrit means literally ‘wheel of the signs’; we could also translate it as ‘wheel of numbers’, according to the primary sense of the word rāshi which serves to designate the signs of the zodiac.[2]
There is moreover a certain connection between the wheel and various floral symbols,[3] and in certain cases at least, even a true equivalence.[4] If we consider a symbolic flower such as the lotus, the lily, or the rose,[5] its blossoming represents, among other things (for these symbols have multiple significations), and by a very comprehensible similarity, the development of manifestation. Moreover, this blossoming is a radiation around the Center, for here too it is a question of ‘centered’ figures, which justifies their assimilation to the wheel.[6] In the Hindu tradition, the World is sometimes represented in the form of a lotus, at the center of which rises Meru, the sacred mountain symbolizing the Pole.
But let us return to the meanings of the Center, for up to this point we have only explained the first, which makes of it an image of the Principle; we shall find another in the fact that the Center is properly the ‘middle’, the point equidistant from all points of the circumference, which divides every diameter into two equal parts. In the preceding, the Center has been considered as in a way prior to the circumference, whose reality depends completely on the radiation of the former. Now it is to be envisaged in relation to the realized circumference, that is, to the action of the Principle at the heart of creation. The midpoint between the extremes represented by opposite points on the circumference is the place where contrary tendencies, ending up at these extremes, neutralize each other so to speak, and are in perfect equilibrium. Certain schools of Islamic esoterism, which attribute to the cross a symbolic value of the greatest importance, refer to the center of this cross as the ‘divine station’ (al—maqàm al-ilahi), and designate this center as the place where all contraries are unified, where all oppositions are resolved. The idea expressed here more particularly is therefore that of equilibrium, and this idea is one with that of harmony; these are not two different ideas, but only two aspects of one and the same idea. There is yet a third aspect to this symbolism, linked more particularly to the moral point of view (although admitting of other meanings as well), this being the idea of justice; and this makes it possible to link the Platonic conception of virtue as a just mean between two extremes to what we have just said. From a more universal point of view, the Far-Eastern traditions speak unceasingly of the ‘Invariable Middle’ which is the point where the ‘Activity of Heaven’ is manifested; and according to Hindu doctrine there resides at the center of every being, as of every state of cosmic existence, a reflection of the supreme Principle.
Moreover, equilibrium itself is in truth nothing other than the reflection in the order of manifestation of the absolute immutability of the Principle; to envisage things under this new relationship, the circumference must be considered as in motion around its center, which alone does not participate in this movement. The very name of the wheel (rota) immediately evokes the idea of rotation; and this rotation is the figure of the continual change to which all manifested things are subject. In such a movement, there is but one single point that remains fixed and immovable, and that point is the Center. This brings us back to the cyclical ideas mentioned earlier: the course of any cycle whatsoever, or the rotation of the circumference, is succession, whether in temporal mode or in accordance with some other mode. The fixity of the Center is the image of eternity, where all things are present in perfect simultaneity The circumference can only turn around a fixed center; similarly, change, which is not sufficient unto itself, necessarily supposes a principle which is outside change; this is the ‘unmoved mover’ of Aristotle, which is again represented by the Center. At the same time, since all that exists, all that changes or moves, gets its reality from the immutable Principle on which it totally depends, this Principle is therefore that which gives motion its first impulse and also that which then governs and directs it, which gives it its law, the conservation of the order of the world being in a way only a prolongation of the creative act. According to a Hindu expression, it is the ‘Internal Controller’ (antaryami), for it directs all things from within, residing itself at the innermost point of all, which is the Center.
Instead of the rotation of a circumference around its center, we can also envisage a sphere rotating around a fixed axis, the symbolic significance of which is exactly the same. This is why representations of the ‘World Axis’ are so numerous and so important in all ancient traditions; and their general meaning is fundamentally the same as that of the figures of the ‘Center of the World; except perhaps in that they evoke the function of the immutable Principle with respect to universal manifestation more directly than the other relationships under which the Center may equally be considered. When the terrestrial or celestial sphere accomplishes its revolution around its axis, there are on that sphere two points that remain fixed: these are the poles, which are the extremities of the axis or its points of contact with the surface of the sphere; and that is why the idea of the Pole is yet another equivalent of the idea of the Center. The symbolism relating to the Pole, which. sometimes assumes very complex forms, is thus also found in all traditions, and may even be said to hold in them a place of considerable importance;[7] if most modern scholars have failed to notice this, it is one more proof that they are lacking any true comprehension of this symbol.
One of the most striking figures which sum up the ideas just set forth is the swastika (figures 5 and 6), which is essentially the ‘sign of the Pole’;[8] moreover, it seems that in modern Europe its true significance has never yet been made known. Vain attempts have been made to explain this symbol by the most fantastic theories, even to the point of seeing in it the outline of a primitive instrument for producing fire; indeed, if at times it does have a certain relationship with fire, it is for altogether different reasons. Most often it is made out to be a ‘solar’ sign, which it could have become only accidentally and in an indirect way; here we might repeat what we said above regarding the wheel and the point at the center of the circle. Those have come nearest the truth who have seen in the swastika a symbol of movement, but this interpretation is still insufficient, for it is not a question of just any movement, but of a rotational movement around a center or an immutable axis; and the fixed point is precisely the essential element to which the swastika is directly related. The other meanings borne by this same figure all derive from this: the Center communicates movement to all things, and, since movement represents life, the swastika becomes thereby a symbol of life, or, more exactly, the vivifying role of the Principle in relation to the cosmic order.
If we compare the swastika with the figure of the cross inscribed in the circumference (figure 2), we see that fundamentally these two symbols are equivalent; but instead of being represented by the line of the circumference, the rotation is indicated in the swastika only by the lines at right angles added to the extremities of the branches of the cross; these lines are tangents to the circumference and mark the directions of movement at the corresponding points. As the circumference represents the World, the fact that in this figure it is only implied, so to speak, indicates very clearly that the swastika is not a figure of the World but really of the action of the Principle with respect to the World.[9]
If we relate the swastika to the rotation of a sphere such as the celestial sphere around its axis, it must be considered as traced on the equatorial plane, and then the central point will be the projection of the axis onto this plane perpendicular to it. As for the direction of rotation indicated by the figure, its importance is only secondary; in fact, we find both of the forms reproduced above,[10] without it always being necessary to see therein an intent to establish between them any opposition whatsoever.[11] We are well aware that in certain countries and at certain times there have been schisms whose partisans may have deliberately given, the figure an orientation contrary to that being used in the milieu from which they were separating themselves, in order to assert their antagonism by some outward manifestation; but this in no way affects the essential meaning of the symbol, which remains the same in all cases.
The swastika is far from being an exclusively Eastern symbol, as is sometimes thought; in fact, it is one of the most widespread of all symbols, seen nearly everywhere, from the Far East to the Far West, for it exists even among certain indigenous peoples of North America. At the present time, it has been retained especially in India and in Central and East Asia, and it is probably only in those regions that its real significance is still known, although even in Europe it has not entirely disappeared.[12] In Lithuania and Courland, peasants still trace this sign on their houses; no doubt they are no longer aware of its meaning, and see in it only a sort of protective talisman; but what is most curious is that they give it its Sanskrit name swastika.[13] In antiquity we find this sign prevalent especially among the Celts and in pre-Hellenic Greece;[14] and in the West again, as Charbonneau-Lassay has pointed out,[15] it was in former times one of the emblems of Christ, and even remained in use as such until the end of the Middle Ages. Like the point at the center of the circle, and like the wheel, this sign unquestionably goes back to prehistoric times; and for our part we see in it, without the least hesitation, one of the vestiges of the primordial tradition.[16]
We have not yet finished indicating all the meanings of the Center: if it is first of all a point of departure, it is also a point of culmination; everything issues from it and everything must finally return to it. Since all things exist only through the Principle and could not subsist without it, there must be between them and it a permanent link, portrayed by rays joining all points on the circumference to the center; but these rays can be traversed in two opposite directions, first, from the center to the circumference, and then from the circumference returning to the center. We have here two complementary phases as it were, the first represented by a centrifugal movement and the second by a centripetal movement. These two phases can be compared to those of respiration, according to a symbolism often referred to in the Hindu doctrines; moreover, we also find here a no less remarkable analogy with the physiological function of the heart. In fact, the blood leaves the heart and circulates throughout the organism which it vivifies, then returns to the heart; the role of the latter as organic center is therefore truly complete, and corresponds completely to the full significance of the Center.
All beings, dependent on the Principle in all that they are, must consciously or unconsciously aspire to return to it. This tendency of return toward the Center also has its symbolic representation in all traditions. We refer to ritual orientation, which is properly speaking the direction toward a spiritual center, the terrestrial and tangible image of the true ‘Center of the World’. The orientation of Christian churches is basically only a particular case of this and is essentially related to the same idea, which is common to all religions. In Islam, this orientation (qiblah) is like the materialization, so to speak, of the intention (niyyah) by which all the powers of the being must be directed toward the Divine Principle;[17] and many other examples could easily be found. Much more could be said on this question, but we shall no doubt have occasion to return to it in a continuation of these studies,[18] and that is why we shall content ourselves for the present with no more than a brief indication of this last aspect of the symbolism of the Center.
In sum, the Center is at once the beginning and the end of all things; according to a well-known symbolism, it is the alpha and the omega. Better still, it is the beginning, the middle, and the end; these three aspects are represented by the three elements in the monosyllable AUM, to which Charbonneau-Lassay alluded as an emblem of Christ; its association with the swastika, among the signs of the monastery of the Carmelites of Loudon, seems to us particularly significant, Indeed, this symbol, much more complete than the alpha and the omega, and susceptible of meanings that could be developed almost indefinitely, is, by one of the most astonishing concordances that one could ever encounter, common to the ancient Hindu tradition and to medieval Christian esoterism. In both cases it is equally, and par excellence, a symbol of the Word, which is in very truth the real ‘Center of the World’.[19]
Notes:
[1] On the chrismon see Regnabit, November 1925, ‘Le Chrisme et le Coeur dans les anciennes marques corporatìves’ (Studies in Freemasonry, chap. 13), a text not included in the present collection but treated again in two articles in Etudes Traditonnnelles which here form chaps. 50 (‘Symbols of Analogy') and 67 (‘Sign of Four’). ED.
[2] We note too that in the symbolism of Western antiquity the ‘wheel of Fortune’ has close links with the ‘wheel of the Law’, and also, although it may not seem so evident at first glance, with the zodiacal wheel.
[3] See chaps. 9 and 40. ED.
[4] Among other indications of this equivalence as concerns the Middle Ages, we have seen the wheel of eight spokes and a flower of eight petals represented as fac¬ing one another on the same sculptured stone, fitted into the facade of the ancient church of St Mexme of Chinon, which probably dates from the Carolingian period.
[5] The lily has six petals; the lotus, in representations of the most common type, has eight; the two forms therefore correspond to the wheels of six and eight spokes; as for the rose, it is figured with a variable number of petals, which may modify its meaning or at least give it various nuances. On the symbolism of the rose, see the very interesting article by Charbonneau-Lassay (Regnabit, March 1926).
[6] In the figure of the chrismon (or labarum) and rose from the Merovingian age, which has been reproduced by Charbonneau-Lassay (Regnabit, March 1926, p 298), the central rose has six petals which are oriented according to the branches of the chrismon; and as to the chrismon itself, it is enclosed in a. circle, which brings out as dearly as possible its identity with the six-spoked wheel.
[7] On the symbolism of the Pole, see also The King of the World, chaps. 2 and 7-10, and also chap. 17 of the present work. ED.
[8] Regarding the swastika, see also The King of the World, chap. 2, and The Symbolism of the Cross, chap. 10. ED.
[9] The same remark would he equally valid for the chrismon as compared to the wheel.
[10] In Sanskrit the word swastika is the only one used in all cases to designate the symbol in question; the term sauwastika, which some have applied to one of the two forms in order to distinguish it from the other (which alone would then be the true swastika), is really only an adjective derived from swastika, indicating that which is related to this symbol or to its meanings.
[11] The same remark could be made of other symbols, and especially of the chrismon of Constantine, in which the ‘P’ is sometimes reversed, it has been thought therefore that it should be considered a sign of the Antichrist; that intention may indeed have existed in certain cases, but there are others where it is manifestly impossible to admit this (in the catacombs for example). Similarly, the corporative ‘sign of four', which is only a modification of this same ‘P’ of the chrismon (see chap. 57), is indifferently turned either in one direction or the other, without it being possible to attribute this fact to a rivalry between various guilds or to their desire to differentiate themselves one from another, since the two forms are found in marks belonging to one and the same guild.
[12] We are not allude here to the altogether artificial use of the swastika by certain political groups, which have quite arbitrarily made it a sign of anti-Semitism under the pretext that this emblem belonged to some so-called ‘Aryan race’; all this is pure fantasy.
[13] Of all the European languages, moreover, Lithuanian most resembles Sanskrit.
[14] There are diverse variants of the swastika, for example a form with curved branches (having the appearance of two crossed 'S's'), which we have seen on a Gallic coin. On the other hand, certain forms, that have retained only a decorative character, such as the ‘Greek key' or ‘Greek border’, are originally derived from the swastika.
[15] Regnabit, March 1926, pp 302-303
[16] On the swastika, see also chap. 17. ED.
[17] The word 'intention' must be taken here in its strict etymological sense (in-tendere, ‘to tend toward').
[18]See also The King of the World, chap. 8. ED.
[19] On the monosyllable AUM see also Man and His Becoming according to the Vedanta, chap. 16, The King of the World, chap. 4, and, in the present work, chaps. 19 and 22. ED.
Bro. René Guénon
Having previously had occasion to allude to the ‘Center of the World’ and to the various symbols which represent it, we must now return to this idea of the Center, which is of the greatest importance in all ancient traditions, and indicate some of the principal meanings attached to it. For modern humanity this idea in fact no longer immediately evokes all that the ancients saw in it; here, as in all else that touches on symbolism, many things have been forgotten, and certain ways of thinking seem to have become completely foreign to the majority of our contemporaries, so that there is good reason to insist all the more on this point since incomprehension is more general and complete in this regard than ever.
The Center is before all else the origin, the point of departure of all things; it is the principial point, without form, without dimensions, therefore indivisible, and consequently the only image that can be given to primordial Unity. From it, by its radiation, all things are produced, just as unity produces all numbers without its essence being modified or affected in any way. Here we have a complete parallelism between two modes of expression, geometric symbolism and numerical symbolism, such that it makes no difference which we use, and we can even pass quite naturally from the one to the other. Moreover, we must not forget that in either case it is always a question of symbolism: arithmetical unity is not metaphysical Unity, but only its image, an image however in which there is nothing arbitrary, for there exists between the one and the other a real analogical relation, and it is this relation which permits the transposition of the idea of Unity beyond the domain of quantity into the transcendent order. It is the same with the idea of the Center; the latter is susceptible of a similar transposition whereby it sheds its spatial character, which is thereafter evoked only as a symbol. The central point is the Principle, it is pure Being, and the space which it fills by its radiation and which exists only by that same radiation (the Fiat Lux of Genesis), without which it would be only ‘privation’ and nothingness, is the World in the widest sense of the word, the totality of all beings and all states of existence constituting universal manifestation.
The simplest representation of the idea we have just formulated is the point at the center of a circle (figure 1): the point is the emblem of the Principle, while the circle is that of the world. It is quite impossible to assign any temporal origin whatsoever for the use of this figuration, for it is frequently met with on prehistoric objects; no doubt we should see in it one of the signs directly linked to the primordial tradition. Sometimes the point is surrounded by concentric circles which seem to represent the different states or degrees of manifested existence, arranged hierarchically according to their greater or lesser distance from the primordial Principle. The point at the center of the circle has also been taken, probably from very ancient times, as a figure of the sun, because in the physical order the latter is truly the Center or ‘Heart of the World’; and this figure has remained until our own time as the usual astrological and astronomical sign for the sun. It is perhaps for this reason that most archaeologists, wherever they encounter this symbol, assign it an exclusively ‘solar’ significance, whereas in reality it has quite another, far vaster and deeper, meaning. They forget, if ever they knew, that in all the ancient traditions the sun is itself only a symbol, that of the true ‘Center of the World’, which is the Divine Principle.
The relationship that exists between the center and the circumference, or between what they respectively represent, is already indicated quite clearly by the fact that the circumference cannot exist without its center, while the latter is absolutely independent of the former. This relationship can be represented even more plainly and explicitly by rays issuing from the center and ending at the circumference. The number of these rays can of course vary, since they are really indefinite in number, as are the points on the circumference which are their extremities, but in fact numbers that have in themselves a particular symbolic value have always been chosen for figures of this kind. The simplest of such forms has only four rays dividing the circumference into equal parts, that is, two diameters at right angles forming a cross inside the circumference (figure 2). This new figure has the same general meaning as the first, but has in addition certain secondary significations that complete it: if represented as traversed in a particular direction, the circumference is the image of a cycle of manifestation, such as those cosmic cycles of which Hindu doctrine in particular provides an extremely well-developed theory. The divisions fixed on the circumference by the extremities of the branches of the cross will then correspond to the different periods or phases into which the cycle is divided, and such a division can be envisaged on diverse scales, so to speak, according to whether the cycles in question are of greater or lesser extent. Thus, for example, keeping to the order of terrestrial existence alone, there are the four main periods of the day, the four phases of the moon, the four seasons of the year, and also, following the idea found in the traditions of India, as well as in Central America and Greco-Latin antiquity, the four ages of humanity. We indicate these considerations only summarily in order to give an overall idea of what is expressed by the symbol in question; they are in addition connected more directly to the remarks that follow.
Among the figures comprised of a greater number of rays, we must mention especially the wheels or ‘rounds’, which most commonly have six or eight radii (figures 3 and 4). The Celtic ‘round’, in use throughout almost all the Middle Ages, is found in both these forms; these same figures, especially the second, are often found Eastern lands, especially in Chaldea and Assyria, in India (where the wheel is called the chakra), and in Tibet. On the other hand, there is a dose kinship between the wheel of six spokes and the chrismon,[1] which finally differs from it only in that the circumference marking the extremities of the rays is not usually drawn. Now, the wheel instead of being, simply a ‘solar’ sign as is commonly taught in our day, is above all a symbol of the World, which can be understood without difficulty. In the symbolic language of India, one speakes constantly of the ‘wheel of things’ or of the ‘wheel of life; which clearly corresponds precisely to this meaning; there is also the ‘wheel of the Law’, an expression that Buddhism borrowed, as it did many others, from earlier doctrines and. which, originally at least, referred especially to cyclical theories. And we should add that the zodiac is also represented in the form of a wheel of twelve spokes, naturally—and also that the name given it in Sanskrit means literally ‘wheel of the signs’; we could also translate it as ‘wheel of numbers’, according to the primary sense of the word rāshi which serves to designate the signs of the zodiac.[2]
There is moreover a certain connection between the wheel and various floral symbols,[3] and in certain cases at least, even a true equivalence.[4] If we consider a symbolic flower such as the lotus, the lily, or the rose,[5] its blossoming represents, among other things (for these symbols have multiple significations), and by a very comprehensible similarity, the development of manifestation. Moreover, this blossoming is a radiation around the Center, for here too it is a question of ‘centered’ figures, which justifies their assimilation to the wheel.[6] In the Hindu tradition, the World is sometimes represented in the form of a lotus, at the center of which rises Meru, the sacred mountain symbolizing the Pole.
But let us return to the meanings of the Center, for up to this point we have only explained the first, which makes of it an image of the Principle; we shall find another in the fact that the Center is properly the ‘middle’, the point equidistant from all points of the circumference, which divides every diameter into two equal parts. In the preceding, the Center has been considered as in a way prior to the circumference, whose reality depends completely on the radiation of the former. Now it is to be envisaged in relation to the realized circumference, that is, to the action of the Principle at the heart of creation. The midpoint between the extremes represented by opposite points on the circumference is the place where contrary tendencies, ending up at these extremes, neutralize each other so to speak, and are in perfect equilibrium. Certain schools of Islamic esoterism, which attribute to the cross a symbolic value of the greatest importance, refer to the center of this cross as the ‘divine station’ (al—maqàm al-ilahi), and designate this center as the place where all contraries are unified, where all oppositions are resolved. The idea expressed here more particularly is therefore that of equilibrium, and this idea is one with that of harmony; these are not two different ideas, but only two aspects of one and the same idea. There is yet a third aspect to this symbolism, linked more particularly to the moral point of view (although admitting of other meanings as well), this being the idea of justice; and this makes it possible to link the Platonic conception of virtue as a just mean between two extremes to what we have just said. From a more universal point of view, the Far-Eastern traditions speak unceasingly of the ‘Invariable Middle’ which is the point where the ‘Activity of Heaven’ is manifested; and according to Hindu doctrine there resides at the center of every being, as of every state of cosmic existence, a reflection of the supreme Principle.
Moreover, equilibrium itself is in truth nothing other than the reflection in the order of manifestation of the absolute immutability of the Principle; to envisage things under this new relationship, the circumference must be considered as in motion around its center, which alone does not participate in this movement. The very name of the wheel (rota) immediately evokes the idea of rotation; and this rotation is the figure of the continual change to which all manifested things are subject. In such a movement, there is but one single point that remains fixed and immovable, and that point is the Center. This brings us back to the cyclical ideas mentioned earlier: the course of any cycle whatsoever, or the rotation of the circumference, is succession, whether in temporal mode or in accordance with some other mode. The fixity of the Center is the image of eternity, where all things are present in perfect simultaneity The circumference can only turn around a fixed center; similarly, change, which is not sufficient unto itself, necessarily supposes a principle which is outside change; this is the ‘unmoved mover’ of Aristotle, which is again represented by the Center. At the same time, since all that exists, all that changes or moves, gets its reality from the immutable Principle on which it totally depends, this Principle is therefore that which gives motion its first impulse and also that which then governs and directs it, which gives it its law, the conservation of the order of the world being in a way only a prolongation of the creative act. According to a Hindu expression, it is the ‘Internal Controller’ (antaryami), for it directs all things from within, residing itself at the innermost point of all, which is the Center.
Instead of the rotation of a circumference around its center, we can also envisage a sphere rotating around a fixed axis, the symbolic significance of which is exactly the same. This is why representations of the ‘World Axis’ are so numerous and so important in all ancient traditions; and their general meaning is fundamentally the same as that of the figures of the ‘Center of the World; except perhaps in that they evoke the function of the immutable Principle with respect to universal manifestation more directly than the other relationships under which the Center may equally be considered. When the terrestrial or celestial sphere accomplishes its revolution around its axis, there are on that sphere two points that remain fixed: these are the poles, which are the extremities of the axis or its points of contact with the surface of the sphere; and that is why the idea of the Pole is yet another equivalent of the idea of the Center. The symbolism relating to the Pole, which. sometimes assumes very complex forms, is thus also found in all traditions, and may even be said to hold in them a place of considerable importance;[7] if most modern scholars have failed to notice this, it is one more proof that they are lacking any true comprehension of this symbol.
One of the most striking figures which sum up the ideas just set forth is the swastika (figures 5 and 6), which is essentially the ‘sign of the Pole’;[8] moreover, it seems that in modern Europe its true significance has never yet been made known. Vain attempts have been made to explain this symbol by the most fantastic theories, even to the point of seeing in it the outline of a primitive instrument for producing fire; indeed, if at times it does have a certain relationship with fire, it is for altogether different reasons. Most often it is made out to be a ‘solar’ sign, which it could have become only accidentally and in an indirect way; here we might repeat what we said above regarding the wheel and the point at the center of the circle. Those have come nearest the truth who have seen in the swastika a symbol of movement, but this interpretation is still insufficient, for it is not a question of just any movement, but of a rotational movement around a center or an immutable axis; and the fixed point is precisely the essential element to which the swastika is directly related. The other meanings borne by this same figure all derive from this: the Center communicates movement to all things, and, since movement represents life, the swastika becomes thereby a symbol of life, or, more exactly, the vivifying role of the Principle in relation to the cosmic order.
If we compare the swastika with the figure of the cross inscribed in the circumference (figure 2), we see that fundamentally these two symbols are equivalent; but instead of being represented by the line of the circumference, the rotation is indicated in the swastika only by the lines at right angles added to the extremities of the branches of the cross; these lines are tangents to the circumference and mark the directions of movement at the corresponding points. As the circumference represents the World, the fact that in this figure it is only implied, so to speak, indicates very clearly that the swastika is not a figure of the World but really of the action of the Principle with respect to the World.[9]
If we relate the swastika to the rotation of a sphere such as the celestial sphere around its axis, it must be considered as traced on the equatorial plane, and then the central point will be the projection of the axis onto this plane perpendicular to it. As for the direction of rotation indicated by the figure, its importance is only secondary; in fact, we find both of the forms reproduced above,[10] without it always being necessary to see therein an intent to establish between them any opposition whatsoever.[11] We are well aware that in certain countries and at certain times there have been schisms whose partisans may have deliberately given, the figure an orientation contrary to that being used in the milieu from which they were separating themselves, in order to assert their antagonism by some outward manifestation; but this in no way affects the essential meaning of the symbol, which remains the same in all cases.
The swastika is far from being an exclusively Eastern symbol, as is sometimes thought; in fact, it is one of the most widespread of all symbols, seen nearly everywhere, from the Far East to the Far West, for it exists even among certain indigenous peoples of North America. At the present time, it has been retained especially in India and in Central and East Asia, and it is probably only in those regions that its real significance is still known, although even in Europe it has not entirely disappeared.[12] In Lithuania and Courland, peasants still trace this sign on their houses; no doubt they are no longer aware of its meaning, and see in it only a sort of protective talisman; but what is most curious is that they give it its Sanskrit name swastika.[13] In antiquity we find this sign prevalent especially among the Celts and in pre-Hellenic Greece;[14] and in the West again, as Charbonneau-Lassay has pointed out,[15] it was in former times one of the emblems of Christ, and even remained in use as such until the end of the Middle Ages. Like the point at the center of the circle, and like the wheel, this sign unquestionably goes back to prehistoric times; and for our part we see in it, without the least hesitation, one of the vestiges of the primordial tradition.[16]
We have not yet finished indicating all the meanings of the Center: if it is first of all a point of departure, it is also a point of culmination; everything issues from it and everything must finally return to it. Since all things exist only through the Principle and could not subsist without it, there must be between them and it a permanent link, portrayed by rays joining all points on the circumference to the center; but these rays can be traversed in two opposite directions, first, from the center to the circumference, and then from the circumference returning to the center. We have here two complementary phases as it were, the first represented by a centrifugal movement and the second by a centripetal movement. These two phases can be compared to those of respiration, according to a symbolism often referred to in the Hindu doctrines; moreover, we also find here a no less remarkable analogy with the physiological function of the heart. In fact, the blood leaves the heart and circulates throughout the organism which it vivifies, then returns to the heart; the role of the latter as organic center is therefore truly complete, and corresponds completely to the full significance of the Center.
All beings, dependent on the Principle in all that they are, must consciously or unconsciously aspire to return to it. This tendency of return toward the Center also has its symbolic representation in all traditions. We refer to ritual orientation, which is properly speaking the direction toward a spiritual center, the terrestrial and tangible image of the true ‘Center of the World’. The orientation of Christian churches is basically only a particular case of this and is essentially related to the same idea, which is common to all religions. In Islam, this orientation (qiblah) is like the materialization, so to speak, of the intention (niyyah) by which all the powers of the being must be directed toward the Divine Principle;[17] and many other examples could easily be found. Much more could be said on this question, but we shall no doubt have occasion to return to it in a continuation of these studies,[18] and that is why we shall content ourselves for the present with no more than a brief indication of this last aspect of the symbolism of the Center.
In sum, the Center is at once the beginning and the end of all things; according to a well-known symbolism, it is the alpha and the omega. Better still, it is the beginning, the middle, and the end; these three aspects are represented by the three elements in the monosyllable AUM, to which Charbonneau-Lassay alluded as an emblem of Christ; its association with the swastika, among the signs of the monastery of the Carmelites of Loudon, seems to us particularly significant, Indeed, this symbol, much more complete than the alpha and the omega, and susceptible of meanings that could be developed almost indefinitely, is, by one of the most astonishing concordances that one could ever encounter, common to the ancient Hindu tradition and to medieval Christian esoterism. In both cases it is equally, and par excellence, a symbol of the Word, which is in very truth the real ‘Center of the World’.[19]
Notes:
[1] On the chrismon see Regnabit, November 1925, ‘Le Chrisme et le Coeur dans les anciennes marques corporatìves’ (Studies in Freemasonry, chap. 13), a text not included in the present collection but treated again in two articles in Etudes Traditonnnelles which here form chaps. 50 (‘Symbols of Analogy') and 67 (‘Sign of Four’). ED.
[2] We note too that in the symbolism of Western antiquity the ‘wheel of Fortune’ has close links with the ‘wheel of the Law’, and also, although it may not seem so evident at first glance, with the zodiacal wheel.
[3] See chaps. 9 and 40. ED.
[4] Among other indications of this equivalence as concerns the Middle Ages, we have seen the wheel of eight spokes and a flower of eight petals represented as fac¬ing one another on the same sculptured stone, fitted into the facade of the ancient church of St Mexme of Chinon, which probably dates from the Carolingian period.
[5] The lily has six petals; the lotus, in representations of the most common type, has eight; the two forms therefore correspond to the wheels of six and eight spokes; as for the rose, it is figured with a variable number of petals, which may modify its meaning or at least give it various nuances. On the symbolism of the rose, see the very interesting article by Charbonneau-Lassay (Regnabit, March 1926).
[6] In the figure of the chrismon (or labarum) and rose from the Merovingian age, which has been reproduced by Charbonneau-Lassay (Regnabit, March 1926, p 298), the central rose has six petals which are oriented according to the branches of the chrismon; and as to the chrismon itself, it is enclosed in a. circle, which brings out as dearly as possible its identity with the six-spoked wheel.
[7] On the symbolism of the Pole, see also The King of the World, chaps. 2 and 7-10, and also chap. 17 of the present work. ED.
[8] Regarding the swastika, see also The King of the World, chap. 2, and The Symbolism of the Cross, chap. 10. ED.
[9] The same remark would he equally valid for the chrismon as compared to the wheel.
[10] In Sanskrit the word swastika is the only one used in all cases to designate the symbol in question; the term sauwastika, which some have applied to one of the two forms in order to distinguish it from the other (which alone would then be the true swastika), is really only an adjective derived from swastika, indicating that which is related to this symbol or to its meanings.
[11] The same remark could be made of other symbols, and especially of the chrismon of Constantine, in which the ‘P’ is sometimes reversed, it has been thought therefore that it should be considered a sign of the Antichrist; that intention may indeed have existed in certain cases, but there are others where it is manifestly impossible to admit this (in the catacombs for example). Similarly, the corporative ‘sign of four', which is only a modification of this same ‘P’ of the chrismon (see chap. 57), is indifferently turned either in one direction or the other, without it being possible to attribute this fact to a rivalry between various guilds or to their desire to differentiate themselves one from another, since the two forms are found in marks belonging to one and the same guild.
[12] We are not allude here to the altogether artificial use of the swastika by certain political groups, which have quite arbitrarily made it a sign of anti-Semitism under the pretext that this emblem belonged to some so-called ‘Aryan race’; all this is pure fantasy.
[13] Of all the European languages, moreover, Lithuanian most resembles Sanskrit.
[14] There are diverse variants of the swastika, for example a form with curved branches (having the appearance of two crossed 'S's'), which we have seen on a Gallic coin. On the other hand, certain forms, that have retained only a decorative character, such as the ‘Greek key' or ‘Greek border’, are originally derived from the swastika.
[15] Regnabit, March 1926, pp 302-303
[16] On the swastika, see also chap. 17. ED.
[17] The word 'intention' must be taken here in its strict etymological sense (in-tendere, ‘to tend toward').
[18]See also The King of the World, chap. 8. ED.
[19] On the monosyllable AUM see also Man and His Becoming according to the Vedanta, chap. 16, The King of the World, chap. 4, and, in the present work, chaps. 19 and 22. ED.