🇬🇧 The two Suns
Gian Giuseppe Filippi
The two Suns
Soleva Roma, che ’l buon mondo feo,
due Soli aver, che l’una e l’altra strada
facean vedere, e del mondo e di Deo.
L’un l’altro ha spento: ed è giunta la spada
Col pasturale, e l’un con l’altro inseme
Per viva forza mal conviene vada.
The purpose of this brief study is to rectify a “neo-Guelfic” interpretation, emerged barely a century ago, that credits Dante with one of the “Sun and Moon” theories. This interpretation has re-emerged and spread unjustifiably in circles claming to be interested in a genuinely traditional view of the problem. Obviously, this study is obliged to move within the Christian-medieval doctrine context and its historical application, since neither power are currently alive in the West. However, as it will be appreciated below, Alighieri’s position fully coincides with the living doctrine of the sanātana dharma, still applied in India, despite today’s widespread dreariness, especially regarding the recognised relations between the priestly caste (brahma) and the royal caste (kṣatra).
Dante Alighieri in the Comedy and in the De Monarchia upheld the doctrine of the ‘two Suns’. By this he meant that spiritual authority and temporal power, respectively represented by the Roman Pontiff and the Holy Roman Emperor, were two mutually independent functions, as both came directly from God. With this perfectly traditional stance, he wanted to clarify the relationship between the two powers, in stark contrast to two opposed ‘Sun and Moon’ theories, both of which were conflicting with reason, Christian revelation and the metaphysical and cosmological doctrinal principles from which the diarchy proceeds: knowledge and action. The two philosophical-political theories of ‘Sun and Moon’ corresponded to the two opposing parties of the Guelphs and Ghibellines. According to the Guelph point of view, the Pope was the Sun and the Emperor was the Moon, shining with reflected light. Conversely, the Ghibellines held that the Sun was the Emperor and the Moon was the Pope.
Undoubtely, the Guelph standpoint was triggered by the behaviour of Pope Gregory IV (795-844), who, despite having sworn allegiance as a subject to the co-emperor Lothair, eventually upheld before the bishops the superiority of the Papal authority over the Imperial one. Although still uninfluential, the claim to Papal supremacy was taken up by the Cluniac reform and put then into practice for the first time by the nefarious Pope Gregory VII, Hildebrand of Soana (1073-1085). The alliance that, since the 10th century, was forged between the Popes and the Dukes of the Bavarian House, named Welfen, later gave rise to the Guelph faction, who supported the hegemony of the Papacy over the Empire. This political position was later theorised by the school of legists at the University of Bologna during the late scholasticism and militarily supported, in Dante’s time, by the House of Valois with anti-Imperial purposes.
Opposing the Guelfs (Welfen) was the faction of supporters of the Imperial Staufer, or Hohenstaufen, dynasty, whose main castle was Waiblingen, hence the name Ghibellines. Initially, this trend had no established ideology, merely perpetuating the Byzantine cæsaropapism, the Cæsarean approach of Charlemagne and of the Ottons of Saxony. For the Ghibellines, the Emperor was the Sun that protected and granted the ‘Roman’ authority to the Pope, who was the Moon shining with reflected light. At the end of the 14th century, however, this position became the ideology of a total independency from the Papal hegemonic claims to any temporal power. In this way, Ghibellinism untied itself from any relation to the sacred, becoming a theory of secular governance, in which religion occupied only a sector. Marsilius of Padua theorised this secular and bourgeois ideology in his book Defensor pacis, that became the bases for the French Monarchy and, paradoxically, for the imperial idea of the Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian.
At this point one may ask what Dante’s position was in that historical context. Was he a committed supporter of White Guelphs, as we learn in all study books? From his writings it does not appear so, just as he does not appear to have any interest at all towards the medical and apothecary science and art, to whose guild he was attached. To better understand his personal choices before his exile, it is necessary to be aware of certain events. In 1282, the Guelphs and Ghibellines of Florence agreed on a bourgeois reform of the State. The Government of the Commune was to be delegated to six Priors elected by the guilds of arts and crafts. Dante, a descendant of the ancient patrician Roman gens of the Elysei, along with many representatives of the nobility, had to enrol in the guild of physicians and apothecaries in order to not be excluded from the government of public affairs. Both the political parties, the Guelph and the Ghibelline, had, by then assumed the sectarian and detrimental behaviour typical of the small, quarrelsome and corrupt mercantile Republics. The Ghibellines of Florence, especially during the vacancy of the Empire after the downfall of the Hohenstaufen dynasty became supporters of the Ghibelline city of Arezzo. With the Battle of Campaldino (1289) and the defeat of Arezzo, the Ghibellines were expelled from Florence. The two currents of the Guelph party, the Blacks and the Whites, then began to vie for power. The Blacks welcomed and sustained the political interference of the papal emissaries in the Commune, instead the Whites wished a distinct autonomy, albeit under the paternal blessing of the Pontiff. It is therefore entirely evident the motivation that lead the Florentine aristocrats, who were forced to take up a guild by the new constitution imposed by the bourgeoisie (‘fat people’), to join the party of the Whites. This affluence of knights into the Whites’ party explains the already active participation of Dante, Dino Compagni and others in the battle of Campaldino. In fact, also Dante was elected Prior in the year 1300, but soon after the ruling Podestà, in a stroke of power by the Blacks, forced him into exile from Florence. The reason for Dante’s condemnation and the confiscation of his property was probably due to his motion to the City Council, in order to restore peace to Florence, to exile both the Donati’s family, leaders of the Blacks, and the Cerchi’s family members, leaders of the Whites. The Blacks, for their part, took their revenge on Alighieri, with the complicit indifference of the Whites. This demonstrates Dante’s detachment from both opposing factions, as well as his clear and impartial condemnation of Guelphs and Ghibellines; in fact, he put these harsh words into the mouth of the Emperor Justinian, whom he took as a model.
L’uno al pubblico segno i gigli gialli
oppone, e l’altro appropria quello a parte,
sì ch’è forte a veder chi più si falli.
Faccian li Ghibellin, faccian lor arte
sott’altro segno; ché mal segue quello
sempre chi la giustizia e lui diparte;
e non l’abbatta esto Carlo novello
coi Guelfi suoi, ma tema de li artigli
ch’a più alto leon trasser lo vello.
Leaving aside historical events, let’s devote ourselves to illustrating the doctrine of the two Suns, as it was conceived by Alighieri,that became the Imperial ideal of his disciples Fedeli d’Amore (Faithfuls of Love) and of the Emperor Henry VII of Luxembourg himself. The sacredness of Rome is proven by the fact that Christ, the Redeemer, took on a human form while waiting for what St Paul called ‘the fullness of time’ to be established, in order to make amends for the loss of Eden by the first couple. Since the expulsion from the Earthly Paradise, humanity had never enjoyed such a profound peace except under the perfect Monarchy of Cæsar Augustus: this is the Christian interpretation of the pax augustea, seen as the favourable age for redemption from the original sin. Also Virgil, in his fourth Egloga and from the prespective of the Roman religion, had described the Augustan restoration as the Reign of peace and justice:
… and the majestic roll
Of circling centuries begins anew:
Virgin returns, returns old Saturn’s reign,
With a new breed of men sent down from heaven.
Only do thou, at the boy’s birth in whom
The iron shall cease, the golden race arise,
Befriend him, chaste Lucina; ‘tis thine own
Apollo reigns.
This Virgilian prophecy on the birth of Jesus was read with veneration throughout the Middle Ages, precisely because it demonstrated the unbroken continuity between the Roman tradition and Christianity, which is our subject matter; so much so that Dante paraphrases it in the Comedy:
… when you said: «The century is renewed;
Justice returns, and first human time,
And a new progeny descends from heaven.
In his interpretation, with Augustus the universal Empire of Rome had been established over the entire known world and this was the visible sign of the ‘fullness of times’ during which the Messiah would descend from heaven to redeem mankind from sin, and to allow it to re-enter the Earthly Paradise.
Similarly, in India, the ‘fullness of time’ of the present human cycle corresponds to the establishment of the Reign of Śrī Rāma, which falls in the second cycle, in the Tretā Yuga, but exactly at the temporal midpoint of the entire caturyuga. This represents a return, in the course of history, of the blissful conditions of the Kṛta Yuga, the golden age of the Hindūs, although it was already a period of partial decadence. This is how the ideal Empire, the Rāma Rājya, is described:
“Beings which do not claim their descent in Manu’s line, speak again and again like men, under your reugn, o valiant one, having a divine nature! Only more than a month has elapsed since you took the sceptre in your hand, o Rāghava! And mortals have become strangers to disease, death does not overtake even men worn out with age, women undergo no lalour-pains during parturition and human beings are well-built indeed. An abundance of joy has fallen to the lot of every citizen dwelling in the town, o King! Pouring down nectarean water clouds rain at the proper time. Even the very winds which blow here are capasble of giving a delightful touch, and are pleasing and healthful. People living both in the cities and in the country, arriving in the capital, declare: «May such a sovereign be our ruler for long, o King!»
And, in the Rāmāyaṇa of Tulasī Dāsa one finds:
The land was always spontaneously covered with crops; even though it was Tretā Yuga, the conditions of Kṛta Yuga were reproduced.”
As it can easily be seen, the Augustus Universal Empire recalls, in the Iron Age, what was the Sāmrājya (or Sārvabhauma) of Śrī Rāma as Universal Ruler (Cakravartin) during the second age, the Tretā Yuga.
But why did the Empire of the Romans have to be universal and Rome caput mundi? Dante explains that the divine election was due to the fact that the Romans were the noblest people among those who aspired to the universal sovereignty. Nobility consists in the single individual’s virtues perpetuated through the virtuous generations of his ancestors and their wives. Virtue is such if it is applied towards the common good; the Romans excelled in doing so, for their virtues became the law which they followed with religious fervour and which they spread throughout the world to the peoples assimilated into their Empire. That assimilation was not meant to be a work of conquest out of a desire for domination: it was a desire to extend the law and peace to the entire terracquean globe.
Therefore, it was not a matter of quarrels between peoples, but of loyal duels. To confirm the providentiality of the Roman Empire, Dante lists the failed attempts to obtain the universal sovereignty by Ninos, Cyrus, Darius, Alexander and Pyrrhus, and the numerous prodigies and miracles that, on the other hand, punctuate the glorious history of Rome as sign of divine approval.
Finally, Dante appeals to the authority of the Gospel to demonstrate the Divine recognition of the Roman Empire: in the Gospel of St. Luke (II.1), we read:
“«There went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.» From these words we can clearly see that the jurisdiction of the Romans embraced the whole world. It is proved by all these facts that the Romans where victorious among the contestants for the world-Empire; therefore, they were victorious for Divine decree.”
Dante then alludes to the dialogue between Christ and Pilate:
“Then Pilate said to him: «You don’t want to talk to me?? Do not you know that I have the power to set you free and the power to crucify you?». Jesus replied to him: «You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above».”
And, based on that Gospel verse, he concludes:
And Tiberius Cæsar, whose vicar was Pilate, would not have possessed jurisdiction over the entire human race had not the Roman Empire existed by Right.
With evidence drawn from the holy scripture, Dante rails against those Christians who, from earliest times, vituperate the Roman Empire by portraying it as a diabolical Babylon. In stead, they prove that they are still zealots and Iscariots (or sicarians) rebelling against the Empire. They seek a solely earthly kingdom of Judah and, clearly, they are not proselytes of the Kingdom of Heaven preached by the Redeemer. With this invective Dante does not only want to attack the Christian apologists of the early centuries, who showed so much animosity towards the Empire by exaggerating the legend of the persecutions; he is, above all, addressing the Catholic Church of Gregory VII, Innocent III, Clement V, Popes who used every illicit means possible (such as the political use of excommunication) to claim to be the Sun and the Emperor the Moon.
“And especially those who call themselves sons of the Church have raged and imagined vain things against the Roman Empire. […] How happy that people would be, and how glorious would be Italy, if he who weakened the Empire had never been born, or had never made that pious decision!”
None of this would have happened if Constantine had never been born or had not had the unfortunate idea of weakening the Empire by giving part of the Roman territory to the Papacy. St. Peter’s legacy would have not spread like a tumour from Rome, and occupy all of central Italy; the Empire would not have been pushed northwards, becoming less and less Latin. The Roman people would have remained ideally dominant and Italy would have remained a glorious land, as it was anciently:
“You, O Romans, govern the nations with your power: remember this!
These will be your arts: to impose the ways of peace,
To show mercy to the conquered and to subdue the proud”.
The third book of Monarchy is entirely dedicated to demonstrating that the allegations on the superiority of the Papacy, even those concerning the temporal power are the result of ignorance and bad faith. Their main theory is that the Sun-Moon represents the Pope and the Emperor, because in the Bible it is written that God created the two luminaries, one major and the other minor, so that the first would dominate the day and the other the night. Day and night would therefore be mutually the spiritual and temporal dominion.
“From which they infer that since the Moon, the minor luminary, has no light except insofar as it receives it from the Sun, so the temporal realm has no authority except insofar as receiving it from the spiritual power.”
However, this allegory is a stretch in the reading of the sacred text:
“Indeed, those two luminaries were created on the fourth day and man on the sixth, as it is evident from scripture. Moreover, since these two powers straighten man towards certain ends, as we shall illustrate later, if man had remained in the state of innocence as he was created by God, he would not have needed such correction. In fact, those powers serve as a remedy against the infirmity of sin.”
To those who would insist to support the allegory of the Sun and Moon, abusively equated with Pope and Emperor, despite the previous unquestionable refutation, Dante replies as follows:
“Therefore I affirm that, although the Moon receives abundant light from the Sun, it does not follow that the Moon depends on the Sun […] As far as its existence is concerned, it does not depend at all on the Sun. […] By analogy I affirm that the temporal [power] does not receive its existence from the spiritual one […] If the Moon is the temporal power and receives light from the Sun, which is the spiritual one, it receives it appropriately so that it operates all the more virtuously in the light of the grace infused by God in heaven and on earth through the blessing of the Supreme Pontiff.”
To support the thesis of the temporal supremacy of priesthood over sovereignty, some argue that, in the Bible, Levi, from whom the Hebrew priests are descended, was the elder brother of Judah, progenitor of the Kings of Israel:
[Although] the symbol of these two powers, that is, Levi and Judah, both came out of Jacob’s loins […] they maintain that […] Levi was born before Judah, as the Bible says: therefore, the Church is superior in authority to the Empire.
But this only proves that, although there is a spiritual primacy over the temporal, both powers have been separately generated by God.
Others, again, recall that just as the prophet Samuel deposed King Saul, so the Pontiff would have the power to depose Emperors. But this too is incorrect, because Samuel was sent directly by God to fulfil that specific mission. No one, on the contrary, has invested the Popes with such a permanent power.
Some claim that the Magi offered incense and gold to Christ, thus recognising that he was Lord of both spiritual and temporal matters. The Pope, being the vicar of Christ, would therefore have equal lordship over both realms. But as previously mentioned the Pope is not Christ, but only his vicar. God is like a prince who can delegate his powers to one of his vicars, yet also:
“If this is the case, it is clear that no prince can delegate a vicar totally equivalent to himself.”
And, again, the partisans of papal superiority misinterpret what Jesus said to Peter:
“«Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven». […] From which they infer that the Pontiff himself has the power to loose and bind the authority and laws of the Empire.”
But, in fact, the sentence of the Gospel quoted was the conclusion of a speech in which Christ, addressing Peter, specified:
“«I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven», which means I will make you a porter of the realm of heaven.”
Dante also here rectifies the meaning of the Gospel passage: Christ’s words were indeed meant to describe the institution of the sacrament of penance, and not to licence the Pope to subvert the imperial order.
Finally, Dante corrects the interpretation of another Gospel passage, after which the Pope’s partisans claimed that both powers were given to him by divine mandate:
“They endorse their opinion on the passage of Luke, when Peter said to Christ: «Behold, here we have two swords». And they say that by those two swords are meant the two said dominions. Peter said that he had them there meaning that they were in his power; from which they infer that those two dominions belonged by authority to Peter’s successor.”
But in the Gospel text Jesus intended to warn the apostles to be strong because soon he would be arrested and put to death and they would be persecuted. Peter, who often was not the brightest, mistakenly understood that they would have to resist, so he told his Master that they were prepared and that they were already armed with two swords.
“That Peter, as was his custom, spoke superficially is shown by his hasty and thoughtless understanding. It was not only because he was motivated by sincere faith, but also because of his simple-minded and gullible nature.”
These observations give Dante, initiate and master of the Faithfuls of Love, the opportunity to demonstrate how Peter was the most superficial of the apostles, often misinterpreting Christ’s own words: for this very reason he had to become the head of the exterior Church. And in this way, by reserving for Peter and the entire series of his successors, the Popes, the mark of an exclusively exoteric spiritual authority, Dante concludes his examination of the Papacy’s claims based on scriptural sources. At this point he harshly criticises the Emperor Constantine for donating part of the territory and of the Imperial powers to Pope Sylvester, fact that shattered the universality of the Roman Empire. Constantine had received the monarchy of the universal Empire, a power that had been handed down for many centuries. He could have renounced to the throne, but he would never have the power to make Particular what is by its nature Universal. As we know today, the Donation of Constantine was a forgery drafted during the Carolingian era by papal legates. In the historical reality, Constantine did not relinquish any power, retaining for himself also the Roman Pontifical office that was inherent in the Imperium.
The Donation of Constantine was only the latest and most shameless forgery of documents fabricated to support papal claims. As early as the 6th century, with the obscuration of the Western Roman Empire, due to the barbarian invasions the institutions of Western Europe had to be readjusted. The Bishop of Rome profited from the Imperial vacancy.
“In this remoulding of European institutions, so necessary to the interests of Christianity and civilization, one of the most eflicient agencies was the collection of canons known as the False Decretals. About this period there began to circulate from hand to hand a collection of Papal Epistles, on which the names of the early Bishops of Home conferred the authority of the primitive and uncorrupted church, in- stinct with pure and undisputed apostolic tradition. The name assumed by the compiler was Isidor Mercator, or Peccator, and as the original copy was said to have been brought from Spain, he was readily confounded with St. Isidor of Seville, the eminent canonist, who, two centuries before, had enjoyed a wide and well-merited reputation for extensive learning and anquestioned orthodoxy.
Denis the Less, who, in the first half of the sixth century, made an anthoritative collection of canons and decretals, commences the latter with Pope Siricius, whose pontificate lasted from 384 to 398; and there are no earlier papal epistles extant in the nature of decretals. When, therefore, the decisions and decrees of more than thirty apostolic fathers, of venerable antiquity, were presented under the sanction of ecclesiastics high in rank and power, and when these decrees were found to suit most admirably the wishes and aspirations of the church, it is no wonder that they were accepted with little scrutiny by those whose cause they served, and who were not accustomed to the niceties of strict archaeological criticism. It could hardly be expected that a prelate of that rude age would analyze the rules presented for his guidance, and eliminate the false, which sewed his interests or his pride, from the true, with which they were skilfully intertwined. Some, more enlightened than the rest, perceiving that, although their own power was enhanced, so it was their bond of sub-jection to the central power, tried to mutter faint and cautious doubts; but the vast majority received the new decretals with unquestioning faith, and though political causes delayed their immediate adoption, yet soon after the middle of the century we find them received with scarcely a dissentient voice.
Riculfus, who occupied the archiepiscopal see of Mainz from 784 to 814, is credited with the paternity of this, the boldest, most stupendous, and most successful forgery that the world has seen.”
But, what was the reason that lead the Papacy so far as to falsify documents in order to distort the laws represented by Roman law, and thus usurping the temporal power of the Empire? Dante lets Marco Lombardo explain this with the following triplet, only apparently obscure:
The laws are there, but no one enforces them:
your shepherd-in-chief may ruminate,
but he does not have the split hoof.
The laws of Roman Right are there, but no one respects them because they all follow the bad example of the Pope: Pope has the right to ruminate but does not have a split hoof. The last verse of the triplet refers to Leviticus (XI.3-8) which states by law that it is lawful for Jews to eat the meat of ruminants that also have a cloven hoof; that is, cattle, sheep and goats. However, Dante, to these simply dogmatic dietary injunctions, superimposes a symbolic interpretation. Ruminating, in fact, is the repeated chewing of food to better digest it. It is therefore a metaphore for a repeated reflection on what has been learnt, until complete assimilation, what in Sanskrit is called manana. The Pope, therefore, since he has no split hoof, would have the task of devoting himself to knowledge, and not to action which is exclusive prerogative of the Emperor. Following on St. Thomas, Dante interprets the bifid hoof as the ability to distinguish what is right from what is wrong according to the law; enforcing earthly justice is the main mission of the Sovereign.
The one extinguished the other,
and has the sword grafted on the crozier
that so forcibly conjoined, must degenerate.
The Pontiff has weakened the other, the Emperor. He merged the pastoral staff and the sword, and these two powers, forcibly unified in his person, are badly matched and mutually hindered. St Peter’s simplicity was overlaid with the Popes’ greed for earthly power, and this has resulted in the progressive loss of knowledge. Or, conversely, the Popes’ greed for earthly power had increased, in order to compensate for their progressive loss of knowledge.
Dante concludes the Monarchia by confirming as a rule the clear distinction of jurisdiction between the two Suns, regardless of the situation of imperial debilitation and the serious spiritual degeneration of the Papacy of his time:
“Ineffable Provvidence has thus designed two ends to be contemplated by man: first the happiness of this life, which consists in the activity of his natural powers, and is prefigurated by the terrestrial Paradise. And then the blessedness of life everlasting, which consists in enjoyment opf the countenance of God, to which man’s natural powers may not attains unless aided by the Divine light, and which may be symbolized by the celestial Paradise. To these states of blessedness, just as to diverse conclusions, man must come by diverse ways.”
“Methinks I have now approached close enough the goal I have set myself, for I have take the kernels of truth from the husks of falsehood, in that bquestion which asked whether the office of Monarchy was essencial to the welfare of the world, and in the next which made enquiry whether the Roman people rightfully appropriated the Empire, and in the last which sought whether the authority of the Monarch derives from God directly, or from some other. But the truth of this final question must not be restricted to mean that the Roman Prince shall not be subject in some degree fron the Roman Pontiff, for mortal felicity is ordered in a measure after immortal felicity. Therefore, let Cæsar honor Peter as as a first-born son should honor his father, so that, refulgent of light of paternal light, may spread his own light over the entire world over which he has been set by Him who alone is Ruler of all things spiritual and temporal.”
To Dante’s evidences on the mutual independence of the source of the two powers, we can add that the medieval empire drew transmission directly from the pre-Christian Roman Empire and, in turn, for the Papacy the institution of priesthood represented the transmission of Christ’s vicars. This historicist argument, however, has the defect of not proving the direct origin of each authority from God.
The last sentences used by the Divine Poet to conclude De Monarchia are of fundamental importance to fully understand his thought. He succeeds in transcending the historical contingencies, that he was even personally affected by, to draw up a doctrine on the two powers that covers a truly universal perspective. After having clarified beyond any doubt all the reasons demonstrating the total autonomy and independence of the two Suns, whose authority derive directly from God without intermediation, Dante recognises the Papal primacy. In fact, the Imperial power wields authority on earthly life, limited, therefore, to the field of action after the birth in a gross body. Health, wealth, worldly success for the single individual and his family, peace, harmony, happiness: these are the ends that the Roman Empire aims to guarantee to all mankind. Happiness, therefore, is also enjoyed by peoples living outside the borders garrisoned by the Empire’s milites, whose pax romana reverberated its civilisation and order to the furthest corners of the universe. The universal charisma of the Roman Empire is the result of righteous and virtuous actions aimed at achieving the Garden of Eden on earth. The assonance with the concept of universal sovereignty of the Sanātana Dharma is truly astounding. The sovereignty over the entire universe (sarva-bhūmi) of peace and justice (śānta sudharma) is the product of righteous actions (dharmya karma) performed by following the universal laws that God created together with the world to maintain its order. The actions produce visible results (dṛṣṭa phala) propitiated by the virtues of the Emperor (Samrāt).
On the other hand, the vicars’ Christ wields authority on a domain of different nature:
“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. Terefore, my kingdom is not from here.”
Here, too, there is a similarity with the function of the priesthood (brāhma) of the Sanātana Dharma. The Church of Rome should grant access to the Salvation in the heavens (paraloka sthāna) after leaving the body (dehānta) and especially, in the highest heaven (Satyaloka or Brahmaloka) which Jesus calls the ‘kingdom of heaven’ and Dante ‘heavenly Paradise’. In order to attain the highest heaven, the individual must perform righteous deeds (dharmya karma) that produce invisible results (adṛṣṭa phala) propitiated by the Pope’s ritual power to bind and unbind as earlier mentioned. However, since those results leading to the worlds of the Afterlife are invisible (i.e., they cannot be experienced in life), faith (viśvāsa) and hope (āśā) must be added to the virtues required to perform the rites.
“Having created the world and seeking to ensure its existence, Bhagavān (the Lord) brought forth in the beginning the Prajāpatis, as Marīci and others. Then he imparted them the Vedic active life’s low (pravṛtti dharma). Later, bringing forth others like Sanaka and Sanandana, he imparted to them the law of renonce (nivṛtti dharma), marked by knowledge and detachment. Indeed, the Vedic Dharma making for the world’s stability is two-fold: action and renounce. The law of Dharma is what directly promotes the prosperity and the Liberation of living beings. It is cultivated in the pursuit of progress by castes of men, set in different stations of life (āśrama). […] The Vedic dharma of works, promoting prosperity in the world, and enjoined on the castes and life-stations, promotes the purification of the mind when it is observed with a sense of devotion to Īśvara and without expectation of results; though normally i.e., when done with desire for fruits, it leads its sādhakas to the higher stations of heavenly beings and so forth. It also, indirectly, subserves the attainment of Liberation, since such work purifies the mind and the purified mind becomes fit for practising the way of knowledge which, in due course, leads to the liberating knowledge itself. Keeping this idea in mind, the Lord declares in BhG (V.10-11): «The yogin act without attachment for purifying the mind». The science of the Gītā, thus elucidating especially the two-fold Dharma of the Vedas, is aimed at Liberation.”.
From the quoted passage of Śaṃkara above, it is clear that Dante’s doctrine of the two Suns corresponds to the doctrine of the two Dharma, pravṛtti and nivṛtti of the eternal tradition, and this also ultimatly disavows the Sun-Moon theory. Having demonstrated the correctness of Dante’s doctrine, it is necessary, at this point, to emphasise the differences. In fact, the two Dharma of Hinduism correspond exactly to the path of action (karma mārga) and the path of knowledge (jñāna mārga). The former leads all to earthly happiness and, in the afterlife, to avoid hell (nāraka)and attain the heavens and good rebirths; or also it enables initiates (dīkṣita) to take the pitṛyāṇa or devayāna. On the contrary, knowledge, and knowledge only (Brahma Vidyā), leads to Liberation (mokṣa). In the case of the Christian-Medieval tradition, however, the externalisation of the Latin Church and the loss of monastic initiation changed the situation considerably: Papacy was left with the power to bind and unbind in order to obtain the posthumous salvation and avoid damnation. We would like to lastly mention that the knowledge that initiation preserved in monasteries in the early Middle Ages did not correspond to the knowledge of the Supreme Ātman at all, but only to aparavidyā. The disappearance of knowledge in the religious sphere and the Popes’increasing greed for power were viewed with great concern by Dante and the Faithful of Love. The Empire and the chivalric initiation, that somehow had survived, started to be persecuted by the outer religion. In fact, Alighieri himself witnessed the outarageous suppression of the Order of the Temple. The failing of the Empire was caused by its traditional conduct towards the Papacy, even during their harshest diatribest. The Emperor had always behaved with the utmost respect towards the Pontiff, recognising that the latter’s authority extended to heaven. There was, therefore, full awareness that the very continuation of chivalric initiation was facing extinction, as, in fact, happened shortly afterwards. What Henry VII and Dante tried to do was defenitly the last attempt to save the Western Tradition.