Although
in everyday language these two words (Initiate and Adept) are used as if they were synonyms, Blavatsky
explained that in an esoteric sense they have great differences:
“The Initiates are sure to come in company with the
gods.”
(Socrates in
Plato’s Phaedo, 60 C)
In the first issue of La Revue Théosophique, at the beginning
of the fine lecture of our Brother and colleague, the learned corresponding
secretary of the Hermes Theosophical Society, we read in a note:
« We term Initiate every seeker
in possession of the elementary data of occult science. It is necessary to be
careful not to confuse this term with the term Adept, which stands for the
highest degree to which an Initiate can attain. We have in Europe many
Initiates, but I do not think there are any Adepts, like those of the Orient. »
(Note 2, p.23)
Unfamiliar with the fine points of the
French language, and not having at my elbow even an etymological dictionary, it
is impossible for me to say whether this double definition is authorized in
French, except in the terminology of Free-Masons. But in English, and according
to the meaning sanctioned by usage among the Theosophists and the Occultists of
India, these two terms have a meaning absolutely different from the one given
to them by the author; I may say that the definition given by Monsieur Papus of
the word Adept is one that applies to the word Initiate, and vice versa.
I would never have thought of
pointing out this error —in the eyes of Theosophists, at least— if it did not
threaten, as far as I can see, to produce a most deplorable future confusion in
the minds of the subscribers to our Journal.
Using —as I am doing myself— these
two qualifying terms in a sense entirely opposite to the one given to them by
the Masons and Monsieur Papus, quid pro quos which should be avoided at all
costs are bound to arise. Let us understand each other first, if we want to be
understood by our readers.
Let us agree upon a fixed and
invariable definition of the terms which we use in Theosophy, for otherwise,
instead of orderliness and clarity, we would bring into the chaos of ideas held
by the world of the profane nothing but greater confusion.
Without knowing the reasons which
have made our learned co-worker use the above-mentioned terms as he has, I will
limit myself by confronting the “widow’s Sons” (the Masons) who are using them
in a sense diametrically opposite to their real meaning.
Adept
Everybody knows that the word
“Adept” comes from the Latin Adeptus. This term is derived from two words: ad,
“of,” and apisci, “to pursue” (âp in Sanskrit).
An Adept is therefore an individual
who is versed in some art or science, having acquired it in one or another
manner. It follows that this term can be applied just as well to an adept in
astronomy, as to one in the art of making pâtés de foies gras. A shoemaker as
well as a perfume-maker, the one versed in the art of making shoes, and the
other in the art of chemistry, are both “adepts.”
Initiate
In the case of the term Initiate, it
is different. Every lnitiate must be an adept in occultism; he must become one
before being initiated in the Greater Mysteries. But not every adept is always
an Initiate.
It is true that the Illuminati used
the term Adeptus in speaking of themselves, but they did so in a general sense,
as in the seventh degree of the Order of the Rite of Zinnendorf. Thus again,
one used the terms Adoptatus, Adeptus Coronatus in the seventh degree of the
Swedish Rite; and Adeptus Exemptus in the Seventh degree of the Rosy Cross.
This was an innovation of the Middle Ages.
None of the real Initiates of the
Greater (or even the Lesser) Mysteries is called Adeptus in classical works,
but rather Initiatus, in Latin, and Epoptes, in Greek. The Illuminati
themselves gave the title of Initiates only to those among their brethren who
were more learned than all the others in the mysteries of their Society. Only
the less learned ones were Mystes and Adepts, seeing that they had yet been
admitted but to the lower degrees.
Let us now turn to the term “initiate.”
It should be stated at the very
outset that there is a great difference between the verbal and the substantive
form of the word. A professor initiates his student into the first elements of
some science, a science in which that student can become an adept, in other
words versed in his specialty. On the contrary, an adept in occultism is at
first instructed in religious mysteries, after which, if he does not fail
during the terrible initiatory trials, he becomes an INITIATE.
The best translators of the classics
invariably render the Greek word as “initiated into the Greater Mysteries”; as
this term is synonymous with Hierophant, “he who explains the sacred
mysteries.”
Initiatus with the Romans was
equivalent to the term Mystagogos and both were exclusively reserved for the
one who, in the Temple, initiated into the highest mysteries. It represented
then, figuratively, the universal Creator. No one dared to pronounce this word
before the profane. The place of the “Initiatus” was in the East, where he was
seated, a golden globe hanging from his neck.
The deformations made by the Masons
Freemasons have tried to imitate the
Hierophant-Initiatus in the person of their “Venerables” and the Grand-Masters
of their Lodges.
But does the cloak make the monk?
It is to be regretted that they did
not limit themselves to this one and sole profanation.
The French (and English) substantive
“initiation,” being derived from the Latin word initium, beginning, the Masons,
with more respect for the dead letter which kills, than for the spirit which
quickens, have applied the term “initiate” to all their neophytes or
candidates—to the beginners—in all the degrees of Masonry, the highest as well
as the lowest.
And yet, they knew better than
anyone else that the term Initiatus belonged to the 5th and highest degree of
the Order of the Templars; that the title of Initiate in the mysteries was the
21st degree of the Metropolitan chapter in France; and that the one of Initiate
in the profound mysteries indicated the 62nd degree of the same chapter.
Knowing all this, they nevertheless applied this sacred title, sanctified by
its antiquity, to their mere candidates, youngsters among the “Widow’s Sons.”
But just because the passion for
innovations and modifications of various kinds made the Masons do things which
an occultist of the Orient would consider a veritable sacrilege, is that a
reason why Theosophists should accept their terminology?
The answer is no.
As far as we are concerned,
disciples of the Masters of the Orient as we are, we have nothing to do with
modern Masonry. The real secrets of symbolic Masonry are lost, as Ragon, by the
way, proves very well.
The
keystone (that is, the esoteric knowledge on which ancient Masonry was founded),
the central stone of the arch built by the first royal dynasties of Initiates —ten
times prehistoric— has been shaken loose since the closing of the latest
mysteries. The task of destruction, or rather of strangulation and suffocation
begun by the Caesars, has finally been completed, in Europe, by the Fathers of
the Church. Imported again, since those days, from the sanctuaries of the Far
East, the sacred stone was cracked and finally broken into a thousand pieces.
Upon whom shall we lay the blame for
this crime?
Is it upon the Freemasons,
especially the Templars, persecuted, assassinated, violently despoiled of their
annals and their written statutes?
Is it upon the Church which, after
appropriating to itself the dogma and rituals of primitive Masonry, was bent
upon making its travestied rites pass for the only TRUTH, and decided to stifle
the latter?
Whichever it may be, it is no longer
the Masons who have the whole truth, whether we cast the blame on Rome or the
insect Shermah of Solomon’s famous temple, which modern Masonry claims as the
basis and origin of the Order.
(Observation: Blavatsky said that according
to a Jewish tradition, the stones which were used to build Solomon’s temple (an
allegorical symbol taken literally and made into an actual edifice) were not
chiselled or polished by human hands, but by a worm called Samis, created by
God for this express purpose.
These stones were miraculously
transported to the location where the temple was to be erected, and cemented
afterwards by the angels who built Solomon’s temple. The Masons introduced the
Worm Samis into their legendary history and call it the “insect Shermah.”)
For tens of thousands of years, the
genealogical tree of the sacred Science which all races had in common, remained
identical, as the temple of this science is ONE and is built on the unshakable
rock of primeval truth. But the Masons of the last two centuries have preferred
to detach themselves from it. Once more, and this time in practice, rather than
in theory, they shattered the cube, which then broke into twelve parts. They
rejected the real stone for the false, and whatever they did with the former
one —their corner-stone— it was not according to the spirit which quickens, but
according to the dead letter which kills.
Is it again the Worm Samis (alias
“insect Shermah”)—whose traces on the rejected stone led the “builders of the
Temple” into error—which gnawed at the same structure? What was done then, was
done knowingly. The builders surely knew the sum total by heart, i.e., the
thirteen lines of five faces (this is explained below in note 1).
What does it matter?
As for ourselves —faithful disciples
of the Orient— we prefer, instead of all these stones, one that has nothing to
do with any of the other mummeries of masonic degrees.
We will keep to the eben Shetiyyah
(which has a different name in Sanskrit), the perfect cube which, while
containing the delta or triangle, replaces the name of the Kabbalistic
Tetragrammaton by the symbol of the incommunicable name.
We willingly leave to the Masons
their “insect,” hoping meanwhile for their sake that modern symbology, which
advances with such rapid strides, does not discover the identity of the Worm
Shermah-Samis with Hiram-Abif — which would be rather embarrassing.
However, on second thought, this
discovery would not be without its useful side, nor would it be without great
charm. The idea of a worm being at the head of Masonic genealogy, and the
Architect of the first Masonic temple, would also make of this worm the “father
Adam” of the Masons, and would endear the “Widow’s Sons” even more to
Darwinists. This would bring them closer to modern Science which seeks natural
proofs to strengthen the theory of Haekelian evolution.
What would it matter to them, once
that they have lost the secret of their true origin?
(Observation: Masons claim their first
temple was Solomon's temple and here Blavatsky is sarcastic with them.)
Let no one object to this assertion
which is a well-established fact. I take the opportunity of reminding the
Masonic Gentlemen who might read this, that, as far as esoteric Masonry is
concerned, nearly all its secrets have disappeared since Elias Ashmole and his
immediate successors. If they try to contradict us, we will tell them, as Job
did: “Thine own mouth condemneth thee and not I: yea, thine own lips testify
against thee” (xv, 6).
Our greatest secrets used to be
taught in the Masonic lodges the world over. But their Grand Masters and Gurus
perished one after the other, and what remained written in secret manuscripts —
like the one of Nicholas Stone, for instance, destroyed in 1720 by
conscientious brethren (2) — was reduced to ashes between the
end of the XVIIth and the beginning of the XVIIIth century in England, as well
as on the continent.
Why such destruction?
Certain brethren in England have
said from mouth to ear that the destruction was the result of a shameful pact
between certain Masons and the Church.
An aged “brother,” a great
Kabbalist, has just died here, whose grandfather, a renowned Mason, was an
intimate friend of Count de Saint-Germain, when the latter was sent, it is
said, by Louis XV, to England, in 1760, to negotiate peace between the two
countries. The Count de Saint-Germain left in the hands of this Mason certain
documents relating to the history of Masonry, and containing the key to more than
one misunderstood mystery.
He did so on the condition that
these documents would become the secret heritage of all those descendants of
the Kabbalists who became Masons. These papers, however, were of value to but
two Masons: the father and the son who has just died, and they will be of no
use to anyone else in Europe. Before his death, the precious documents were
left with an Oriental (a Hindu) who was commissioned to transmit them to a
certain person who would come to Amritsar, City of Immortality, to claim them.
It is also told, confidentially,
that the famous founder of the Lodge of Trinosophists, J.M. Ragon, was also
initiated into many secrets by an Oriental, in Belgium, and some say that he
knew Saint-Germain in his youth. This might perhaps explain why the author of
the Tuileur général de la Franc-Maçonnerie, or Manuel de l’Initié, affirmed
that Elias Ashmole was the real founder of modern Masonry.
No one knew better than Ragon the
extent of the loss of Masonic secrets, as he himself says:
- “It is of the very essence and nature of the Mason to seek light
wherever he thinks he can find it,” proclaims the circular of the Grand Orient
of France. “In the meanwhile,” he adds, “they give the Masons the glorious
title of children of light, and they leave them enveloped in darkness!” (3)
Thus, if Monsieur Papus copied the
Masons, as we think, in his definition of the terms Adept and Initiate, he was
wrong, for one does not turn towards darkness when one is already standing in
the light.
Theosophy has invented nothing, has
said nothing new, but simply faithfully repeats the lessons of the remotest
antiquity. The terminology established some fifteen years ago in the
Theosophical Society is the correct one, because in every case these terms are
a faithful translation of their Sanskrit equivalents, almost as old as the
latest human race.
This terminology could not be
modified at present, without running the risk of introducing into the
theosophical teachings a chaos which would be deplorable and dangerous to their
clarity.
Let us remind ourselves of these
truthful words of Ragon:
« Initiation had its cradle in
India. It has preceded the civilizations of Asia and Greece, and in refining
the mind and the customs of the people, it has furnished the basis for all
civil, political, and religious laws.
The word initiate is the same as
dvija, the “twice-born” Brâhmana. It means that initiation was considered a
birth into a new life, or, as Apuleius has it, it is a “resurrection to a new life,”
novam vitam inibat. (4) »
_ _ _
Except for what has been pointed out
above, the lecture of Monsieur Papus on the seal of the Society is admirable,
and the erudition which he displays therein is most remarkable. The Fellows of
our Fraternity owe him sincere thanks for explanations which are as clear and
just as they are interesting.
H.P. BLAVATSKY
London, March, 1889.
NOTES
1. This sum total is made up of a bisected isosceles triangle — three
lines — the edge of the cube being the base; two squares diagonally bisected,
each one having a perpendicular line towards the center — six lines; two
straight lines at right angle to each other; and a square diagonally bisected —
two lines; sum total — 13 lines or 5 faces of the cube. (Blavatsky)
2. This is what Mackey’s Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry (1929), Vol. II,
p. 970, says about it:
« This manuscript is no longer in existence, having been one of
those which was destroyed, in 1720, by some too scrupulous Brethren. Brother
Preston (1792 edition, p. 167) describes it as ‘an old manuscript, which was
destroyed with many others in 1720, said to have been in the possession of
Nicholas Stone, a curious sculptor under Inigo Jones.’ Preston gives, however,
an extract from it, which details the affection borne by Saint Alban for the
Freemasons, the wages he gave them, and the Charter which he obtained from the
King to hold a General Assembly.
Anderson (Constitutions, 1738, p.99) who calls Stone the Warden of
Inigo Jones, intimates that he wrote the manuscript, and gives it as authority
for a statement that in 1607 Jones held the Quarterly Communications. The
extract made by Preston, and the brief reference by Anderson, are all that is
left of the Stone Manuscript. » (Boris
de Zircoff)
3. Cours
philosophique, etc., p.59-60. (Blavatsky)
4. Although these actual words could not be located in the Latin text of
Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, yet it is most likely that what is meant is the
passage in Book Xl, xvi (Helm’s ed.), which states in parts “qui vitae
praecedentis innocentia fideque meruerit . . . ut renatus quodam modo statim .
. .” — “one who earned by reason of the innocence (blamelessness) of his former
life a sort of resurrection, etc.” (Boris de Zircoff)
(This
letter was first published in the French magazine La Revue Théosophique, Paris, Vol. I, No. 2, April 21, 1889, p.1-8,
under the title "Signal de danger". Later in Blavatsky Collected Writings XI, p.170-185)
