A Letter to Blavatsky

The archives at the international theosophical headquarters in Adyar India, former home of Colonel Olcott and Blavatsky, are formally devided in two parts, one general and the other related to the esoteric section.
However very few people receive access, and in most cases the excuse is used that since there is no librarian momentarily (since many years) no access can be granted.
This is unfortunate, because the adyar archives contain very valuable material for researchers. Concerning my own visit I must say that the residents and persons in charge in Adyar are friendly. I did not research all of the Archives, the letter below however is indeed an unpublished letter from the esoteric section part of the archives.

Burton Lane, Withington, Manchester

January 2, 1878.  
 

My dear Madam,

I am greatly obliged to you for the amount of information in yours of the 19th ultimo. I fear I shall be too troublesome to you at present, and hope you will forgive me. I sent by registered book post today (enclosing also a cutting from 'Public Opinion' reviewing ISIS UNVEILED) the rough draft of a paper for some future edition of my 'Spec. Freemasonry'. My object in sending you this is to show you by a comparison, how nearly my spiritualistic enquiries correspond to your own, whilst altogether opposed to our own education; and you may judge from this how highly I must value your book as an authority. The first part of the chapter is formed from extracts from your book; and if I have not fairly comprehended your theories or have omitted any important point, kindly jot down on the blank page and return me the paper.

I should be delighted to see you personally, but fear I might not find it convenient to go to London. You will most likely come to Liverpool by either the Cunard or Inman Line. If it is 4 or 6 months hence, there will be a new line---the most direct to London (via Withington and Stockport) will almost pass my door, and I should be glad to have you here for a few days. If the New Line is not then open we are only 4½ miles (by omnibus) from Manchester, and you could send on your luggage to London and run up to us. If my life is spared we may hereafter be of use to each other in developing the truths of the East and West.

I will adopt your revised Ceremonies and am much obliged for the trouble you are giving yourself. The position I am debating is whether there should be two sets of ceremonies of the 7°---perfected and unperfected, or only one with a lecture upon perfection, giving a comparison between Eastern and Western Masonry. This you must kindly settle for me.

I wish to advance 3 objects---1. Censorial (with the 7 imperfect ceremonies, 4 of which I sent you), 2. Perfection (giving the gist of the Vedic doctrine), 3. For a select few, the division of the 7 grades according to the dogma of the East. Or would you make two branches---1. the Censorial 7 rites, and 2. the ceremony of Perfection, ranking as the first Eastern grade, Censor the second, and Sponsor the third? Kindly suggest what we should do. The two classes of females would be found in the Perfect and Imperfect. I have no confidence in following anything that is done here. I am of opinion that what I have sent you is compiled by Capt. Archer, from memory of what the 7 Sat Bhai of Prag (English officers) were taught by the Brahminical pundit Antiram of the family of Chowbi of Benares. They know only imperfectly what he taught.

A.& P. Rite. I should like to know what Gotheran has got to do with my granting you a Patent of Adoptive Masonry, our appanage of the Rite? If you want the Ritual you will have to get that of "Ragon" in Paris, perhaps 2 francs. The Patent legalises what you will get there and ought to admit anywhere to any lodge of "Adoptive" Masonry. English Masons are dead against it here and therefore its introduction requires great caution. Sotheran wrote me about Levi's Patent and I thought I had scattered its atoms to the four winds of heaven, but it seems I am mistaken. They are merely trying to delude you with wordy subtleties, and this will necessitate my letting you into a secret in strict confidence. Sotheran is not in good standing in the Rite here, and therefore not in America. He therefore wishes to set up a spurious counterpoise. Marconis was in New York in 1856 and started the 32°-96°, and whatever the Grand Orient may have said they vised and sealed Seymour's Patent in the same year, and all their Annals down to 1866 (when America broke off relations with the Grand Orient) acknowledge Seymour as C.M. with appointment of mutual representatives. Whoever says different to this is a liar, probably wilfully so. In the face of this it does not matter a button whether Majnon's signature was forged or not, but the evidence is negative, and I do not believe it. Levi's charter has never been heard of till now, is perhaps a forgery and certainly a spurious document, for it was his duty to have carried it under the lawfully established Gov. Sanc. Down to the present time the legality of Seymour's Gov. Sanc. has never been disputed by anyone, it has been regularly acknowledged by the Grand Orient and reference to it is to be found in Marconis' printed books. Who then will believe a word these schemers say? The want of progress both here and in America is caused by the strong opposition the Rite has to encounter in the infamous, swindling, lunatic humbug---the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

I send you by this post a small pamphlet giving a full and accurate history of the Rite, and as far as I know every word is true. I knew Sotheran very well here, he told me once that his grandmother had negro blood. He is a man of very good ability in his business, that of a publisher or publisher's assistant, and as such I respect him. Outside that he would have a difficulty in giving one point of resemblance between us, for we are wide as the poles. He is very good-natured and willing to assist in his line, and he is therefore entitled to mutual consideration from those who can give it, but I am sorry to hear that in many respects he maintains his character here---evidently we shall quite agree on this point.

I have never met Mackenzie personally, he is a nephew of John Hervey, the Gd. Sec. of the Gr. Lodge, partly dependent upon him, and has the character of being somewhat of a Bacchanalian. He is a member of the Swedenborgian Society and makes a very good Grand Sec. of the Swed. Rite (which progresses). I have only fault to find with him and that is, that like all Scotchmen he is opinionated, and perhaps he is too sly and diplomatic for my open character. He is a learned and liberal man and given to astrology and occult matters.

By Yama (a mistake) you mean I think Capt. Archer. He was sometime resident in Manchester, and I made his acquaintance here through Prince Rhodocanakis. He is in poor circumstances thus---his half captain's pay may clear him perhaps £100, of this £80 a year was settled upon four children resident in Edinburgh by his first wife, whilst he married again (a young wife) upon the remaining £20 or £30 a year and has, in delicate health with a bad liver brought from India, to eke out a livelihood by writing for the papers. He is a polished man, also crochety, who seems to surrender his point only to attack it in another mode with Scotch pertinacity. Always polite, he is always in antagonism, and hence has no friends. If he has any faith, I fancy it is Brahminism, but he is too cautious to let anyone know what he really thinks. He seems to write a nice but a vague style and hence 1 doubt his profundity.

I only know Stainton Moses from his papers in the "Spiritualist" and from one or two letters I had from him through Capt. Ruris of Bristol (a great collector of Occult literature). S.M. would be of use to you from his relations with the Spiritualists (of which I am not one---as a sect). I have noticed that his mediumistic powers often elicited matter explanatory of my own obtainings and proved the truth of both, but as to style and matter I form the same opinion of him as of Archer.

Sometime when you see Hyneman, will you ask him who was the Piat mentioned in some of Marconis' letters. Piot published a diagram of the degree of Master of Masters from the symbolic 'Orient of Memphis' in 1876--- are they the same man? I am obliged to Hyneman for the good opinion which you say he holds of me.

You did not answer my enquiries as to Eastern and Western Masonry and it confirms my previous opinion; viz., that there is no immediate relationship between them, and only a very remote derivation.

In speaking of Apex as our 'Abstraction' the term was used only in the same way that we may say God is our 'abstraction'---the term was not happy. The Censors are now engaged in adopting an organised working and anything you can offer me in the way of suggestion will be highly valued, and I will do my best to have them adopted. I am now insisting that the Mandate shall convey power (as a charter) to each brother to hold meetings of his seven, to receive, and to adopt resolutions for the good of Masonry and the Sat Bhai, and forward for the consideration of the Censors--to act upon as they think necessary. This will, if carried out, give us eventually power.

We sent the Maharajah of Burdwan a Mandate with a complimentary letter, but he did not reply. Archer had formerly dined with him once or twice when in India. I am greatly obliged and interested by the many excellent remarks you offer me. Some of them ought to be embodied in the Ceremonials, but I do not feel myself competent to aid in drawing them.

Remember me kindly and respectfully to Col. Olcott, and wishing you, he and all the members of the Theosophical Society a happy and prosperous New Year,
 

I remain,

Ever sincerely yours,

John Yarker.
 
 

Me. H.P. Blavatsky,

New York.

 

 

For updates click homepage here