Blavatsky and Jainism (was: Budhism)

[Guest guest]

In a Norwegian Encyclopedia from 1969 (Aschehoug), we read:

 

"Jain [dzain], adherent of the Jaina doctrine, an ancient indian

religion whose founder is called Jina, "conqueror", or Tirthankara,

since he conquers in the battle for release and creates a "ferry"

(tirtha) throughout the ocean of the suffering of the world. The last

one of these "conquerors" was called Vardhamana, with the title of

honour Mahâvira, "the great hero", and was a contemporary and a

countryman of the Buddha, lived this in the 6th century BC; but it is

spoken about predecessors, and the last one is placed 250 years

earlier and is supposed to be historical."

 

Then follows a summing up of the Jain religion, which, broadly is

identical with Buddhism. In the texts of the Mahâyâna-Buddhism,

Gauatama Buddha is either called "Bhagavan" or "Jina".

Prajñâpâramitâ-ratnagunasamcayagâtha, which is a summary of the

Prajñâpâramitâ in 8,000 verses, calles for examples buddhists "Jinas

disciples" in verse 3.

 

In her "Isis Unveiled" (1877), H.P. Blavatsky claimed that Buddhism

was an offshot, a spesific sect within Jainism. While most

philologists considers Jainism as "founded" by Mahâvira (599-527 BC),

he was actually the 24th and last Jina or Tirhankara. Blavatsky wrote

in Isis Unveiled, Volume II, Chapter VII, "Early Christian Heresies

and Secret Societies" (p.321):

 

"Does not Pliny show them [buddhists] established on the shores of the

dead sea for "thousands of years"? After making every necessary

allowance for the exaggeration, we still have several centuries B.C.

left as a margin. And is it possible that their influence should not

have left deeper traces in all these sects [Gnostics] than is

generally thought? WE KNOW THAT THE JAINA SECT CLAIMS BUDDHISM AS

DERIVED FROM ITS TENETS - THAT BUDDHISM EXISTED BEFORE SIDDHÂRTA,

BETTER KNOWN AS GAUTAMA-BUDDHA. ...The Hindu Brahman records show the

incarnation from the Virgin Avany of the first Buddha - divine light -

as having taken place more than some thousands of years B.C., on the

Island of Ceylon... The story of Virgin Avany and her divine son,

Sâkyamuni, is recorded in one of the sacred books of the Cinghalese

Buddhists - The Nirdhasa; and the Brahmanic chronology fixes the

great Buddhistic revolution and religious war, and the subsequent

spread of Sâkyamuni's doctrine in Thibet, China, Japan, and other

places at 4,620 years BC....His [buddhas] ideas were developed and

matured while under the tuition of TIR-THANKARA, the famous guru of

the Jaina sect. The latter claim thepresent Buddhism as a diverging

branch of their own philosophy, andthemselves, as the only followers

of the first Buddha, who were allowed toremain in India... If any

disinterested scholar could study carefully theJaina litterature, in

their thousands of books preserved - or shall we sayhidden - in

Rajpootana, Jusselmere, at Patun, and other places; andespecially if

he could gain access to the oldest of their sacred volumes, he would

find a perfect identity of the philosophical thought... between the

Jainas and the Buddhists. And now, if we trace the Jainas back,

....they are the only true descendants of the primitive owners of old

India, dispossessed by those conquering and mysterious hordes of

white-skinned Brahmans whom, in the twilight of history, we see

appearing at the first as wanderers in the valleys of Jumna and

Ganges. The books of the Srawacs - the only descendants of the

Arhâtas or earliest Jainas, the naked forest-hermits of the days of

the old, might throw some light, perhaphs, on many a puzzling

question. But will our European scholars, so long as they pursue

their own policy, ever have access to the RIGHT volumes? We have our

doubts about this."In a footnote, she writes that -"We are told that

there were nearly 20,000 of such [hidden] books."Blavatsky wrote

another place: "In the sacred Jaina books, of Patuna, thedying

Gautama-Buddha is thus addressed: 'Arise into Nirvi (Nirvana)

fromthis deprecit body into which thou has been sent. Ascend ino thy

formerabode, O blessed Avatar!". (p 319).She claimed that "The book

of Dzyân" existed allready during the INDUS culture, and is older

than civilisation of Sumer.In Encyclopedia Britannica or in any

encyclopedia, we read under "Blavatsky" or "Theosophy" that her

"Secret Doctrine" (1888) was formed as a commentary to "a work the

scholars have yet been unable to identify", "a work unknown", etc.

This is also usual to find in litterature on occultism, New Age, etc.

 

The more amazing it is that scholars and the Theosophs THEMSELVES

in 127 years and more have been unable to identify the very NAME of

the book she recited from - "The Book of Dzyân", in any eastern

manuscript. Evil tongues claimes that she recited a non-existent,

fabricated work.

And despite of that, the word "Dzain" are to be found as the true

pronouncement of "Jain" in the most known and widespread encyclopedia

in Norway, and probably also elsewhere.

In volume II of her "Secret Doctrine", she wrote under the title

"Additional fragments from a commentary on the verses of Stanza XII":

"The MS. from which these additional explanations are taken belong to

thegroup called "Tongshaktchi Sangye Songa" [in Tibetan], or the

Records of the "Thirty-five Buddhas of Confession" as they are

exoterically called."And in a footnote, she wrote: "Of these

"Buddhas", or the "Enlightened", the far distant predecessors of

Gautama the Buddha... eleven only belong to the Atlantean race, and

24 to the Fifth race, from its beginnings. They are identical with

the Tirtankaras of the Jainas."If the 24 Tirthankaras wrote

COMMENTARIES to books, it is obvious that these books belonged to the

Jain religion. Dzyâns bok = Jains bok. It is as simple as that.

Why then call the book "Dzyân" instead of "Jain"?In the preface of her

"secret doctrine" (p.viii), she wrote that -"It is more than probable

that the book will be regarded by a large section of the public as a

romance of the wildest kind; for who has ever even heard of the book

of Dzyan?"And in the introductory, she wrote:"True, if a great

portion of the Sanskrit, Chinese and Mongolian worksquoted in the

present volumes are known to some Orientalists, the chiefwork - that

one from which the Stanzas are given - is not in possession

ofEuropean Libraries. The Book of Dzyan (or "Dzan") is utterly

unknown to our Philologists, or at any rate was never heard of by

them under its PRESENT NAME".We read in a footnote:"DAN, now become

in modern Chinese and Tibetan phonetics CH'AN, is thegeneral term for

the esoteric schools and their literature. In the oldbooks, the word

Janna is defined as "to reform one's self by meditation and

knowledge", a second inner birth. Hence DZAN, DJAN phonetically, the

"Book of Dzyan".Middle-Chinese pronopuncement of Ch'an is DZIAN.In

Kharoshthi-document no 511 from Niya, Central-Asia, we find

"dhyâna"represented as "jâna": "te jâna parami gate" - "they attain

mastershp through meditation".If the pauses between vocals (the

tongue pressed against the teeths) were hearable, like "d" in

Gândhari-Prâkrit, we must suppose that words with "j" in the

beginning - or between vocals, was WRITTEN "d", but PRONOUNCED "z".

In a seal inscription from Taxila, Central-Asia, it is written

"mahadhana" instead of the correct "mahajana". In this case, what is

PRONOUNCED "z", is WRITTEN "d" and CONFUSED as "dh".WHY did Blavatsky

use the word "Dzyân", while most say "Jain"?Blavatsky used the CORRECT

pronouncement, while many scholars haven't understood ancient Indian

ortography - just like a large number of hinese and Central Asian

scribes in the first centuries of our era.

 

Blessings from Norway