Today's Debate on Indology.

[Guest guest]

The following is part of a debate on Indology and

IndianHistory/Philosophy that will include one scolar from

hindureform (AT) ya (DOT) and last two days. Results will be posted on the

Internet at : http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9

 

Anybody else that knows something Indology or IndianHistory/Philosophy

is welcome to post additional info's on following tread (you'l need to sign=

 

up, but anybody can) :

 

theos-talk/message/9024

 

To begin with, the Theosophical Masters have been claimed to possess

the highest authority, and H.P. Blavatsky has been asserted as their

reliable "absolutely consistent" spokesperson.

 

The Theosophical Masters or Mahatmas, originally Koot Hoomi (K.H.)

and Master Morya (M), are considered by Theosophists and numerous

New Age groups to be the authors of the over 100 "Mahatha

Letters." In these Letters, the Mahatmas have made great claims about

their teaching authority. Others have accepted these Masters' claims to

teaching authority as valid, and have thus based their entire

world-view and life choices on the teachings of these Theosophical (T)

Masters.

For some this has been a life-enriching experience, which has

inspired philosophical inquiry, intellectual growth, virtue, altruism, a

sense of universal brotherhood and other good things in them. These

Theosophists have extracted things from the teachings of the T

Masters that reinforced their inherent goodness and encouraged their

intellectual growth and moral development and intellectual-affective

integration on many levels. Such a positive outcome is no-doubt what

H.B. Blavatsky and other of the Theosophical leaders had in mind at the

outset of their mission to create a global order devoted to their esoteric =

 

=

 

studies.

 

However, some of the central ideas contained in the T

Masters' "Mahatma Letters" inspired malevolent, not

benevolent people, and through the world-view and life-choices of these

ill-motivated people, led to some persistently dangerous global

ideologies and tragic outcomes in history. It is a given that the same can =

 

=

 

be said regarding some ideas contained in the Vedas, or the Bible etc.

For example, in India, the Vedic and Puranic concept of the sacramental

social body (Daiva Varnashram Dharma system) of the self-sacrificed

cosmic Purusha (Rig Veda Purusha Sukta Hymn) was corrupted by the

conscience-less powerful into the oppressive reincarnation-and-karma

doctrine related birth-caste system. As in Protestant Puritanism, a

happy privileged life was considered by the elite birth-caste Brahmins to

be the result of cosmic favor or su karma / good karma. Those

powerless persons suffering from poverty etc. were considered

unworthy of anything better by virtue of their previous sinfulness and

resultant cursed birth / vi-karma or bad karma. Thus this Vedic doctrine

of varna interpreted by non racist people of benevolent good-will could

result in a just and peaceful, progressive unifying social order. However

the same doctrine could result in oppression and birth-class slavery

when interpreted by racist persons of ill-will. In the same way the

Christian mission to go out and save people may be the inspiration for

either altruistic, benevolent and socially unifying acts that build

non-sectarian human community, or the gospel mission may be

misinterpreted as a mandate to forcibly "convert" humanity in colonial

and muslim jihadi-like campaigns.

 

Historical Denial Does Not Serve the Best Interest of Humanity

 

It does not serve the best interest of humanity to ignore the

historical relationship between the ideal of the Vedic Varnashram

Dharma system doctrine and the horrific pathological reality of the birth-

caste system. It does not help humanity to ignore the historical reality

of=

 

therelationship between the doctrine of Christian mission and its

perverted manifestation, the doctrine of Euro-American global

conquest. In the same way, it is not in the best interest of humanity to

ignore or totry to cover-up / obscure the historical relationship of certai=

=

n

Theosophical ideas to colonial 'white" Aryan racism, later nazi

aryosophism,and the diffusion of these ideas into various other socially

pathological, racist and scientistic movements. Ideas have history, and

even the best of ideas are misunderstood and abused or corrupted over

time and distance as they diffuse through various existing thought-

systems and languages. Time and circumstance modify ideas. Even

when an attempt is made to protect an idea from modification by

doctrinalizing it, varying perspectives allow for doctrines to be

interpreted in different ways.

 

Thus a non racist and a racist reading the Purusha Sukta will see

different doctrines in it. A doctrine or creed (credo=Shraddha), like

beauty can exist "in the eye of the beholder," as well as codified in

documents.

 

As a result, persons of good-will and those of ill-will can seem to

profess the same creed, but the content of the creed, the meaning of the

words is not the same for them. The document is the same, the

difference being in their perspective.

 

Syncrestic Buddhism in the Mahatma Letters...The Masters Reject the

Brahminical Scriptures of Hinduism

 

Letter from H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett. This letter includes a

message from Master Morya.

Dehra Dun. Friday. 4th.

 

"It is useless for a member to argue `I am one of a pure

life, I am a teetotaller and an abstainer from meat and vice. All my

aspirations are for good' etc. and he, at the same time, building by his

acts and deeds an impassable barrier on the road between himself and

us. What have WE, the DISCIPLE of the true Arhats, of esoteric

Buddhism and of Sanggyas to do with the SHASTERS and Orthodox

Brahmanism? There are 100 of thousands of Fakirs, Sannyasis and

Saddhus leading the most pure lives, and yet being as they are, ON THE

PATH OF ERROR, never having had an opportunity to meet, see or even

hear of us. THEIR FOREFATHERS HAVE DRIVEN AWAY THE FOLLOWERS

OF THE ONLY TRUE PHILOSOPHY UPON EARTH AWAY FROM INDIA and

now, it is not for the latter to come to them but to them to come to us if =

 

=

 

they want us. Which of them is ready to BECOME A BUDDHIST, a Nastika

as they call us? None."

 

BA G: In this quote, the "Shasters" (Shastras, Holy Sanskrit

scriptures) of India are rejected, and the teachings of the T Masters and

HPB are clearly identified with Theravadin (Southern or atheistic)

Buddhism, centered in Sri Lanka, which was driven out of India during

and subsequent to the reign of the Mahayana Buddhist emperor Asoka.

Asoka's own Buddhist Master had an Ashram in Mathura, the ancient

capital and educational university "Vatican City" of Royal

Krishna-centric Vaishnavism, which the pure land tradition of Mahayana

Buddhism is closely related to. The form of Buddhism "driven away"

from India was that of Sri Lankan related Theravadin Buddhism.

 

The TS teachings continually merge contradictory Mahayana and

Theravadin Buddhist doctrines, especially in their combined use of

Nepalese-Tibetan with Sri Lankan sources. However, they seem to

contain no appreciation of the intimate historical relationship

between Vaishnavism and Pure Land Buddhism, as is apparent from all

the Sanskrit Buddhist texts, iconography and interdisciplinary evidence

in ancient combined Vaishnava and Pure Land Buddhist centers of

worship like Vrindavana-Mathura. Instead of correctly associating the

Mahayana doctrines, rites, iconography etc. of Nepalese-Tibetan

Buddhism with earlier theistic Krishna-centric Vaishnavism, the T S

Masters generally ignore the profoundly important Vaishnava link, and

instead focus on the "esoteric" deconstruction of other-power salvific

Buddhist transcendentalism, and watering-down of the theistic

associations with "Hinduism" to re-present N-Tibetan Buddhism as

merely a covered form of Theravada.

 

Of course this campaign of Theosophy reinforced the exoteric-theism-

versus-esoteric-atheism dichotomy already in N-Tibetan Buddhism.

Esoteric Voidism haunts Mahayana Buddhism in the same way that

esoteric atheism haunts "Hinduism" in the form of extreme

impersonal Advaita Vedanta, and esoteric gnosticism still haunts

Christianity in the West. Thus while claiming a love of India and her

sacred traditions,in fact, the Theosophists rejected her authentic

traditions of salvific transcendental personalism, the dominant exoteric

Bhakti traditions of Krishna-Vishnu, Shiva and Devi, to promote a form of

exoterically Hinduized but esoteric, covered syncrestic Buddhism. The T

Masters were not masters of the corpus of Sanskrit or Southern Indian

Dravidian sacred Vishnu, Shiva, Devi and Marugan etc, literatures. They

did not teach about the direct relationship between Pure Land Buddhism

and Vaishnavism, and they seemed to know little about the great

devotional, salvific traditions of either Northern or Southern India. They==

 

 

presented themselves as the highest authorities on ancient wisdom, but

apparently felt that honoring the sources of their wisdom, the

"Shasters" that they disdained, was not necessary. Thus they presented

their own system of thought, using language and teachings from various

shastras without properly representing those texts, or their source, the

Supreme Deity of the Vedas and Puranas, Upanishads, Samhitas, temple

Archana Vigraha worship, Bhakti hymnology etc.

 

The Eastern teachings of the T Masters are a concoction of doctrines

drawn principally from Vaishnava and Buddhist sources, and they claim

to be the "highest authority" of this "only true philosophy" on Earth.

Blofeld, in his book on Tantric Mysticism In Tibet argued that the

different schools of Buddhism are like different grades. We can see

this same general attitude among Theosophists, who also consider the

deity visualizations of Tibetan Buddhism to be like a high school level of =

 

=

 

Buddhism, while the no nama-rupa (no name-form) practice of Zen

Buddhism is considered to be like the PhD program.

 

Theosophy teaches that there are Planetaries (like the astrological

planet regents or devas) and ascended Masters or their equivalent of

bodhisattvas, but there is no transcendental supreme personality of

Godhead, who is the source of such beings. In Theosophy the Dharma

Kaya, or ultimate reality is totally impersonal, and personality only

exists in a qualified state in the Nirmanya (or Sambhogya) Kaya. So the

T S Masters are the highest authorities of the one true philosophy on

earth, and clearly teach a Buddhism that rejects the original

transcendentalism of the Vaishnava-related Mahayana Tri Kaya (trinity),

with its authentic bodhisattva doctrine, in favor of a Sri Lankan and Zen

related form of Theravadin Buddhism. Even so, the "absolute nothing"

(see Maseo Abe for example) of orthodox Sri Lankan- related

Theravadin Buddhism is not authentically and consistently represented

throughout the letters of the Mahatmas.

 

Now we have a general idea of the Masters' authority claims, the

near nil extent of their Shastric knowledge-base (they reject the

shastras) and the primarily syncretistic Buddhist Eastern aspect of their

perspective. Their writings are full of thought-forms, language and

references which clearly indicate a European higher education, so

Theosophical lore takes this into account, through reference to their

European education. Others (the Hare brothers etc.) have made textual

studies of the Mahatma Letters for internal evidence of their

authorship.

 

However, I am not concerned with the Masters classical Western

education in this series of comments on the Mahatma letters. I am

concerned with whether or not the Letters accurately represent the

Eastern traditions that the Masters claim to have mastered, and have

so obviously drawn from.

 

The Relationship Between The Masters and H.P.Blavatsky

 

At this point, we come to the question of the claimed relationship

between the Masters Koot Hoomi, Morya and Madame H.P. Blavatsky,

who was considered their absolutely consistent representative. What

authority is claimed for her ? Is she considered as equally

infallible as some Theosophists consider the Masters K.H. and M? In the

below, it is claimed that Madame Blavatsky was actually an incarnation

of Serapis, the Master of K.H. and M themselves!

 

Published by Blavatsky Archives. Online Edition copyright 2002.

 

"Bear Witness!" Who Was the Real H.P.B. ?

Compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell

 

A Mighty Adept Using the Old Body Called H.P. Blavatsky

 

"From the above material, it would appear that Serapis, one of

the Chiefs or Chohans of the Occult Brotherhood, was the Superior or

Teacher of both Master K.H. and Master M. Furthermore, Serapis (being

a Nirmanakaya) had taken on his "present incarnation" using

the "old body" called H.P. Blavatsky as a instrument for his "life of

self-sacrifice."

These insights help us to understand more fully the significance of

KH's words about H.P. Blavatsky:

"After nearly a century of fruitless search, our Chiefs had to

avail themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European body

upon European soil to serve as a connecting link. . . ."

 

BA G: Thus while HPB was playing at being the student of her Masters

K.H. and M, Theosophists teach that she was actually their Master.

The whole scheme gets quite convoluted, with the cast of T Masters

eventually being credited with human progress in general, through

their astounding litany of previous incarnations.

 

The Authenticity of the Theosophical Revelation

 

The Mahatma letters are part of the larger body of Theosophical

teachings, whose greatest early contributor was Madame HPB / her

Masters. There are many claims made about the

mystical "precipitation," automatic writing or"channeling" (modern

term) of the Masters' teachings through HPB and others. Again I

am not as concerned with these issues as I am interested in the use or

misuse and misrepresentation of authentic, redacted / corrupted or

concocted ancient Eastern source-works. Like Joseph Smith's

"miraculous" translation of his invented Egyptian "Book of Mormon"

tablets, or works claiming to be based on documents about Jesus found

in a Tibetan Lamasery, or the claimed "Essene Gospel" of the bogus

modern so-called Essenes, there is a pattern to the emergence and

presentation of esoteric and neo-gnostic spurious "ancient" source

works.

 

These typically are miraculously produced translations of some hidden,

lost or obscure text, inscriptions or other revelation, with built-in

deniability when it comes to authentication of the source. There is

always some reason why the original source-work cannot be produced.

Perhaps it was taken back up to heaven by an angel. Maybe it was

destroyed by Catholics, or hidden in the Vatican Library under guard.

 

In any event, the original document must be unavailable so that others

can not analyze it for authenticity, and compare the original

text's "miraculous translation" for accuracy. In the case of the Mahatma

letters, and the "Stanzas of Dyzan," the problem of authenticity has been

avoided by claiming that these writings were produced through the

spiritualistic mediumship of HPB.

 

Before her career as a Theosophical revelator of ancient Eastern

wisdom in India, she was a medium and conjuror in spiritualist

séance and medium circles in America. She was extraordinarily well read,

knew several languages, and was a great story teller and prodigious

writer who once ran a writing shop, and was expert in just the skills she

would need to take dictation from the invisible Masters. Although she

seemed to overtly hate Judaism and Christianity, she could also be an

outspoken champion for those she considered wronged or oppressed. A

complex and brilliant women, HPB commanded respect even from some

educated and powerful men, in an age when women were not expected

to be the intelligent champions of anything. It should be kept in mind

that the social evils that were later to manifest from some of her seeds

of thought, were surely not anticipated or desired by her. (I obviously

do not accept the idea that she was "Serapis," and thus an

all-knowing Master, outside of the normal influences of time.) At some

point in her conjuring and minor-league mediumship, she "got religion"

so to speak, and embarked on a life-long mission to better the condition

of humankind. She was no doubt well motivated, but produced a mixed

work that was part genius and part nonsense and trickery. The

question is ...why should people bandon the study of authentic ancient

religious and philosophical source-works to accept her / the Mahatmas'

synthesis / writings as the ultimate authority on the world's

hidden mysteries?

 

The Mahatma Letters.

[Caps for emphasis in quoted text mine, BA G]

 

"BTW—even if HPB STOLE HER IDEAS and theories from all the

ancient and modern teachers of the hidden mysteries (including Hermes,

Pythagorus, Plato, Buddha, Lao Tse, Vyasa, Patanjali, etc.) -- WHY

SEND EVERYONE TO THEM to learn new languages and dig it out for

themselves, covering the same tracks that Blavatsky did—when all

of it was so CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY synthesized in the SD (along

with other explanatory writings of HPB and associated scriptural

confirmations) in the common language that most everyone of a

thoughtful mind in the world, today, can understand?"

"In any event, I'm satisfied that the ultimate truth, as

close as we'll ever get to it (barring faith in the "revelations" of one's

favorite guru or God) is in theosophy's corner where intuition and reason

are the only Gods worth listening to."

 

BA G: This is the crux of the problem as far as I am concerned. It

is a matter of the basic integrity or reliability of the information that

has been presented in the Mahatma Letters, and the acknowledged

writings of H.P. Blavatsky and the other prominent personalities of the

early Theosophical Society and movement. What valuable truth did the

Theosophical Masters actually convey? Why should everyone go to the

the Masters, instead of to the still extant authentic ancient sources

of classical Eastern and Western wisdom? Did the Masters and H.P.

Blavatsky always clearly and accurately synthesize and represent

important ancient teachings and traditions in her work? Or were there

serious omissions, contradictions, and other errors? Were some of

their representations of ancient traditions seriously flawed, corrupted by =

 

=

 

extreme bias and / or even actually dishonest?

 

Regarding Atheism in the Mahatma Letters...

 

The above current Theosophist's view regarding "the only gods

worth listening to," should be compared to the statement below, of

Master Koot Hoomi himself.

 

"Mahatma Letter No. 10

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm

 

[Transcribed from a copy in Mr. Sinnett's handwriting.—Ed]

 

Notes by K.H. on a "preliminary Chapter" headed

"God" by Hume,

intended to preface an exposition of Occult Philosophy (abridged).

 

Received at Simla, 1881-? `82.

 

[Caps for emphasis in the quoted text below are mine, BA G]

 

"NEITHER our philosophy nor ourselves BELIEVE IN A God, least of

all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital G."

 

.... "Therefore, we DENY God both as philosophers and AS

BUDDHISTS. We know there are planetary and other spiritual lives, and

we know there is in our system NO SUCH THING AS GOD, EITHER

PERSONAL OR IMPERSONAL. Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute

immutable law, and Iswar is the effect of Avidya and Maya, ignorance

based upon the great delusion. The word "God" was invented to

designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either

admired or dreaded without understanding them, and SINCE WE CLAIM

AND THAT WE ARE ABLE TO PROVE WHAT WE CLAIM—i.e. the

knowledge of that cause and causes we are in a position to maintain

THERE IS NO God OR Gods BEHIND THEM." ...

 

Confusion in the Master Results in Confusion in the Chela.

 

One Theosophical Society leader demonstrated why attention should be

paid to understanding Eastern thought and traditions, and individual

texts and persons, from reliable, historically authentic sources. He

profoundly erred in identifying myself (BA G) with ..."Vedantist

and Buddhist sectarian and separatist teachings"....

 

If he had acquired any knowledge about the subject in general from

clear and accurate, reliable sources, he never could have confused me

with a "Vedantist." If he had any understanding of the

various real-world sources and traditions involved, and had read and

understood my biographical sketch on the site where his comment was

posted, he would not have confused me with "sectarian and separatist

teachings." I am a person who has studied deeply in numerous

traditions, having a distinguished history of service in non-sectarian

interfaith activism. My own teachings are anything but "separatist." As a

Shiksha (instructing) Master, in a lineage of Vaishnavism from which

some of the Masters' / Blavatsky's teachings have been appropriated, I

have some familiarity with the Sanskrit terms they used, as found in the

real ancient source works. I also have a clear understanding of the

differences between some of the various schools of "Hindu" thought. As

a Master in a Bhakti Yoga lineage, it is laughable to hear myself referred =

 

=

 

to as a "Vedantist" in such a way.

 

One of my main criticisms of the Theosophical Society teachings is

that they misrepresent teachings from genuinely ancient theistic and

atheistic sources by appropriating, distorting, re-contexting and

misinterpreting them. For instance the Mahatmas' teachings sometimes

make use of ideas from Vaishnava traditions, but make no proper

reference to the theistic thought-systems from which the ideas have

been acquired.

Thus the cyclic Yuga (eon / age) rounds of a finite universe, emanations

from Godhead and Shakti, days of Brahma and such ideas are presented

without their proper context and meaning. For example, in the

authentic Vaisnava sources, the world-age Yugas are associated with

the Yuga Avataras of Hari, or Krishna-Vishnu (Amitabha-Lokesvara in

Pure Land Buddhism) who is the transcendent Deity, and the source of all

spiritual and material realms and worlds (Vyuhas and Lokas). However

the T S Masters do not properly present the relationship of the Yugas to

the transcendental Deity. While there is some emanationism in the

Masters' doctrines, it is not presented accurately from either the

Vaishnava or Vaishnava-related earliest forms of Pure Land Buddhism.

Instead, the saving Deities of other-power Pure Land Buddhism are

represented more as dependent-arising products of mind and dualism.

Outside of 'visualization', and the highest, subtlest material states, the

Deities have no transcendent personal existence in the Dharma Kaya.

However, a depth study of Northern Buddhism from India to Japan

reveals the DHARMA KAYA is HRIH / HARI, the original PERSON OF THE

GODHEAD IN VAISHNAVISM. Thus the Dharma Kaya was not originally a

state of Buddhist extinction or non-being.

 

But the T Masters do not represent Buddhist Voidism or Advaita

Vedantist impersonalism purely either. Their "Buddhism"

seems a strained synthesis of Vaishnava doctrines and the teachings of

several different traditions of Buddhism. They try to associate their

amalgamated Buddhist teachings with Sri Lankan Theravada, Tibetan

and Zen Buddhism, this creates a strange brew when the emanationism

of Vaishnavism (without its Divine source) is added to the mix. When

time cycles and the days of Brahma etc. are described, the origin of

Brahma (Helios Phanes) in the personality of Godhead (Narayana) is

not really stressed. In these and many other cases, the Mahatmas do

not deliver to their students a "clear and accurate" synthesis of

ancient teachings and scriptures. In fact they seem to have had an

agenda to edit-out the theistic context and content of the ideas that they

used.

 

Thus their product (the Mahatma Letters) appropriates elements from

both theistic and atheistic traditions and corrupts these, forming an

attempt to harmonize elements of theistic cosmogonic revelation, with

modern watered-down Neo-Vedantism and an equally corrupted form of

syncretistic Neo-Buddhism. by creating such a non-historical hodge-

podge of spuriously 'ancient' doctrines from various mis-used

sources, the Theosophical teachers render their chelas incapable of

clear, accurate, rational thought involving these matters. A basic

knowledge of real Indic traditions would have insured that the author

who called me a "vedantist" would not have accused a Vaishnava Bhakti-

Yoginof atheistic advaitan teachings by using such a loaded sectarian

term.

 

Because the Masters and other T S writers frequently confounded and

merged and misrepresented Indic thought and traditions, Theosophists

typically have no real grasp of the most basic truths regarding these

real-world traditions. Having accepted HPB's "Reader's

Digest"-like condensed version and synthesis of the wisdom traditions,

they have cheated themselves out of a more direct and authentic

experience of the

same.

 

Humility is Just Honesty About Oneself...The Pathology of Needing to

Concoct, or Following Self-Appointed or Spurious Masters

 

This gets to the personality development and disciplinary aspect of

the

issue. Why would someone who really wants to understand something,

choose not to go to the SOURCE and properly discipline themself in

its

understanding? Why would a person prefer to speculate about

something from the outside, rather than studying it up-close in a

scientific, disciplined manner? The problem is that certain kinds of

people cannot submit to any real-world authorities and hate to be

required to live by rules of conduct and standards of behavior. They

don't want to discipline their inquiry into any kind of

traditional approach.

They don't want to be bothered with the facts that disagree with

them,

and they don't want to learn anything that requires real

discipline

or "surrender." Such people will typically make-up their OWN

ALTER-

EGO AUTHORITIES to validate themselves and / or give themselves

credibility with others. Thus they can play at the humility and

surrender

game, without ever really submitting themselves for instruction to

anyone. As a result we see the endless proliferation of "humble

servants" and "messengers" of the invisible or

conveniently inaccessible

Masters, who never really require any surrender on "their"

disciple's

part. The "disciple' OF THE INVENTED MASTER becomes, as a

messenger of their inaccessible Master (s), the REAL GURU / Master of

others, who really do desire a real-world flesh-and-blood authority.

Thus we can observe the endless innovation and diffusion of new

esoteric and occult "spiritualities" based on the sincere surrendered

following of some people, who blindly submit to those flesh-and-blood

Masters who are themselves only the "servants" of a PROJECTED

authority-figure of THEMSELVES. So, the problem is not that HPB and

her real-world incarnate friends assembled a syncristic

thought-system from a vast number and variety of sources. The problem

is that they did not have the honesty about themselves, the humility to

admit the genealogy of their ideas. THIS IS THE BASIC PATHOLOGY OF

THE LACK OF INTEGRITY IN "SPIRITUAL BUT NOT RELIGIOUS" GROUPS.

 

Organized Religion is Not a Bad Thing...GSS Traditions and the

Authentic Preservation and Diffusion of Ideas

 

Meanwhile in the exoteric Great Religions, real-world masters require

real-world surrender, discipline (diksha) and sacrifices from their

surrendered students, but IN RETURN THEY DELIVER THE AUTHENTIC

TEACHINGS OF REALLY ANCIENT AND VENERABLE TRADITIONS. "You

get what you pay for" ....in this case either the intellectual

and devotional heritage of centuries of exoteric traditions, or the

concoctions of modern era "esoteric" cheaters. Authentic ancient

traditions still living have exoteric lineages, real examinable ancient

scriptures, real ancient histories and preserve the legitimate teachings

of their lineages doctrinally. etc. Such traditions are the real guardians =

=

 

of ancient scriptures and wisdom. It takes a lifetime of disciplined study =

 

=

 

to master even a tiny bit of what such traditions have to offer. But, the

proud "gnostic" or undisciplined jnani who idolizes their own

brain, will not usually be attracted to a life time of study in anything

really demanding of them. It is difficult to learn when one thinks that

they already know everything, and has an aversion to all kinds of real

authority. The proud gnostic concocter would rather be self-educated

than to actually plumb the depths of anything through real surrender

and disciplined inquiry with an authentic master requiring their respect.

 

This is the pathology of the Masters-channeling New Age movement. I

have seen channeling groups that are nothing other than mutual-

deification societies. Every member is in an unspoken agreement to

validate each other's fantacies of cosmic specialness.

Receiving "messages" from their Masters, or Master Beings,

the chelas reinforce their mutual fantacies of previous illustrious

incarnations, being angels, aliens, demigods and goddesses etc. Thus

they feed on each others' proud dishonesty and manipulativeness.

Usually because there really is no other authority than themselves,

surrender to these imaginary "Masters" never really requires anything of

them.

 

The Scholarly Contributions of Such self-Delude People

 

The result of such a person's scholarly endeavors usually shows

their disdain for accountability to real world history and truth, the

proper citation of previous authorities and scientific methodology. Such

personstypically want so-called "spirituality" without

"religion." They want to master science or history or some field without

being actually trained in the disciplines of that field. They tend to be

masters of everything in their own opinion, but instead they are not the

real masters of anything. They tend to be dabblers, who are venerated

as masters by gullible people with a poor fund of knowledge. Now, in

my opinion, H.P Blavatsky and her friends, were both dabblers and the

actual masters of something. Their prodigious efforts and sacrifices

did produce something. What they did master is on exhibit for all to see

in the Mahatma Letters and other primary Theosophical Society writings.

It is not that these writings have no value, but one should approach

them as what they are, and not confuse them with what they claim to be,

the highest authoritative teaching of the only true philosophy on earth.

 

So What Were the Theosophical Society Masters the Masters Of ?

 

Theosophical Society and Movement Propositions From T S Sources

 

1. The only true philosophy of the Earth, Theosophy identified as

Buddhism, is found in the Mahatmas' Letters, and these Letters

are the primary source of esoteric / occult or higher wisdom for

Theosophists. Next to these letters, the "Stanzas of Dyzan" are of

canonical importance to Theosophists.

 

2. The Theosophical Masters, authors of the "Mahatma

Letters," especially Koot Hoomi, Master Morya and Serapis, are the

highest authorities who have revealed themselves to humanity.

 

3. The Master of the Masters Koot Hoomi and Morya, is Serapis.

 

4. H.P. Blavatsky is the rather hidden incarnation of Serapis.

 

5. The brotherhood of Theosophical Masters has reincarnated

throughout time, guiding the world (and evolution of the races). Thus

all previous revelations, religions and advances in various fields, must

be interpreted in the context of their supposed relationship to the T S

Masters.

 

6. The priests of dogmatic or doctrinal ORGANIZED RELIGIONS have

corrupted their scriptures, so it is better to read the more

authentic core of teachings contained in the "Stanzas of Dyzan" and the

synthesized teachings of the Mahatmas and HPB. There is no need to

learn languages and study the source works themselves, as HPB has

provided a clear and accurate synthesis of everything in these that is

significant to study.

 

7. Sannyasis and Sadhus etc. are "on the path of error," and

Theosophy has nothing to do with the Shastra of Brahminism.

 

8. Koot Hoomi / Theosophy absolutely denies the existence of God or

Gods.

 

My additional assertions...

 

9. There is an amalgamation of Mahayana and Theravadin Buddhism

with Advaita Vedantism and Vaishnava sources in the teachings of

Theosophical "Buddhism."

 

10. Madame Blavatsky was a very intellectually gifted and educated

person, who was the central figure in the whole development of

Theosophy. Whether or not she wrote the Mahatma Letters with the

help of corporeal or incorporeal beings, may or may not be of

importance in certain kinds of analysis of the letters. The actual

content of the letters can be examined in relationship to real-world

ancient textual and living traditions, to see if the Mahatmas'

presentations are accurate with regard to those thought-systems.

 

Let Us Now Consider Some of the Curious Facts Related to the Specific

Mixture of Kashmiri Eastern and Western Esoteric Teachings in the

Mahatma Letters.

 

In one letter KH writes to Sinnett:

...."Our best, most learned. and highest adepts are of the races

of the `greasy Tibetans'; and the Penjabi Singhs -- ..."...

 

Most of the debates that I have seen regarding the T.S. Masters have

focused on the Masters' identity, the "precipitation" of

their letters, H.P. Blavatsky's or someone else's medium-ship or

"channeling" of their thoughts / writings, textual analysis of their letter=

=

s

forcontemporary or near-contemporary plagiarized material, stylistic

elements, language or other clues to their identity. I do not intend to

address any of these things, which have all been chewed before.

Rather than chewing-the-chewed, like a cow not done with its cud, I

want to provide a reading of the Letters from the perspective of a

person familiar with some of the source-works and traditions that the

Mahatmas used and / or claimed to be representing. Ideas and the

words, written and spoken, and images or symbols and actions that

convey them, have history. Innovations occur and get diffused. Ideas

spark social movements that wax and wane. Thought-forms, like

other "things" have certain time-and-space limitations.

 

Communication is sent and received in specific forms and languages.

Each word or symbol has a content actually intended by its sender,

and any number of meanings imposed on it by receivers. Scientifically-

minded historians (not historical-fiction writers) want to know what

was actually meant by the creators or sender(s) of a document from the

past. They want to understand the successive meanings giving to an

original or earlier document by later translators and commentators.

They want to peel-back the layers of time, and get at the original

core of an idea. Such scientifically-minded persons do not want to

impose meanings on history, they want to discover the real meanings

already there in history. They don't want to "massage the data"

to fit into preconceived notions of history, or to support an agenda of

some kind.

 

The real lover of truth wants to understand what really happened, who

the real players were, and what their motives, means and actions, and

the consequences were etc. Such investigators use scientific

methodologies and means of inquiry designed to safe-guard the

objectivity and integrity of their efforts. They try to avoid errors

by rigorously identifying their sources, to be sure of authenticity.

 

In the case of my own studies, from the very beginning I learned of

the value of interdisciplinary research from my father (a research

electrobiophysicist), who taught me that errors could be avoided and

facts established beyond doubt by approaching a subject or question

from a multiplicity of disciplines instead of only one. Thus my

studies utilized every discipline that I could bring to bear on a particula=

=

r

question. This has given me a well-rounded grasp of the main subjects

of my historical inquiries.

 

In Theosophical sources, the Master Koot Hoomi (K H) writes about the

Tibetans and Penjabi Singhs, Mr. Sinnet says that K H was a native of

the Punjab, H.P. Blavatsky says that Koot Hoomi is a Pujabi, and both

Blavatsky and others identify K H with Kashmir. Thus, I begin my

commentary on the Mahatma Letters with this fact, because I will be

focusing quite a bit on the Kashmiri-like syncristic Vaishnava,

Buddhist and related content of the Letters. There is a well-established

connection between the Sikhs of Kashmir and Theosophy. What people

don't realize is that the Sikhs often worship in Vishnu temples,

because of their close historical connection to Vaishnavism. Tibetan

Buddhism, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Devi worship, Sufism, Sikhism and all

the branches of these traditions have their own real world histories. For

example, there is a traditional date for the entrance of Padmasambhava

into Tibet, and thus an eighth century AD historical beginning to

Tibetan Buddhism. The Advaita Vedantism of Sri Adi Shankaracharya

has a history too, as do the successive waves of Ishmali and Sufi

Mohammedanism into the Punjab and Kashmir. In the Mahatma Letters

there is a curious mix of Atheistic and Theistic Vaishnava, Advaita

Vedanta, Mahayana and Theravadin Buddhism, Sikh and Sufi

reinterpretations of Vaishnava, Shaivite and Devi teachings, and

other amalgamations which can be found ESPECIALLY in the region of

Kashmir. In the religious melting-pot of Kashmir today for instance,

there may be found Vaishnava-influenced Muslim Sufi brahmins who do

not eat flesh, Tantric-influenced Sahajiya Vaishnavas, various Sufi-

Vaishnava or Sufi-Vaishnava-Shaivite hybrid groups, and Sikhism,

which as another Sufi-Vaishnava-Shaivite hybrid religion is of course

related to the Vaishnava and Shaivite Kshatriya (warrior class) of the

Punjab.

 

Thus the Sikh name "Singh" is important in this connection.

 

Pure Land Buddhism, as originally in Nepal and Tibet, has its

historical origins in Vaishnavism, and so is connected to the strange

Kashmiri mix in the thread of Vaishnava doctrines and practices running

through the whole region. It is from this regional melting-pot of Indic

and=

 

Western (Sufi and Gnostic) traditions that the Masters K H and Morya

seem to have acquired some of their unorthodox understanding of the

Sanskrit Shastras (scriptures) and to have created their hodge-podge of

an eastern thought system. Whoever they were, they were masters of

something, but what was that something? To assess their competence

as masters of eastern traditions, one would need themself to be

qualified in such traditions. As an instructing master in the

Vedic-based Tradition of Vaishnavism, I am qualified to assess the

accuracy of the what the masters have presented from my own

tradition. Since the oldest literary traditions in the region are clearly

those of the Sanskrit Vedic Vaishnava-related texts, and the Masters

refer to some doctrines from these texts, then it is reasonable to assess

the Mahatmas' presentation of ideas from these texts to determine their

accuracy.

 

The Example of the Rig Veda and Proto-Mahayana Buddhism

 

For example, the Rig Veda is by all estimations very much older than

the Advaita Vedantan writings of Adi Sankaracharya, the beginning of

Tibetan Buddhism (8th c AD), the Era of Asoka, or even the life of

Sakyamuni Buddha Himself. The Purusha Sukta Hymn is considered by

many scholars to be among the oldest surviving writings of humanity.

The Purusha Sukta is found in a collection of Vedic Sanskrit Hymns,

the Rig Veda. These hymns glorify God under a variety of Names and

Forms, as these forms have appeared from the Cosmic Body of the

universal self-sacrificed Purusha, Who is described in the Purusha

Sukta.

 

In later corruptions of this monotheistic tradition, the forms of

Purusha, are demoted to a mere multiplicity of "gods." Thus

polytheism, pantheism etc. eventually obscured the originality and

supremacy of Purusha as the transcendent supreme Deity of the Rig

Veda. Purusha assumed a cosmic form for self-sacrifice to create,

sustain (as sacramental food / Prasadam) and redeem every world /

cosmic manifestation. In the Purusha Sukta, and related Vedic texts, it is

clearly understood that Purusha is VISHNU. The Purusha Sukta is still

chanted today on Vaishnava altars as the Eucharistic PRASADAM

offerings are being made. Another one of Vishnu's Vedic names is Asura

(from the root meaning "being,to be, exist"). In the

"Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism," R. C. Zaehner identifies the

cosmic Purusha with the Zoroastrian supreme Deity Ahura Mazda

(Ahura=Asura).

 

The Jagganatha or Universal Form of Vishnu as Purusha is sometimes

called his Vishva Rupa or Virata Rupa. This is one of the theophanies

of SRI KRISHNA that was revealed to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita, The

cosmic form of God in Jewish mysticism is definitely related to the

revelation of Sri Krishna in the Gita. The universal Purusha is of

course identified with the Purusha AVATARA FORMS OF VISHNU. In the

Vedas, Vishnu is called by many names, including Asura and Purusha. It

is Vishnu Who is worshiped in multi-form in the Vedic hymns. This is the

tradition of the oldest stratum of Vedic so-called "Hinduism," and all of

the principle Vedic Nama-Rupa name-forms of Vishnu are found many

centuries later in Mahayana Buddhism, including Tibetan and related

Nepalese Buddhism. There the very ancient Vedic names and forms of

Vishnu-Purusha AS LOKSHEVARA, are connected to Vaishnava doctrines,

rites, practices, sacramental social order etc.. So the foundation of

Tibetan Buddhism is in the much earlier worship of Vishnu-Purusha,

without any doubt. When the entire socio-religious cultural milieu in

which Sakyamuni's Buddhism first developed was Vedic-Vaishnava,

how is it reasonable to assume that the pervasive elements of

Vaishnavism in Mahayana Buddhism are later, intrusions or corruptions?

In fact, Mahayana Buddhism, including Tibetan Buddhism, uses the very

Sanskrit Names of Krishna-Vishnu for the ADI BUDDHA, who is also

called ADI PURUSHA, BHAGAVAN, PURUSOTTAMA etc. To claim that a

younger tradition (Buddhism) owes nothing to its origins is ridiculous.

THIS IS THE SUI GENERIS nonsense of Theravadin Buddhism. The

extremely ancient Purusha Sukta related Forms of Lokesvara are those

of Vedic Purusha or Vishnu. The same names and forms are there in

both the Buddhist and Vaishnava traditions, and this is not peculiar to

the Nepalese-Tibetan form of Buddhism either. Everywhere in Pure Land

Mahayana Buddhism it is the same. The names, forms, doctrines, rites

etc. of the salvific transcendent other-power tradition of Buddhism

are closely related to those of Krishna-centric Vaishnavism. When we

look at the Sanskrit sources for the Mahatmas' Hindu and Buddhist ideas,

again the oldest of these are the Vaishnava and Vaishnava-related

scriptures, litanies and prayers. For those accustomed to thinking of

Sanskrit literatures in terms of some generic hinduism, no such thing

existed in the ancient world. Scriptures were the testimony of specific

traditions, such as the sattvic Vaishnava or Shaivite or tantric Devi

worshiping traditions. In the "CULT OF TARA" by S. Beyer, the original

Sanskrit texts for the Tibetan Buddhist rituals of Mother Tara are given. =

 

 

Any Vaishnava pujari priest would immediately recognize these Sanskrit

mantrams, hymns and rites! So, if we are going to seriously consider

the claims of the Mahatmas to mastery in Tibetan Buddhism, I want to

see evidence in their Letters that they knew of, and understood the

close relationship between Tibetan Buddhism, and Vaishnavism.

 

by H.H. Tridandi Sannyasi Bhakti Ananda Goswami Maharaja of the

Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Lineage of Vaishnavism.

 

Feed-back requested.