To Indology scolars worldwide.

[Guest guest]

My reason for posting this on Indology is to kindly ask what are

the comments of Indologists in this group to following "Mahatma Letter"

for millions of people in the world today considdered authentic ancient

Indian and Tibetan teachings. Is that so ?

 

http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/mahatmal.html

 

If you uourself are not in a position to answer this could you pls pass it =

 

on to another Indology list where you think someone could be that can

answer this.

 

The following is written from Vaishnava perspective it is written by by H

H Bhakti Ananda Goswami leader of the Vaishnava Association of

Vrindavana Bharata:

Whether or not God or gods exist, their worship certainly does, and

such worship can be studied rigorously in an interdisciplinary way in

history, the same as any other real-world phenomenon. In the same

way, the 19th century innovation and diffusion of Madame H.P.

Blavatsky's Theosophy can be studied. Thoughts, theistic, atheistic

and agnostic, etc., and the symbols, words and actions which express

them have history. While people of equal intelligence and integrity

may dispute the existence of God, gods, or the Theosophical Masters,

the existence of religions and the Theosophical Society is not

debated. While theosophy classically defined did not come into

being with H. P. Blavatsky (HPB), her 19th century presentation of

the 'theosophy' of the Mahatmas and the Stanzas of Dzyan brought into

being the existence of the Theosophical Society. Despite the fact

that this Society is such a recent historical development, there are

some impediments to understanding the genealogy of its ideas. It

began as an esoteric study group of sorts, and even as the more

public Society was developing, at the core of it remained HPB and her

esoteric section of the exoteric Theosophical Society. It is easier

to trace the course through time and territory of the popular

exoteric `Great Religions' than it is to trace the innovations and

diffusions of the elitist esoteric traditions. Nevertheless, the

esoteric or occult traditions have real-world history too, and with

some additional effort, much can be learned about these as well. Paul

Johnson has noted the sui generis problem (see below).

 

Where authenticity comes in, IMO, is in the frank acknowledgment of

the synthetic nature of the teaching. Cayceites who insist that the

Readings are direct transcriptions of the Akashic Record; Baha'is who

insist that Baha'u'llah's writings are direct words of God;

Christians who insist that Jesus is the one and only Son of God whose

words are the absolute and ultimate truth; Theosophists who insist

that HPB's Theosophy is the ancient wisdom tradition from which

everything else devolved; ad nauseum are engaged in what David Lane

calls genealogical dissociation. That is, denying the actual, always-

complex genealogy of the belief system and pretending that it is sui

generis, direct truth straight from The Source. I don't think

Hinduism or Buddhism are exempt from this behavior pattern, although

they do tend to a bit more self-honesty about the history of ideas.

 

 

The historical and scientific approach to the study of a religion

(or `spirituality,' I might add) is often experienced as threatening

by the faithful, which is another problem encountered when

researchists attempt to objectively trace-out the genealogy,

innovation and diffusion of thought systems. Thus the resistance of

the faithful to those attempting to objectively study their tradition

may result in purposeful non-cooperation in such endeavors, and maybe

even in the denial of, hiding, distortion, or other obscuration of

evidence. In even worse cases, the investigators work may be

suppressed or censured, the investigators personally vilified or

threatened, their writings and even their careers or lives destroyed

for daring to attempt to part the veil, and behold the real-world

genealogy of a 'spirituality' or religion. This ongoing attempt in a

tradition, to deny the genealogy of its teachings, may create a body

of apologetic and polemical literatures designed to defend the faith

from its own origins, and anyone attempting to discover them. Thus

a considerable barrier may be constructed over time, to the

understanding of the history of certain ideas.

 

Above Paul Johnson used the phrase "...self-honesty about the history

of ideas." This immediately caught my attention, because as a

spiritual director, I use the term "self-honesty" on a daily basis

with those I counsel. I use this term because I define HUMILITY as

self-honesty or honesty about, and with one's self. This humility is

the basis of all other virtues and necessary for self-

'realization'. In fact, such humility is in a sense self-

realization. Truth and Honesty are inseparable, and must be held-to

by persons of integrity, as the foundation of everything knowable and

worth knowing. Theosophists like to talk about recognizing what is

mayavic / illusory, but their entire mystical Theosophical Society

history has apparently been fabricated by persons with no apparent

self-honesty, who purposely obscured the true sources of their

information. Thus the faithful of the Theosophical Society bear a

great burden in having to defend against all evidence and reason, the

claims of the Society Founders to "...direct truth straight from the

source" as Mr. Johnson has said. Mr. Johnson also raises the

question "self-honesty" in Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

As someone who has studied the history of ideas in Hinduism, Buddhism

and other religio-cultural complexes for over 30 years, I have some

insight into how various esoteric and exoteric traditions have coped

with, or failed to cope with the fundamental issues of their

genealogy and self-honesty. There is a rather universal way that

organized religious traditions, exoteric or esoteric, preserve and

perpetuate their authentic teachings. In fact, that "...self-honesty

about the history of ideas." is exactly what the system of sampradaya

or parampara and GURU, SHASTRA and SADHU (GSS) is all about in the

authentic teaching lineages of Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shakti-ism,

Buddhism, Catholicism, etc. These exoteric traditions all attempt to

preserve their sacred heritage, by systems of initiation and

apostolic succession. For example, one cannot just claim to be a

Madhvite or Ramanujite Vaishnava master, any more than one could

claim to be a Coptic Catholic bishop without the authority of the

Coptic Rite Patriarch. No one can serve as a bishop in the Roman Rite

Catholic Church, without the proper elevation by the Pope. No one can

just claim to be the next Dalai Lama or Patriarch of any of the

Vaishnava, Shaivite, Shankarite Advaitan, Hasidic Jewish, and

traditional Sufi or Catholic Rite lineages. All of these `Apostolic'

traditions zealously guard their teaching authority, which preserves

the guru, shastra and sadhu history of their ideas and practices. The

real-world checks and balances system of guru (living teacher in

union with the magisterium), shastra (scripture, canonical body of

writings) and sadhu (the tradition of the saints, mystics,

theologians and commentators), provides exoteric religions with a way

to try to safeguard the historical integrity and continuity of their

traditions. Thus the legitimate lineages of Vaishnavism, Shaivism and

Buddhism, etc., are extremely strict about properly identifying their

history of ideas and practices. No one can speak from the

Vyasasana `ex cathedra' without proper lineage credentials.

While rejecting the teaching authority of Catholicism for example,

and these other major exoteric organized religions,

the 'spiritualities' of the esoteric or occult or Gnostic lineages

also employ systems of GSS. Thus they speak of initiations,

hierarchies, masters, chelas, have sacred or revered literatures and

exemplars (saints) just like the exoteric 'organized' religions they

oppose. So the esoteric schools of thought have not really

dispensed with religious authority and the necessary social

organization to preserve and promote their teachings, they have just

replaced a more exoteric, popular and widely-accepted religious

authority with their own esoteric and less known, more elite

authority.

 

 

The historical outcome of the GSS system of preservation and

transmission, in practice, means that for example, I can trace

certain ideas in my specific lineage back thousands of years, because

each generation in my lineage has identified its accepted sources,

heroes and associations with those of previous generations. I can

also trace some of the major and minor branching-out of ideas and

practices from the main `trunk' of my lineage, and identify some

groups that are proximately or remotely related to my own today.

Because there is such a high value placed on such parampara or

sampradaya lineage affiliations in the main Indic traditions,

studying these has enormous value for an historian of religion. It is

because of this "...self honesty of the history..." of their ideas,

that India and Tibet etc., have any recorded history to be studied at

all. It has been said that Indians wrote no history of India.

However, this cannot be said if one is considering the histories of

the great religious traditions of India, whose vast libraries were

full of detailed accounts of the lives and thought of the generations

transmitting their sacred traditions. One of the great tragedies of

the Muslim invasion of India was the vast destruction of Indian

religious center monastery-university cities and all their

libraries. Still, there is an enormous corpus of authentically

ancient religious literatures extant in India. After India won her

independence, with Government support, the Bharata Vidya Bhavan

went

on a campaign to rescue, publish and translate the classical

literatures of Bharata / India, which had been neglected and even

suppressed under the British Raj. One of my own Vaishnava Mentors

was the head of the Sanskrit Department of the Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan,

and More recently some of my Vaishnava godbrothers were funded by

the

Smithsonian Institute to create the Matsya Project to find and

microfilm the essential texts of the Vedic-Vaishnava Tradition for

posterity. This Matsya Project is now at the Oxford Centre for

Vaishnava and Hindu Studies. In addition, the modern leaders of

various branches of Vaishnavism, including my own branch, have made

great efforts to begin to translate the canon of their ancient

scriptures, and more recent but very important traditional

commentaries, into English and other languages. This means that many

classic Sanskrit and other Vaishnava Bhakti Shastras (scriptures),

litanies, hymns, rites, commentaries etc. can now be studied in

authoritative translations for the first time. This new general

availability of the ancient Vedic-Vaishnava Sanskrit source-works,

from their related authentic GSS traditions, means that non-native

and non-Vaishnava scholars now have the textual resources to analyze

the relationship of these traditions to Tibetan Pure Land and Tantric

Buddhism, and other traditions. What must be accomplished therefore

is a comparative study of the Mahatma Letters and the ancient

Vaishnava literatures that the Mahatmas' teachings seem to have been

acquired from. In addition to this, the Letters contain some

Shaivite and Devi tradition elements, and these should be explored in

relationship to the Agamic and Tantric literatures of important

lineages. With regard to the South Indian Shaivite and Devi / Shakti

Traditions which may have influenced the Mahatmas or their

Theosophical Society chelas, the sources in Sri Lanka are rapidly

disappearing.

 

Just as the followers of Mohammed destroyed vast libraries of Bhakti

Shastra in India, unfortunately in our time such destruction of

temples and libraries is still going on, but this time it is not just

fanatical Muslims doing it. In Sri Lanka, the center of Theravadin

Buddhism, the Sinhalese Buddhist `Aryans' (whose historical

relationship to the Theosophical Society is well known) have recently

occupied hundreds of Tamil (principally Shaivite and Devi) temples,

and have destroyed about a hundred thousand volumes of priceless

Tamil literatures in the last ten years. This campaign for the

cultural annihilation of the Dravidian Tamils by the so-

called `Aryan' Sinhalese is one reason that scholars of religion,

such as myself, are concerned about the perpetuation of the `Aryan'

race-myth. However, despite such barbarism, and in consideration of

the amazing amount of information still available from ancient texts,

archeology and the intact living GSS traditions of Hinduism and

Buddhism, there is ample evidence now available for the study of

the "Mahatma Letters" in the historical context of their "...complex

genealogy...". At the time of the first presentations of the

Mahatma Letters and subsequent foundational writings of HBP and

friends, their English readers had no general access to the Vedic-

Vaishnava Bhakti Shastras. As a result, it was easy to present

Buddhist-redacted teachings from those literatures as the sui generis

teachings of the Theosophical Society Masters. Now with the ready

availability of the Mahayana Buddhist-related Sanskrit Bhakti

Scriptures, comparisons can finally be made. Such comparisons will

go a long way towards establishing the ideological genealogy of HPB's

Theosophy, and establishing what the Mahatmas were actually the

masters of.

Suggestions For an Initial Survey of the Literature

Because we have the Theosophical University Library Edition of

the "Mahatma Letters" in a searchable format online, one way to

approach an understanding of the Mahatmas' mastery from the

perspective of the Tibetan Buddhist-related Hindu and Buddhist GSS

traditions, is to search the Letters for key terms associated with

those GSS traditions. Completing such a search can establish the

initial evidentiary parameters of our textual investigation. In

assessing what the Mahatmas were the masters of, we can learn much

from what is NOT INCLUDED IN THE LETTERS.

 

So let us begin with some of these key terms. The Mahatmas claimed

an

identity with and love for India, which they significantly DID NOT

CALL 'BHARATA'. The continual use of European terms, instead of the

ones like `Bharata', which real ancient Indian Mahatmas would be

expected to use, is one of the most striking things about the Mahatma

Letters. The letters are also full of errors which can be easily

detected by anyone knowledgeable about Vedic-Vaishnava Sanskrit. In

addition, while seeming to deny that they had anything to do with the

scriptures / "shasters" (see below) the Mahatmas seemed to have

derived their entire cosmic mega-myth from a corruption of the

Vaishnava Bhakti Shastras.

 

Mahatma Letter # 134

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

134.htm

 

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

message from Master Morya.]

 

"… What have WE, the DISCIPLE of the true arhats, of esoteric

Buddhism and of sang-gyas to do with the SHASTERS and orthodox

Brahmanism? There are 100's of thousands of fakirs, sannyasis and

sadhus 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 for 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."

 

 

Below I will give a few examples of this obvious derivation of the

Mahatmas' redacted mega-myth from the Cantos and Chapters of some

authentic Vaishnava Bhakti Shastras, but first here are some of the

Sanskrit Shastric terms I have already searched in the over

100 "Mahatma Letters," and the results, which are quite revealing. In

my search, I used several variant spellings, and the singular and

plural forms of the word. However for brevity below, only the main

search term or name is given with the totals below. Next to the word

is the total number of references in the Mahatma Letters, pulled up

by the Theosophical University search program. There seems to be no

reference to authentic Agamic or Dravidian Vedic spirituality in the

Mahatma Letters, however there are references to Buddhist Tantrism.

 

Places / States

 

goloka 0

bhuloka 0

bhumi 0

vrindavan 0

bharata 0

kailasa 1

vaikuntha 0

sukhavati 1

lokas 6

loka 8

swarga 0

vyuha 0

bardo 1

nirvana 17

mahatattva 0

garbha 0

sunyata 0

turiya 0

karuna 0

 

 

Giver (masculine) Deity Names

 

Vaishnava

 

chrishna 2

vishnu 4

hari 0

purusha 4

narayana 0

avatar 3

devadeva 0

surya 2

indra 0

chandra 1

kama 12

vishvakarman 0

brahma 6

mithra 0

ananta 0

sesha 0

varuna 0

yama 0

deva(s) 21

shankarshan 0

pradumya 0

vasudeva 0

aniruddha 0

sunya, sunyata 0 (as Name of Vishnu from Sri Vishnu Sahashranama,

Gita Upanishad)

 

nirvana 0 (as Name of Vishnu from Sri Vishnu Shahasranama, Gita

Upanishad)

 

 

Shaivite

 

rudra 0

shiva 2

kala 0

hara 0

muruga(n) 0

kartikeya 0

skanda 0

ganesha 0

ganapati 0

 

 

Related Receiver (Feminine) Divine Names

 

Vaishnava

 

radha 0

sakti 2

prakriti 3

ganga 0

ma 2

sarasvati 0

lakshmi 0

sri 1

padma 1

narayani 0

tara 0

gayatri 0

tulasi 0

yogamaya 0

 

Shaivite

 

kali 1

uma 0

parvati 0

durga 0

maya 16

devi 0

mahamaya 0

 

 

The Tradition of Sita-Rama

 

ramayana 0

valmiki 0

tulsidas 0

rama 1

ramachandra 0

sita 0

janaki 0

hanuman 0

ravana 0

 

 

Some Shastra Titles, Important Names and Terms

 

 

purana 0

vyasa 1

vyasadeva 0

mahabharata 0

veda 1

upanishads 0

agama 0

tantra 0

shastra 0 (correct spelling)

shasters 1

samhita 0

sutra (s) 3

sama 0

rig 0

yajur 0

ayurveda 0

saddharma pundarika 0

bhagavadgita 0

bhagavat 1

bhagavatam 0

gita 1

jataka 0

hitopedesha 0

pancatantra 0

srimad bhagavatam 0

bhagavat purana 0

 

 

Mahatmas Identified Themselves as / with Buddhists

 

buddha 18

buddhism 24

buddhist 13

bodhisattva 0

 

 

Aryan and Race Term Search

 

arya 1

aryan 9

aryans 4

race 31

races 16

varna 0

dravidian 0

 

 

Material Modes of Nature

 

sattva 0

raja 3

tama 0

guna 0

 

 

Some Additional Important Terms

 

 

bhakti 0

buddhi 6

gopis, gopas 0

gandharvas 0

apsarasas 0

kinnaras 0

bhutas 0

manas 5

kama 12

jnana 0

vidya 4

dharma 0

karma 38

ahankara 0

tilaka 0

nyasa 0

amrita 0

ananda 3

reincarnation 8

reincarnating 4

amrita 2

elementaries 8

planetaries 5

akasa 13

yamaduttas 0

dasyas 0

yakshasas 0

rakshasas 0

 

 

 

Ages and Cycles and Related Names / Terms

 

 

mahavishnu 0

manvantara(s) 11

vivisvatamanu 0

manu(s) 0

praylaya 9

kalpa 1

yuga (s)1

sattya

treta 0

dvarpara 0

kaliyuga 0

yuga avataras 0

 

 

Worship and Sacrifice Related Terms

 

yagna 0

mantra 0

japa 0

puja 3

pujari 0

purohita 0

murti 0

soma 0

agni 0

yupa 0

nama 0

rupa 9

yoga 4

arati 0

tilaka 0

nyasa 0

 

 

Some Great Masters Accepted by the Vaishnavas

 

 

nityananda 0

caitanya 0

madhva 0

jayatirtha 0

vyasatirtha 0

ramanuja 0

vallabha 0

vishnuswami 0

nimbarka 0

jayadeva goswami 0

caraka 0

shankara 0

 

 

Some Master Titles and Lineage Words

 

 

rishis 3

dhyan chohans 21

acharya 0

goswami 0

alvars 0

sadhu 0

saddhus 1

sampradaya 0

parampara 0

diksha 0

siksha 0

sannyasi 0

 

Finite and Supreme Spirit Words

 

atma 5

atman 2

jiva 2

jivatma 4

paramatma 0

parabrahmn 6

brahman 1

brahma 6

monad (s) 18

 

 

 

 

Of the above, the more significant number of references ranks as so,

with the Vaishnava Sanskrit-related Shastra names and terms marked

with an asterix *...

 

*karma 38

race 31

*buddhism 24

dhyan chohans 21 (identified with the Theravadin Buddhist

term "Tatagathas")

 

*deva(s) 21 (not used as a name of Krishna-Vishnu)

*buddha 18 (not used as an Avatara name of Sri Vishnu)

monad(s) 18

*nirvana 17 (not used as a name of Sri Krishna)

*maya 16 (never referring to either Mahamaya Devi or Yoga Maya Devi)

races 16

*devachan 15 (identified with the Sukhavati )

*deva chan 13 (identified with the Sukhavati)

*akasa 13

*arya, aryan(s) 14 (often used inauthentically to refer to a 'race')

*loka(s) 14 ( worlds, transcendental lokas or even the

Sukhavati 'Pure Land' Vaikunthalokas of Vaishnavism are described in

the Deva Chan of the Theosophical System, and called in some

places 'imaginary'. )

 

*buddhist 13

*kama 12 (not used as a Name of Sri Krishna, or for the late

Kamadeva / Eros, generally used as mayavic force of desire)

 

reincarnation / ing 12

*manvantaras 11

*pralaya 9

*rupa 9 (associated with the rupa-loka or world of form)

elementaries 8 (associated with 'angel guides')

 

*parabrahmn 6 (not identified as the form of Vishnu Para-brahman,

related to the doctrines of His Brahma-jyoti and omnipresent

Paramatman)

 

*brahma 6 (not identified as the Guna Avatara of Vishnu in the mode

of raja guna)

 

planetaries 5 (what monads may become)

 

 

 

Of the above Vedic-Vaishnava Sanskrit names and terms, their

corresponding subjects can be found treated elaborately in the

ancient Vaishnava Scriptures / Shastras, such as the Srimad

Bhagavatam (also called the Bhagavat Purana BP ). This text is

readily available now with the Sanskrit Devagnagari Text, Roman

transliteration, English Translation and elaborate traditional Madhva-

Gaudiya lineage commentary by HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, through

the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT). Sections regarding the

structure of a material universe, the kalpas, yugas, manvantaras and

various manus of a single material universe are spread throughout the

Cantos of the Bhagavat Purana, one of the principle Scriptures of

Krishna-centric Vishnu worship (Vaishnavism). For example, Canto 2

describes the Universal Form of Vishnu as Purusha, His omnipresence

as the Supersoul / Paramatman, the process of creation, including

Purusha Sukta, the Yugas and Yuga Avataras of Vishnu. Canto 3

Chapter 6 describes the creation of the varnas from the self-

sacrifice of Purusha, Chapter 8 the manifestation of Brahma from

Garbhodakasayi Vishnu, Chapter ten the divisions of a cosmic creation

and its planetary systems, demigods etc., and Chapter 11 Brahma's

days and nights. Canto 4 Chapter 1 describes the daughters of

Manu. Canto 5 chapters 20-26 describe the lokas and how they are

sustained by Vishnu as Ananta Deva. Canto 8 Chapter 1 again

describes the Manu Prajapatis. Canto 9 Chapter 2 describes the sons

of Manu. Throughout this literature, all of the above marked Sanskrit

names, words and terms are found in their authentic ancient THEISTIC

context. Akasa, karma, kama, reincarnation, the devas and devis as

expansions and incarnations of Deva Deva (Krishna the God of gods)

and Shakti-Devi are all described in elaborate detail. Much of what

is used by the Mahatmas that is SANSKRIT seems to come from this

Vaishnava text. However, the corpus of Vaishnava scriptures is so

vast, and treats these subjects from so many different angles, that

it is possible that the Mahatmas formed their ideas from more than

one of these related Vishnu-centric literatures. The Mahabharata is

another ancient Vaishnava literature treating all these subjects. The

familiar Bhagavad-Gita- or Gitopanishad, is a small part of the

enormous Epic, the Mahabharata.

 

Although it is obvious from reading these Vaishnava 'Shasters' that

many of the Mahatmas' ideas come from them, one thing is certain

though, the THEISTIC CONTEXT AND CONTENT WAS SELECTIVELY

EDITED OUT

of these sources in the Mahatma's version of it all. This editing-

out-God from His own revelatory tradition has precedence before the

Mahatmas in Indian religious traditions, because the extreme mayavadi

(atheistic) 'Advaitis', Jains, Theravadin Buddhists and others have

been doing it for centuries. The most ancient stratum of Vedic

literature in Sanskrit is clearly devoted to Vishnu (see the Purusha

Sacrifice of Vishnu in the Purusha Sukta), as the origin of the

cosmos and the gods. Each attempt to remove Vishnu Purusha from the

core of His revelatory tradition has resulted in the innovation and

diffusion of a 'new' Indic religious tradition that denies its

genealogy of ideas. These later traditions go on using the language

and categories etc. of Vaishnavism, but without crediting their

source. So, the Mahatmas are doing nothing new. They wanted the

creation, or kingdom of God without God, and like all the other later

corrupting traditions before, them they just took what they wanted

from the GSS of Vaishnavism, without any historical self-honesty at

all. Hind sight is 20-20, so from our vantage point now, with the

literatures available, we can trace-out the history of the Mahatmas'

ideas, both directly from Vaishnava sources and indirectly through

Mahayana Buddhism and Sikhism.

 

Finally I want to emphasize that when a tradition develops some part

of its inheritance in keeping with the GSS principle, that there is

no creation of a new religion with historical amnesia ! Instead the

parent tradition and its new off-spring have an acknowledged and

friendly relationship. There is a positive relationship between the

older and younger faith traditions, who mutually acknowledge each

other. Thus among Nepalese Mahayana Buddhists and Vaishnavas who

are

not in denial about the identity of Vishnu as Lokesvara, the faithful

often attend both Buddhist Stupas like Syambhunatha and Bodhinatha

and Vishnu temples in the same day. They observe both Buddhist and

Vaishnava holy days, and keep the same Vaishnava-Jewish related

Saturday (Sanivara) Sabbath. They worship the same forms of Vishnu

and Lokesvara with the same Sanskrit mantrams and mandalas. They

perform closely related rites. All this is directly related to

Tibetan Buddhism in the most intimate way. Thus in "The Cult of Tara

Magic and Ritual in Tibet" by Stephan Beyer, (1978, University of

California Press, Berkeley, California ,USA (ISBN # 0-520-03635-2 ),

where the Sanskrit of the Tibetan Buddhist prayers and rituals is

given, these are obviously directly related to the Vaishnavism of the

Nepalese region.

 

While studying these connections in Nepal, I viewed thousands of

Nepalese and Tibetan Buddhist tangkas, temple murtis, yantras /

mandalas and other sacred art. The principle forms of Amitabha-

Lokevara were forms of Krishna-Vishnu. The wrathful forms of Kalah

Bairab were those of Kalah Bairava Shiva, who significantly was

considered an emanation or manifestation of Lokesvara. All of the

beneficent and wrathful Rupas of Amitabha-Amitayus manifest through

the Sambhogya Kaya or Nirmanya Kaya of Avalokitesvara were clearly

associated with earlier Vaishnava traditions of Krishna-Vishnu. Thus

the Vedic Purusha Sukta Deva forms were all there, as were many of

the Puranic Lila Avatara Forms. For example, the Lila Forms of

Vishnu, described in the above text Bhagavat Purana, like Narasimha,

Varaha, Hayagriva, and Matsya, are worshiped BY BUDDHISTS in Nepal

and Tibet as the leontocephalous Nrsigha-Lokevara (Yahweh Tzbaoth),

the boar-headed Baraha-Lokesvar, horse headed Hayagriva-Lokesvara,

and the form of Lokesvara associated with the great Flood Story of

Manu and Manu's ark landing on the sacred Himalayan peak of Macchu

Pucchara (Matsya's Fin).

 

In conclusion, The Theosophical Mahatmas / Masters did not

acknowledge their historical debt to Vaishnavism in any way. They

may not have even known enough about the orthodox Bhakti Traditions

of India to even understand what they were dealing with. If Subbha

Rowe (27 references found to this name in the Mahatma Letters) was

an

Advaiti, as claimed in the Letters, and he was a major contributor to

the Mahatmas' thought-system, then this would explain the use of

Vaishnava terms etc. outside of their original context and in an

atheistic system that stops short of the revelation of the

transcendental realm, Being and being. Like the Hindu Theravadin

Buddhist-related Advaitis, the Mahatmas misrepresented ideas from

Vaishnavism, and several other traditions of Buddhist and Hindu

thought by taking these out of their historical context and changing

their content. The result was a masterful work of confusion, in

which enormous effort was spent to synthesize a system of thought

created from numerous 'plagiarized', appropriated and often not well

understood sources. Scholars of the Western Esoteric Traditions and

sciences, and non-Indian Languages have shown that the Theosophical

Society writings of HPB contained enormous amounts of material from

other sources, that were not properly credited by her. In the case

of the Sanskrit Content of the Mahatma Letters, this is again what

was obviously done. Ideas and language were appropriated principally

from classic Vaishnava Source-works in Sanskrit, and these were used

unjustifyably out of context and often with corrupted meaning to

create a world-view filled with a pathological obsession about race

in a Darwinist-related new evolutionary model. The challenging and

valuable ideas, which ARE THERE in the Mahatma Letters and other

Theosophical Society Writings, are not sui generis from the claimed

mystical Mahatmas, who were constructed as their mouth pieces. These

ideas were clearly collected piece-meal from much earlier Vaishnava

Sanskrit writings, with nothing new or original added. In fact, much

of the authentic value of the appropriated sources has been lost in

the rough handling of their ideas by the Theosophical Masters, who

were actually neophytes when compared to the real living masters of

those orthodox "shasters" traditions.

 

Furthermore, if the Mahatmas were really masters with such a high

time-free vantage-point, why did they not ever reveal the astounding

historical connections of Pure Land Buddhism to Krishna-Centric

Vaishnavism, and through Vaishnavism to the Mediterranean Proto-

Catholic Jewish-related Heliopolitan Asyla Federations ? Did the

Mahatmas, who claimed to know about Egyptian and related western

esoteric traditions, simply forget to mention that the Lion Headed

form of Lokesvara-Vishnu is the Wrathful form of Krishna Kalah as

Haryeh / Aryeh (Yahu-Tzabaoth) in both the Bhagavad-Gita and Exodus

story? Did they forget to say that He was worshiped by the Persians

as Zervan, the Greeks as Zeus Chronus, the Romans as Jupiter

Saturnus, the Egyptians as Amun and the Kushites as Apademak ? Did

they just forget to tell us that the Flood-related form of Vishnu-

Lokesvara is the Dagon, Atargatis, Nereus and Helios Delphinos

related form of Yahu who saved Noah-Manu-Deucalion etc.? Did they

forget to say that the Jewel in the Lotus is the Brahma-Samhita Hymn

related form of Krishna and His Adi Shakti Radha-Padme, who were

worshiped as RHODOS and RHODA or NYMPHOS and NYMPHIA (Kouros

Helios

and Kore), on the pre-Minoan Era Isle of Rhodes in the Eastern

Mediterranean ? From their high vantage point overlooking history,

why did the Mahatmas not tell divided mankind that Lokesvara, Vishnu

and the God of the Judeo-Catholic Tradition are the same historical

Deity ?

 

In a short 100 plus years anyone can now learn vastly more important

connections between the Eastern and Western Wisdom Traditions, than

what the Mahatmas taught, just by studying the current scientific

research literature in each field. The Mahatmas' knowledge was bound

by their mere mortal, time and circumstance frame of reference. They

were very intelligent and well-read. They exhibited familiarity with

certain forms of Buddhist and Hindu Advaiti teachings. They had an

obviously 'classical' western education, as well as a familiarity

with western occult / esoteric traditions. The Mahatmas were

clearly a collective effort of HPB and some of her friends. If they

had just had some self-honesty and presented their synthesis with

integrity under their own names, admitting its 'genealogy', it would

have stood on its own merit as a unique contribution to human

thought. However, the deception and hocus-pocus associated with the

Letters has cast an unfortunate pall over their whole project,

generally discrediting it. To finally assess the real contribution

of HPB's Theosophy, this pall must be removed for readers and truth-

seekers to appreciate the genealogy of her / The Mahatmas thought,

and understand what they were the actual Masters of.

 

I look forward to the work of other Vaishnava and Buddhist Sanskrit

Scholars who will surely one day realize the importance of examining

ideas from their respective traditions found in the Mahatma Letters,

Stanzas of Dzyan and other Theosophical Society writings.

 

I will place the above, and if permitted together with the comments of

a BRAHMIN and TAMIL and if any of you can contact such, also a

Tibetan scolar on my web site at the

 

University of Vienna: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9

 

The next topic of the above website will be the study of authentic versus

synthetic modern orientalised new religious movements.

 

=

Brian Muehlbach