Key to Aryan Invasion Theory and Vedic Letters.

[Guest guest]

It seems whoever adviced these letters presented information mined

from the Vaishnava Bhakti Shastras avoiding all theistic implications, and

concentrated on the cycles of time, and the progenitors (manus) of the

Earthly human race, during various yugas or ages. The "Mahatmas"

misrepresented the Vaishnava doctrines of the Earth yugas / ages and

Manus as having something to do with their contemporary Aryanist idea

of different human races and esoteric karmic evolutionary theory. They

edited-out the Supreme Godhead from these scriptures, and

appropriated created a mega-myth promoting an imagined aryan race

as the current epitome of human evolution. Of course the

Mahatmas' teachings were ultimately revealed to the world through

H.P. Blavatsky, but there were some differences between what she

wrote in the Mahatma letters 1880-1884, and what she wrote in the

Secret Doctrine, first published in 1888.

 

 

Something interesting happened between the days of the early Mahatma

Letters, and the publication of the SECRET DOCTRINE in 1888. The

already complex hodge-podge of secret doctrine / esoteric Eastern

teachings in the Mahatma Letters shows an evolution from the

principally voidist Buddhist perspective in 1880 to a much-

more developed Vaishnava Puranic set of teachings in the SECRET

DOCTRINE published in 1888. Whereas the brahmins and

their "shasters" are held in contempt by the Mahatmas in their

Letters, in HPB's Secret Doctrine they are credited with possessing

the highest knowledge. It is the Smarta Brahmins the Aryanist birth-

caste and Advaita Vedanta atheists who are admired in the Secret

Doctrine.

 

Maybe HPB and friends' near alliance with some branch of a Mayavadi

Sampradaya from Adi Sankaracarya, had something to do with the

glorification of their brahmin Advaita Vedanta in the Secret Doctrine.

However while extolling the virtues of the wise Mayavadi

(impersonalist ) initiate brahmins, the Secret Doctrine quite overtly

refers to the Vaishnava Puranas and other Sanskrit Krishna-Vishnu

centric Scriptures.

 

However HPB seems to have increasingly become conflicted over trying

to reconcile theistic-and-atheistic, Mahayana-and-Theravadin,

transcendental-personal-and-material-impersonal, incarnational-and-

iconoclastic 'wisdom' teachings. Thus, contradictions concerning

these subjects abound everywhere in the Secret Doctrine.

 

The Stanzas of Dzyan, which the Secret Doctrine is supposedly a

translation of, and commentary on, are explained from the Eastern

perspective largely by HPB's detailed references to the Vaishnava

Scriptures. One would think that this would win points with the

Vaishnava Sampradayas (lineages), which would then support HPB's

Theosophical mission ?

 

As for the Mayavadis' perspective regarding the Secret Doctrine, they

would have been as equally offended by HPB's compromise and

distortions of their teachings, which is probably why Subba Row and the

Sankarites renounced their association with HPB and Theosophy.

 

HPB's bold and amazing synthesis was an attempt to dissolve two

historically incompatible (theistic-personal versus atheistic-impersonal)

adversarial thought-systems into a stabile third emulsion / substance.

Because her perception of the historical reality was erroneous, she could

not understand that it would never work. In her imagination, the hidden

inner wisdom of the Bhakti Puranas, the Advaita Vedanta of the

Sankarites and the anatta voidist wisdom of the Theravada Buddhists

were all the same thing. ln reality these were not at all the same

thing, and could not be successfully mixed together.

 

 

Like HPB, Olcott and other Theosophists, post-New Agers today

commonly think of modern Hindu Advaita Vedanta and Theravadin

Buddhist voidism as the same thing or at least compatible, but the fact is

that historically there was a great contest between these two traditions

of thought, during the time of Adi Sankaracarya. When Adi

Sankaracarya (788-820 AD) first systematized his doctrine of Advaita

Vedanta, it was somewhat in response to Theravadin Buddhism's

influence in India. The Vaishnava perspective on this is that

against the no-self and ultimate void (emptiness) doctrine of the

Theravadin Buddhists, Sankaracarya asserted the existence of a single

Self, or Plenum / Purnam / Full 'Ground of Being'. The Plenum

(Krishna-Vishnu as the PURNAM of Isopanishad) was Brahman, and

Brahman was identical to Atman. Thus if the Brahman was one, then

Atman had to be one as well. In the system passed-on by

Sankaracarya's disciples heading the Four Peets (lineages), there was

a failure to distinguish between the PARAM-ATMAN, or Supreme Self

and the JIV-ATMA, or finite self. Thus when the Mayavadis, as the

Vaishnavas called them, identifying jivatman as Brahman,

reinterpreted the Vedic-Vaishnava, Shaivite and Devi Bhakti

Scriptures, they used 'esoteric' readings the theism from these texts.

They wrote there was a form of moksha in which the jivatma merges

into the impersonal Brahman, yet deviated from the Bhakti Traditions in

teaching that there was no other or higher experience of God and Self

than that of the impersonal-merging-into-Brahman.

 

HPB tried very hard to fuse the "absolute nothing" (see Maseo Abe)

voidism of Theravadin Buddhism, the energy-positive but impersonal

atheistic monism of the Advaita Vedanta of the Sankarites and the Bhakti

Shastra Theistic Personal Puranic teachings on the cosmos, great

rounds and manus etc. into one systematized thought-whole. She could

not succeed in this, because her perception of these mutually exclusive

traditions as being fundamentally compatible was flawed.

 

One thing that HPB didn't realize was that there were various forms

of Theistic monist or advaitic teachings within the ancient

orthodox Shastric Vaishnava Lineages. These had always been there,

and were associated with either 1. the Brahma-jyoti (Brahman

effulgence, or Personal Transcendental Bodily 'Glory' and Shakti /

Shekinah) of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and / or 2. The

all-pervasive Purusha Presence as the holy spirit, PARAMATMAN within

the material worlds. This form of Vaishnava Advaita Vedanta was

compatible with Vaishnavism's transcendental personalism that the

inventive Mahatmas and the Stanzas of Dzyan and traditional Puranas

expounded on .

 

This was the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Tradition of

Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who taught the doctrine of simultaneous,

inconceivable difference and non-difference within the Persons of the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, and between the Self of the Supreme

Being and the selves of all other beings. Based on the Radha-Krishna

Bhakti Shastras, the Teachings of Caitanya explored RASA (flavors of

Divine Love) and the relational dynamics of Transcendental Personalism

in the internal 'mysteries', emanations and incarnations of the Giving

Godhead and His Receiving Shakti / Shekinah. Had Theosophists studied

non-dualism might they have found a synthesis of the personal and

impersonal traditions that actually would work ?

 

The above is extracted from the apparenly very informative reg. the

influence of post-modernist Orientalism in the US and Europe today, by

bhakti_eohn .

 

By the way geologists in India say they have found an elephant fossil in

the Thar desert of Rajasthan, supporting earlier theories that the vast

desert was once a fertile area. During the Pleistocene epoch, India

touched Eurasia and there were indications that Asian elephants moved

south due to the prevailing ice-age in the northern hemisphere.

 

Sarawati River Key to Aryan Invasion Theory?

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