Bhakti Ananda Goswami Versus Impersonalism and Voidism

[Guest guest]

Bhakti Ananda Goswami Versus Impersonalism and Voidism, the

Debate Continues

 

The following is the latest (1-16-03) in a series of articles about

the ongoing public academic debate between Vaishnava siksha master

and historian of religion, HH Bhakti Ananda Goswami, and

representatives of theosophy and the Theosophical Society.

Portions of this debate are being published on line on the following

sites.

 

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

 

http://www.raphaelvishanu-world.at/

 

http://www.saragrahi.org/

http://www.saragrahi.org/columns/columns.htm Go to the "one Faith"

column at the bottom of this page.

 

http://www.harekrishnaworld.com/main/forums_main.asp?

ForumId=9&TopicId=59

 

http://www.harekrishnaworld.com/main/forums_main.asp?ForumId=8

 

Secrets of Theosophical Thought Systems: Interview with Bhakti Ananda

Goswami P.1

 

 

 

Eric Wynants: The reason why we asked you to comment on the Mahatma

Letters is because when we inquired various Indology and academic

experts they pointed to you as the most informed scholar that would

be able to deal with this subject.

 

An attempt made by Brendan French to write a book about Hermetism and

the Theosophical tough system for Brill publishers seems to have not

been accepted. Recently teaching an extra curricular class on Tarot

cards Brendan French, seems to have a little or no experience in

Indology, making it difficult for him to discuss the contents of the

Mahatma Letters or the redacted "Stanzas of Dzyan."

 

You are an expert in the various religions in South Asia including

Sanskrit, plus ancient middle Eastern cultures. What made you

knowledgeable also about Theosophy and related subjects?

 

BA G/D.Sherman: My interest in Theosophy and these related groups was

partly due to my study of the dominance of Aryanism in the humanities

in Western and Colonial academia.

 

I once moved to Ojai California so I could study the Theosophical

Society and related groups centered there. As there is a Theosophical

Library there, I had the opportunity to do some reading in

Theosophical sources. During that time I also visited Meditation

Mount (A. Bailey's center), etc., , Roy Masters people, Krishnamurti

and Satya Sai Baba devotees and other esoteric, New Age, neo-Hindu

and neo-Buddhist practitioners and groups in the area.

 

Editor: One of the inventions of Theosophical groups is that these

teachings would derive from Atlantis and no less than six even much

older continents (of which the youngest would be Lemuria) and that

from these seven sunken continents the "seven races" of humanity

would have come from. So how does one even start discussing this

subject in light of such impossible and abstruse convictions by

Theosophical scholars?

 

BA G/D.Sherman: Define what they mean by "Theosophy". Exactly what

is the content of this thought-system that they claim is the "most

ancient of all systems". Labels exist to identify something. Terms

must be defined. What is the correct definition of 'Theism'

and 'Atheism', 'Brahma', Brahman, Parabrahman, Atma, 'Maya', 'Karma'

etc. I have taken as the norm the actual earliest-known ancient

meanings of these and other important concepts and Sanskrit terms,

and the Theosophists are sometimes using completely corrupted

meanings. For example while completely rejecting Theism by any

ancient understanding of the concept, they claim that they are not A-

theists ! Even the name Theo-sophy is deceptive. There is no Theos

or sophia in Theosophy. Any real Theos and deities are denied, and

sophia, who is Chokmah/ Skekinah, Sarasvati (a Shakti of god as holy

wisdom) is denied, so why call the system Theo-sophy ? My conclusion

to the whole 'debate' is that these people are incapable of carrying

on a meaningful discussion on any of the issues, because they cannot

even use the language or concepts in any meaningful way that has

relevance out-side of their thought-system. They are only capable of

speaking to each other in the corrupted jargon categories that they

have learned, and are incapable of understanding the plain direct

normal meaning of words.

 

Because they have taken the Theosophical jargon meanings as

normative. They have no respect for any living or 'dead' real-world

authorities on anything, be it science or religion, unless they can

press them into their service. Furthermore, they cannot even agree

among themselves what their essential teachings are. They fight like

cats and dogs within their own little subculture, hurling accusations

at each other even during the lifetime of HPB. So what is

their 'most ancient of all systems', the one that HPB and the Masters

taught during their Theravadin period, or the Advaiti one they later

adopted, or the one HPB was promoting during her Secret Doctrine

phase, or was it the system of Annie Besant and Leadbeater or maybe

it was the Theravadin Buddhism of Olcott.

 

But then again, there was the monist Shaivism and Sikh influence of

the Kashmiri Rajas, and lets not forget 'Egyptian' masonry, Christian

Kabalah, and Jewish Neo-Platonism or the broad class of teachings in

Western Hermetic Occultism. So what in the world was the 'most

ancient of all systems' of Theosophy ?

 

Why can't the Bailey-ites, Ult, Cut, Anthroposophy, the Krishnamurti

people etc. or any of the other sects and Theosophical Society spin-

off groups agree on what the "most ancient of all" systems was ?

Who will represent Theosophy in our debate ? And what language will

our debate be in ? The Theosophists will not accept the authentic

meanings or sources for the Sanskrit categories and terms that they

use. They will not even use common English meanings for words like

Theism and Atheism. So what is the medium of our communication going

to be in any 'English' debate ?

 

2. Ask them to produce their real-world hard evidence of this exact

thought-systems' existence at anytime or anywhere prior to the modern

era of Western Esotericism. They cannot even produce a systematized

statement of Theosophy that all of the Theosophical splinter groups

to. Daniel Caldwell presented only the doctrines of his

sect of Theosophy, but how can we accept him as the spokesman of the

one true faith ?

 

3. Do not allow them to use the excuse of 'blinds' or

reinterpretation or word-jugglery sophistry to insinuate their ideas

into earlier traditions and writings. If they cannot accept the

ground-rules or principle of allowing previous personalities and

traditions and evidence to 'speak for themselves', then they are

disqualified from participation in any further debate. If they cannot

agree to use Sanskrit words from the Vedas and Puranas in the way in

which these words were authentically used, then there is no sense

in 'debating' with them. Truth in labeling. When they present an

Advaitan teaching or text let it be so identified. When they present

a Vaishnava teaching or text excerpt, let it be so identified. I

have identified my self, my affiliations and all of my sources. If

they don't even know their sources, how can they provide them in a

scholarly debate ? They quote HPB, and her Masters, but they did not

originate many of the things that they taught so where are the

references that they used ? And if the references have never been

seen by another living soul, in fact if the Masters themselves could

not be produced, then why should their testimony be admitted into

evidence at all as if they did exist. The subject of the debate is

not the existence of God, but the genealogy of Theosophy, and whether

it is the "most ancient of all systems".

 

4. In an academic debate, there must be rules, as in a civilized

court of law there are reasonable rules of evidence. The pure real-

world evidence shows that Theism and even Monotheism are attested to

in the earliest high civilizations. There is no written body or

other evidence for the Atheistic thought-system described in

Theosophy as the 'most ancient of all'. In fact the entire Sanskrit

language that Theosophy uses to express its thought-system is from a

Theo-centric civilization. Only by appropriating terms from ancient

Theistic 'scriptures' can the Theosophists create and express their

world view, projecting it back onto history. The rules of evidence

should not allow the Theosophist's parasitical use of such Theistic

sources. They must have to produce their own tradition's writings.

 

If they then produce extreme apophatic Christian, Hindu Advaiti,

Gnostic, Muslim Mayavadi or Buddhist writings, the traditions of

these writings were all circumscribed by real historical boundaries,

and have very distinct differences. These traditions all had a

genealogy, and none of those genealogies can in anyway compete with

the antiquity of the Theistic traditions. There just is no evidence

that their thought system ever existed in the ancient world.

Certainly there was Atheism, but that Atheism was not Theosophy...

Not any more than Theosophy today will accept pure Theravada or pure

Theravada will accept Theosophy. Materialism as A-theism certainly

existed, but that was not Theosophy either. So while other thought

systems did exist in the ancient world, under any reasonable rules-of-

evidence, Theosophy can produce no no no evidence that 'Theosophy' as

defined by HPB's doctrines existed anywhere in the ancient world. To

the contrary, the ancient world produced numerous written testimonies

to the existence of Vishnu worship, and this record of Vishnu worship

is still available today in very ancient sources accepted as

authentic by specialists in every relevant field.

 

5. Can we admit channeled 'evidence' from their supposed Atlantis and

Lemuria into evidence? Are we accepting such as admissible in our

ground rules, and what will we accept as evidence from-or-of

these 'lost' civilizations ? The ground-rules should be real-world

hard evidence. They can produce evidence of a story or legends about

these places, and we can infer from the stories that such places

existed, but the Bible cannot be submitted as proof of God's

existence and the stories of Atlantis cannot be submitted as proof of

its existence. What can be proved is the existence of the worship of

God, and that there were stories about Atlantis. Let me submit the

same kind and quality of hard, verifiable ancient evidence about

God's worship, as they can submit about Atlantis, and all they will

have is a few brief mentions in Plato etc. Where as I will have vast

libraries of 'scriptures' in various languages over thousands of

years to argue my case for the existence of the worship of God.

Only by appropriating and abusing the writings of the Theistic

traditions can the Theosophists pretend that theirs' was the ancient

wisdom tradition. By such sophistry they insinuate the existence of

their supposed occult tradition into 'exoteric' Theistic traditions,

and then claim that the 'higher teachings' of these traditions were

Theosophy ! If we accept such a patently dishonest use of sources,

then what is the value of any communication with such people ?

 

Via their employment of the idea of "blinds" the esotericists then re-

interpret all these past persons as occultists, who knew the 'higher

wisdom' of Theosophy, but used "blinds" to obscure their knowledge

from the profane.

 

After my recent experience with Theosophists, I conclude that it is

impossible to carry on an intelligent real-world evidence based

exchange with people who are capable of such fundamental intellectual

dishonesty. It is not possible to reach people in "invincible

ignorance" who will not accept hard real-world evidence but are eager

to accept as authoritative the channeled messages of

incorporeal 'Masters' and who will not enter into evidence the entire

written testimony of a great civilization, but will try to submit as

evidence some questionably materialized letters and a teacup.

 

Question: Theosophists have been very upset about the recent exposure

of key terms in the Mahatma Letters and the Secret Doctrine that you

were able to explain.

 

So they now claim that in fact there is this hidden meaning that you

just started to refer to, and some claim now, can only be accessed in

special ways, not by just reading the Theosophical books themselves.

Others like K.Paul Johnson, who is like many Theosophists also a

believer of Astrology, claims now that (like Nostradamus?)

Blavatsky's borrowings in fact contain messages about the future?

 

BA G/D.Sherman: I stand by my statements two weeks ago about the

Mahatma Letters and the Secret Doctrine, as real-world verifiable

conclusions. (1)

 

The recent claim by Theosophists now that their teachings are hidden

and simple "blinds," what about truth ? 'No religion higher than

the truth'. What is the moral character of anyone who practices

and/or accepts lying as a way of life ?

 

Also, which of this group of almost two hundred theosophists that

were involved in that discussion in question (1) has ever studied any

of the ancient sources ? When they have studied what I have in the

depth, then they will be able to understand what 'original' Buddhism

and Hinduism were. If they have never studied authentic South Asian

Religions or read the Rig Veda in the Sanskrit, how will they know

that the Mayavadis have translated the Deity name Purusha 'man' ?

How will they know the truth about the Vaishnava Vedas and Puranas ?

How can they understand the Vaishnavism of Pure Land Buddhist

Sanskrit texts, if they know nothing about Vaishnavism or the

Sanskrit texts themselves ?

 

For example the Sankaracaryas are Shaivites by religious genealogy.

The Atheistic Shaivites (there are Theistic ones too) appropriated

the Vedas, Upanishads, Samhitas, Bhagavat Purana, Mahabharata etc.

>From the Vaishnavas and reinterpreted them.

 

Mahayana Buddhism originally embraced its Vaishnava heritage.

Recovering and restoring the Vaisnava genealogy / heritage of Pure

Land Buddhism means empowering hundreds of millions of people with a

new sense of mutual recognition and respect.

 

As far as many of the prophecies Blavatsky / her Masters made are

concerned...have the Chinese died out yet ? Take these one at a time

and look at them without any modernist reinterpretations. The

Nostradamus analogy is a good one. By the same process

the 'prophecies' of HPB / her Masters are being reinterpreted and

made to fit the subsequent historical realities.

 

There are a few Theosophists that are using Sanskrit words, but

without ever learning the language or reading any of the earliest

Sanskrit scriptures, Buddhist or 'Hindu', in the Sanskrit or even a

roman transliteration of Sanskrit. My experience with the close to

two hundred "scholars" in the Theosophical group where I discussed

the Mahatma Letters and the "Stanza' of Dzyan", none did know the

textual sources or original or real meanings of the few Sanskrit

words in their vocabularies contained, how can they even argue the

meanings of these words ?

 

Also there seems to be so little work of real social significance

going on in any of the Theosophical organizations worldwide, I have

seen some anti-semitism on theos-talk, and people defending child

molester gurus.

 

Question: Some of their Presidents claimed that there is a deeper

meaning to this also. However we would also like to ask you some more

specialized questions about esoteric ideas popular now in 2003, can

we have you on line again in two days at the same time?

 

BA G/D.Sherman: Certainly.

 

 

1) The Stanzas of Dzyan Debate P.1

 

The Stanzas P.2: Invented Hinduism and Buddhism

 

The Stanzas P.3: Secret Doctrine

 

The Stanzas P.4: A Political Esoteric Connection?

 

 

 

Comments to: pseudoscience_news