Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00204)

Dear HH Bhakti Ananda Goswami,

Thank you for a very clear and interesting comparison between the various 
schools of religious study originating in the East. However, upon thorough 
examination, I see their variety of worship and practices simply as 
differences of individual opinion and/or interpretation of the fundamental 
metaphysical truths that must have been thoroughly known to those ancient and 
earliest Masters of Wisdom (of all our individual lineage's) who came long 
before any of these teachings were put into writing (and thereby subject to 
human fallibility). 

Consequently, in this, as well as in all your commentaries, I find no grounds 
for your contention that the basic metaphysical teachings of theosophy 
starting with the three fundamental principles as presented in the Proem of 
the Secret Doctrine, along with the Book of Dzyan -- (inconsistencies in the 
SD commentaries, and Mahatma Letters notwithstanding) -- has been in any way 
refuted... Nor has there been a truly consistent alternative theory of 
universal origins, involution, and evolution presented by you. 

As for the connection of this fundamental metaphysics (as truly discerned by 
the perceptive and intuitive theosophical student) with a particular form of 
worship or yoga practiced by any religious group, I think that such 
relationship must be left to the free choice or decision of each individual 
theosophist -- without being overly influenced by the proselytizing coercion 
(directed toward your own practice) that is obvious in your writings.

Respectfully,

LHM




In a message dated 12/02/02 9:17:53 PM, bhakti.eohn@verizon.net writes:

>
>THE STANZAS OF DZYAN AND THE EVOLUTION OF THEOSOPHICAL THOUGHT 
>BETWEEN 1880 AND 1888, PART 1
>
>by HH Bhakti Ananda Goswami, Tridandi Sannyasi, Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya 
>lineage of Vaishnavism 
>
>
>Previously in my paper "What Were The Theosophical Mahatmas the 
>Masters Of ?" Parts 1 and 2, I discussed the Eastern content of the 
>Mahatma Letters. In Part 2 I included the result of a preliminary 
>search of the Mahatma Letters for key Sanskrit names and terms. In 
>the next Part 2 of this Paper on the Stanzas of Dzyan and the Secret 
>Doctrine, I will present the results of my preliminary search of H.P. 
>Blavatsky's 1888 first publication the SECRET DOCTRINE for 
>comparison. The presence or absence and use or abuse of these 
>Sanskrit words in the Mahatma Letters is quite revealing to a 
>Vaishnava Sanskritist such as myself. Therefore, for my purposes, 
>the Sanskrit vocabulary of the Mahatmas somewhat establishes the 
>parameters and content of their supposed Eastern expertise. In 
>addition, while obviously using Vaishnava source-works like the 
>Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-gita or Vishnu Purana, the Mahatmas 
>(whoever they were) were misinterpreting and misrepresenting these 
>monotheistic Vaishnava Bhakti Shastras (Devotional Scriptures) 
>through the late and inauthentic filter of the atheistic Hindu 
>Tradition of extreme, Mayavadi (mayavic) impersonal Advaita Vedanta. 
>HPB admits her respect for the Sankarite Advaiti Smarta Brahmins, so 
>that she interpreted the Vaishnava Scriptures through the Advaitis' 
>perspective is expected. The Mahatmas used the raw material of the 
>oldest extant Eastern sources, the Sanskrit Vedic-Vaishnava Bhakti 
>Shastras, but they misrepresented this heritage of ideas as coming 
>from the very atheistic Advaiti Hindu tradition which is the 
>historical antithesis of the Bhakti Traditions. Then the Mahatmas 
>set the whole ill-conceived synthesis into the context of a strange 
>merger of Sri Lankan Theravadin and Tibetan Mahayana and Tantric 
>Buddhism. 
>
>The Mahatmas' Letters were delivered between 1880 and 1884. At the 
>beginning of this grand adventure, Theravadin Buddhist doctrines 
>rejecting God, gods and the transcendent personal self / spirit-soul 
>were presented emphatically by the Mahatmas. The Mahatmas 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 His own Scripture, and appropriated His creation for 
>their own purpose, in creating a mega-myth to promote their imagined 
>ARYAN RACE as the current epitome of human evolution. Of course the 
>Mahatmas' teachings were ultimately revealed to the world through 
>their faithful servant, Madame 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. 
>
>The Stanzas of Dzyan and H.P. Blavatsky's Dilemma
>
>Something interesting happened between the days of the early Mahatma 
>Letters, and the publication of the SECRET DOCTRINE by H.P. Blavatsky 
>(HPB) 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 of course, those 
>staunchly racist ARYAN BIRTH-CASTE and Advaita Vedanta atheists who 
>are admired in the Secret Doctrine. No doubt 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. 
>Through sophistry and word-jugglery, of the kind long perfected by 
>the Mayavadis, references to Vishnu, Krishna, their Avatars and other 
>clear references to monotheism or true theism were explained-out of 
>the Bhakti Shastras in the Secret Doctrine. However, constant 
>exposure to the devotional theism and transcendental personalism of 
>the Bhakti Shastras apparently had some confounding effect on HPB, 
>who 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. However, as a Vaishnava reading the Secret 
>Doctrine, it is appalling and offensive in the extreme to me, to see 
>a Western Hindu neophyte pontificating on the illusory nature of the 
>Vaishnava Deity, and the supposed 'esoteric' atheistic and impersonal 
>meanings 'hidden' within the Vaishnava Bhakti Shastra. Since my 
>perspective on the devotional monotheism of the Vaishnava Scriptures 
>is in line with that of ALL of the orthodox Sampradayas or Lineages 
>of Vaishnavism on this matter, I must conclude that no learned or 
>realized Vaishnava in their right mind would have accepted the Secret 
>Doctrine as having even the most basic credibility and integrity or 
>intellectual honesty, when it came to the text's atheistic 
>imersonalist Advaitan abuse of Vaisnava source-works. 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 like a mixture of water and 
>oil. It 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. The real 
>adepts/ leaders and serious students of these different thought 
>systems would never compromise their traditions' teachings to 
>accommodate her fantasies of a spiritual (but not religious) 
>brotherhood between them. They could not have seen becoming a 
>Theosophist as a graduation from their traditions into a higher 
>inclusive knowledge. Rather any true adept in these traditions would 
>have seen becoming a Theosophist as sacrificing the integrity of 
>their traditions for the confused and heretical interpretations of an 
>outsider and amateur. Theosophy worked as long as people didn't know 
>enough about these traditions to realize how fundamentally 
>incompatible they actually were. 
>
>Like HPB, Olcott and other Theosophists, New Agers now 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 and grammatical word-
>jugglery to remove the personalism and theism from these texts. The 
>problem was not that they taught that there was a form of moksha in 
>which the jivatma merges into the impersonal Brahman, the problem was 
>that they 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. To introduce this Brahman-is-the-
>Ultimate teaching, Instead of physically redacting the Bhakti 
>Shastras, the Mayavadis merely re-interpreted them to remove or 
>nullify their transcendent theistic content. 
>
>Still, many Vaishnavas today view Adi Sankaracarya as a great devotee 
>of Krishna-Vishnu, Shiva and Devi. How is this possible ? It is 
>possible because many Vaishnavas believe that Adi Sankaracarya 
>himself was not an atheist, despite the atheism or 'covered Buddhism' 
>of many of his followers. In part, this is because Sankaracarya 
>wrote beautiful and passionately devotional hymns to Krishna and the 
>Holy Mother etc. ! This fact is not even presently disputed by his 
>quite atheistic and impersonal 'mayavadi' disciples, who simply 
>explain-away the obvious direct and devotional meaning of his famous 
>Bhakti Hymns with more sophisticated word-jugglery. So while people 
>in later times may see Adi Sankaracarya as an iconoclastic Hindu 
>Reformer, a Monist or Non-dualist, an impersonalist, atheist 
>or 'covered' Buddhist, Vaishnavas may still include him in their 
>saint-litanies, and sing his well-known Bhaja Govindam Hymn to 
>Krishna. 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 authentic 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. His 
>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. All 
>Vaishnava lineages taught doctrines of both Brahman and Paramatman or 
>the all-pervasive Atman. It was these original Bhakti doctrines of 
>Advaita Vedanta that the inventive Mahatmas and the Stanzas of Dzyan 
>and traditional Puranas expounded on . There was even a Vaishnava 
>Lineage that taught qualified non-dualism, reconciling the personal 
>theistic and impersonal non-theistic doctrines of the personalist 
>bhaktas (devotees of Divine Love) and the impersonal jnanis
>(gnostics). This was the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Tradition of Sri 
>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 ancient 
>revelations of the Radha-Krishna Bhakti Shastras, the Teachings of 
>Sri 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 HPB studied into 
>this qualified non-dualism adequately, she might have found a 
>synthesis of the personal and impersonal traditions that actually 
>would work for her personally, resolving her confusions, and 
>establishing a well-proven thought system reconciling what was 
>possible to reconcile between the disparate traditions of the East. 
>
>I would like to conclude this Part 1 with a few verses from Adi 
>Sankaracarya's famous Bhaja Govindam Hymn. He is the undisputed 
>Master of all masters of the Advaita Vedantic Tradition 
>of 'Hinduism'. 
>
>Ask yourself if the plain words of this Hymn are those of an atheist, 
>an impersonalist, or a true believer glorifying his GOD. 
>
>Govinda is a very intimate name used by devotees to address Sri 
>Krishna. This Name is associated with His eternal pastimes of Divine 
>Love on the Original Abode of Goloka Vrindavan. 
>
>bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
>govindam bhaja mUDhamate
>samprApte sannihite kAle
>nahi nahi rakShati dukrunjkaraNe
>
>SING Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA 
>O fool ! When the appointed time (for departure) comes,
>word jugglery / grammatical rules WILL NOT SAVE YOU. 
>
>*****
>
>bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
>bhagavat gIta kincitadhItA
>gangAjalalava kaNikApitA
>sahrdapi yena murAri samarca
>kriyate tasya yamena na carcA
>
>Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA 
>For him, who has studied the Bhagavad-gita, even a little,
>who has drunk a drop of the Ganga water, and who has performed
>the worship of the Destroyer of the demon Mura (Murari is Sri 
>Krishna. This 
>is another reference to the lila or divine play of Krishna in Goloka 
>Vrindavan)
>at least once, there is no tiff with Yama (Yama is the Form of the 
>Lord as 
>Death and Judgement, Who dispences karmic reactions to unrepentant 
>sinners.)
>
>
>*****
>bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
>punarapi jananam punarapi maraNam
>punarapi jananI jaTare shayanam
>iha samsAre bahudustAre
>krpayA pAre pAhi murAre 
>
>Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA 
>Repeated birth, repeated death and repeated lying in
>a mother's womb - this process of birth and death is vast and
>difficult to cross over; save me, O destroyer of Mura, through your 
>grace.
>
>*****
>bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
>geyam gItA nAma sahasram
>dhyeyam shrIpati rUpamajashram
>neyam sajjana sange cittam
>deyam dInajanAya ca vittam 
>
>Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA 
>The Bhagavad-gita and the Sahasranama (Thousand Names of Vishnu) 
>should be sung;
>the Form (Rupa) of the Lord of Lakshmi ( Vishnu) should be always 
>meditated on;
>the mind should be led to the company of the good;
>and wealth should be distributed among the indigent.
>
>*****
>bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
>gurucharaNambuja nirbhara bhakta:
>samsAradacIradbhava mukta:
>sendriyamAnasa niyAmAdevam
>drakShyasi nija hrdayastam devam 
>
>Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA 
>Be a BHAKTA devoted completely to the lotus-feet of your GURU,
>be released (mukta / moksha = manumission, redemption) soon from 
>the process of birth and death. Thus, through the discipline of sense
>and mind-control, you will BEHOLD HARI, GOD (DEVA) WHO LIVES IN YOUR 
>HEART.
>
>Vishnu Sahasranamam (Sa-ha-sthra) is sung by "Grandsire" Bhishma, the 
>senior most member of the Kaurava clan in the Vaishnava Scripture The 
>Mahabharata. In the decisive battle that ensues between the Pandavas 
>and Kauravas in this Shastra, the legendary Bhishma puts up 
>chivalrous fight against the heroic Arjuna, the master archer of the 
>Pandavas, but is defeated in the end. Laying on a bed of arrows, 
>Bhishma is waiting for an auspicious moment to breathe his last, when 
>his beloved Lord Krishna appears at his side and reveals His 
>Universal Form ("Vishwarupa") to His great devotee Bhishma. Then in 
>an ecstacy of love, Bhishma greets his Lord by 1000 Names. This 
>invocation of Krishna by 1000 Names came to be known as the Vishnu 
>Sahasranamam. The Sanskrit Names of the Vishnu Sahasranamam are read 
>as a poem or sung as "namavali" (literally 'name calling') by 
>countless millions of Vaishnavas every day. Vishnu Temples all around 
>the world also have formal services conducted by devotees who chant 
>the Vishnu Sahasranamam on a continuuous, daily or weekly basis. 
>Often both the Bhaja Govindam Prayer and the Sri Vishnu Sahasranamam 
>are sung in the same program. 
>