The Secret Doctrine is recognized by all as H. P. Blavatsky’s
greatest and most influential work. At the same time, it is generally regarded as a most difficult book to read; so much so that
only a small minority of Theosophists have ever read it. What
makes it so great, and yet so difficult; and why did Blavatsky
write such a book?
The Secret Doctrine was published in 1888, thirteen years
after the founding of the Theosophical Society in 1875, and
three years before Blavatsky’s death in 1891. The world at that
time, despite the unprecedented material progress of western
civilization, was spiritually in trouble. Religion and science were
at odds, because the former taught blind belief, while the latter
rejected anything it could not prove physically. And neither
could provide sufficient guidance to stop humans from killing
their neighbors. The situation was summed up by the MahaChohan, considered the greatest of the Tibetan teachers
behind the Theosophical movement, in these words: “Between
degrading superstition and still more degrading brutal materialism the white dove of truth has hardly room where to rest her
weary unwelcome foot.”1
It was in this setting that H. P.
Blavatsky entered the scene.
Blavatsky’s first task was to show that neither religion nor
science had the truth. This she did in her first major work, Isis
Unveiled, published in 1877. Here she showed how the original
truths revealed by the great religious founders had over the centuries been one by one choked out by the weeds of theological
dogma. The lifeless systems of beliefs which had now replaced
the original truths could not provide the sustenance needed by
humanity, who then turned to that dazzling newcomer, science.
2 The Secret Doctrine:
But science, said Blavatsky, however impressive, could not
provide what humanity needed either, because it was confined
to physical reality only, with no concern for morality or virtue.
It was quite oblivious to the higher realities which alone give
dignity and purpose to human life.
Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled not only showed that neither
religion nor science had the truth, she also showed that somewhere it could yet be found. This caused much excitement. She
brought out for the first time to the modern world the fact of
the existence of an ancient and once universal but now hidden
body of truths which she called the Wisdom Religion. She said
that this once universal Wisdom Religion was the source from
which all the world’s religions sprang; but over time, as
separativism and materialism progressed, each came to believe
that its piece was the only truth. Traditions found all around the
world speak of this as leaving the Golden Age and entering the
Iron Age or Dark Age. Blavatsky marshalled an impressive mass
of evidence from ancient writers across the globe, swelling the
two large volumes of Isis Unveiled, to show the former existence
of a Wisdom Tradition. The higher truths universally recognized by the ancients had disappeared from religion, and were
beyond the ken of science; but humanity once had them. Such
was the message of Isis Unveiled.
Isis Unveiled thus prepared the ground for the restoration
of many truths from the Wisdom Tradition, that for long ages
were lost to the world. Although some of these had already been
brought out in Isis Unveiled, the bulk of them were yet to come.
Further, Isis Unveiled was something of an experiment, and was
not received as well as may have been expected. This was
because, as stated by the Mahatma K.H., a book like this
emanating from a woman, and also one who many believed to
be a Spiritualist, “could never hope for a serious hearing.”2
Thus it fell to a respectable English newspaper editor, A. P.
Sinnett, to attempt the first account of teachings from the
Wisdom Tradition which would be taken seriously.
Sinnett was a polished writer, while Blavatsky barely knew
English when she wrote Isis Unveiled, so that she regarded it as
her most poorly written book.3
Sinnett had begun a correspon-
Original Genesis and the Wisdom Tradition 3
dence with Blavatsky’s teachers, the Mahatmas K.H. and M., in
1880.4
His first book, The Occult World, published in 1881,
showed the probability of the existence of human individuals
who had perfected their spiritual development. These the
Theosophists called Mahatmas. But it was his second book,
Esoteric Buddhism, published in 1883, that contained the first
systematic account of those truths from the Wisdom Tradition
now allowed by these Mahatmas to come out. Based on the
material in their letters, he constructed a coherent approximation of their system. These teachings, known to the modern
world as Theosophy, provided such satisfying answers to the
great problems of life that even critics were impressed. A critical
newspaper article of the time had to call them “marvelous,
even in this day of scientific research,” going on to say: “Esoteric
Buddhism itself is enough to set the intellectual world in commotion. It is the most philosophical method of explaining life,
death and eternity yet made known, even whether we like it or
not.”5
Yet it set only a small part of the intellectual world in
commotion, and that only for a time. Thus even this effort
proved to be not enough. So, back to the drawing board, or in
this case, the writing table. Now Blavatsky resuscitated a project
begun already in 1879,6
which was to become her greatest work,
The Secret Doctrine.
The Secret Doctrine is based on stanzas which Blavatsky
translated from a secret “Book of Dzyan.” These stanzas cover
the genesis of the cosmos and the genesis of humanity. This is
the core of the book. The Secret Doctrine also includes extensive
material on symbolism, saying that this was the language universally used by the ancients, and that therefore all ancient writings
must be understood in this light, and not taken literally. Finally,
The Secret Doctrine includes much material on science, continuing to show, as she did earlier, that there exist occult forces in
nature which remain unrecognized by science. Thus The Secret
Doctrine does not treat, except incidentally, the general system
which has come to be known as Theosophy, including karma,
reincarnation, the seven principles of a human being, the seven
planes of the cosmos, the after-death states, etc., as was outlined earlier in Esoteric Buddhism, and would be treated later in
4 The Secret Doctrine:
Blavatsky’s The Key to Theosophy. Why is this? Why the genesis
subject matter and not the more familiar Theosophical teachings in the greatest Theosophical work?
The Secret Doctrine is referred to by Blavatsky as “this first instalment of the esoteric doctrines.”7
For the first time we have material
translated directly from an original source book of the Wisdom
Tradition. Isis Unveiled had made known the existence of the
Wisdom Tradition, but in comparison with her new book, had
unveiled practically nothing of it. Esoteric Buddhism was based
on the more or less fragmentary information received in letters
from the Mahatmas, so it did not give the actual esoteric system
as such.8
Here, for the first time, we have the real thing, at least
the first instalment of it. Knowing this, we are now in a position
to understand the reason for the genesis subject matter.
In explaining what is in The Secret Doctrine, Blavatsky says:
“Nor could the vast catalogue of the Archaic Sciences be
attempted in the present volumes, before we have disposed of
such tremendous problems as Cosmic and Planetary Evolution,
and the gradual development of the mysterious Humanities
and races that preceded our ‘Adamic’ Humanity.”9
This is only
logical, taking first things first; but I believe that there is more to
it than appears on the surface. Blavatsky’s teachers were faced
with the same problem the Dalai Lama now faces in bringing
out hitherto secret material. A good example of this is the
Kålacakra Tantra. The Tibetan Buddhist Tantras, or Books of
Kiu-te, were traditionally kept secret. However, the first chapter
of the Kålacakra Tantra is on cosmology, including cosmogony
or genesis. Because of its subject matter, this is the only chapter
which could be openly discussed. Thus books based on this
chapter and its subject matter circulated openly in Tibet, while
material from the remaining four chapters was restricted. This,
I believe, is the true reason for the choice of genesis as the
subject matter of the stanzas translated in The Secret Doctrine.
It was the only choice possible for the first instalment of the
esoteric doctrines to be brought out directly from hitherto
secret original sources.
Nonetheless, it was a quite an excellent choice. The
genesis teachings of The Secret Doctrine, covering the origin and
Original Genesis and the Wisdom Tradition 5
development of the cosmos, and the origin and development of
humanity, are unparalleled by any other such teachings found
anywhere. No system is more comprehensive and self-consistent
than that of The Secret Doctrine. No, nothing else even comes
close. The greatest genesis accounts of the world are feeble in
comparison. As put by the Gnostic scholar, G. R. S. Mead, in
1904, “The Stanzas set forth a cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis which, in their sweep and detail, leave far behind any
existing record of such things from the past.” He further says
that, “I advisedly call these passages, enshrined in her works,
marvellous literary creations, not from the point of view of an
enthusiast who knows nothing of Oriental literature, or the
great cosmogonical systems of the past, or the Theosophy of the
World Faiths, but as the mature judgment of one who has been
for some twenty years studying just such subjects.”10 I can echo
these words precisely, and can now add to the list of such
subjects studied, the many Sanskrit works which have become
available in the nearly one hundred years since he wrote this.
What is considered to be the oldest genesis account found
in the East is the brief so-called “Creation Hymn” of the Rig
Veda.
11 Similar accounts are found in the Upanishads, based on
the Vedas.12 A more detailed account is found in the next most
authoritative source, the Laws of Manu.
13 Much more elaborate
accounts are then found in the various Puranas,14 which have
remained the basis of most cosmogonic ideas found in Hindu
India until modern times. All of these were available in translation both during the time of Blavatsky and the time of Mead.
But the important Buddhist cosmological sources had not yet
been published, nor had the Jaina sources.
The authoritative Jaina compendium, Tattvårthådhigama
Sütra, whose third chapter is on cosmology, was first published
in Sanskrit from 1903 to 1905, in German in 1906, and in English in 1920.15 Further details could be found in Kundakunda’s
Pa∆cåstikåyasåra, or “The Building of the Cosmos,” published in
Prakrit, Sanskrit, and English in 1920.16 The Buddhist sources
proved to be more difficult, because the original Buddhist
tradition in India had been lost. Recognizing the importance of
Vasubandhu’s fundamental source work, the Abhidharmako≈a,
6 The Secret Doctrine:
the leading Buddhist scholars of Europe jointly agreed on a
plan to translate it from its Chinese and Tibetan versions. This
task was finally accomplished by the great Belgian scholar,
Louis de La Vallée Poussin, who published a French translation
in six volumes from 1923 to 1931.17 Its Sanskrit original was not
discovered until Rahula Sankrityayana’s trips to Tibet in search
of Sanskrit manuscripts in the 1930s, and was then published in
1947, with its Sanskrit auto-commentary following in 1967.18
Much more recently, the Kålacakra texts have become available,
providing an alternative cosmology to the traditional Buddhist
cosmology described in chapter three of the Abhidharmako≈a. I
have edited in Sanskrit and translated into English some of this
new material for a paper comparing it with the “Book of Dzyan,”
presented at the first Secret Doctrine Symposium in 1984.19
All this material is indeed interesting, but like the previous
Hindu texts, none of these Jaina or Buddhist texts proved
to contain anything close to the comprehensiveness of the
cosmogonic account in The Secret Doctrine. For example, the
Abhidharmako≈a speaks of the four modes of birth, following the
words of the Buddha, as the sweat-born, the egg-born, the
womb-born, and the parentless, just as The Secret Doctrine does.20
But the detailed accounts of the earlier humanities in which
these modes of birth took place, found in The Secret Doctrine, are
absent in the now existing teachings of Buddhism. Thus
Vasubandhu in his auto-commentary, and Ya≈omitra in his subcommentary, had to scramble to find explanations for these
strange ideas. Since the Buddha had spoken of them, they must
be true, and now needed to be explained. So the commentators
came up with examples from mythology, of stories of individual
humans that could be considered to have been egg-born and
sweat-born; e.g., ˛aila and Upa≈aila were born from the eggs of a
crane, and Åmrapålî was born from the stem of a banana tree.21
For the parentless, however, they gave the example of the
humanity of the first age, or kalpa, in agreement with The
Secret Doctrine.
22 Here a fragment of the Wisdom Tradition was
apparently preserved.
Thus while the general outlines of genesis have been
preserved in existing works, and even some details as in the case
Original Genesis and the Wisdom Tradition 7
of the Buddha’s references to the four modes of birth, the
commentaries which once existed and which alone can provide
the true explanations, says Blavatsky, are no longer to be found:
“An immense, incalculable number of MSS., and even printed
works known to have existed, are now to be found no more. They have
disappeared without leaving the slightest trace behind them.
Were they works of no importance they might, in the natural
course of time, have been left to perish, and their very names
would have been obliterated from human memory. But it is not
so; for, as now ascertained, most of them contained the true
keys to works still extant, and entirely incomprehensible, for the
greater portion of their readers, without those additional volumes
of Commentaries and explanations.”23
But these works are not lost, and the esoteric schools
which Blavatsky’s teachers are associated with claim to have
them all.24 It is from these works that Blavatsky restored to
humanity nothing less than the original, full and uncut version
of genesis. The point of all this was to let the world know that
somewhere the true answers to the great problems of life exist.
Because as stated by the Maha-Chohan, from the 1881 letter
quoted earlier,25
To be true, religion and philosophy must offer the
solution of every problem. That the world is in such a bad
condition morally is a conclusive evidence that none of its
religions and philosophies, those of the civilised races less
than any other, have ever possessed the truth. The right
and logical explanations on the subject of the problems of
the great dual principles—right and wrong, good and evil,
liberty and despotism, pain and pleasure, egotism and
altruism—are as impossible to them now as they were 1881
years ago. They are as far from the solution as they ever
were but,—
To these there must be somewhere a consistent solution,
and if our doctrines will show their competence to offer it,
then the world will be the first one to confess that must be
the true philosophy, the true religion, the true light, which
gives truth and nothing but the truth.
8 The Secret Doctrine:
Blavatsky in The Secret Doctrine brought out to the world
the original teachings on genesis from the Wisdom Tradition,
offering a consistent solution to the great problems of cosmic
and planetary evolution. Now the world could see for itself the
competence of these doctrines to provide the truth. Yet the
world has not confessed that this must be the truth. No, in more
than a century, the world has not even given them a hearing.
This was not entirely unanticipated. Blavatsky wrote in the
“Introductory” to The Secret Doctrine that, “Agreeably with the
rules of critical scholarship, the Orientalist has to reject a priori
whatever evidence he cannot fully verify for himself. . . . Therefore, the rejection of these teachings may be expected, and
must be accepted beforehand. No one styling himself a
‘scholar,’ in whatever department of exact science, will be permitted to regard these teachings seriously.”26 This has reference
to “the most serious objection to the correctness and reliability
of the whole work,”27 namely, the fact that no one has seen the
“Book of Dzyan” from which the Stanzas in The Secret Doctrine
were translated. The proof which would be provided by an
original manuscript of one of its Sanskrit, Tibetan, or Chinese
versions28 was not possible in 1888. This is made quite clear in
the first sentence of the first Mahatma letter, written in 1880:
“Precisely because the test of the London newspaper would
close the mouths of the skeptics—it is unthinkable.”29 But
Blavatsky goes on to say about the teachings of The Secret Doctrine
in the “Introductory” just quoted, “They will be derided and
rejected a priori in this century; but only in this one. For in the
twentieth century of our era scholars will begin to recognize
that the Secret Doctrine has neither been invented nor exaggerated, but, on the contrary, simply outlined; and finally, that
its teachings antedate the Vedas.”30
Thus I believe that the influence of Blavatsky’s greatest
work, The Secret Doctrine, though written more than a hundred
years ago, has barely begun to be felt; and that only when an
original manuscript of the “Book of Dzyan” is brought out,
which may now be possible, will it take its proper place in the
world. Then only will Blavatsky’s efforts in laying the foundation for the re-establishment in the world of the truths of the
Original Genesis and the Wisdom Tradition 9
Wisdom Tradition be vindicated. Blavatsky would undoubtedly
care little for any personal vindication, but for the vindication
of the teachings of The Secret Doctrine, which she believed were
of the utmost benefit to humanity, she would certainly care
greatly.
Notes
1. Combined Chronology, by Margaret Conger, Pasadena: Theosophical University Press, 1973, p. 44; The Mahatma Letters to A. P.
Sinnett, compiled by A. T. Barker, arranged in chronological sequence
by Vicente Hao Chin, Jr., Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines:
Theosophical Publishing House, 1993, p. 478.
2. The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, 2nd ed., London: Rider &
Co., 1926, p. 50; 3rd ed., revised by Christmas Humphreys and Elsie
Benjamin, Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing House, 1962,
p. 50; chronological ed., 1993, p. 67.
3. See: “My Books,” in H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. XIII,
Wheaton, Illinois: Theosophical Publishing House, 1982, pp. 191-202;
especially pp. 191-92: “Of all the books I have put my name to,
this particular one is, in literary arrangement, the worst and most
confused.”
4. This correspondence was published as The Mahatma Letters to
A. P. Sinnett, first edition in 1923, and subsequent editions as given in
notes 1 and 2 above. The original letters are now held in the British
Museum.
5. From: “Our Theosophists,” The Daily Examiner, San Francisco,
July 1, 1888, quoted in The Dawning of the Theosophical Movement, by
Michael Gomes, Wheaton, Illinois: Theosophical Publishing House,
1987, p. 150.
6. See: Boris de Zirkoff’s “Historical Introduction: How ‘The
Secret Doctrine’ Was Written,” in the H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings
edition of The Secret Doctrine, Adyar, Madras, Theosophical Publishing
House, 1978, pp. [1-2], where he quotes Col. H. S. Olcott’s Old Diary
Leaves, series II, p. 90, on this.
7. The Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. xxxvii.
8. Indeed, the Mahatma K.H., writing in 1884, refers to “the real
10 The Secret Doctrine:
vital errors in Esoteric Buddhism,” and goes on to say that, “The Secret
Doctrine will explain many things, set to right more than one perplexed
student.” See: The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, 2nd ed., p. 357; 3rd
ed., p. 351; chron. ed., p. 428. Two sections of The Secret Doctrine are in
fact devoted to correcting these early Theosophical misconceptions.
See: The Secret Doctrine, vol. I, pp. 152-191.
9. The Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. xlii.
10. “Concerning H.P.B. (Stray Thoughts on Theosophy),” by
G. R. S. Mead, Adyar Pamphlets, no. 111, Adyar, Madras: Theosophical
Publishing House, 1920, p. 16; reprinted from The Theosophical Review,
vol. XXXIV, April 1904, pp. 130-144.
11. Rig Veda 10.129. Most of this hymn in Max Müller’s translation is given on p. 26 of vol. I of The Secret Doctrine, facing the opening
of the seven stanzas on cosmic evolution translated from the Book of
Dzyan. A few other hymns from the Rig Veda can also be considered
cosmogonic, including the well-known “Hymn to the Cosmic Person,”
10.90, and hymns 10.72, 10.81, 10.82, and 10.121.
12. See, for example, the Aitareya Upanishad, which begins:
“The self, verily, was (all) this, one only, in the beginning.” (S.
Radhakrishnan translation.) Blavatsky had referred to this in an early
draft of the three fundamental propositions of The Secret Doctrine, in a
sentence not found in the published book, regarding the first proposition: “In the Aitareya Upanishad this Principle is referred to as the SELF,
the only one—as just shown.” See the facsimile reproduction of this
page in Boris de Zirkoff’s “Historical Introduction,” cited in note 6
above, p. [36].
13. The Laws of Manu, a book of law, provides a genesis account
in its first chapter. Compare The Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. 333, regarding
this chapter: “But there is, directly following these verses, something
more important for us, as it corroborates entirely our esoteric teachings. From verse 14 to 36, evolution is given in the order described in
the Esoteric philosophy. This cannot be easily gainsaid.”
14. Among the eighteen major puråñas, the Vißñu Puråña is
often thought to be the most representative of the traditional fivefold
subject matter of a puråña, including genesis. H. H. Wilson’s translation of the Vishñu Puråña, which also includes extensive annotations
from the other puråñas, was much quoted by Blavatsky in The Secret
Doctrine.
Original Genesis and the Wisdom Tradition 11
15. Sanskrit edition: Tattvårthådhigama by Umåsvåti, ed. Mody
Keshavlal Premchand, Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1903-1905,
Bibliotheca Indica 159; German translation: “Eine Jaina-Dogmatik.
Umåsvåti’s Tattvårthådhigama Sütra,” trans. Hermann Jacobi,
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morganländischen Gesellschaft, vol. 60, 1906,
pp. 287-325, 512-551; English translation: Tattvarthadhigama Sutra
(A Treatise on the Essential Principles of Jainism), trans. J. L. Jaini, Arrah:
Central Jaina Publishing House, 1920, Bibliotheca Jainica, Sacred
Books of the Jainas 2. Two more English translations have since been
published in India, and now one in the West: That Which Is—
Tattvårtha Sütra, trans. Nathmal Tatia, San Francisco: HarperCollins
Publishers, 1994.
16. The Building of the Cosmos, or Pa∆chåstikåyasåra (the Five Cosmic
Constituents), ed. and trans. A. Chakravartinayanar, Arrah: Central
Jaina Publishing House, 1920, Bibliotheca Jainica, Sacred Books of
the Jainas 3.
17. L’Abhidharmako≈a de Vasubandhu, trans. Louis de la Vallée
Poussin, 6 vols., Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1923-1931, Société Belge
d’Études Orientales. Poussin’s French translation has now been translated into English by Leo M. Pruden as Abhidharmako≈abhåßyam,
4 vols., Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1988-1990. Poussin had
previously published separately its third chapter, on cosmology, in his
Bouddhisme: Études et Matériaux—Cosmologie, 1919.
18. The Abhidharmako≈a was first edited in Sanskrit by V. V.
Gokhale, and published in Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, new series, vol. 22, 1946, pp. 73-102, with an emendation in
vol. 23, 1947, p. 12. Its auto-commentary, or Abhidharmako≈abhåßyam,
was edited in Sanskrit by P. Pradhan, Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research
Institute, 1967, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 8, with a second revised
edition in 1975.
19. “New Light on the Book of Dzyan,” by David Reigle, in
Symposium on H. P. Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine: Proceedings, San Diego:
Wizards Bookshelf, 1984, pp. 54-67. [See above, pp. 25-41.] Since then
a book surveying the Abhidharma and the Kålacakra cosmologies,
and also the Mahåyåna cosmology of the Flower Ornament Scripture
(Avataµsaka Sütra) and other sütras, as well as the Dzog-chen cosmology, has been published: Myriad Worlds: Buddhist Cosmology in
Abhidharma, Kålacakra, and Dzog-chen, by Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö
12 The Secret Doctrine:
Tayé, Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1995. The Mahåyåna
cosmology had earlier been described, drawing on the Mahåpraj∆åpåramitå ˛åstra, the Lotus Sütra (Saddharma-puñ∂arîka Sütra), and
the Pure Land or Sukhåvatî-vyüha Sütra, in comparison with the
Abhidharma cosmology, in Buddhist Cosmology, by Randy Kloetzli,
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983. The Mahåyåna cosmology has again
been described, from the Flower Garland Sütra (Avataµsaka Sütra)
and the Sukhåvatî-vyüha Sütra, in comparison with the Abhidharma
cosmology, in Buddhist Cosmology, by Akira Sadakata, Tokyo: Køsei
Publishing Co., 1997.
20. Abhidharmako≈a and bhåßyam, 3.8-9.
21. Abhidharmako≈abhåßyam and vyåkhyå on 3.9.
22. Abhidharmako≈abhåßyam 3.9: “upapådukå˙ puna˙ pråthamakalpikå˙.”
23. The Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. xxv. Similarly, half of the contents
of the Upanishads are said by Blavatsky to have been eliminated, so
that, “They CONTAIN the beginning and the end of all human knowledge, but
they have now ceased to REVEAL it, since the day of Buddha.”—The Secret
Doctrine, vol. I, p. 270.
– 24. “The members of several esoteric schools—the seat of which
is beyond the Himålayas, and whose ramifications may be found in
China, Japan, India, Tibet, and even in Syria, besides South America
—claim to have in their possession the sum total of sacred and
philosophical works in MSS. and type: . . .” The Secret Doctrine, vol. I,
p. xxiii.
25. Combined Chronology, p. 47; The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett,
chron. ed., p. 480.
26. The Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. xxxvii.
27. The Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. xxii.
28. Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese glosses on the Book of Dzyan
are referred to in The Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. 23, and in a letter
by Blavatsky, quoted in Boris de Zirkoff’s “Historical Introduction,”
p. [29].
29. The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, all eds., p. 1. This has
reference to a test proposed by Sinnett, to produce one day’s edition
of the London Times in Simla, India, on the same day it came out in
London. London and Simla were at least a month apart by communication other than telegraph in 1880. This would prove that the
Original Genesis and the Wisdom Tradition 13
phenomena produced by Blavatsky were genuine, and therefore that
her Mahatma teachers really did have secret knowledge. The letter
goes on to explain why such a proof was unthinkable.
30. The Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. xxxvii.
[The foregoing paper was written by David Reigle and presented at
The Works and Influence of H. P. Blavatsky Conference, held in
Edmonton, Alberta, July 3-5, 1998. It was published in The Works and
Influence of H. P. Blavatsky: Conference Papers, Edmonton: Edmonton
Theosophical Society, 1999, pp. 9-17; and reprinted in Blavatsky’s
Secret Books: Twenty Years’ Research, by David Reigle and Nancy Reigle,
San Diego: Wizards Bookshelf, 1999, pp. 155-167. This online edition
is published by Eastern Tradition Research Institute, copyright 2004.]