Theosophy and Buddhism

Theosophy is the modern name given by H. P. Blavatsky to
what is described by her as the once universal but now hidden
Wisdom-Religion, the parent source of all known religions. This
original Wisdom-Religion had been preserved intact out of the
reach of the many conflicting sects, who each thought that their
piece of it was the only truth. Blavatsky was now entrusted by its
custodians with the task of making publicly known its existence
and bringing out some of its teachings. She presented it to the
modern world as Theosophy. In her early writings she referred
to this Wisdom-Religion as pre-Vedic Buddhism.
We can assert, with entire plausibility, that there is not one of all
these sects—Kabalism, Judaism, and our present Christianity
included—but sprang from the two main branches of that one
mother-trunk, the once universal religion, which antedated the
Vedic ages—we speak of that prehistoric Buddhism which
merged later into Brahmanism.1
We repeat again, Buddhism is but the primitive source of Brahmanism.
2
Pre-Vedic Brahmanism and Buddhism are the double source
from which all religions sprang; . . .3
When the Theosophical Society was founded by Blavatsky
and others in 1875, she was asked about this Wisdom-Religion
by William Q. Judge, one of the co-founders. He in his question
referred to the custodians of the Wisdom-Religion as Masters, as
did Blavatsky, since they were her teachers. Her reply indicates
that while pre-Vedic Buddhism is a correct designation for the
Wisdom-Religion, she considered that it might best be thought
of as esoteric Buddhism. As reported by Judge:
2 Theosophy and Buddhism
. . . on my asking her [Blavatsky] in 1875 what could the Masters’
belief be called she told me they might be designated “pre-Vedic
Buddhists,” but that no one would now admit there was any
Buddhism before the Vedas, so I had best think of them as
Esoteric Buddhists.4
The title chosen for the first book to attempt an outline of
the tenets of Theosophy or the Wisdom-Religion was Esoteric
Buddhism. Its author, A. P. Sinnett, obviously also felt that this
was an accurate designation. This book was written on the basis
of correspondence with two of the custodians of the WisdomReligion living in Tibet. These, Blavatsky’s Masters or teachers,
also came to be called by the name used in India (where Sinnett
and Blavatsky were then living), Mahatmas. Their letters, later
published and now preserved in the British Library, became
known as the Mahatma letters. However, as made clear in them,
the term Mahatma is not used in Tibet. Instead, the Tibetan
term byang chub is used, whose Sanskrit equivalent is Bodhisattva
rather than Mahatma. Sinnett’s book based on these Mahatma
letters was responsible for establishing the idea among the
Western public that Theosophy is esoteric Buddhism. But the
public did not correctly apprehend what was meant by esoteric
Buddhism, as the Mahatma K.H. commented several months
after the book of that name was published:
. . . that public having never heard of the Tibetan, and entertaining very perverted notions of the Esoteric Buddhist System. . . .
the Tibetan School will ever be regarded by those who know little,
if anything of it, as coloured more or less with sectarianism.5
Thus arose the misconception that Theosophy is derived from
one religion among others, namely that known in the world as
Buddhism, rather than from the Wisdom-Religion which was
the source of all religions.
In order to counter this misconception, and to stress the
universality of Theosophy, Blavatsky opened her greatest work,
The Secret Doctrine, with a refutation of the idea that Theosophy is
esoteric Buddhism. She said that Sinnett’s book should have
Theosophy and Buddhism 3
been titled, Esoteric Budhism, spelled with one “d,” to distinguish
the Wisdom-Religion, or Budhism, from the exoteric religion
known as Buddhism. She repeated this in Section I of The Key to
Theosophy. We can certainly understand the need to correct the
misconception that had arisen in people’s minds; but was the
problem really with the book title, or was it with people being
too ready to jump to unwarranted conclusions? We may recall
that at the time the book was being written, the Mahatma K.H.
thought Esoteric Buddhism was “an excellent title.”6
One must
wonder if this distancing of Theosophy from esoteric Buddhism
has not produced its own misconceptions; e.g., the idea that the
Mahatmas lived in Tibet among Buddhists, but were not themselves Buddhists as such. The literary evidence from Blavatsky’s
Mahatma teachers indicates that they were in fact Buddhists.
Starting with the first known Mahatma letter, written to
Blavatsky’s aunt in 1870 in the Mahatma K.H. handwriting, we
find the following (translated from the original French):
She [Blavatsky] has been very ill, but is so no longer; for under
the protection of the Lord Sang-gyas she has found devoted
friends who guard her physically and spiritually.7
The word “Sang-gyas” (sangs rgyas) is the Tibetan translation of
the Sanskrit word “Buddha.”
Then in letters from the Mahatma K.H. to A. P. Sinnett
and A. O. Hume, written in the early 1880s, we find a number of
references to Sang-gyas or Buddha as “our Lord:”
They cannot place—however much they would—the birth of our
Lord Sangyas Buddha A.D. as they have contrived to place that
of Chrishna.8
. . . the ecclesiastical system built upon the basic ideas of our
Lord Gautama Buddha’s philosophy, . . .9
. . . for the information gathered as to what takes place beyond
we are indebted to the Planetary Spirits, to our blessed Lord
Buddha.10
4 Theosophy and Buddhism
. . . and necessity of the practical application of these sublime words
of our Lord and Master:—“O ye Bhikkhus and Arhats— . . .”11
Our Lord Buddha—a sixth r. man—12
Plato and Confucius were fifth round men and our Lord a sixth
round man . . .13
. . . the old, very old fact distinctly taught by our Lord . . .14
“The right in thee is base, the wrong a curse,” was said by our
Lord Buddha for such as she; . . .15
The Devachan, or land of “Sukhavati,” is allegorically described by
our Lord Buddha himself.16
In letters from the Mahatma Morya to S. Ramaswamier and
from the Mahatma K.H. to C. W. Leadbeater, we find similar
references to “our Lord,” using the term “Tathågata,” another
title of the Buddha:
. . . decide after counting the whole cost, and may the light of our
Lord Tathagata’s memory aid you to decide for the best.17
So now choose and grasp your own destiny—and may our Lord’s
the Tathâgata’s memory aid you to decide for the best.18
Let no one know that you are going, and may the blessing of our
Lord and my poor blessing shield you from every evil in your new
life.19
The letters from these Mahatmas also include other passages
that specifically identify them as Buddhists:
. . . our lamas to honour the fraternity of the Bhikkhus [Buddhist
monks] established by our blessed master himself, . . .20
“Real Adepts like Gautama Buddha or Jesus Christ did not
shroud themselves in mystery, but came and talked openly,”
Theosophy and Buddhism 5
quoth our oracle. If they did it’s news to us—the humble
followers of the former.21
. . . he who reads our Buddhist scriptures . . .22
Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists.23
If it is objected that we too have temples, we too have priests and
that our lamas also live on charity . . . let them know that the
objects above named have in common with their Western
equivalents, but the name. Thus in our temples there is neither a
god nor gods worshipped, only the thrice sacred memory of the
greatest as the holiest man that ever lived.24
They distinguish themselves from other creeds, including even
Advaita Vedanta, which is said by Blavatsky to be, along with
Buddhism, the closest to the Esoteric Philosophy:
We are not Adwaitees . . . . / . . . we never were Adwaitees . . . .25
They retain this distinction, even though they accept the truths
taught in Advaita Vedanta, and have Advaita Vedanta chelas or
pupils:
It is an every day occurrence to find students belonging to
different schools of occult thought sitting side by side at the feet
of the same Guru. Upasika (Madam B[lavatsky]) and Subba Row,
though pupils of the same Master, have not followed the same
Philosophy—the one is Buddhist and the other an Adwaitee.26
The Mahatma Morya wrote to Dr. Franz Hartmann that his
becoming a Buddhist will make the path of knowledge easier of
access. After H. P. Blavatsky and H. S. Olcott publicly took
“Panchashila” at Galle, Ceylon, on May 25, 1880, to formally
become Buddhists, the first Westerners known to do so,
Hartmann followed suit and became a Buddhist on Dec. 26,
1883. The Mahatma Morya wrote in a letter to him on Feb. 5,
1884:
6 Theosophy and Buddhism
Let me give you an advice. Never offer yourself as a chela, but
wait until chelaship descends by itself upon you. Above all, try to
find yourself, and the path of knowledge will open itself before
you, and this so much the easier as you have made a contact
with the Light-ray of the Blessed one, whose name you have
now taken as your spiritual lode-star. . . . Receive in advance my
blessings and my thanks.27
It would seem that not only were Blavatsky’s Mahatma
teachers Buddhists, but so was the trans-Himalayan school of
adepts to which they belonged.
When our great Buddha—the patron of all the adepts, the
reformer and the codifier of the occult system, reached first
Nirvana on earth, . . .28
. . . and philanthropy as preached by our Great Patron—“the
Saviour of the World—the Teacher of Nirvana and the Law,” . . .29
In a letter to Mrs. Sinnett, Blavatsky refers to other Masters or
Mahatmas of this school,
. . . who are pure blooded Mongolian Buddhists.30
Indeed, some of the clearest references identifying this school
of Mahatmas with Buddhism are found in the words of the
Chohan, the teacher of Blavatsky’s teachers:
That we the devoted followers of that spirit incarnate of absolute
self sacrifice, of philanthropy, divine kindness, as of all the highest virtues attainable on this earth of sorrow, the man of men,
Gautama Buddha, should ever allow the Theosophical Society to
represent the embodiment of selfishness, the refuge of the few with
no thought in them for the many, is a strange idea, my brothers.
Among the few glimpses obtained by Europeans of Tibet and
its mystical hierarchy of “perfect lamas,” there is one which was
correctly understood and described. “The incarnations of the
Boddisatwa Padma Pani or Avalo-Kiteswara and of Tsong Kapa,
Theosophy and Buddhism 7
that of Amitabha, relinquish at their death the attainment of
Buddhahood—i.e. the summum bonum of bliss, and of individual personal felicity—that they might be born again and again
for the benefit of mankind.” (Rhys Davids). In other words, that
they might be again and again subjected to misery, imprisonment in flesh and all the sorrows of life, provided that by such a
self sacrifice repeated throughout long and dreary centuries
they might become the means of securing salvation and bliss in
the hereafter for a handful of men chosen among but one of the
many races of mankind. And it is we, the humble disciples of
these perfect lamas, who are expected to allow the T.S. to drop
its noblest title, that of the Brotherhood of Humanity to become
a simple school of psychology? No, no, good brothers, you have
been labouring under the mistake too long already.31
As clear as these references are to the Mahatmas of this school
being the devoted followers of Gautama Buddha, and “humble
disciples of these perfect lamas,” there yet exists an even more
direct statement. This came through unfiltered in a response
from the Mahatma Morya to a request from a certain Hindu
Theosophist to open up new correspondence. He and other
Hindu Theosophists, however, were not prepared to give up
caste and their “old superstitions” such as faith in the Gods and
God, as had the Hindu Theosophist Damodar Mavalankar. The
Mahatma Morya says in his characteristic blunt manner:
What have we, the disciples of the true Arhats, of esoteric
Buddhism and of Sang-gyas [Buddha] to do with the Shastras
and Orthodox Brahmanism? There are 100 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 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 [one who does not believe
in God or Gods] as they call us? None. Those who have believed
and followed us have had their reward.32
8 Theosophy and Buddhism
These quotations given above leave little doubt that the
Mahatmas behind the Theosophical movement, Blavatsky’s
teachers, considered themselves to be Buddhists as such, and
not only esoteric Buddhists.
The obvious question that now arises is this: Why don’t
the teachings given out by the Theosophical Mahatmas agree
with the known teachings of Buddhism? To merely say that the
Mahatmas are esoteric Buddhists does not entirely answer the
question. It does not explain the Buddhist part. What makes
them esoteric Buddhists rather than esoteric Hindus or esoteric
Christians or esoteric anything else? Why should there have
ever been any talk of pre-Vedic Buddhism or esoteric Buddhism
unless known Buddhism has some direct connection with their
teachings? Having investigated this question for many years, my
own conclusion is simply and in brief as follows.
Buddhism is the most direct descendant of the WisdomReligion now in existence, and in the Buddhist scriptures are
preserved more of the Wisdom-Religion’s teachings than in any
other texts now extant. Thus Blavatsky’s Mahatma teachers are
even exoterically Buddhists. But, as often repeated by Blavatsky,
the commentaries which give the true meanings of the known
texts have been withdrawn and are no longer accessible. Thus
the teachings of the Mahatmas differ significantly from those of
exoteric or known Buddhism. In other words, the texts of the
Wisdom-Religion are best preserved in Buddhism, while the
true teachings of these texts, long preserved in secret by the
Mahatmas, began to be given out to the world as Theosophy.
We may recall that when the Theosophical Society was
started, the scriptures of Northern Buddhism were almost all
unavailable and untranslated, unlike those of Hinduism that
Blavatsky cited frequently. The books on Buddhism that then
existed were criticized by the Mahatma K.H. Yet he indicates
that even the exoteric Buddhism portrayed in them “is full of
the sparkle of our most important esotericism,” likening it to
diamond mines:
The more one reads such speculations as those of Messrs. Rhys
Davids, Lillie, etc.—the less can one bring himself to believe that
Theosophy and Buddhism 9
the unregenerate Western mind can ever get at the core of our
abstruse doctrines. . . . Mr. Rhys Davids’ Buddhism is full of the
sparkle of our most important esotericism; but always, as it would
seem, beyond not only his reach but apparently even his powers
of intellectual perception. . . . He is like the Cape Settlers who
lived over diamond mines without suspecting it.33
To show this, the Mahatma K.H. then provides Sinnett with the
esoteric explanation of an exoteric Buddhist doctrine given in
Rhys Davids’ book.
En passant, to show to you that not only were not the “races”
invented by us, but that they are a cardinal dogma with the Lama
Buddhists and with all who study our esoteric doctrine, I send
you an explanation on a page or two in Rhys Davids’ Buddhism,—
otherwise incomprehensible, meaningless and absurd. It is
written with the special permission of the Chohan (my Master)
and—for your benefit. No Orientalist has ever suspected the
truths contained in it, and—you are the first Western man
(outside Tibet) to whom it is now explained.34
As far as I know, this explanation has not come down to us, as it
is not among the Mahatma papers now preserved in the British
Library. From a perusal of Rhys Davids’ book, we may assume
that this explanation was “on a page or two” of his chapter 8,
“Northern Buddhism.” Specifically, it likely refers to the listing
he gives of the five Dhyåni Buddhas, their five Bodhisattvas, and
the five corresponding Månushi (human) Buddhas.35 K.H. had
also in a previous letter spoken of sending an explanation of
this material; but if there included, it too has not come down to
us. In this letter he appeared anxious that the theosophists give
out the right explanation of this seemingly fantastic Buddhist
teaching.
Only, to prove to you, if not to him, that we have not invented
those races, I will give out for your benefit that which has never
been given out before. I will explain to you a whole chapter out
of Rhys Davids work on Buddhism, or rather on Lamaism, which,
10 Theosophy and Buddhism
in his natural ignorance he regards as a corruption of Buddhism!
Since those gentlemen—the Orientalists—presume to give to
the world their soi-disant translations and commentaries on our
sacred books, let the theosophists show the great ignorance of
those “world” pundits, by giving the public the right doctrines
and explanations of what they would regard as an absurd, fancy
theory.36
Fortunately, Sinnett did give out in his Esoteric Buddhism
what is apparently this right explanation. In chapter 9, entitled
“Buddha,” Sinnett explains that the five human Buddhas given
by Rhys Davids relate to the five races taught by Theosophy. He
introduces this topic thus:
The explanation of this branch of the subject, in plain terms, will
not alone be important for its own sake, but will be interesting
to all students of exoteric Buddhism, as elucidating some of
the puzzling complications of the more abstruse “Northern
doctrine.”37
The listing of the human Buddhas in the Rhys Davids book gives
three Buddhas of the remote past, then Gautama the historical
Buddha as fourth, and Maitreya the coming Buddha as fifth.
Sinnett explains why it is that the fourth Buddha belongs to our
fifth race; namely, that at the beginning of the first race appears
a teacher he refers to as a Dhyan Chohan, and who is therefore
not in this list of five Buddhas. His explanation of this, however,
was not altogether clear; and a correspondent questioned it in
The Theosophist for August, 1884. The editor, H. P. Blavatsky,
clarified that:
. . . Gautama was the fourth Buddha, i.e., “enlightened,” while he
was the fifth spiritual teacher. The first “teacher” of this “Round”
on this planet was a Dhyan Chohan. As a Dhyan Chohan, he
belonged to another System, and was thus far higher than a
Buddha. As, however, in ordinary language, all spiritual teachers
are called “Buddhas,” Mr. Sinnett speaks of Gautama as the fifth
Buddha. To be more accurate, it must be said that Gautama was
Theosophy and Buddhism 11
the fifth spiritual teacher in this “Round” on this planet, while he
was the fourth who became a Buddha.
38
With this one example the Mahatma K.H. showed that the
hitherto esoteric teachings now given out as Theosophy could
explain the known teachings of Buddhism that were otherwise
considered fantastic, and at the same time the known teachings
of Buddhism could support the newly given out Theosophical
teachings that were otherwise considered fantastic.
The many schools of Buddhism, each with its own varying
interpretations, all claim to have preserved intact the original
teachings, and to have transmitted their correct explanations
in an unbroken line. Theosophy, too, makes this claim. As
Blavatsky describes to a correspondent:
But what I do believe in is: (1), the unbroken oral teachings
revealed by living divine men during the infancy of mankind to
the elect among men; (2), that it has reached us unaltered; and
(3), that the MASTERS are thoroughly versed in the science based
on such uninterrupted teaching.39
Both Buddhism and Theosophy teach that each person should
determine for his or her own self what is true through proper
reasoning. If the example given by the Mahatma K.H. be taken
as representative, we may reasonably conclude that Buddhism
does in fact preserve original teachings of the Wisdom-Religion,
and that the correct explanations have indeed been transmitted
in an unbroken line to the esoteric school of the Mahatmas, and
partially given out to the world as Theosophy.
The Mahatma K.H. had advised Sinnett that to properly
study and correctly understand their teachings, a special group
should be formed for the express purpose of seeking esoteric
knowledge from the Northern Buddhist source:
It seems necessary for a proper study and correct understanding
of our Philosophy and the benefit of those whose inclination
leads them to seek esoteric knowledge from the Northern
Buddhist Source, . . . that an exclusive group composed of those
12 Theosophy and Buddhism
members who desire to follow absolutely the teachings of the
School to which we, of the Tibetan Brotherhood, belong, should
be formed . . . .40
However, the attempt made at that time soon proved abortive;
and this remains unaccomplished and still a desideratum. Now
that so many of the Northern Buddhist scriptures have become
available, the opportunities to study and interpret them in light
of Theosophy as sourcebooks of the Wisdom-Religion are very
great indeed.
NOTES
1. Isis Unveiled, by H. P. Blavatsky, 1st ed., 1877; rev. ed. [by Boris
de Zirkoff] (pagination unchanged), Wheaton, Illinois: Theosophical
Publishing House, 1972, vol. 2, p. 123.
2. Isis Unveiled, vol. 2, p. 169.
3. Isis Unveiled, vol. 2, p. 639.
4. The Path, vol. 9, March 1895, p. 431; reprinted in Echoes of the
Orient: The Writings of William Quan Judge, vol. I, compiled by Dara
Eklund, San Diego: Point Loma Publications, 1975, p. 453. The word
“Buddhists” in the phrase “pre-Vedic Buddhists” is spelled “Budhists”
in these publications. I have used “Buddhists” because that is what
Blavatsky used at that time, not changing this until years later.
5. The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, compiled by A. T. Barker,
1st ed., 1923; 3rd rev. ed., Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing
House, 1962, p. 392; arranged in chronological sequence by Vicente
Hao Chin, Jr., Quezon City, Metro Manila: Theosophical Publishing
House, 1993, p. 410.
6. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 198; chron. ed., p. 363.
7. Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, compiled by C. Jinarajadasa,
First Series, letter no. 38, Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing
House, 1st ed., 1919, p. 102; 5th ed., 1964, p. 85; Second Series, letter
no. 1, Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing House, 1925, p. 4;
Chicago: The Theosophical Press, 1926, p. 11. Both volumes include a
transcription of the original French letter, and an English translation.
The second volume also includes a facsimile of the original, allowing
my corrected spelling “Sang-gyas,” rather than the printed “Sangyas.”
8. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 339; chron. ed., pp. 377-78.
Theosophy and Buddhism 13
9. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 393; chron. ed., p. 410.
10. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 134; chron. ed., p. 279.
11. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 381; chron. ed., p. 385.
12. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 94; chron. ed., p. 186.
13. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 83; chron. ed., p. 176.
14. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 108; chron. ed., p. 199.
15. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 354; chron. ed., p. 442.
16. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 97; chron. ed., p. 189.
17. Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, Second Series, letter no. 51,
Morya to S. Ramaswamier, Adyar ed., 1925, p. 98; Chicago ed., 1926,
p. 110.
18. Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series, letter no. 7,
K.H. to C. W. Leadbeater, 1st ed., 1919, p. 35; 5th ed., 1964, p. 30.
A facsimile of this letter was published in The “K.H.” Letters to C. W.
Leadbeater, by C. Jinarajadasa, Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing
House, 1941, where this passage occurs on p. 11 (incidentally showing
the circumflex mark in the word Tathâgata).
19. Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series, letter no. 8,
K.H. to C. W. Leadbeater, 1st ed., 1919, p. 36; 5th ed., 1964, p. 30;
facsimile in The “K.H.” Letters to C. W. Leadbeater, pp. 50-51.
20. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 58; chron. ed., p. 275.
21. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 277; chron. ed., p. 71.
22. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 54; chron. ed., p. 271.
23. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 52; chron. ed., p. 270.
24. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 58; chron. ed., p. 275.
25. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., pp. 53, 284; chron. ed., pp. 271, 245.
26. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 393; chron. ed., p. 410.
27. H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 8, Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing House, 1960, p. 446.
28. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd. ed., p. 43; chron. ed., p. 62.
29. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd. ed., p. 33; chron. ed., p. 49.
30. The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett, compiled by A. T.
Barker, 1st ed., 1925; facsimile edition, Pasadena: Theosophical
University Press, 1973, p. 85.
31. Combined Chronology, Margaret Conger, Pasadena: Theosophical
University Press, 1973, pp. 46-47; The Mahatma Letters, chron. ed.,
appendix II, pp. 479-80; with minor variants, Letters from the Masters of
the Wisdom, First Series, letter no. 1. The reference attributed to
Rhys Davids is actually from Clements R. Markham, ed., Narratives of
the Mission of George Bogle to Tibet and of the Journey of Thomas Manning to
Lhasa, 1st ed., 1876; 2nd ed., London, 1879, p. xlvii. The reference to
14 Theosophy and Buddhism
securing salvation for a handful of men from but one of the many
races of mankind is further explained in an excerpt from a secret
book, given by H. P. Blavatsky in “‘Reincarnations’ of Buddha,” H. P.
Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 14, Wheaton, Illinois: Theosophical
Publishing House, 1985, p. 405:
The Seven Ways and the Four Truths were once more hidden
out of sight. The Merciful One [Buddha] confined since then
his attention and fatherly care to the heart of Bodyul [Tibet], the
nursery grounds of the seeds of truth. The blessed “remains”
since then have overshadowed and rested in many a holy body of
human Bodhisattvas.
32. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd. ed., p. 455; chron. ed., p. 95.
33. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd. ed., p. 337; chron. ed., p. 376.
34. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd. ed., p. 154; chron. ed., p. 315.
35. Buddhism: Being a Sketch of the Life and Teachings of Gautama, the
Buddha, by T. W. Rhys Davids, 1st ed., 1877; rev. ed., London: Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1886, p. 205; taken from Eugène
Burnouf, Introduction à l’histoire du Buddhisme indien, Paris, 1844,
p. 117.
36. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd. ed., p. 182; chron. ed., p. 261.
37. Esoteric Buddhism, by A. P. Sinnett, 1st ed., 1883; 5th annotated
ed. 1885, reprint, Minneapolis: Wizards Bookshelf, 1973, p. 171.
38. H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 6, 1st ed., 1954; 2nd ed.,
Wheaton, Illinois: Theosophical Publishing House, 1975, p. 267. The
Buddhist texts (e.g., the Bhadra-kalpika Sütra) speak of many more
than five Buddhas, but only four have so far appeared in our kalpa, or
eon; with the fifth, Maitreya, next to come in our kalpa. Buddhist texts
(e.g., the Abhidharma-ko≈a) describe several kinds of kalpas. One kind
of kalpa is, in the Theosophical terminology coined by A. P. Sinnett, a
“round.” A round is the time period during which seven sequential
races or humanities evolve on our planet. The equivalence of this
kalpa and “round” is shown in a quotation from a commentary given
in The Secret Doctrine, by H. P. Blavatsky, 1st ed., 1888; rev. ed. [by Boris
de Zirkoff] (pagination unchanged), Adyar, Madras: Theosophical
Publishing House, 1978, vol. 1, p. 184:
The human foetus follows now in its transformations all the
forms that the physical frame of man had assumed throughout
the three Kalpas (Rounds) during the tentative efforts at plastic
formation around the monad by senseless, because imperfect,
matter, in her blind wanderings. In the present age, . . .
Theosophy and Buddhism 15
39. H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 11, Wheaton, Illinois: Theosophical Publishing House, 1973, pp. 466-67. Contrast this statement
with the popular view repeated again and again by ill-informed writers
that Blavatsky’s source was psychic communications from “Ascended
Masters.”
40. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd. ed., p. 394; chron. ed., p. 411.
Later addition:
The important series of articles titled, “Some Inquiries Suggested by
Mr. Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism,” is believed to have been written by
three Mahatmas (see: Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 5, pp. 135, 136,
quoted below in notes 5-6 on pp. 63-64). In two of these articles the
Mahatma writer again leaves no doubt that he considers himself to be
a Buddhist, by his references to “our Lord,” etc. These occur, in the
Blavatsky Collected Writings reprint (vol. 5), as follows:
“Philological and Archaeological ‘Difficulties’”:
p. 229: “. . . as to the date of our Lord’s birth, . . .”
p. 232: “. . . the date of our Lord and Glorified Deliverer . . .”
p. 232: “. . . the date of our Lord Sanggyas’ birth, . . .”
p. 240: “. . . Buddhism . . . our religion . . .”
p. 240: “. . . our Lord Gautama . . .”
“Sakya Muni’s Place in History”:
p. 244: “. . . the prophecy of our Lord that ‘a thousand years after he
had reached Nirvana, his doctrines would reach the north’ . . .”
p. 245: “. . . the great Sramanåchåryas who preceded Him, and were
His teachers, their humble successors trying to this day to perpetuate their and His doctrines.”
p. 245: “. . . in consequence of a vision of our Lord, . . .”
p. 246 fn.: “When our Lord first sat in it for Dhyana, . . .”
p. 247 fn.: “. . . while teaching the mendicants outside, our Lord . . .”
p. 248: “. . . the Buddhist Sacred Annals record certain words of
our Lord . . .”
p. 249: “. . . as prophesied by Lokanåtha, our Buddha.”
p. 250: “. . . prophecy by our Lord; . . .”
p. 250: “. . . our Sakyasinha’s prophecies . . .”
In another article, “Was Writing Known before Pånini?” by a Chela:
p. 304: “. . . our Lord Buddha . . .”
[The foregoing article was written by David Reigle, and published in
Fohat, A Quarterly Publication of Edmonton Theosophical Society,
vol. 4, no. 1, Spring 2000, pp. 14-17, 22-23. This online edition is
published by Eastern Tradition Research Institute, copyright 2004.]