Ah-hi and Ahi in the Writings of Blavatsky (In Chronological Order)
In Isis Unveiled (1877):
Burnouf has endeavored to show that the Vedic myth of Ahi, or the serpent, fighting against the gods, has been gradually euhemerized into “the battle of a pious man against the power of evil,” in the Mazdean religion. (IU 2:486)
From this quote, we see simply that as early as 1877 Blavatsky had become familiar with the Sanskrit term Ahi.
In The Secret Doctrine (1888):
Stanza 1:3: Universal Mind was not, for there were no Ah-hi to contain it. (SD 1:27 & 37)
Stanza 2:1: . . . Where were the Builders, the luminous Sons of Manvantaric Dawn? . . . In the Unknown Darkness, in their Ah-hi Pariniṣpanna. The producers of Form from No-Form—the Root of the World—the Devamātṛ and Svabhāva, rested in the bliss of Non-Being. (SD 1:28 & 53)
The Ah-hi (Dhyāni-Chohans) are the collective hosts of spiritual beings—the Angelic Hosts of Christianity, the Elohim and “Messengers” of the Jews—who are the vehicle for the manifestation of the divine or universal thought and will. (SD 1:38)
The “Struggle for Existence” and the “Survival of the Fittest” reigned supreme from the moment that Kosmos manifested into being, and could hardly escape the observant eye of the ancient Sages. Hence the incessant fights of Indra, the god of the Firmament, with the Asuras—degraded from high gods into Cosmic demons; and with Vṛtra or Ah-hi; the battles fought between stars and constellations, between Moon and planets—later on incarnated as kings and mortals. (SD 1:202)
There is a notable difference esoterically between the words Sarpa and Nāga, though they are both used indiscriminately. Sarpa (serpent) is from the root √sṛp, serpo to creep; and they are called “Ahi,” from √hā, to abandon. “The sarpa was produced from Brahmā’s hair, which, owing to his fright at beholding the Yakṣas, whom he had created horrible to behold, fell off from the head, each hair becoming a serpent. They are called Sarpa from their creeping and Ahi because they had deserted the head” [H. H. Wilson, ed. Fitzedward Hall, The Vishnu Purana, Vol. 1, 1864, p. 83]. But the Nagas, their serpent’s tail notwithstanding, do not creep, but manage to walk, run and fight in the allegories. (SD 2:181)
While Indra, the bright god of the Firmament, kills Vṛtra (or Ahi), the Serpent-Demon—for which feat he is called Vṛtra-han, “the destroyer of Vṛtra”; he also leads the hosts of Devas (Angels or gods) against other gods who rebel against Brahmā . . . (SD 2:382)
In India the Dragon story is repeated in one of its forms in the battles of Indra with Vṛtra. In the Vedas this Ahi-Vṛtra is referred to as the Demon of Drought, the terrible hot Wind. Indra is shown to be constantly at war with him; and with the help of his thunder and lightning the god compels Ahi-Vṛtra to pour down in rain on Earth, and then slays him. Hence, Indra is called the Vṛtra-Han or “the slayer of Vritra,” as Michael is called the Conqueror and “Slayer of the Dragon.” (SD 2:384)
In these quotations from The Secret Doctrine, we see a couple of key connections, both between the two spellings (ah-hi and ahi) and with Vṛtra. To summarize:
Ah-hi and Vṛtra are given as equivalents (SD 1:202)
Ahi and Vṛtra are given as equivalents (SD 2:382)
Ahi-Vṛtra is given as a single hyphenated term (SD 2:384)
Since Ahi and Vṛtra are equivalents, and Ah-hi and Vṛtra are equivalents, it can be decuded that Blavatsky was using the spelling Ah-hi and Ahi essentially interchangeably, i.e. there is no fundamental difference to be marked between the terms Ah-hi and Ahi in The Secret Doctrine. There is here no indication given by Blavatsky that the term Ah-hi is anything but the Sanskrit term Ahi.
The term is not used in either The Voice of the Silence (1889) or The Key to Theosophy (1889).
In the Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge (1890-91):
From pages 19-26 (ULT edition), much is said about the nature of the Ah-hi in the esoteric philosophy, but nothing new is to be ascertained in regards to the etymology of the term. The spelling used consistently throughout the Transactions is “Ah-hi.”
In The Secret Doctrine Dialogues, published in 2014, we have now the unabridged transcription of Blavatsky’s Q&A with students which was edited to form the Transactions. In this full transcription we are also given no further details on the etymology of the term.
There appears to be no further use of the term by Blavatsky throughout her articles or esoteric writings.
We now turn to The Theosophical Glossary (1892), a posthumously published collection of definitions, some of which are said to have been composed directly by Blavatsky, but many of which were drawn from other sources of her time, as well as some filled in by W. W. Westcott. The editor G. R. S. Mead says that only the first 32 pages were seen in proof by Blavatsky. Since the definitions of interest to us are found on page 11, it can be assumed that Blavatsky did see these in proof form (whether this means she approved of every detail of these definitions is another question).
In the Glossary we find the following two definitions given on page 11:
Ah-hi (Sensar), Ahi (Sk.), or Serpents. Dhyāni-Chohans. “Wise Serpents” or Dragons of Wisdom.
Ahi (Sk.). A serpent. A name of Vṛtra, the Vedic demon of drought.
The second of these definitions is quoted directly from John Dowson, A Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology, 1879, p. 9.
The first definition is the one that must pique our interest. This is the only place where a distinction between Ah-hi and Ahi is definitely given, the one said to be from Senzar, the other from Sanskrit. However, as no other details or explanations are given, we are left with scant information to go upon.
Summary
The term Ah-hi is an equivalent of the Sanskrit term Ahi. The spellings Ah-hi and Ahi are both given as equivalents in The Secret Doctrine, in connected with the Sanskrit term Vṛtra. A distinction between the spellings is only ever given in the posthumously published Theosophical Glossary. There, the spelling “Ah-hi” is said to be Senzar, while Ahi is Sanskrit.
Etymology
In The Secret Doctrine (2:181), Blavatsky draws her etymology of the Sanskrit term from Wilson in his translation of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, but she makes an innocent mistake which could be made by anyone not familiar with the Sanskrit of the verse being translated by Wilson. Blavatsky draws from Wilson and concludes that “Ahi,” comes from the root “√hā, to abandon,” however, Wilson is not making the case that the term ahi comes from the root √hā, but rather that the term hīnatva comes from that root. The verse (1:5:45a), translated and commented on by Wilson reads thus:
sarpaṇāt te ‘bhavan sarpā hīnatvād ahayaḥ smṛtāḥ |
[from creeping/crawling (sarpaṇa); those (te); they become (abhavan, √bhū); sarpas (sarpāḥ); from deprivation (hīnatva); ahis (ahayaḥ); they are declared (smṛta)]
Here ahayaḥ is the plural nominative of ahi.
Wilson’s translation reads:
“From their falling, they became serpents, called Sarpa, from their creeping, and Ahi, because they had deserted the head.*”
His footnote reads:
“* From sŕip (सृप्), serpo, ‘to creep’, and from Há (हा), ‘to abandon.’”
Blavatsky takes this as indicating that the term sarpa comes from √sṛp while the term ahi comes from √hā, but actually Wilson is indicating the roots of the two descriptive terms, i.e. sarpaṇa comes from the root √sṛp and hīnatva comes from the root √hā.
To show this clearly we can add these in square brackets into Wilson’s translation thus:
“From their falling, they became serpents, called Sarpa, from their creeping [sarpaṇa, √sṛp], and Ahi, because they had deserted [hīnatva, √hā] the head.”
Wilson’s mention of “falling” and “the head” are carry-overs from the previous verse. A more literal translation of just the present selection might read:
“From their creeping [sarpaṇa, √sṛp] they become Sarpas; from deprivation [hīnatva, √hā] they are declared to be Ahis.”
In regards to the commonly accepted etymology of the Sanskrit ahi, Monier-Williams proposes that it is derived from a root √aṃh, “to go, set out, commense; to approach,” which he connects with a root √aṅgh, meaning the same. He notes the term aṃhana as “the act of moving or creeping (like a snake).” The term aṃhas, it should be noted, means “sin, evil,” as well as “anxiety, anguish,” etc., (we can see a direct connection here to the serpent mythos in abrahamic religions). Some modern Sanskrit dictionaries (see here for instance) tend not to provide any suggested root for the term ahi. Monier-Williams also gives a term ahī with the long vowel, as also meaning “a snake” and also connects this term with vṛtra. However, ahī is also the dual nominative or accusative of ahi.
Summary
The etymology given in The Secret Doctrine (2:181) was based on a mistaken reading of Wilson by Blavatsky and is not applicable; ahi does not come from the root √hā, “to abandon.” The term ahi (or ah-hi) is connected with the idea of deprivation/privation via the verse 1:5:45a of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa.
Further research into the instances and context of the Sanskrit term ahi may shed more light on the essential meaning of the term. Its connection to the Dhyāni-Chohans (SD 1:38) and the use of the term “Ah-hi Pariniṣpanna” (SD1:28, 1:53 & Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge, pages 19-26, ULT edition) are both subjects that require further research.
For more on the term Ah-hi, see: