Writings
of H P Blavatsky
Cardiff Theosophical Society in Wales
206 Newport Road, Cardiff, Wales, UK. CF24 -1DL
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831 1891)
The Founder of Modern Theosophy
"Esoteric Buddhism"
And The
"Secret Doctrine"
By
H
P Blavatsky
CORRESPONDENCE
In reference to
various remarks concerning "Esoteric Buddhism" which appear in the
course of your new work, "The Secret Doctrine," I beg to call your
attention to some passages on the same subject which appeared on former
occasions in the Theosophist at a time when that magazine was edited by
yourself.
In the Secret
Doctrine you speak of Esoteric Buddhism as a work with "a very unfortunate
title," and in reference to a passage in my preface, emphasising
the novelty for European readers of the teachings then given out, you say the
error must have crept in through inadvertence. In the last number of LUCIFER
you discuss the same point in a note appended to a correspondent's letter.
Permit me to remind you of an editorial note, evidently from your own pen, in
the February Theosophist, 1884. This is in reply to an objection raised by Mr.
W. Q. Judge that nearly all the leading ideas of the
doctrine embodied in "Esoteric Buddhism" are to
be found in the Bhagavad Gita. You wrote:
We do not
believe our American brother is justified in his
remarks. The knowledge given out in Esoteric Buddhism is
most decidedly given out for the first time, inasmuch as the allegories that
lie scattered in the Hindu sacred literature are now for the first time clearly
explained to the world of the profane.1 Since the birth of the Theosophical
Society and the publication of Isis, it is being repeated daily that all the
esoteric wisdom of the ages lies concealed in the Vedas, the Upanishads and
Bhagavad Gita; yet unto the day of the first appearance of Esoteric Buddhism,
and for long centuries back, these doctrines remained a sealed letter to all
but a few initiated Brahmins who had always kept the spirit of it to
themselves.
Thus, if I
erred in my statement about the doctrine having been unknown previously to
Europeans, I erred in very good company your own. Your note goes on to say
that certainly the teachings of "Esoteric Buddhism" lie concealed in
the Bhagavad Gita, "but" you say:
What of that?
Of what good to W. Q. Judge or any other is the diamond that lies
concealed deep underground? Of course everyone knows that there is not a gem
now sparkling in a jewellery shop but pre-existed and
lay concealed since its formation, for ages, within the bowels of the earth.
Yet surely he who got it first from its finder, and cut and polished it, may be
permitted to say that this particular diamond is given out for the first time
to the world.2
In regard to my
"unfortunate title," which was (as you know, I think) approved when
first proposed without any question arising as to the. two
"d's" you say in the Secret Doctrine:
It has enabled
our enemies to find an effective weapon against Theosophy because, as an
eminent Pali scholar very pointedly expressed it, there was in the volume named
neither esotericism nor Buddhism.
It happens that
you discussed the same criticism in an article in the Theosophist for November,
1883. Your text on that occasion was an article in the St. James' Gazette,
which you attributed to Dr. Rhys Davids, and you
wrote:
But before the Orientalists are able to prove that the doctrines, as
taught in Mr. Sinnett's exposition are "not
Buddhism, esoteric nor exoteric," they will have to make away with
the thousands of Brahminical
Adwaita and other Vedantin
writings the works of Sankaracharya in particular
from which it can be proved that precisely the same doctrines are taught in
those works esoterically.
You spoke, in the
course of the article, of the very remark you now find to be "very
pointed,"3 as "such a spiteful and profitless criticism" to
attribute it to the pen of the great Pali scholar.The
propriety of the title given to my book was discussed in an article in the
Theosophist for June, 1884, when an editorial note was appended, in the course
of which the writer said:
The name given
to Mr. Sinnett's book will not be misleading or
objectionable when the close identity between the doctrines therein expounded
and those of the ancient Rishis of
These extracts
seem to show that the unfavourable view of Esoteric
Buddhism now presented to the readers of the Secret Doctrine can only have been
developed in your mind with comparatively recent period.5 Satisfied with the
assurance conveyed to me as explained in the preface to the sixth edition
by the reverend teacher from whom its substance was derived that the book was
a sound and trustworthy presentation of his teachings as a whole, that would
never have to be remodelled or apologised
for,6 I have been content, hitherto, to leave unnoticed every other criticism
that it has called forth. I have known all along that it contained errors which
initiates would detect, but by the time any student might be in a position to
appreciate these he would be
independent of its guidance, and till then he could not be
embarrassed7 by them. Now, however, I regret to find that the Secret Doctrine
is not merely concerned to expand and develop the earlier teaching a task
which I should be the first to recognise could be
performed by no one more efficiently than by yourself but paves
the way for its
expositions by remarks on Esoteric Buddhism which are not in the nature of
fresh revelations concerning what are, doubtless, its many shortcomings, but
are in the nature of disparagements8 which you have, on former occasions
rebuked others for putting forward.
You say in
objecting to my title "the esoteric truths presented in Mr. Sinnett's work had ceased to be esoteric from the moment
they were made public." Is not that an odd objection to appear on the
first page of a book called "The Secret Doctrine"? Has the doctrine
ceased to deserve that designation from the date at which your own book
appeared?9
These questions
however are all of minor importance, though it puzzles me to understand why
your view of them should have been so diametrically reversed from what it was a
few years ago.10 I might hardly have written this letter at all, but for a passage
in the Secret Doctrine referring to Esoteric Buddhism that occurs on page 169.
There you suggest that my own attempt to explain planetary evolution fails for
want of being sufficiently metaphysical, and you quote a phrase from me
"on pure meta-physics of that sort we are
not now engaged" in connexion
with a passage from one of the letters of instruction I received when the book
was under preparation. "In such case," you say, "as the Teacher
remarks in a letter
to him: 'Why this preaching of our doctrines, all this uphill work and swimming
in adversum flumen?'"
Any reader will imagine that the passage quoted from the letter had reference
to the passage quoted from the book.11 Nothing can be further from the fact. My
remark about not being "then" concerned with "pure
metaphysics" had a limited and specific application, and on the next page
I see that I have dealt with that period before the earliest manifestations of
Nature on the plane of the senses, when the work of evolution going on was
concerned "with the elemental forces that underlie the phenomena of Nature
so visible now and perceptible to the senses of Man."
From time to
time, amongst criticisms of Esoteric Buddhism that have appeared to me
misdirected, I have heard this charge that I have not appreciated the great
doctrine metaphysically, that I have materialised its
conceptions. I do not think I have ever before put pen to paper to combat this
idea, though it has always struck me as curiously erroneous; but when language
from yourself seems to fortify the impression I refer to, it is high time for
me to explain, at any rate, my own attitude of mind.12
The charge of materialising the doctrine seems to me to arise entirely
from the fact that I have partially succeeded in making some parts of it
intelligible. The disposition to regard vagueness of exposition as equivalent
to spirituality of thought is very widely spread; and multitudes of people are
unaccustomed to respect any phraseology that they find themselves enabled to
understand Unused to realise a thought with precision
of imaginative insight, they fancy if it is presented vividly to the mind that
it must have lost caste in the realms of idealism. They are used to regarding a
brick as something with a definite shape and purpose, and an idea as
a Protean shadow. Give the idea a specific plan in
Nature, and it will seem to them materialised, even
if concerned with conditions of life as remote from materiality as Devachanic
emotion.
The succession
of Cause and Effect seems itself materialised in
the mental atmosphere I am discussing if it is represented, in its most
interesting aspect, as forcing its way from one plane of nature to another.
For readers of
this temperament Esoteric Buddhism may be materialistic; but as I venture to
believe that it has been a bridge which has conducted many, and may bear many
more, across the chasm which divides the interests and materialism of this
life, from the realms of spiritual aspiration beyond, I have not yet seen
reason to regret the mould in which it was cast, even though some of those who
have used it in their time now despise its materialistic construction.13 It
would load your paper too heavily if I quoted passages to show how constantly I
really emphasised the non-material aspects of its
teaching; but I may perhaps be allowed one from the closing sentences of the
chapter on "the universe," in which I say: "It" the
doctrine of the Esoteric Wisdom "stoops to materialism, as it were to
link its methods with the logic of that system, and ascends to the highest
realms of Idealism to embrace and expound the most exalted aspiration of
spirit."
The truth of
the whole matter is admirably expressed in a comprehensive sentence at the end
of a long article on "The Metaphysical Basis of Esoteric Buddhism,"
which appeared in the Theosophist for May, 1884, with the suggestive signature,
Damodar K. Mavalankar. This
runs:"The reader will now perceive that Esoteric
Buddhism is not a system of materialism. It is, as Mr. Sinnett calls it, 'Transcendental
Materialism,' which is non-materialism, just as the absolute consciousness is
non-consciousness."14
Any vindication
of oneself must be a repulsive task. For many reasons I would rather have left
all such questions alone, but to ignore unfavourable
comments when these proceed from your own pen would be to treat them with less
respect than is embodied in my present remarks.
In conclusion,
since the Secret Doctrine so frequently discusses what Esoteric Buddhism meant
to say as regards Darwinian evolution, let me endeavour
to elucidate that point. The teaching I received on the subject of race
evolution was very elementary. It was not exactly "fragmentary" (as
has sometimes been said), but it was a skeleton statement, as regards all the
problems of "Cosmogenesis," consequently it dealt merely with that
cosmic progress of the spiritual inquiry through the various kingdoms of Nature
which, beginning (on the material plane) with the mineral, culminates in Man.
It follows from this elementary statement that at some stage of the great
evolutionary process there is an ascent from the animal to the human kingdom,15 never mind where the transition is effected.
There the
teaching vindicated the spirit of the Darwinian idea16 though the further
illumination now cast upon the subject by your present work shows that many
specific conjectures of Darwinism are erroneous, and its application to the
human evolution of this world period altogether misleading It is needless to
say that I was not
furnished with the later teaching on this subject when
Esoteric Buddhism was written, therefore of course my own impression at the
time was that the doctrine supported the Darwinian hypothesis, as a general
idea. I never heard a word breathed in
Nor was the
point worth raising then. My readers had to be made acquainted with the primary
principles of Karma, reincarnation and cosmic progress towards superior
conditions of existence. All the cosmo-genesis that
was essential to the comprehension of these principles was supplied in the
teaching as given. Much was left for
further development, for later opportunities. The first
book of
Probably it
will be least appreciated by those who read its opening pages as warning them
off the subject of triangles.
Yours very respectfully,
A. P. SINNETT
OUR CLOSING
REMARK
We thank Mr.
Sinnett, with all of our heart, for this letter. Better late
than never. On page 186 of Vol. I. of our "Secret Doctrine,"
now just published, we quote from a letter of a member of the T. S., who wrote:
"I suppose you realize that three-fourths of Theosophists, and even
outsiders imagine that, as far as the evolution of man is concerned, Darwinism
and Theosophy kiss one another" in "Esoteric Buddhism." We
repudiate the idea most
vehemently on the same page, but our negation would not go
very far without that of Mr. Sinnett. The letter containing the above quoted
sentence was written more than two and a half years ago; and our denial,
notwithstanding the same charge of Darwinism and materialism in "Esoteric
Buddhism," was maintained by the same writer and supported by many others.
Thus it was indispensable for the good of the Cause that Mr. Sinnett should
deny it over his own signature. Our object is accomplished, for the author of
"Esoteric Buddhism" has now solemnly repudiated the charge, and we
hope to receive no more such flings at our philosophical beliefs.
We close by
thanking our esteemed correspondent once more for the indulgent spirit in which
he deals with our remarks, but which, to our regret, he very erroneously
attributes to a personal feeling due to some unwarrantable change in our
attitude towards himself. We repudiate such a charge, and hope that our
explanations will dissipate the last vestiges of any such suspicion. [ED.
Lucifer,
November, 1888
H. P. Blavatsky
1 The author
of the "Secret Doctrine" begs to suggest that she never denied to the doctrines expounded by
Mr. Sinnett the privilege of having been clearly "EXPLAINED," for the
first time, in print, in "Esot. Buddhism." All she asserts is, that it is not for the
first time that they were given out to a European, and by the latter to
other Europeans. Between "publishing" and
"giving out" there is a decided difference; an admirable peg, at any
rate, for our common enemies to hang their captious cavils upon. It is not the
writer of the "Secret Doctrine," moreover, who was the first to put
such a natural interpretation upon the sentence used by our esteemed friend
and correspondent, but, verily, sundry critics
outside of, as also within the Theosophical Society. It is no personal question
between Mr. Sinnett and H. P. Blavatsky, but between these two individuals on
the one hand and their critics on the other; the former being both in duty
bound as theosophists and believers in the esoteric teaching to defend the
Sacred Doctrine from side attacks via its expounders.
[ED.
2 This
proves, firstly, that the desire to defend, in print, a friend and co-worker quand mκme, even when he is not
entirely right, is always injudicious; and secondly, that experience comes with
age. "The good advocate not onley heares, but examines his case, and pincheth
the cause where he fears it is foundred"
Puller teaches.
We proved no
"good advocate," and now bear our Karma for it; from an
"advocate" we have become a "defendant."
[ED.
3 So we say
now. Not a word of what we wrote then do we repudiate here; and the
"Secret Doctrine" proves it. But this does not clash at all with the
fact that, once made public, no doctrine can be
referred to any longer as "esoteric." The esoteric tenets revealed
both in "Esoteric Buddhism" and the "Secret Doctrine" have
become
exoteric now. Nor does a remark cease to be
"spiteful" for being "very pointed," e.g., most of
Carlyle's remarks. A few years ago, at a time when our doctrines were hardly
delineated and the Orientalists knew nothing of them,
any such premature discussion and criticism were "profitless." But
now, when these doctrines have spread throughout the whole world, unless we
call things by their true names, and admit our mistakes (for it was one, to
spell "Budhism," Buddhism a mistake,
moreover, distinctly attributed to ourselves, "theosophists of
India," vide page xviii. Vol. I of the
"Secret Doctrine," and not at all to Mr.
Sinnett), our critics will have an undeniable right to charge us with sailing
under false colours. Nothing more fatal to our cause could ever happen. If we
would be
regarded as theosophists, we have to protect THEOSOPHY; we have to defend our colours
before we think of defending our own petty personality and amour propre, and should be ever ready to sacrifice ourselves.
And this is what we have tried to do in the Introduction to the "Secret
Doctrine." Poor is that standard-bearer
who shields his body from the bullets of the enemy
with the sacred banner entrusted to him! [ED.
4 The Rishis having nought to do with
"Buddhism," the religion of Gautama Buddha,
this question shows plainly that the mistake involved in the double
"d" had not yet struck the writer as forcibly as it has done later. [ED.
5 This is an
error. What we say now in the "Secret Doctrine" is what we knew, but
kept silent upon ever since the first year of publication of "Esoteric
Doctrine"; though we confess we have not realised
the importance of the mistake as fully from the beginning as we do now. It is
the number of criticisms received in private letters and for publication in
LUCIFER, from friends as well as from foes, that
forced us to see the question in its true light. Had they (the criticisms) been
directed only against us personally (Mr. Sinnett and H. P. Blavatsky) they
would have been left entirely unnoticed. But as all such had a direct bearing
upon the doctrines taught some persisting in calling them Buddhism, pure and
simple, and others charging them with being a new-fangled doctrine invented by
ourselves and fathered upon Buddhism the danger became imminent, and a public
explanation was absolutely necessary. Moreover, the impression that it was a
very materialistic teaching
"Esoteric
Buddhism" being accused of upholding the Darwinian hypothesis spread
from the Indian and Vedantin to almost all the
European theosophists. This had to be refuted, and we do so in the
"Secret Doctrine." [ED.
6 No one has
ever dreamt of denying that "Esoteric Buddhism" was a
"trustworthy presentation" of the Master's teachings as a whole. That
which is asserted is simply that some personal speculations of
its author
were faulty, and led to erroneous conclusions, (a) on account of their
incompleteness, and (b) because of the evident anxiety to reconcile them with
modern physical science, instead of metaphysical philosophy. Very likely
errors, emanating from a desire diametrically opposite, will be found in the
"Secret Doctrine." Why
should any of us aye, even the most learned in
occult lore among theosophists pose for infallibility? Let us humbly admit
with Socrates that "all we know is, that we know nothing"; at any
rate nothing in comparison to what we have still to learn.
[ED.
7 Not
"embarrassed," but misled and it is precisely this which has
happened. [ED.
8 We demur
to the expression. No "disparagement" whatever is meant, but simply
an attempt is made to make certain tenets taught in our respective works more
clear. Without such explanations, the statements made by both authors would be
unavoidably denounced as contradictory. The general public rarely goes to the
trouble of
sifting such difficult metaphysical questions to the
bottom, but judges on appearance. We have to acquaint first the reader with all
the sides and aspects of a teaching before we allow him to accept or even to
see in one of such a dogma. [ED.
9 It has,
most unquestionably, if logic deserves its name. Our correspondent would have
hardly made this query, intended as a hit and a satire, had he paid attention
to what is said on pages xvii xviii (the first and the second) of the
Introduction to the "Secret Doctrine," namely "Esoteric
Buddhism" was an excellent work with a
very
unfortunate title, though it meant no more than does the title of this work,
the "Secret Doctrine"; which means, if anything, that no more than
"Esoteric Buddhism" are those portions of the "Secret Doctrine" now explained in our volumes
any longer "secret" since they are divulged. We appeal to logicians
and literary critics for a decision. [ED.
10 Vide
Supra notes: the reasons are now explained. [ED.
11 This
remark of the Master was made in a general not in any specific application. But what of that? [ED.
12 Once more
we beg to assure our friend and colleague, Mr. Sinnett, that in saying what is
said in the "Secret Doctrine" we did not for one moment contemplate
the remarks as expressive of our own personal objections seeing we know our
correspondent's ideas too well to have any. They were addressed to and directed
against our benevolent critics: especially those who, with an
impartiality most admirable, though worthy of a better fate, try to hit
us both, and through us to upset the Esoteric Doctrine. Has not the latter been
proclaimed by a number of well-wishers as an invention of H. P. Blavatsky's?
Did not even
an admirably clever and learned man the late W. C. King claim, in his
"Gnostics and their Remains," to have "reasons for suspecting
that the sibyl of 'Esoteric Buddhism' (i.e. your humble servant) drew her first
notions from the analysis of the Inner man (to wit our seven principles) as set
forth in my (his) first edition"! This because the most philosophical
Gnostic works, especially the doctrines of Valentinus
and Marcus are full of our archaic esoteric ideas. Forsooth, it is high time
that the defendant, also, should "rise and explain" her attitude in
the "Secret Doctrine," regardless of any one's (even her own)
personality! [ED.
13 No one we
know of "despises," but many, on the other band, rejoice, and very
much so, at being able to refer to it as 'materialistic." It was high time
to disabuse and contradict them; and this letter from our correspondent,
setting forth his true views and attitude for the first time, is one of the
first good fruits produced by our remarks in, the "Secret Doctrine."
It is an excellent heck on our mutual enemies. [ED.
14 These are
the verbatim expressions of your friend and humble servant, the Editor. Damodar only repeated our views. But the "Damodars" are few, and there were, as our
correspondent well knows, other Brahmins in
this idea in others. [ED.
15 At the stage of the first Round, and partially at the
second, never during any stage of the Fourth Round. A purely mathematical or
rather algebraical reason exists for this: The
present (our) Round being the middle Round (between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and
the 5th, 6th, and 7th) is one of adjustment and final equipoise between Spirit
and matter. It is that point, in short, wherein the reign of true matter, its
grossest state (which is as unknown to Science as its opposite pole
homogeneous matter or substance) stops and comes to an end. from that point
physical man begins to throw off "coat after coat," his material
molecules for the benefit and subsequent formation or clothing of the animal
kingdom, which in its turn is passing it on to the vegetable, and the latter to
the mineral kingdoms. Man having evoluted in the
first Round from the animal via the two other kingdoms, it stands to reason that
in the present Round he should appear before the animal world of this manvantaric period. But see the "Secret Doctrine"
for particulars. [ED.
16 What did
17 The
reason for this also is stated in the "Secret Doctrine."
______________________
Cardiff
Theosophical Society in
Theosophy
House
206
Newport Road, Cardiff, Wales, UK. CF24 -1DL
Find out
more about
Theosophy
with these links
The Cardiff Theosophical Society Website
The National Wales Theosophy Website
If you
run a Theosophy Group, please feel free
to use any of the
material on this site
Theosophy Cardiffs Instant Guide
One liners and quick explanations
H P Blavatsky is
usually the only
Theosophist that
most people have ever
heard of. Lets put
that right
The Voice of the Silence Website
An Independent Theosophical Republic
Links to Free Online Theosophy
Study Resources; Courses,
Writings,
The main criteria
for the inclusion of
links on this site is
that they have some
relationship (however
tenuous) to Theosophy
and are lightweight,
amusing or entertaining.
Topics include
Quantum Theory and Socks,
Dick Dastardly and Legendary Blues Singers.
A selection of
articles on Reincarnation
Provided in
response to the large
number of enquiries we
receive at
Cardiff
Theosophical Society on this subject
The Voice of the Silence Website
This is for everyone, you dont have to live
in Wales to make
good use of this Website
No
Aardvarks were harmed in the
The Spiritual Home of Urban Theosophy
The Earth Base for Evolutionary Theosophy
A B C D EFG H IJ KL M N OP QR S T UV WXYZ
Complete Theosophical Glossary in Plain Text Format
1.22MB
________________
Preface
Theosophy and the Masters General Principles
The Earth Chain Body and Astral Body Kama Desire
Manas Of
Reincarnation Reincarnation Continued
Karma Kama Loka
Devachan
Cycles
Arguments Supporting Reincarnation
Differentiation Of Species Missing Links
Psychic Laws, Forces, and Phenomena
Psychic Phenomena and Spiritualism
Quick Explanations
with Links to More Detailed Info
What is Theosophy
? Theosophy Defined (More Detail)
Three Fundamental Propositions Key Concepts of Theosophy
Cosmogenesis Anthropogenesis Root Races
Ascended Masters After Death States
The Seven Principles of Man Karma
Reincarnation Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
Colonel Henry Steel Olcott William Quan Judge
The Start of the Theosophical
Society
History of the Theosophical
Society
Theosophical Society Presidents
History of the Theosophical
Society in Wales
The Three Objectives of the Theosophical
Society
Explanation of the Theosophical
Society Emblem
The Theosophical Order of
Service (TOS)
Glossaries of Theosophical Terms
Index of
Searchable
Full Text
Versions of
Definitive
Theosophical
Works
H P Blavatskys Secret Doctrine
Isis Unveiled by H P Blavatsky
H P Blavatskys Esoteric Glossary
Mahatma Letters to A P Sinnett 1 - 25
A Modern Revival of Ancient Wisdom
(Selection of Articles by H P Blavatsky)
The Secret Doctrine Volume 3
A compilation of H P Blavatskys
writings published after her death
Esoteric Christianity or the Lesser Mysteries
The Early Teachings of The
Masters
A Collection of Fugitive Fragments
Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy
Mystical,
Philosophical, Theosophical, Historical
and Scientific Essays Selected from "The
Theosophist"
Edited by George Robert Stow Mead
From Talks on the Path of Occultism - Vol. II
In the Twilight
Series of Articles
The In the
Twilight series appeared during
1898 in The Theosophical Review and
from 1909-1913 in The Theosophist.
compiled from information supplied by
her relatives and friends and edited by A P Sinnett
Letters and
Talks on Theosophy and the Theosophical Life
Obras Teosoficas En Espanol
Theosophische Schriften Auf Deutsch
An Outstanding
Introduction to Theosophy
By a student of
Katherine Tingley
Elementary Theosophy Who is the Man? Body and Soul
Body, Soul and Spirit Reincarnation Karma
Try
these if you are looking for a local
Theosophy
Group or Centre
UK Listing of Theosophical Groups
Cardiff
Theosophical Society in Wales
206 Newport Road, Cardiff, Wales, UK. CF24 -1DL