Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00612)

sO CAN dANIEL cALDWELL BRIEFLIE POST ON INDIANCIVILISATIONS 
AND EXPLAIN IN HIS OWN WORDS WHY HE THINKS THE MAHATMA 
LETTERS ARE NOT COCTED AND BASED ON THE CONTENTS OF THE 
LETTERS THESELVE, PROVIDE EVIDENCE UNDERNEATH HIS 
ASSESMENT ?

I AM CURRENTLY PLACING EVERYTHING THAT IS POSTET THERE 
TODAY ON MY WEBSITE.

To add your own insights go to current conversation that will be further 
reported on every 5 hours see the link at the end. 

1. The only true philosophy of the earth, Theosophy identified as 
Buddhism, is found in the Mahatmas' Letters, and these letters are the 
primary source of esoteric / occult or higher wisdom for Theosophists. 
Next to these letters, the "Stanzas of Dyzan" are of canonical importance 
to Theosophists. 

2. The Theosophical Masters, authors of the "Mahatma Letters," 
especially Koot Hoomi, Master Morya and Serapis, are the highest 
authorities who have revealed themselves to humanity. 

3. The Master of the Masters Koot Hoomi and Morya, is Serapis. 

4. H.P. Blavatsky is the rather hidden incarnation of Serapis. 

5. The brotherhood of Theosophical Masters has reincarnated 
throughout time, guiding the world (and evolution of the races). Thus all 
previous revelations, religions and advances in various fields, must be 
interpreted in the context of their supposed relationship to the T S 
Masters. 

6. The priests of dogmatic or doctrinal organized religions have 
corrupted their scriptures, so it is better to read the more authentic core 
of teachings contained in the "Stanzas of Dyzan" and the synthesized 
teachings of the Mahatmas and HPB. There is no need to learn 
languages and study the source works themselves, as HPB has provided 
a clear and accurate synthesis of everything in these that is significant to 
study. 

7. Sannyasis and Sadhus etc. are "on the path of error," and Theosophy 
has nothing to do with the Shastra of Brahminism. 

8. Koot Hoomi / Theosophy absolutely denies the existence of God or 
Gods. 

9. There is an amalgamation of Mahayana and Theravadin Buddhism 
with Advaita Vedantism and Vaishnava sources in the teachings of 
Theosophical "Buddhism." 

10. Madame Blavatsky was a very intellectually gifted and educated 
person, who was the central figure in the whole development of 
Theosophy. Whether or not she wrote the Mahatma Letters with the 
help of corporeal or incorporeal beings, may or may not be of 
importance in certain kinds of analysis of the letters. The actual content 
of the letters can be examined in relationship to real-world ancient 
textual and living traditions, to see if the Mahatmas' presentations are 
accurate with regard to those thought-systems. 

Let us now consider some of the curious facts related to the specific 
mixture of Eastern and Western teachings in the Mahatma Letters. 

In one letter KH writes to Sinnett: 
..."Our best, most learned. and highest adepts are of the races of 
the `greasy Tibetans'; and the Penjabi Singhs -- ..."... 

Most of the debates that I have seen regarding the T.S. Masters have 
focused on the Masters' identity, the "precipitation" of their letters, H.P. 
Blavatsky's or someone else's medium-ship or "channeling" of their 
thoughts / writings, textual analysis of their letters for contemporary or 
near-contemporary plagiarized material, stylistic elements, language or 
other clues to their identity. I do not intend to address any of these 
things, which have all been chewed before. Rather than chewing-the-
chewed, like a cow not done with its cud, I want to provide a reading of 
the Letters from the perspective of a person familiar with some of the 
source-works and traditions that the Mahatmas used and / or claimed to 
be representing. Ideas and the words, written and spoken, and images 
or symbols and actions that convey them, have history. Innovations 
occur and get diffused. Ideas spark social movements that wax and 
wane. Thought-forms, like other "things" have certain time-and-space 
limitations. 

Communication is sent and received in specific forms and languages. 
Each word or symbol has a content actually intended by its sender, and 
any number of meanings imposed on it by receivers. 
Scientifically-minded historians (not historical-fiction writers) want to 
know what was actually meant by the creators or sender(s) of a 
document from the past. They want to understand the successive 
meanings giving to an original or earlier document by later 
commentators. They want to peel-back the layers of time, and get at the 
original core of an idea. Such scientifically-minded persons do not want 
to impose meanings on history, they want to discover the real meanings 
already there in history. They don't want to "massage the data" to fit 
into preconceived notions of history, or to support an agenda of some 
kind. The real lover of truth wants to understand what really happened, 
who the real players were, and what their motives, means and actions 
were etc. Such investigators use scientific methodologies and means of 
inquiry designed to safe-guard the objectivity and integrity of their 
efforts. They try to avoid errors by rigorously identifying their sources, to 
be sure of authenticity. 

In the case of my own studies, from the very beginning I learned of the 
value of interdisciplinary research from my father (a research 
electrobiophysicist), who taught me that errors could be avoided and 
facts established beyond doubt by approaching a subject or question 
from a multiplicity of disciplines instead of only one. Thus my studies 
utilized every discipline that I could bring to bear on a particular 
question. This has given me a well-rounded grasp of the main subjects 
of my historical inquiries. 

In the above quotes, the Master Koot Hoomi (K H) writes about the 
Tibetans and Penjabi Singhs, Mr. Sinnet says that K H was a native of 
the Punjab, H.P. Blavatsky says that Koot Hoomi is a Pujabi, and both 
Blavatsky and others identify K H with Kashmir. I begin my commentary 
on the Mahatma Letters with these references, because I will be 
focusing quite a bit on the Vaishnava, Buddhist and related content of 
the Letters. Tibetan Buddhism, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Devi worship, 
Sufism, Sikhism and all the branches of these traditions have their own 
real world histories. For example, there is a traditional date for the 
entrance of Padmasambhava into Tibet, and thus an eighth century 
historical beginning to Tibetan Buddhism. The Advaita Vedantism of Sri 
Adi Shankaracharya has a history too, as does the successive waves of 
Ishmali and Sufi Mohammedanism into the Punjab and Kashmir. In the 
Mahatma Letters there is a curious mix of Atheistic and Theistic 
(Vaishnava) Advaita Vedanta, Mahayana and Theravadin Buddhism, Sikh 
and Sufi reinterpretations of Vaishnava, Shaivite and Devi teachings, and 
other amalgamations which can be found ESPECIALLY in the region of 
Kashmir. In Kashmir today for instance, there may be found Vaishnava-
influenced Muslim Sufi "brahmins" who do not eat flesh, Tantric-
influenced Sahajiya Vaishnavas, various Sufi-Vaishnava or Sufi-
Vaishnava-Shaivite hybrid groups, and Sikhism, which as another Sufi-
Vaishnava-Shaivite hybrid religion is of course related to the Vaishnava 
and Shaivite Kshatriyas (warrior class) of the Punjab. Thus the 
name "Singh" is important in this connection. 

Pure Land Buddhism, as originally in Nepal and Tibet, has its historical 
origins in Vaishnavism, and so is connected to the strange Kashmiri mix 
in the thread of Vaishnava doctrines and practices running through the 
whole region. It is from this regional melting-pot of Indic and Western 
(Sufi and Gnostic) traditions that the Masters' K H and Morya seem to 
have acquired some of their unorthodox understanding of the Sanskrit 
Shastras (scriptures) and to have created their hodge-podge of 
an "Eastern' thought system. Whoever they were, they were masters of 
something, but what was that something? To assess their competence 
as masters of eastern traditions, one would need themself to be 
qualified in such traditions. As an instructing master in the Vedic-based 
Tradition of Vaishnavism, I am qualified to assess the accuracy of the 
what the masters have presented from my own tradition. Since the 
oldest literary traditions in the region are clearly those of the Sanskrit 
Vaishnava-related texts, and the Masters refer to doctrines from these 
texts, then it is reasonable to assess the Mahatmas' presentation of 
ideas from these texts to determine their accuracy. 

The example of the Rig Veda and Proto-Mahayana Buddhism 

For example, the Rig Veda is by all estimations very much older than the 
Advaita Vedantan writings of Adi Sankaracharya, the beginning of 
Tibetan Buddhism (8th A D), the Era of Asoka or even the life of 
Sakyamuni Buddha Himself. The Purusha Sukta Hymn is considered by 
many scholars to be among the oldest surviving writings of humanity. 
The Purusha Sukta is found in a collection of Vedic Sanskrit Hymns, the 
Rig Veda. These hymns glorify God under a variety of Names and 
Forms, as these forms have appeared from the Cosmic Body of the 
universal self-sacrificed Purusha, Who is described in the Purusha Sukta. 
In later corruptions of this monotheistic tradition, the forms of Purusha, 
are demoted to a mere multiplicity of "gods." Thus polytheism , 
pantheism etc. eventually obscured the originality and supremacy of 
Purusha as the transcendent supreme Deity of the Rig Veda. Purusha 
assumed a cosmic form for self-sacrifice to create, sustain (as 
sacramental food / Prasadam) and redeem every world / cosmic 
manifestation. In the Purusha Sukta, and related Vedic texts, it is clearly 
understood that Purusha is VISHNU. The Purusha Sukta is still chanted 
today on Vaishnava altars as the Eucharistic PRASADAM offerings are 
being made. Another one of Vishnu's Vedic names is Asura (from the 
root meaning "being," "to be, exist"). In the "Dawn and Twilight of 
Zoroastrianism," R. C. Zaehner identifies the cosmic Purusha with the 
Zoroastrian supreme Deity Ahura Mazda (Ahura=Asura). 

The Jagganatha or Universal Form of Vishnu as Purusha is sometimes 
called his Vishva Rupa or Virata Rupa. This is one of the theophanies of 
SRI KRISHNA that was revealed to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita, The 
cosmic form of God in Jewish mysticism is definitely related to the 
revelation of Sri Krishna in the Gita. 
The universal Purusha is of course identified with the Purusha AVATARA 
FORMS OF VISHNU. In the Vedas, Vishnu is called by many names, 
including Asura and Purusha. It is Vishnu Who is worshiped in multi-
form in the Vedic hymns. This is the tradition of the oldest stratum of 
Vedic so-called "Hinduism," and all the principle Vedic Nama-Rupa name-
forms of Vishnu are found many centuries later in Mahayana Buddhism, 
including Tibetan and related Nepalese Buddhism. There the very 
ancient Vedic names and forms of Vishnu-Purusha AS LOKSHEVARA, are 
connected to Vaishnava doctrines, rites, practices, sacramental social 
order etc.. So the foundation of Tibetan Buddhism is in the much earlier 
worship of Vishnu-Purusha, without any doubt. When the entire socio-
religious cultural milieu in which Sakyamuni's Buddhism first developed 
was Vedic-Vaishnava, how is it reasonable to assume that the pervasive 
elements of Vaishnavism in Mahayana Buddhism are later, intrusions or 
corruptions? In fact, Mahayana Buddhism, including Tibetan Buddhism, 
uses the very Sanskrit Names of Krishna-Vishnu for the ADI BUDDHA, 
who is also called ADI PURUSHA, BHAGAVAN, PURUSOTAMMA etc. To 
claim that a younger tradition (Buddhism) owes nothing to its origins is 
ridiculous. The extremely ancient Purusha Sukta related Forms of 
Lokesvara are those of Vishnu. The same names and forms are there in 
both the Buddhist and Vaishnava traditions, and this is not peculiar to 
the Nepalese-Tibetan form of Buddhism either. Everywhere in Pure Land 
Mahayana Buddhism it is the same. The names, forms, doctrines, rites 
etc. of the salvific other-power tradition of Buddhism are closely related 
to those of Krishna-centric Vaishnavism. When we look at the Sanskrit 
sources for the Mahatmas' "Hindu" and "Buddhist" ideas, again the 
oldest of these are the Vaishnava and Vaishnava-related scriptures. For 
those accustomed to thinking of Sanskrit literatures in terms of some 
generic "Hinduism," no such thing existed in the ancient world. 
Scriptures were the testimony of specific traditions, such as the sattvic 
Vaishnava or Shaivite or tantric Devi worshiping traditions. In the "CULT 
OF TARA" by S. Beyer, the original Sanskrit for the Tibetan Buddhist 
rituals of Mother Tara are given. Any Vaishnava pujari priest would 
immediately recognize these Sanskrit mantrams, hymns and rites! So, if 
we are going to seriously consider the claims of the Mahatmas to 
mastery in Tibetan Buddhism, I want to see evidence in their Letters that 
they knew of, and understood the close relationship between Tibetan 
Buddhism, and Vaishnavism. 


To post your insights on why The Mahatma Letters might in fact be a 
19th century concoction instead of the teachings from an ancient 
brotherhood from Atlantis that has looked over the inception of humanity 
from its beginning, post on: 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/28665 

An respond to the thread "why are the Mahatma letters concocted or 
not." 



--- In theos-talk@y..., "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...> wrote: