Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00659)

The doughter of Gaswami mentioned that he currently needs to take a 
rest to prepare for an very important up coming meetin he has today, 
but he did complete following new article that I post on his behalf for 
possible , intelligent and just just polemic as before, feedback:

To begin with, the Theosophical Masters have been claimed to possess 
the highest authority, and H.P. Blavatsky has been asserted as their 
reliable "absolutely consistent" spokesperson. 

The Theosophical Masters or Mahatmas, originally Koot Hoomi (K.H.) 
and Master Morya (M), are considered by Theosophists and numerous 
New Age groups to be the authors of the over 100 "Mahatha
Letters." In these Letters, the Mahatmas have made great claims about 
their teaching authority. Others have accepted these Masters' claims to 
teaching authority as valid, and have thus based their entire
world-view and life choices on the teachings of these Theosophical (T) 
Masters.  
For some this has been a life-enriching experience, which has
inspired philosophical inquiry, intellectual growth, virtue, altruism, a 
sense of universal brotherhood and other good things in them. These 
Theosophists have extracted things from the teachings of the T
Masters that reinforced their inherent goodness and encouraged their
intellectual growth and moral development and intellectual-affective 
integration on many levels. Such a positive outcome is no-doubt what 
H.B. Blavatsky and other of the Theosophical leaders had in mind at the 
outset of their mission to create a global order devoted to their esoteric =

studies. 

However, some of the central ideas contained in the T 
Masters' "Mahatma Letters" inspired malevolent, not
benevolent people, and through the world-view and life-choices of these 
ill-motivated people, led to some persistently dangerous global 
ideologies and tragic outcomes in history. It is a given that the same can =

be said regarding some ideas contained in the Vedas, or the Bible etc.  
For example, in India, the Vedic and Puranic concept of the sacramental 
social body (Daiva Varnashram Dharma system) of the self-sacrificed 
cosmic Purusha (Rig Veda Purusha Sukta Hymn) was corrupted by the 
conscience-less powerful into the oppressive reincarnation-and-karma 
doctrine related birth-caste system. As in Protestant Puritanism, a
happy privileged life was considered by the elite birth-caste Brahmins to
be the result of cosmic favor or su karma / good karma. Those 
powerless persons suffering from poverty etc. were considered 
unworthy of anything better by virtue of their previous sinfulness and 
resultant cursed birth / vi-karma or bad karma. Thus this Vedic doctrine 
of varna interpreted by non racist people of benevolent good-will could 
result in a just and peaceful, progressive unifying social order. However 
the same doctrine could result in oppression and birth-class slavery 
when interpreted by racist persons of ill-will. In the same way the
Christian mission to go out and save people may be the inspiration for 
either altruistic, benevolent and socially unifying acts that build
non-sectarian human community, or the gospel mission may be 
misinterpreted as a mandate to forcibly "convert" humanity in colonial 
and muslim jihadi-like campaigns. 

Historical Denial Does Not Serve the Best Interest of Humanity 

It does not serve the best interest of humanity to ignore the
historical relationship between the ideal of the Vedic Varnashram 
Dharma system doctrine and the horrific pathological reality of the birth-
caste system. It does not help humanity to ignore the historical reality of=
 
therelationship between the doctrine of Christian mission and its 
perverted manifestation, the doctrine of Euro-American global 
conquest. In the same way, it is not in the best interest of humanity to 
ignore or totry to cover-up / obscure the historical relationship of certai=
n
Theosophical ideas to colonial 'white" Aryan racism, later nazi 
aryosophism,and the diffusion of these ideas into various other socially 
pathological, racist and scientistic movements. Ideas have history, and 
even the best of ideas are misunderstood and abused or corrupted over 
time and distance as they diffuse through various existing thought-
systems and languages. Time and circumstance modify ideas. Even 
when an attempt is made to protect an idea from modification by 
doctrinalizing it, varying perspectives allow for doctrines to be 
interpreted in different ways.

Thus a non racist and a racist reading the Purusha Sukta will see
different doctrines in it. A doctrine or creed (credo=Shraddha), like 
beauty can exist "in the eye of the beholder," as well as codified in 
documents.

As a result, persons of good-will and those of ill-will can seem to
profess the same creed, but the content of the creed, the meaning of the
words is not the same for them. The document is the same, the 
difference being in their perspective. 

Syncrestic Buddhism in the Mahatma Letters...The Masters Reject the 
Brahminical Scriptures of Hinduism 

Letter from H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett. This letter includes a
message from Master Morya. 
Dehra Dun. Friday. 4th. 

"It is useless for a member to argue `I am one of a pure
life, I am a teetotaller and an abstainer from meat and vice. All my 
aspirations are for good' etc. and he, at the same time, building by his 
acts and deeds an impassable barrier on the road between himself and 
us. What have WE, the DISCIPLE of the true Arhats, of esoteric 
Buddhism and of Sanggyas to do with the SHASTERS and Orthodox 
Brahmanism? There are 100 of thousands of Fakirs, Sannyasis and 
Saddhus 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 AWAY FROM INDIA and 
now, it is not for the latter to come to them but to them to come to us if =

they want us. Which of them is ready to BECOME A BUDDHIST, a Nastika 
as they call us? None." 

BA G: In this quote, the "Shasters" (Shastras, Holy Sanskrit
scriptures) of India are rejected, and the teachings of the T Masters and 
HPB are clearly identified with Theravadin (Southern or atheistic) 
Buddhism, centered in Sri Lanka, which was driven out of India during 
and subsequent to the reign of the Mahayana Buddhist emperor Asoka. 
Asoka's own Buddhist Master had an Ashram in Mathura, the ancient 
capital and educational university "Vatican City" of Royal
Krishna-centric Vaishnavism, which the pure land tradition of Mahayana 
Buddhism is closely related to. The form of Buddhism "driven away" 
from India was that of Sri Lankan related Theravadin Buddhism. 

The TS teachings continually merge contradictory Mahayana and 
Theravadin Buddhist doctrines, especially in their combined use of 
Nepalese-Tibetan with Sri Lankan sources. However, they seem to 
contain no appreciation of the intimate historical relationship
between Vaishnavism and Pure Land Buddhism, as is apparent from all 
the Sanskrit Buddhist texts, iconography and interdisciplinary evidence
in ancient combined Vaishnava and Pure Land Buddhist centers of 
worship like Vrindavana-Mathura. Instead of correctly associating the
Mahayana doctrines, rites, iconography etc. of Nepalese-Tibetan 
Buddhism with earlier theistic Krishna-centric Vaishnavism, the T S 
Masters generally ignore the profoundly important Vaishnava link, and 
instead focus on the "esoteric" deconstruction of other-power salvific
Buddhist transcendentalism, and watering-down of the theistic 
associations with "Hinduism" to re-present N-Tibetan Buddhism as 
merely a covered form of Theravada. 

Of course this campaign of Theosophy reinforced the exoteric-theism-
versus-esoteric-atheism dichotomy already in N-Tibetan Buddhism. 
Esoteric Voidism haunts Mahayana Buddhism in the same way that 
esoteric atheism haunts "Hinduism" in the form of extreme
impersonal Advaita Vedanta, and esoteric gnosticism still haunts 
Christianity in the West. Thus while claiming a love of India and her 
sacred traditions,in fact, the Theosophists rejected her authentic 
traditions of salvific transcendental personalism, the dominant exoteric 
Bhakti traditions of Krishna-Vishnu, Shiva and Devi, to promote a form of 
exoterically Hinduized but esoteric, covered syncrestic Buddhism. The T 
Masters were not masters of the corpus of Sanskrit or Southern Indian 
Dravidian sacred Vishnu, Shiva, Devi and Marugan etc, literatures. They 
did not teach about the direct relationship between Pure Land Buddhism 
and Vaishnavism, and they seemed to know little about the great
devotional, salvific traditions of either Northern or Southern India. They=

presented themselves as the highest authorities on ancient wisdom, but
apparently felt that honoring the sources of their wisdom, the
"Shasters" that they disdained, was not necessary. Thus they presented 
their own system of thought, using language and teachings from various 
shastras without properly representing those texts, or their source, the 
Supreme Deity of the Vedas and Puranas, Upanishads, Samhitas, temple 
Archana Vigraha worship, Bhakti hymnology etc. 

The Eastern teachings of the T Masters are a concoction of doctrines 
drawn principally from Vaishnava and Buddhist sources, and they claim 
to be the "highest authority" of this "only true philosophy" on Earth.  
Blofeld, in his book on Tantric Mysticism In Tibet argued that the 
different schools of Buddhism are like different grades. We can see
this same general attitude among Theosophists, who also consider the 
deity visualizations of Tibetan Buddhism to be like a high school level of =

Buddhism, while the no nama-rupa (no name-form) practice of Zen 
Buddhism is considered to be like the PhD program. 

Theosophy teaches that there are Planetaries (like the astrological 
planet regents or devas) and ascended Masters or their equivalent of 
bodhisattvas, but there is no transcendental supreme personality of 
Godhead, who is the source of such beings. In Theosophy the Dharma 
Kaya, or ultimate reality is totally impersonal, and personality only
exists in a qualified state in the Nirmanya (or Sambhogya) Kaya. So the 
T S Masters are the highest authorities of the one true philosophy on
earth, and clearly teach a Buddhism that rejects the original
transcendentalism of the Vaishnava-related Mahayana Tri Kaya (trinity), 
with its authentic bodhisattva doctrine, in favor of a Sri Lankan and Zen 
related form of Theravadin Buddhism. Even so, the "absolute nothing" 
(see Maseo Abe for example) of orthodox Sri Lankan- related 
Theravadin Buddhism is not authentically and consistently represented 
throughout the letters of the Mahatmas. 

Now we have a general idea of the Masters' authority claims, the
near nil extent of their Shastric knowledge-base (they reject the
shastras) and the primarily syncretistic Buddhist Eastern aspect of their 
perspective. Their writings are full of thought-forms, language and 
references which clearly indicate a European higher education, so 
Theosophical lore takes this into account, through reference to their 
European education. Others (the Hare brothers etc.) have made textual 
studies of the Mahatma Letters for internal evidence of their
authorship. 

However, I am not concerned with the Masters classical Western 
education in this series of comments on the Mahatma letters. I am 
concerned with whether or not the Letters accurately represent the 
Eastern traditions that the Masters claim to have mastered, and have
so obviously drawn from. 

The Relationship Between The Masters and H.P.Blavatsky 

At this point, we come to the question of the claimed relationship 
between the Masters Koot Hoomi, Morya and Madame H.P. Blavatsky, 
who was considered their absolutely consistent representative. What 
authority is claimed for her ? Is she considered as equally
infallible as some Theosophists consider the Masters K.H. and M? In the 
below, it is claimed that Madame Blavatsky was actually an incarnation 
of Serapis, the Master of K.H. and M themselves! 

Published by Blavatsky Archives. Online Edition copyright 2002. 

"Bear Witness!" Who Was the Real H.P.B. ? 
Compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell 

A Mighty Adept Using the Old Body Called H.P. Blavatsky 

"From the above material, it would appear that Serapis, one of
the Chiefs or Chohans of the Occult Brotherhood, was the Superior or 
Teacher of both Master K.H. and Master M. Furthermore, Serapis (being 
a Nirmanakaya) had taken on his "present incarnation" using
the "old body" called H.P. Blavatsky as a instrument for his "life of
self-sacrifice." 
These insights help us to understand more fully the significance of
KH's words about H.P. Blavatsky: 
"After nearly a century of fruitless search, our Chiefs had to
avail themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European body 
upon European soil to serve as a connecting link. . . ." 

BA G: Thus while HPB was playing at being the student of her Masters 
K.H. and M, Theosophists teach that she was actually their Master.
The whole scheme gets quite convoluted, with the cast of T Masters 
eventually being credited with human progress in general, through
their astounding litany of previous incarnations. 

The Authenticity of the Theosophical Revelation 

The Mahatma letters are part of the larger body of Theosophical 
teachings, whose greatest early contributor was Madame HPB / her 
Masters. There are many claims made about the 
mystical "precipitation," automatic writing or"channeling" (modern 
term) of the Masters' teachings through HPB and others. Again I
am not as concerned with these issues as I am interested in the use or
misuse and misrepresentation of authentic, redacted / corrupted or 
concocted ancient Eastern source-works. Like Joseph Smith's
"miraculous" translation of his invented Egyptian "Book of Mormon"
tablets, or works claiming to be based on documents about Jesus found 
in a Tibetan Lamasery, or the claimed "Essene Gospel" of the bogus 
modern so-called Essenes, there is a pattern to the emergence and 
presentation of esoteric and neo-gnostic spurious "ancient" source 
works.

These typically are miraculously produced translations of some hidden, 
lost or obscure text, inscriptions or other revelation, with built-in
deniability when it comes to authentication of the source. There is 
always some reason why the original source-work cannot be produced. 
Perhaps it was taken back up to heaven by an angel. Maybe it was 
destroyed by Catholics, or hidden in the Vatican Library under guard.

In any event, the original document must be unavailable so that others 
can not analyze it for authenticity, and compare the original 
text's "miraculous translation" for accuracy. In the case of the Mahatma 
letters, and the "Stanzas of Dyzan," the problem of authenticity has been 
avoided by claiming that these writings were produced through the 
spiritualistic mediumship of HPB. 

Before her career as a Theosophical revelator of ancient Eastern 
wisdom in India, she was a medium and conjuror in spiritualist
séance and medium circles in America. She was extraordinarily well read,
knew several languages, and was a great story teller and prodigious 
writer who once ran a writing shop, and was expert in just the skills she
would need to take dictation from the invisible Masters. Although she
seemed to overtly hate Judaism and Christianity, she could also be an
outspoken champion for those she considered wronged or oppressed. A 
complex and brilliant women, HPB commanded respect even from some 
educated and powerful men, in an age when women were not expected 
to be the intelligent champions of anything. It should be kept in mind 
that the social evils that were later to manifest from some of her seeds 
of thought, were surely not anticipated or desired by her. (I obviously
do not accept the idea that she was "Serapis," and thus an
all-knowing Master, outside of the normal influences of time.) At some 
point in her conjuring and minor-league mediumship, she "got religion" 
so to speak, and embarked on a life-long mission to better the condition 
of humankind. She was no doubt well motivated, but produced a mixed 
work that was part genius and part nonsense and trickery. The
question is ...why should people bandon the study of authentic ancient
religious and philosophical source-works to accept her / the Mahatmas' 
synthesis / writings as the ultimate authority on the world's
hidden mysteries? 

The Mahatma Letters. 
[Caps for emphasis in quoted text mine, BA G] 

"BTW—even if HPB STOLE HER IDEAS and theories from all the
ancient and modern teachers of the hidden mysteries (including Hermes, 
Pythagorus, Plato, Buddha, Lao Tse, Vyasa, Patanjali, etc.) -- WHY
SEND EVERYONE TO THEM to learn new languages and dig it out for 
themselves, covering the same tracks that Blavatsky did—when all
of it was so CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY synthesized in the SD (along 
with other explanatory writings of HPB and associated scriptural 
confirmations) in the common language that most everyone of a 
thoughtful mind in the world, today, can understand?" 
"In any event, I'm satisfied that the ultimate truth, as
close as we'll ever get to it (barring faith in the "revelations" of one's
favorite guru or God) is in theosophy's corner where intuition and reason 
are the only Gods worth listening to." 

BA G: This is the crux of the problem as far as I am concerned. It
is a matter of the basic integrity or reliability of the information that
has been presented in the Mahatma Letters, and the acknowledged 
writings of H.P. Blavatsky and the other prominent personalities of the 
early Theosophical Society and movement. What valuable truth did the 
Theosophical Masters actually convey? Why should everyone go to the 
the Masters, instead of to the still extant authentic ancient sources
of classical Eastern and Western wisdom? Did the Masters and H.P. 
Blavatsky always clearly and accurately synthesize and represent 
important ancient teachings and traditions in her work? Or were there 
serious omissions, contradictions, and other errors? Were some of
their representations of ancient traditions seriously flawed, corrupted by =

extreme bias and / or even actually dishonest? 

Regarding Atheism in the Mahatma Letters... 

The above current Theosophist's view regarding "the only gods
worth listening to," should be compared to the statement below, of
Master Koot Hoomi himself. 

"Mahatma Letter No. 10 
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm 

[Transcribed from a copy in Mr. Sinnett's handwriting.—Ed] 

Notes by K.H. on a "preliminary Chapter" headed
"God" by Hume, 
intended to preface an exposition of Occult Philosophy (abridged). 

Received at Simla, 1881-? `82. 

[Caps for emphasis in the quoted text below are mine, BA G] 

"NEITHER our philosophy nor ourselves BELIEVE IN A God, least of
all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital G." 

... "Therefore, we DENY God both as philosophers and AS
BUDDHISTS. We know there are planetary and other spiritual lives, and 
we know there is in our system NO SUCH THING AS GOD, EITHER 
PERSONAL OR IMPERSONAL. Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute 
immutable law, and Iswar is the effect of Avidya and Maya, ignorance 
based upon the great delusion. The word "God" was invented to 
designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either 
admired or dreaded without understanding them, and SINCE WE CLAIM 
AND THAT WE ARE ABLE TO PROVE WHAT WE CLAIM—i.e. the 
knowledge of that cause and causes we are in a position to maintain 
THERE IS NO God OR Gods BEHIND THEM." ... 

Confusion in the Master Results in Confusion in the Chela. 

One Theosophical Society leader demonstrated why attention should be 
paid to understanding Eastern thought and traditions, and individual 
texts and persons, from reliable, historically authentic sources. He 
profoundly erred in identifying myself (BA G) with ..."Vedantist
and Buddhist sectarian and separatist teachings".... 

If he had acquired any knowledge about the subject in general from 
clear and accurate, reliable sources, he never could have confused me 
with a "Vedantist." If he had any understanding of the
various real-world sources and traditions involved, and had read and 
understood my biographical sketch on the site where his comment was 
posted, he would not have confused me with "sectarian and separatist
teachings." I am a person who has studied deeply in numerous 
traditions, having a distinguished history of service in non-sectarian 
interfaith activism. My own teachings are anything but "separatist." As a 
Shiksha (instructing) Master, in a lineage of Vaishnavism from which 
some of the Masters' / Blavatsky's teachings have been appropriated, I 
have some familiarity with the Sanskrit terms they used, as found in the 
real ancient source works. I also have a clear understanding of the 
differences between some of the various schools of "Hindu" thought. As 
a Master in a Bhakti Yoga lineage, it is laughable to hear myself referred =

to as a "Vedantist" in such a way. 

One of my main criticisms of the Theosophical Society teachings is
that they misrepresent teachings from genuinely ancient theistic and
atheistic sources by appropriating, distorting, re-contexting and
misinterpreting them. For instance the Mahatmas' teachings sometimes 
make use of ideas from Vaishnava traditions, but make no proper 
reference to the theistic thought-systems from which the ideas have 
been acquired.
Thus the cyclic Yuga (eon / age) rounds of a finite universe, emanations
from Godhead and Shakti, days of Brahma and such ideas are presented 
without their proper context and meaning. For example, in the
authentic Vaisnava sources, the world-age Yugas are associated with 
the Yuga Avataras of Hari, or Krishna-Vishnu (Amitabha-Lokesvara in 
Pure Land Buddhism) who is the transcendent Deity, and the source of all
spiritual and material realms and worlds (Vyuhas and Lokas). However 
the T S Masters do not properly present the relationship of the Yugas to 
the transcendental Deity. While there is some emanationism in the
Masters' doctrines, it is not presented accurately from either the 
Vaishnava or Vaishnava-related earliest forms of Pure Land Buddhism. 
Instead, the saving Deities of other-power Pure Land Buddhism are 
represented more as dependent-arising products of mind and dualism. 
Outside of 'visualization', and the highest, subtlest material states, the
Deities have no transcendent personal existence in the Dharma Kaya. 
However, a depth study of Northern Buddhism from India to Japan 
reveals the DHARMA KAYA is HRIH / HARI, the original PERSON OF THE 
GODHEAD IN VAISHNAVISM. Thus the Dharma Kaya was not originally a 
state of Buddhist extinction or non-being. 

But the T Masters do not represent Buddhist Voidism or Advaita 
Vedantist impersonalism purely either. Their "Buddhism"
seems a strained synthesis of Vaishnava doctrines and the teachings of
several different traditions of Buddhism. They try to associate their 
amalgamated Buddhist teachings with Sri Lankan Theravada, Tibetan 
and Zen Buddhism, this creates a strange brew when the emanationism 
of Vaishnavism (without its Divine source) is added to the mix. When 
time cycles and the days of Brahma etc. are described, the origin of 
Brahma (Helios Phanes) in the personality of Godhead (Narayana) is
not really stressed. In these and many other cases, the Mahatmas do 
not deliver to their students a "clear and accurate" synthesis of
ancient teachings and scriptures. In fact they seem to have had an 
agenda to edit-out the theistic context and content of the ideas that they
used. 

Thus their product (the Mahatma Letters) appropriates elements from 
both theistic and atheistic traditions and corrupts these, forming an 
attempt to harmonize elements of theistic cosmogonic revelation, with 
modern watered-down Neo-Vedantism and an equally corrupted form of 
syncretistic Neo-Buddhism. by creating such a non-historical hodge-
podge of spuriously 'ancient' doctrines from various mis-used
sources, the Theosophical teachers render their chelas incapable of 
clear, accurate, rational thought involving these matters. A basic 
knowledge of real Indic traditions would have insured that the author 
who called me a "vedantist" would not have accused a Vaishnava Bhakti-
Yoginof atheistic advaitan teachings by using such a loaded sectarian 
term. 
 
Because the Masters and other T S writers frequently confounded and 
merged and misrepresented Indic thought and traditions, Theosophists 
typically have no real grasp of the most basic truths regarding these
real-world traditions. Having accepted HPB's "Reader's
Digest"-like condensed version and synthesis of the wisdom traditions, 
they have cheated themselves out of a more direct and authentic 
experience of the 
same. 

Humility is Just Honesty About Oneself...The Pathology of Needing to 
Concoct, or Following Self-Appointed or Spurious Masters 

This gets to the personality development and disciplinary aspect of
the 
issue. Why would someone who really wants to understand something, 
choose not to go to the SOURCE and properly discipline themself in
its 
understanding? Why would a person prefer to speculate about 
something from the outside, rather than studying it up-close in a 
scientific, disciplined manner? The problem is that certain kinds of 
people cannot submit to any real-world authorities and hate to be 
required to live by rules of conduct and standards of behavior. They 
don't want to discipline their inquiry into any kind of
traditional approach. 
They don't want to be bothered with the facts that disagree with
them, 
and they don't want to learn anything that requires real
discipline 
or "surrender." Such people will typically make-up their OWN
ALTER-
EGO AUTHORITIES to validate themselves and / or give themselves 
credibility with others. Thus they can play at the humility and
surrender 
game, without ever really submitting themselves for instruction to 
anyone. As a result we see the endless proliferation of "humble 
servants" and "messengers" of the invisible or
conveniently inaccessible 
Masters, who never really require any surrender on "their"
disciple's 
part. The "disciple' OF THE INVENTED MASTER becomes, as a 
messenger of their inaccessible Master (s), the REAL GURU / Master of 
others, who really do desire a real-world flesh-and-blood authority. 
Thus we can observe the endless innovation and diffusion of new 
esoteric and occult "spiritualities" based on the sincere surrendered 
following of some people, who blindly submit to those flesh-and-blood 
Masters who are themselves only the "servants" of a PROJECTED 
authority-figure of THEMSELVES. So, the problem is not that HPB and 
her real-world incarnate friends assembled a syncristic
thought-system from a vast number and variety of sources. The problem 
is that they did not have the honesty about themselves, the humility to 
admit the genealogy of their ideas. THIS IS THE BASIC PATHOLOGY OF 
THE LACK OF INTEGRITY IN "SPIRITUAL BUT NOT RELIGIOUS" GROUPS. 

Organized Religion is Not a Bad Thing...GSS Traditions and the
Authentic Preservation and Diffusion of Ideas 

Meanwhile in the exoteric Great Religions, real-world masters require 
real-world surrender, discipline (diksha) and sacrifices from their 
surrendered students, but IN RETURN THEY DELIVER THE AUTHENTIC 
TEACHINGS OF REALLY ANCIENT AND VENERABLE TRADITIONS. "You 
get what you pay for" ....in this case either the intellectual
and devotional heritage of centuries of exoteric traditions, or the
concoctions of modern era "esoteric" cheaters. Authentic ancient
traditions still living have exoteric lineages, real examinable ancient 
scriptures, real ancient histories and preserve the legitimate teachings 
of their lineages doctrinally. etc. Such traditions are the real guardians =

of ancient scriptures and wisdom. It takes a lifetime of disciplined study =

to master even a tiny bit of what such traditions have to offer. But, the 
proud "gnostic" or undisciplined jnani who idolizes their own
brain, will not usually be attracted to a life time of study in anything 
really demanding of them. It is difficult to learn when one thinks that 
they already know everything, and has an aversion to all kinds of real 
authority. The proud gnostic concocter would rather be self-educated 
than to actually plumb the depths of anything through real surrender
and disciplined inquiry with an authentic master requiring their respect.
  
This is the pathology of the Masters-channeling New Age movement. I 
have seen channeling groups that are nothing other than mutual-
deification societies. Every member is in an unspoken agreement to 
validate each other's fantacies of cosmic specialness.  
Receiving "messages" from their Masters, or Master Beings,
the chelas reinforce their mutual fantacies of previous illustrious
incarnations, being angels, aliens, demigods and goddesses etc. Thus 
they feed on each others' proud dishonesty and manipulativeness. 
Usually because there really is no other authority than themselves, 
surrender to these imaginary "Masters" never really requires anything of 
them. 

The Scholarly Contributions of Such self-Delude People 

The result of such a person's scholarly endeavors usually shows
their disdain for accountability to real world history and truth, the
proper citation of previous authorities and scientific methodology. Such 
personstypically want so-called "spirituality" without
"religion." They want to master science or history or some field without 
being actually trained in the disciplines of that field. They tend to be 
masters of everything in their own opinion, but instead they are not the 
real masters of anything. They tend to be dabblers, who are venerated 
as masters by gullible people with a poor fund of knowledge. Now, in 
my opinion, H.P Blavatsky and her friends, were both dabblers and the 
actual masters of something. Their prodigious efforts and sacrifices
did produce something. What they did master is on exhibit for all to see
in the Mahatma Letters and other primary Theosophical Society writings.
It is not that these writings have no value, but one should approach
them as what they are, and not confuse them with what they claim to be,
the highest authoritative teaching of the only true philosophy on earth. 

So What Were the Theosophical Society Masters the Masters Of ? 

Theosophical Society and Movement Propositions From T S Sources 

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. 

My additional assertions... 

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 Kashmiri Eastern and Western Esoteric 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 letter=
s 
forcontemporary 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 translators and 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, and 
the consequences 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 particula=
r 
question. This has given me a well-rounded grasp of the main subjects 
of my historical inquiries. 

In Theosophical sources, 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. Thus, I begin my 
commentary on the Mahatma Letters with this fact, because I will be 
focusing quite a bit on the Kashmiri-like syncristic Vaishnava,
Buddhist and related content of the Letters. There is a well-established 
connection between the Sikhs of Kashmir and Theosophy. What people 
don't realize is that the Sikhs often worship in Vishnu temples, 
because of their close historical connection to Vaishnavism. 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 AD historical beginning to
Tibetan Buddhism. The Advaita Vedantism of Sri Adi Shankaracharya 
has a history too, as do 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 the religious melting-pot of 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 Kshatriya (warrior class) of the 
Punjab. 
 
Thus the Sikh 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 Vedic Vaishnava-related texts, and the Masters 
refer to some 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 c AD), 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 of 
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, PURUSOTTAMA etc. To claim that a 
younger tradition (Buddhism) owes nothing to its origins is ridiculous. 
THIS IS THE SUI GENERIS nonsense of Theravadin Buddhism. The 
extremely ancient Purusha Sukta related Forms of Lokesvara are those 
of Vedic Purusha or 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 transcendent 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, litanies and prayers. 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 texts 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. 

by H.H. Tridandi Sannyasi Bhakti Ananda Goswami Maharaja of the 
Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Lineage of Vaishnavism. End part 1.