Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00180)

THE STANZAS OF DZYAN AND THE EVOLUTION OF THEOSOPHICAL THOUGHT 
BETWEEN 1880 AND 1888, PART 1

by HH Bhakti Ananda Goswami, Tridandi Sannyasi, Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya 
lineage of Vaishnavism 


Previously in my paper "What Were The Theosophical Mahatmas the 
Masters Of ?" Parts 1 and 2, I discussed the Eastern content of the 
Mahatma Letters. In Part 2 I included the result of a preliminary 
search of the Mahatma Letters for key Sanskrit names and terms. In 
the next Part 2 of this Paper on the Stanzas of Dzyan and the Secret 
Doctrine, I will present the results of my preliminary search of H.P. 
Blavatsky's 1888 first publication the SECRET DOCTRINE for 
comparison. The presence or absence and use or abuse of these 
Sanskrit words in the Mahatma Letters is quite revealing to a 
Vaishnava Sanskritist such as myself. Therefore, for my purposes, 
the Sanskrit vocabulary of the Mahatmas somewhat establishes the 
parameters and content of their supposed Eastern expertise. In 
addition, while obviously using Vaishnava source-works like the 
Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-gita or Vishnu Purana, the Mahatmas 
(whoever they were) were misinterpreting and misrepresenting these 
monotheistic Vaishnava Bhakti Shastras (Devotional Scriptures) 
through the late and inauthentic filter of the atheistic Hindu 
Tradition of extreme, Mayavadi (mayavic) impersonal Advaita Vedanta. 
HPB admits her respect for the Sankarite Advaiti Smarta Brahmins, so 
that she interpreted the Vaishnava Scriptures through the Advaitis' 
perspective is expected. The Mahatmas used the raw material of the 
oldest extant Eastern sources, the Sanskrit Vedic-Vaishnava Bhakti 
Shastras, but they misrepresented this heritage of ideas as coming 
from the very atheistic Advaiti Hindu tradition which is the 
historical antithesis of the Bhakti Traditions. Then the Mahatmas 
set the whole ill-conceived synthesis into the context of a strange 
merger of Sri Lankan Theravadin and Tibetan Mahayana and Tantric 
Buddhism. 

The Mahatmas' Letters were delivered between 1880 and 1884. At the 
beginning of this grand adventure, Theravadin Buddhist doctrines 
rejecting God, gods and the transcendent personal self / spirit-soul 
were presented emphatically by the Mahatmas. The Mahatmas presented 
information mined from the Vaishnava Bhakti Shastras avoiding all 
theistic implications, and concentrated on the cycles of time, and 
the progenitors (manus) of the Earthly human race, during various 
yugas or ages. The Mahatmas misrepresented the Vaishnava doctrines 
of the Earth yugas / ages and Manus as having something to do with 
their contemporary ARYANIST idea of DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES and 
esoteric karmic evolutionary theory. They edited-out the Supreme 
Godhead from His own Scripture, and appropriated His creation for 
their own purpose, in creating a mega-myth to promote their imagined 
ARYAN RACE as the current epitome of human evolution. Of course the 
Mahatmas' teachings were ultimately revealed to the world through 
their faithful servant, Madame H.P. Blavatsky, but there were some 
differences between what she wrote in the Mahatma letters 1880-1884, 
and what she wrote in the Secret Doctrine, first published in 1888. 

The Stanzas of Dzyan and H.P. Blavatsky's Dilemma

Something interesting happened between the days of the early Mahatma 
Letters, and the publication of the SECRET DOCTRINE by H.P. Blavatsky 
(HPB) in 1888. The already complex hodge-podge of secret doctrine / 
esoteric Eastern teachings in the Mahatma Letters shows an evolution 
from the principally voidist Buddhist perspective in 1880 to a much-
more developed Vaishnava Puranic set of teachings in the SECRET 
DOCTRINE published in 1888. Whereas the brahmins and 
their "shasters" are held in contempt by the Mahatmas in their 
Letters, in HPB's Secret Doctrine they are credited with possessing 
the highest knowledge. It is the Smarta Brahmins of course, those 
staunchly racist ARYAN BIRTH-CASTE and Advaita Vedanta atheists who 
are admired in the Secret Doctrine. No doubt HPB and friends' near 
alliance with some branch of a Mayavadi Sampradaya from Adi 
Sankaracarya, had something to do with the glorification of their 
brahmin Advaita Vedanta in the Secret Doctrine. However while 
extolling the virtues of the wise Mayavadi (impersonalist ) initiate 
brahmins, the Secret Doctrine quite overtly refers to the Vaishnava 
Puranas and other Sanskrit Krishna-Vishnu centric Scriptures. 
Through sophistry and word-jugglery, of the kind long perfected by 
the Mayavadis, references to Vishnu, Krishna, their Avatars and other 
clear references to monotheism or true theism were explained-out of 
the Bhakti Shastras in the Secret Doctrine. However, constant 
exposure to the devotional theism and transcendental personalism of 
the Bhakti Shastras apparently had some confounding effect on HPB, 
who seems to have increasingly become conflicted over trying to 
reconcile theistic-and-atheistic, Mahayana-and-Theravadin, 
transcendental-personal-and-material-impersonal, incarnational-and-
iconoclastic 'wisdom' teachings. Thus, contradictions concerning 
these subjects abound everywhere in the Secret Doctrine. 

The Stanzas of Dzyan, which the Secret Doctrine is supposedly a 
translation of, and commentary on, are explained from the Eastern 
perspective largely by HPB's detailed references to the Vaishnava 
Scriptures. One would think that this would win points with the 
Vaishnava Sampradayas (lineages), which would then support HPB's 
Theosophical mission. However, as a Vaishnava reading the Secret 
Doctrine, it is appalling and offensive in the extreme to me, to see 
a Western Hindu neophyte pontificating on the illusory nature of the 
Vaishnava Deity, and the supposed 'esoteric' atheistic and impersonal 
meanings 'hidden' within the Vaishnava Bhakti Shastra. Since my 
perspective on the devotional monotheism of the Vaishnava Scriptures 
is in line with that of ALL of the orthodox Sampradayas or Lineages 
of Vaishnavism on this matter, I must conclude that no learned or 
realized Vaishnava in their right mind would have accepted the Secret 
Doctrine as having even the most basic credibility and integrity or 
intellectual honesty, when it came to the text's atheistic 
imersonalist Advaitan abuse of Vaisnava source-works. As for the 
Mayavadis' perspective regarding the Secret Doctrine, they would have 
been as equally offended by HPB's compromise and distortions of their 
teachings, which is probably why Subba Row and the Sankarites 
renounced their association with HPB and Theosophy. 

HPB's bold and amazing synthesis was like a mixture of water and 
oil. It was an attempt to dissolve two historically incompatible 
(theistic-personal versus atheistic-impersonal) adversarial thought-
systems into a stabile third emulsion / substance. Because her 
perception of the historical reality was erroneous, she could not 
understand that it would never work. In her imagination, the hidden 
inner wisdom of the Bhakti Puranas, the Advaita Vedanta of the 
Sankarites and the anatta voidist wisdom of the Theravada Buddhists 
were all the same thing. ln reality these were not at all the same 
thing, and could not be successfully mixed together. The real 
adepts/ leaders and serious students of these different thought 
systems would never compromise their traditions' teachings to 
accommodate her fantasies of a spiritual (but not religious) 
brotherhood between them. They could not have seen becoming a 
Theosophist as a graduation from their traditions into a higher 
inclusive knowledge. Rather any true adept in these traditions would 
have seen becoming a Theosophist as sacrificing the integrity of 
their traditions for the confused and heretical interpretations of an 
outsider and amateur. Theosophy worked as long as people didn't know 
enough about these traditions to realize how fundamentally 
incompatible they actually were. 

Like HPB, Olcott and other Theosophists, New Agers now commonly think 
of modern Hindu Advaita Vedanta and Theravadin Buddhist voidism as 
the same thing or at least compatible, but the fact is that 
historically there was a great contest between these two traditions 
of thought, during the time of Adi Sankaracarya. When Adi 
Sankaracarya (788-820 AD) first systematized his doctrine of Advaita 
Vedanta, it was somewhat in response to Theravadin Buddhism's 
influence in India. The Vaishnava perspective on this is that 
AGAINST the no-self and ultimate void (emptiness) doctrine of the 
Theravadin Buddhists, Sankaracarya asserted the existence of a single 
Self, or Plenum / Purnam / Full 'Ground of Being'. The Plenum 
(Krishna-Vishnu as the PURNAM of Isopanishad) was Brahman, and 
Brahman was identical to Atman. Thus if the Brahman was one, then 
Atman had to be one as well. In the system passed-on by 
Sankaracarya's disciples heading the Four Peets (lineages), there was 
a failure to distinguish between the PARAM-ATMAN, or Supreme Self and 
the JIV-ATMA, or finite self. Thus when the Mayavadis, as the 
Vaishnavas called them, identifying jivatman as Brahman, 
reinterpreted the Vedic-Vaishnava, Shaivite and Devi Bhakti 
Scriptures, they used 'esoteric' readings and grammatical word-
jugglery to remove the personalism and theism from these texts. The 
problem was not that they taught that there was a form of moksha in 
which the jivatma merges into the impersonal Brahman, the problem was 
that they deviated from the Bhakti Traditions in teaching that there 
was no other or higher experience of God and Self than that of the 
impersonal-merging-into-Brahman. To introduce this Brahman-is-the-
Ultimate teaching, Instead of physically redacting the Bhakti 
Shastras, the Mayavadis merely re-interpreted them to remove or 
nullify their transcendent theistic content. 

Still, many Vaishnavas today view Adi Sankaracarya as a great devotee 
of Krishna-Vishnu, Shiva and Devi. How is this possible ? It is 
possible because many Vaishnavas believe that Adi Sankaracarya 
himself was not an atheist, despite the atheism or 'covered Buddhism' 
of many of his followers. In part, this is because Sankaracarya 
wrote beautiful and passionately devotional hymns to Krishna and the 
Holy Mother etc. ! This fact is not even presently disputed by his 
quite atheistic and impersonal 'mayavadi' disciples, who simply 
explain-away the obvious direct and devotional meaning of his famous 
Bhakti Hymns with more sophisticated word-jugglery. So while people 
in later times may see Adi Sankaracarya as an iconoclastic Hindu 
Reformer, a Monist or Non-dualist, an impersonalist, atheist 
or 'covered' Buddhist, Vaishnavas may still include him in their 
saint-litanies, and sing his well-known Bhaja Govindam Hymn to 
Krishna. HPB tried very hard to fuse the "absolute nothing" (see 
Maseo Abe) voidism of Theravadin Buddhism, the energy-positive but 
impersonal atheistic monism of the Advaita Vedanta of the Sankarites 
and the Bhakti Shastra Theistic Personal Puranic teachings on the 
cosmos, great rounds and manus etc. into one systematized thought-
whole. She could not succeed in this, because her perception of 
these mutually exclusive traditions as being fundamentally compatible 
was flawed. 

One thing that HPB didn't realize was that there were various forms 
of authentic THEISTIC monist or advaitic teachings within the ancient 
orthodox Shastric Vaishnava Lineages. These had always been there, 
and were associated with either 1. the Brahma-jyoti (Brahman 
effulgence, or Personal Transcendental Bodily 'Glory' and Shakti / 
Shekinah) of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and / or 2. His 
all-pervasive Purusha Presence as The HOLY SPIRIT, PARAMATMAN within 
the material worlds. This form of Vaishnava Advaita Vedanta WAS 
compatible with Vaishnavism's transcendental personalism. All 
Vaishnava lineages taught doctrines of both Brahman and Paramatman or 
the all-pervasive Atman. It was these original Bhakti doctrines of 
Advaita Vedanta that the inventive Mahatmas and the Stanzas of Dzyan 
and traditional Puranas expounded on . There was even a Vaishnava 
Lineage that taught qualified non-dualism, reconciling the personal 
theistic and impersonal non-theistic doctrines of the personalist 
bhaktas (devotees of Divine Love) and the impersonal jnanis
(gnostics). This was the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Tradition of Sri 
Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who taught the doctrine of simultaneous, 
inconceivable difference and non-difference within the Persons of the 
Supreme Personality of Godhead, and between the Self of the Supreme 
Being and the selves of all other beings. Based on the ancient 
revelations of the Radha-Krishna Bhakti Shastras, the Teachings of 
Sri Caitanya explored RASA (flavors of Divine Love) and the 
relational dynamics of Transcendental Personalism in the 
internal 'mysteries', emanations and incarnations of the Giving 
Godhead and His Receiving Shakti / Shekinah. Had HPB studied into 
this qualified non-dualism adequately, she might have found a 
synthesis of the personal and impersonal traditions that actually 
would work for her personally, resolving her confusions, and 
establishing a well-proven thought system reconciling what was 
possible to reconcile between the disparate traditions of the East. 

I would like to conclude this Part 1 with a few verses from Adi 
Sankaracarya's famous Bhaja Govindam Hymn. He is the undisputed 
Master of all masters of the Advaita Vedantic Tradition 
of 'Hinduism'. 

Ask yourself if the plain words of this Hymn are those of an atheist, 
an impersonalist, or a true believer glorifying his GOD. 

Govinda is a very intimate name used by devotees to address Sri 
Krishna. This Name is associated with His eternal pastimes of Divine 
Love on the Original Abode of Goloka Vrindavan. 

bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
govindam bhaja mUDhamate
samprApte sannihite kAle
nahi nahi rakShati dukrunjkaraNe

SING Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA 
O fool ! When the appointed time (for departure) comes,
word jugglery / grammatical rules WILL NOT SAVE YOU. 

*****

bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
bhagavat gIta kincitadhItA
gangAjalalava kaNikApitA
sahrdapi yena murAri samarca
kriyate tasya yamena na carcA

Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA 
For him, who has studied the Bhagavad-gita, even a little,
who has drunk a drop of the Ganga water, and who has performed
the worship of the Destroyer of the demon Mura (Murari is Sri 
Krishna. This 
is another reference to the lila or divine play of Krishna in Goloka 
Vrindavan)
at least once, there is no tiff with Yama (Yama is the Form of the 
Lord as 
Death and Judgement, Who dispences karmic reactions to unrepentant 
sinners.)


*****
bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
punarapi jananam punarapi maraNam
punarapi jananI jaTare shayanam
iha samsAre bahudustAre
krpayA pAre pAhi murAre 

Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA 
Repeated birth, repeated death and repeated lying in
a mother's womb - this process of birth and death is vast and
difficult to cross over; save me, O destroyer of Mura, through your 
grace.

*****
bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
geyam gItA nAma sahasram
dhyeyam shrIpati rUpamajashram
neyam sajjana sange cittam
deyam dInajanAya ca vittam 

Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA 
The Bhagavad-gita and the Sahasranama (Thousand Names of Vishnu) 
should be sung;
the Form (Rupa) of the Lord of Lakshmi ( Vishnu) should be always 
meditated on;
the mind should be led to the company of the good;
and wealth should be distributed among the indigent.

*****
bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
gurucharaNambuja nirbhara bhakta:
samsAradacIradbhava mukta:
sendriyamAnasa niyAmAdevam
drakShyasi nija hrdayastam devam 

Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA, Adore GOVINDA 
Be a BHAKTA devoted completely to the lotus-feet of your GURU,
be released (mukta / moksha = manumission, redemption) soon from 
the process of birth and death. Thus, through the discipline of sense
and mind-control, you will BEHOLD HARI, GOD (DEVA) WHO LIVES IN YOUR 
HEART.

Vishnu Sahasranamam (Sa-ha-sthra) is sung by "Grandsire" Bhishma, the 
senior most member of the Kaurava clan in the Vaishnava Scripture The 
Mahabharata. In the decisive battle that ensues between the Pandavas 
and Kauravas in this Shastra, the legendary Bhishma puts up 
chivalrous fight against the heroic Arjuna, the master archer of the 
Pandavas, but is defeated in the end. Laying on a bed of arrows, 
Bhishma is waiting for an auspicious moment to breathe his last, when 
his beloved Lord Krishna appears at his side and reveals His 
Universal Form ("Vishwarupa") to His great devotee Bhishma. Then in 
an ecstacy of love, Bhishma greets his Lord by 1000 Names. This 
invocation of Krishna by 1000 Names came to be known as the Vishnu 
Sahasranamam. The Sanskrit Names of the Vishnu Sahasranamam are read 
as a poem or sung as "namavali" (literally 'name calling') by 
countless millions of Vaishnavas every day. Vishnu Temples all around 
the world also have formal services conducted by devotees who chant 
the Vishnu Sahasranamam on a continuuous, daily or weekly basis. 
Often both the Bhaja Govindam Prayer and the Sri Vishnu Sahasranamam 
are sung in the same program.