Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00282)

I Have been requested to respond to this letter forwarded to me from 
an unamed scholar. I find this writier to be quite well informed and 
articulate regarding these issues. 

MY (B A Goswami's )COMMENTS BELOW AT >>>>


It seems without question that many of HPB's ideas were derived from 
the Puranas, esp. where cosmology and other particularly 'puranic' 
ideas are concerned. 

>>>>>Agreed.

I would like here to develop some ideas that you bring up and comment 
upon a few features of some lesser known Indian traditions.

First a comment. It's true that there is a tension 
between 'personalists' and 'impersonalists' that has developed since 
the eighth century or so. 

>>>>>>Personalism is attested in the earliest Vedic Sources, and many 
individual stories from the Puranas are also demonstrably very 
ancient. So regardless of the date of any particular collection of 
the Puranic stories in Sanskrit, the actual antiquity of the stories 
must be considered. In addition, the doctrines, rites, iconography, 
place and personal theophoric names, numismatic and other evidence 
must be taken into consideration. When this is done, Puranic stories 
found in late collections / editions, but attested-to by earlier 
evidence must be accepted as earlier. Regarding the tension between 
the Bhakti Traditions and the Jnani Impersonalist Advaita Vedantin 
Tradition, It is with the system based on the teachings of Adi 
Sankaracarya that the battle-lines are drawn between the Vedic 
Personalists and Impersonalist followers of Adi Sankaracarya. 

Beyond this, and other 'doctrinal tensions', and informing modern 
Indian thinkers and apologists in another way, is a tension between a 
(perceived) distinction between 'philosophy' and 'popular religion'. 
For example, among Sanskritists there is also a 
traditional 'hierarchy': the brightest are streamed into grammar, the 
middling students study philosophy, the rest, purana and epic. 
Somewhere in the background here is lurking, perhaps, an analogous 
shruti, smrti, itihasa distinction. In any case, there can be a 
tendency among some darshana types to 'look down' upon Purana. That 
may have also been at work, when considering the circles that HPB 
moved with in India and how she was perceived by certain groups.


>>>>This is absolutely correct and it is what I have described as the 
contempt that the Mayavadi Brahmins have for all the 'idolatrous' 
followers of the Puranic Bhakti Traditions. It is simply not true 
that the "brightest" Sanskritists were streamed into Vedic Sanskrit 
Grammar and the least qualified students into the study of the 
Puranas. Many works have been written on the extrodinary 
intellectual acheivements of the Vaishnava and other Bhakti Shastric 
Masters. In fact, Surendranath Das Gupta in his multi-volume "History 
of Indian Philosophy" calls the logic of the Vaishnava Madhva Lineage 
the highest achievment in Indian thought. Madhva was famous for 
defeating Sankarite Mayavadis in numerous debates. Das Gupta 
recommends Europeans to take up the study of Madhvacarya's logic, and 
the thought of his outstanding disciples Vyasatirtha and Jayatirtha. 
He also praises the intellectual acheivements of the [Bridal 
Mysticism] Qualified-non-dualism School of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. 

Now a few comments on things I know something about that relate to 
some of your conjectures and 'what ifs'.

While it is probably true that many of the cosmogonic ideas of HPB 
were derived from the Puranas, it is worth noting the strong 
influence that the Samkhya exerted upon both the Tantras and the 
Puranas. For example, its categories, the 25 tattvas, were taken over 
entirely by the Tantras. Of course, the tantrikas then heaped their 
own tattvas upon those of the Samkhya. The tattvas are also applied 
throughout the epic Mahabharata -- not only the Gita, but the 
important (but little studied) Mokshadharma section from Book Twelve. 
With respect to the Mokshadharma -- which preceeds the Puranas -- 
there are a couple of interesting features. The Mokshadharma takes 
over the Samkhya tattvas, but in some places, adds on to them, as the 
Tantras will later. 12.306 (Edgerton ed.) distinguishes a 26th 
tattva, beyond Purusha. 

>>>>>The Cosmic Purusha is only one of the Purusha Avataras of 
Krishna-Vishnu. 

This is the 'realized' Purusha, that is the Purusha that has merged 
with the Supreme Principle. 12.338 takes up the issue of whether or 
not there is one Purusha, and, in a discussion between Shiva and 
Brahma, it is concluded that there is but one Purusha which is the 
source of all the various Purushas. 

>>>>>>The Adi Purusha (also the name of the Pure Land Buddhist Dharma 
Kaya) is Sri Krishna, His first Emanation (Second Person) is 
Sankarshan, who is the source of all the other Purusha Manifestations 
and Incarnations. 

Most interesting of all, in 12.339, a section that most closely 
corresponds to the Gita, the Supreme Purusha is identified with 
Narayana (Vishnu). Visnu is then identified with the entire world, 
the objects of consciousness and also consciousness, the seer and 
seen. 

>>>>Yes, Sri Krishna is within and without all things, is the 
ksetragna Knower in-and-of all fields or domains. His is 
Vedayaha (compare Hebrew Yeda-Yahu) the Knower, Subject and Object of 
Veda (Hebrew Yead, Greek Oida).


This is an early reference to drkdrshta-advaita, the non-duality of 
the seer and the seen that is so important in Vijnanavada and 
afterwards. Thus, it appears that a 26th tattva was added, the 
Supreme Purusha, and this was identified with Visnu, the source of 
all. At the end of the section, there is also an early reference to 
the vyuhas, or emanations, of Vishnu.

>>>>>This is the doctrine of the Chatur Vyuha. 

The highest portion of Visnu is identified with Vasudeva (Krishna); 
the next Samkarshana, with the 'causal' unmanifest state; the next 
Pradyumna, is identified with 'manas'; the next Aniruddha, is 
identified with 'ahamkara'. These references show an influence from, 
and acquaintance with, the rather early Bhagavata cult and its 
doctrines of emanation. 

>>>>>>Yes, there was no such term as "Vaishnava" back then, and the 
devotees of Krishna or Vishnu were refered to by such terms as the 
Aryas, Ekantins, Bhagavatas (another Name of the Adi Buddha = 
Bhagavan!), Sura-gana (Haryanna, Hari-jana) Sura Senoi, Vrishnis, 
Yadavas, Abiras etc.


>>>>>This entire thought system is presented in numerous Indian 
Sanskrit Vaishnava sources, but I have studied the connection of 
these teachings to non-Sanskrit and Non-Indian sources. Like many of 
the Puranic stories, these teachings on the emanations and 
incarnations of Krishna-Vishnu are found elsewhere in the ancient 
world. For instance, Helios Kouros on the Minoan Era Island of 
Rhodes in the Eastern Mediterranean was considered the Origin of all 
of the gods, (see THEMIS by J. Harrison on the HYMN TO KOUROS). The 
alter-form of Helios Kouros 
was Dionysos (Osiris-Purusha as Sankarshan), and all the multi-form 
of the gods was manifest through-with-and-in Him. All of the Shaktis/ 
Shekinah Forms or feminine 'goddesses' were from RHODA (Radha) the 
Original Feminine Manifestation of Kouros. Thus Kouros and Rhoda 
(Krishna and Radha) were the source of all the gods and goddesses in 
the ancient Heliopolitan emanational and incarnational monotheism of 
the Mediterranean Region. From Platonic and Jewish Heliopolitan 
Monotheism, their Bridal Mysticism has continued into Jewish, 
Catholic and even Sufi Bridal Mysticism today. 

Lamotte has suggested that certain Vaishnava groups were in close 
contact with forms of Mahayana Buddhism. We certainly find references 
to them there. Vasubandhu and Shantirakshita subject theistic 
creationism to critique. Interestingly, Shantarakshita's critique 
implies what the Jain doxographers call 'Purusha Advaita', with 
Purusha implying a kind of transcendent Supreme Being. 

>>>>>>Just as Purusha worship is found in the Rig Veda, in 
Zoroastrianism, and in Mahayana Buddhism, it is also found in 
Jainism, as the Yang in Taoism, the Yab in Tibetan Buddhism, 
the 'Father Heaven' of Confucianism, in Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and 
throughout the ancient civilized world wherever the sacramental 
social body doctrine of the UUR, PUR, YIR, PER, POL, BUR etc. was. 
Thus each sacred city of the Semites, Europeans and Africans, was an 
embodiment of POLIEUS and TYCHE-FORTUNA or PURUSHA and SHAKTI-LAKSHMI.

It is noteworthy that this section of the Tattvasamgraha is distinct 
from the critique of the 'Aupanishadikas', the non-dual Vedanta 
(probably Gaudapada). Lamotte suggests that the doctrine of 
the 'transcendent Buddha' of the Lokottaravadins may have arisen 
within a context of influence from Vaishnavas. On the other hand 
the 'theistic advaita' may have arisen partly as a result of 
influence from Mahayana ideas.

>>>>>At the ancient PURUSHA worshiping university cities the 
Vaishnavas and Mahayana Buddhists were completely integrated studying 
at the same academies.

The later Kashimiri Shaivism can certainly be seen as a synthesis of 
theistic, vedantic and buddhist non-dualism. Lamotte notes that the 
Saddharmapundarika, an important Mahayana text, speaks of the deeds 
of the Buddha as 'vyuha'. And Chi Tsang, the famous Chinese 
Madhyamaka, interestingly tried to relate the three bodies of the 
Buddha to the three bodies of Ishvara. 

A>>>>>>gain this is exactly the kind of thing I was refering to when 
I discribed the very complex mixture of Vaishnava, Buddhist and 
Shaivite thought in Kashmir. 

>>>>>The Saddharmapundarika is one of the ten most important works to 
read to understand my view of the relationship between the Eastern 
Bhakti Traditions and the Mediterranean Bhakti Traditions. The 
verses in this Pure Land Buddhist Text describing how Avalokitesvara 
descends to save all beings in the saha world DIRECTLY PARALLEL THOSE 
OF SRI KRISHNA's SELF-ASSERTION in the great I AM verses of the 
Bhagavad-gita. In the Saddharmapundarika, the very same statements 
are made in the very same Sanskrit Language. Furthermore, these 
assertions about the saving descent of the ADI PURUSHA, PUROSOTTAMA, 
BHAGAVAN, CHAKRAVARTIN (all Names of Krishna-Vishnu), are also 
paralleled in the Mediterranean worship of Greek HELIOS, Semitic ELI-
YAHU and Afro-Egyptian HERI-ASU. Thus the great Bhakti Traditions of 
the East and West are all connected at some extremely ancient time, a 
time so remote, that it has left its inheritance equally in the Indo-
European, Semitic and Afro-Egyptian branches of the human family. 

In the later tradition, for the northern Sants, bhakti can have an 
impersonal basis (this idea drives Fritz Staal up the wall). And for 
the western Sants, bhakti is not necessarily incongruent with non-
dualism. Just so, theism is not always dualistic. And so there were 
indeed early non-dual Vaishnava texts that paralleled the development 
on non-dual Shaivism. One, the Paramarthasara attributed to 
an 'Adishesha', was adapted by Abhinavagupta and became a part 
Kashmiri Shaiva non-dualism. It has also come to light recently that 
there were even non-dual texts among the Pancaratras, another 
somewhat early Vaishanava group.

>>>>>Exactly ! This is what I mentioned when I stated that the 
Vaishnavas have their own traditions of Advaita Vedanta, which are 
compatible with their Bhakti and Theism. 



That the Puranas contain non-dual elements is well known. The most 
famous of these is the Bhagavata Purana, which contains a description 
of an 'avadhuta-marga'. Interestingly, later commetators claimed this 
marga as 'more complete' than the classical advaita of Shankara and 
the mayavadins. In this way it parallels texts like the later 
Ashtavakra Gita and Avadhuta Gita which also contain implied 
critiques of the classical advaitic emphasis on 'transcendence' 
over 'immanence'. Another very interesting section occurs in the 
Visnu Purana: that concerning Prahlada. 

It is sometimes stated that a 'non-dual' ethics is the creation of 
Neo Vedanta -- an extrapolation from the Gita, and an interpretation 
of 'karma yoga' as 'selfless action', perhaps in response to a 
Christian ethics of 'service'. While this has something to it I have 
to say, I've been studying Shankara's comments on the Gita lately and 
he does actually say at one point that karma yoga can entail 'good 
deeds for the welfare of humanity'. In any case, we are discussing 
non-dualism in the Puranas and the case of Prahlada is interesting as 
it implies a non-dual ethics. The episode occurs in the Visnu Purana. 
Prahlada is the son of an Ashura, but who is an unwavering devotee of 
Vishnu. Prahlada is told that Vishnu is in every sentient being, and 
that Vishnu is All. Because Vishnu is the self of all beings, he is 
honoured -- indeed, he is loved -- when those beings are also loved 
and honoured. Interestingly, Prahlada knows the ethics of the Gita, 
but begins to teach that we should regard all sentient beings as we 
regard the supreme. Interestingly, the emphasis is not on 'jumping 
in' for the Other (I am your Knight!) as Being and Time charaterizes 
it, but on refraining from harming others. Prahlada's non-
dual 'ethic' fell into oblivion though elements of it can be seen in 
the Bhagavata Purana. One could argue, convincingly, that this ethic 
is influenced by Jain and Buddhist notions of ahimsa. But it is 
interesting how this story from the Puranas puts non-duality to work 
in the service of compassion. 


>>>>>>It should be noted that numerous Vaishnava Puranic stories 
treat the all-pervasive Paramatma (Holy Spirit) Form of Krishna-
Vishnu as the central revelatory theme in the story. In the story of 
Prahlada, his ungodly a-sura father is slain by Krishna-Vishnu in the 
Form of Nara Hari or HARYEH (Hebrew-Jewish Leontocephalic ARYEH) and 
by this act, the errant father IS DELIVERED INTO THE MOKSHA OF THE 
BRAHMAN. When Krishna must Personally destroy a demon, His purifying 
vision and touch causes the unsurrendered jiva-soul to merge into His 
Personal bodily effulgence, WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF THE BRAHMAN. 
Advaitans, performing austerities desiring to merge into the Brahman 
are laughed at by Vaishnava children who have grown up on the stories 
of Sri Krishna and Vishnu, because they know that the Brahman is only 
the light / halo emanating from the transcendental Sat-Chit-Aananda 
Rupa of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Vaishnava chlidren ask, 
why, if devotees can by Divine Grace see God face to face and Live, 
the Mayavadis spend so much effort to end up lost in the oblivion of 
the same place that the envious demons go ? 

>>>>>In the Gita, Sri Krishna explains that different souls have 
differnet desires and relationships to Godhead. Some worship 
Bhagavan, some worship Paramatman, some worship the intermediate 
Purusha Manifestations, and some want to merge into the Brahman. For 
the Impersonalists, this merging is impersonal. For the diffuse-
personalists or Brahman-Bhaktas, the experience is like merging with 
one's beloved. and 'losing' oneslf in their being. 

>>>>>> To the Author of this letter, I really enjoyed your learned 
and insightful comments. 

>>>>>pax and prema !

>>>>>Bhakti Ananda Goswami