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 to 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.

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 to 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 to the world were revealed through their faithful > servant, Madame H.P. Blavatsky. > >

The Stanzas of Dzyan and H.P. Blavatsky's Dilemma > > However 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 > staunch 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 a 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 and arrogant advaiti atheist 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 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 > was 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 atman 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 teaching, > Instead of physically redacting the Bhakti Shastras, the Mayavadis > merely re-interpreted them to remove or nullify their theistic > content. However, many Vaishnavas today still view Adi Sankaracarya > as a great devotee of Krishna-Vishnu, Shiva and Devi. How is this > possible ? It is 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 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. All Vaishnava lineages taught doctrines of > both Brahman and Paramatman or the all-pervasive Atman.

It was these > doctrines 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 bhaktas (devotees of > Divine Love) and the impersonal jnanis. 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. > >

bhishma

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 > 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 > 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.