Less than Forthcoming
Some care has been taken to demonstrate that Blavatsky is something of
what she claimed to be, a revealer of hidden, 'esoteric' Buddhist teachings.
There is sufficient evidence, by way of vocabulary and textual references
unique in the 19th century, to suggest that Blavatsky was indeed in touch
with a living tradition, either directly or through one or more Mahåyåna
Buddhist teachers. This study of Blavatsky and Buddhism is not a partisan
one, however, and the less flattering side of Blavatsky's work cannot be
overlooked.
In many places, and on many occasions, Blavatsky's work contains the ideas,
and sometimes even the exact words, of previously published Western-language
sources on Buddhism, without acknowledgement. It may be that Blavatsky meant
to give citations, or had given them and somehow they were lost in the process
of editing and printing. Alternatively, Blavatsky may have been intending
to comment on the works of the "exoteric" authors whom she so
despised by incorporating their writings into her own in order to expand
upon them, reword them, or contradict them. For example, Blavatsky writes,
The Lassens, Webers, Wassiljews, the Burnoufs and Juliens, and even
such "eye-witnesses" of Tibetan Buddhism as Csoma de Köros
and the Schlagintweits, have hitherto only added perplexity to confusion.
None of these has ever received his information from a genuine Gelugpa
source: all have judged Buddhism from the bits of knowledge picked up at
the Tibetan frontier lamaseries, in countries thickly populated by Bhutanese
and Leptchas, Bhons, and red-capped Dugpas, along the line of the Himâlayas.…
hence they have gone on, gravely discussing the relative merits and absurdities
of idols, "soothsaying tables," and "magical figures of
Phurbu" on the "square tortoise." None of these have anything
to do with the real philosophical Buddhism of the Gelugpa, or even of the
most educated among the Sakyapa and Kadampa sects. All such "plates"
and sacrificial tables, Chinresig magical circles, etc., were avowedly
got from Sikkhim, Bhutan, and Eastern Tibet, from Bhons and Dugpas.(53)
Here, the reader can tell by the quotes that HPB is referring to certain
unnamed works by the scholars she has listed (but to condemn). Nevertheless,
quite frequently the work of another writer appears within the main text
and footnotes of Blavatsky's writing without any acknowledgement whatsoever,
and this can carry on for a number of pages in a row without once mentioning
the author she is actually quoting. Sometimes this appropriation involves
critical Buddhist teaching, which in the absence of quotation marks, citations
or references to the author, would appear to be intended as Buddhist teachings
emanating directly from Blavatsky or her teachers. For considerations of
space we will examine only Blavatsky's relationship with The Buddhism
of Tibet by Emil Schlagintweit (1863).(54) Of the many appropriations
Blavatsky appears to make, I will mention only a few. Underlining in the
following quotes will demonstrate verbatim appropriations made by
Blavatsky from this text, published a full quarter century before her own
Secret Doctrine.
On pages 51-2 of his text, Schlagintweit writes,
The Buddhists believe that each Buddha when preaching the law to men,
manifests himself at the same time in the three worlds which their cosmographical
system acknowledges. In the world of desire, the lowest of the three to
which the earth belongs, he appears in human shape. In the world of forms
he manifests himself in a more sublime form as Dhyåni Buddha. In
the highest world, the one of the incorporeal beings, he has neither shape
nor name. The Dhyåni Buddhas have the faculty of creating from themselves
by virtue of Dhyåna, or abstract meditation, an equally celestial
son, a Dhyåni Bodhisattva, who after the death of a Månushi
Buddha is charged with the continuance of the work undertaken by the departed
Buddha till the next epoch of religion begins, when again a subsequent
Månushi Buddha appears.
Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, volume three (1897):
Buddhists of the Mahåyåna mystic system teach that
each Buddha manifests Himself (hypostatically or otherwise) simultaneously
in three worlds of Being, namely, in the world of Kåma
(concupiscence or desire - the sensuous universe or our earth) in
the shape of a man; in the world of R¨pa (form, yet supersensuous)
as a Bodhisattva; and in the highest Spiritual World (that
of purely incorporeal existences) as a Dhyåni-Buddha.
The latter prevails eternally in space and time, i.e., from one Mahå-Kalpa
to the other-the synthetic culmination of the three beings ÅAdi-Buddha,*
the Wisdom-Principle, which is Absolute, and therefore out of space and
time. Their interelation is the following: The Dhyåni -Buddha,
when the world needs a human Buddha, "creates" through the
power of Dhyåna (meditation, omnipotent devotion), a mind-born
son-a Bodhisattva - whose mission it is after the physical
death of his human, or Månushya-Buddha, to continue his work
on earth till the appearance of the subsequent Buddha. The Esoteric
meaning of this teaching is quite clear.… [HPB's footnote:] …
What is given here is taken from the secret portions of Dus Kyi Khorlo
(Kåla Chakra, in Sanskrit, or the "Wheel of Time," or duration.(55)
Importantly, HPB has altered Schlagintweit's text, especially the correspondences
in the three realms-but there is no question that overall she has lifted
this passage from his book originally. Nota bene Blavatsky's footnote,
where she claims to be giving out statements from the secret portions of
the Kålachakra Tantra. However, HPB's statements are merely
rephrasings of Schlagintweit, taken from his chapter on Kålachakra,
where he gives the Tibetan translation Dus Kyi Khorlo-a technically
correct and not a phonetic spelling, which as we have seen (at length above)
was the habit of HPB. In HPB's ten-page chapter entitled "The Mystery
of Buddhism," which this passage is taken from, Blavatsky does not
mention even once Schlagintweit, his book, or any contemporary Western author
except A.P. Sinnett, her student. For all HPB's unique knowledge of Kålachakra
Tantra, as described in the previous section, this appropriation of
published work (and many others like it) would appear to be quite damaging
to her claims.
But because volume three of The Secret Doctrine was published only
posthumously from manuscripts left by HPB, Theosophists might have a right
to object that Blavatsky would have edited the MSS. and added citations
before it was published. Further, in the hundred pages surrounding the above
quote from The Secret Doctrine, Blavatsky does refer to Schlagintweit
and specific page numbers several times, although not nearly as often as
the expectations of modern scholarship would demand.
But even more clear-cut examples of appropriation from Schlagintweit exist,
from documents HPB is known to have published under her own power. From
Schlagintweit, p. 34:
Parinishpanna (Tib. Yong grub) … "completely perfect,"
or simply "perfect," is the unchangeable and unassignable true
existence, which is also the scope of the path, the summum bonum,
the absolute. Of this kind can be only that which enters the mind clear
and undarkened, as for instance, the emptiness, or the Non-ego. In order,
therefore, that his mind may become free from all that would in any way
attract his attention, it is necessary that man view every thing existing
as ideal, because it is dependent on something else; then only-as a natural
consequence-he arrives at a right understanding of the Non-ego, and to
a knowledge of how the voidness is alone self-existent and perfect.
The Secret Doctrine, volume one (1888):
"Paranishpanna" is the absolute perfection which all
existences attain at the close of a great period of activity, or
Mahå-Manvantara, and in which they rest during the succeeding period
of repose. In Tibetan it is called Yong-Grüb. Up to
the day of the Yogåcårya school the true nature of Paranirvana
[parinirvåˆa] was taught publicly, but since then it has become
entirely esoteric; hence so many contradictory interpretations of it. It
is only a true Idealist who can understand it. Everything has to be
viewed as ideal, with the exception of Paranirvana, by him who would
comprehend that state, and acquire a knowledge of how Non Ego,
Voidness, and Darkness are Three in One and alone Self-existent
and perfect. (56)
In the same section, Schlagintweit gives the Tibetan translation of parikalpita
(i.e., Kung tag) and defines it as:
…the supposition, the error. Of this kind is the belief in absolute
existence to which those beings adhere who are incapable of understanding
that every thing is empty.… some believing a thing existing which
does not, as e.g. the Non-ego …
Blavatasky writes,
Parikalpita (in Tibetan Kun-ttag [sic]) is error, made
by those unable to realize the emptiness and illusionary nature
of all; who believe something to exist which does not-e.g., the Non-Ego.(57)
Schlagintweit: Paratantra is whatever exists by a dependent or
causal connexion." Blavatsky: Paratantra is that, whatever
it is, which exists only through a dependent or causal connexion."
(58) Schlagintweit:
We come now to the two truths. They are: Samvritisatya (Tib. Kundzabchi
denpa) and Paramårthasatya (Tib. Dondampai denpa), or the relative
truth and the absolute one … A difference prevails between the Yogåcåryas
and the Madhyamikas with reference to the interpreration of Paramårtha;
the former say that Paramårtha is also what is dependent upon other
things (Paratantra); the latter say that is it limited to Parinishpanna,
or to that which has the character of absolute perfection.… Samvriti
is that which is the origin of illusion, but Paramårtha is the self-consciousness*
of the saint in his self-meditation, which is able to dissipate illusions,
i.e., which is above all (parama) and contains the true undertstanding
(artha). [footnote] Sanskrit Svasamvedana, "the reflection which analyses
itself."
Blavatsky:
[Re:] Paramårtha: the Yogåcåryas interpret
the term as that which is also dependent upon other things (paratantral)
[sic]; and the Madhyamikas say that Paramårtha is limited to Paranishpanna
or absolute perfection … [footnote] "Paramårtha"
is self-consciousness in Sanskrit, Svasamvedana, or the "self-analysing
reflection" from two words, parama (above everything) and artha (comprehension),
Satya meaning absolute true being, or Esse. In Tibetan Paramårthasayta
is Dondampaidenpa. The opposite of this absolute reality, or
actuality, is Samvritisatya-the relative truth only-"Samvritti"
meaning "false conception" and being the origina of illision,
Maya; in Tibetan Kundzabchi-denpa, "illusion-creating appearance."
What can be said in Blavatsky's defense? Similar 'appropriations' of
published text were discovered also in the Mahatma Letters, written mainly
to A.P. Sinnett, published from time to time in Theosophical journals. In
one case, known as "The Kiddle Incident," a letter from Mahatma
KH was showed positively to have appropriated large sections of text from
a speech by a certain Henry Kiddle given at a gathering at Lake Pleasant,
America, and printed in a Spiritualist journal Banner of Light. In
a response, KH explains how an Adept such as himself uses occult means to
dictate letters telepathically to students who may be at any distance away.
The 'transmission' as it were can be received in a corrupted manner by a
less than competent amanuensis, while the very process of telepathic
impression is open to infiltration by unrelated thoughts. Writes KH,
Having-owing to our correspondence and your Simla [India] surroundings
and friends - felt interested in the intellectual progress of the Phenomenalists,
which progress by the by I felt rather moving backward in the case of American
Spiritualists - I had directed my attention some two months previous to
the great annual camping movement of the latter, in various directions,
among others to Lake or Mount Pleasant. Some of the curious ideas and sentences
representing the general hopes and aspirations of the American Spiritualists
remained impressed on my memory, and I remembered only these ideas and
detached sentences quite apart from the personalities of those who harboured
or pronounced them.… In a case such as mine, the chela [disciple]
had, as it were, to pick up what he could from the current I was sending
him and, as above remarked, patch the broken bits together as best he might.…
So I, in this instance, having at the moment more vividly in my mind the
psychic diagnosis of current Spiritualistic thought, of which the Lake
Pleasant speech was one marked symptom, unwittingly transferred that reminiscence
more vividly than my own remarks upon it and deductions therefrom.(60)
Of course such an explanation - a jumbled transference of telepathic
thoughts - is entirely unacceptable to a scholarly audience. It is but one
more example of Blavatsky's Asian Weltanschauung, where telepathy
is a perfectly normal siddhi (occult ability) resulting from intense
yogic practice. No doubt HPB's appropriations above would be explained by
her in the same manner. The problem is that such a thesis is utterly unverifiable,
and worse, unfalsifiable, to the mere worldling, and hence not subject to
scholarly investigation and judgment. I merely state here the objective
fact that Blavatsky's writings contain the words and ideas of other Western
writers, unacknowledged, and that these appropriations sometimes are made
to appear as emanating from a hidden or occult source like Tibetan Buddhist
Tantras. |