It has never been any secret that the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood or Trans-Himalayan Esoteric School that stood most directly behind H. P. Blavatsky and behind the Theosophical Movement which she founded at their behest, is a Buddhist School. This is made the most clear in Theosophical texts such as “The Mahatma Letters” (from the Master Koot Hoomi and Master Morya to A. P. Sinnett and A. O. Hume), “The Great Master’s Letter” or Letter from the Maha Chohan (the Master or Chief of the Trans-Himalayan Adepts), and “The Voice of The Silence” translated by HPB.

But if this is so, why are these Teachers, who present themselves as staunch Buddhists, also universalists who believe strongly that “There is no Religion higher than Truth,” as in the famous motto of the Theosophical Movement? And exactly what form of Buddhism do they belong to? Are they really adherents of the exoteric Gelug or Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism founded by Tsong-Kha-Pa, as some seem to think? And – perhaps most importantly, from a philosophical perspective – why do they accept as a reality such notions as an immortal Reincarnating Ego (sometimes termed by them the “soul”) and a universal Higher Self or Atman, when these are traditionally considered absolutely un-Buddhist and heretical by 99% of all Buddhists in the world (both Theravada and Mahayana) and viewed as having their origins in Hinduism, and Hindu texts such as the Upanishads, rather than in anything Buddhist? In other words, why is the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of Anatta (“non-self” or “no self”) not adhered to?

We believe that this compilation of statements from H. P. Blavatsky’s writings will go a long way to answering these questions. We have taken the liberty of putting in bold some of the most important, revealing, and relevant points.

There is much in these words that will immediately be objected to, especially by adherents of Theravada Buddhism. This is because in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha is quoted as saying: “I have set forth my Teaching without making any distinctions such as an esoteric and exoteric doctrine. There is nothing, with regard to the teachings, that I have held back from anyone with the “closed fist” of an esoteric teacher.” This is a very clear and definite statement and we can only assume that the Theosophical Mahatmas would say that it is either an interpolated or altered statement.

On the whole, however, those Masters and HPB do accept the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism as a reliable and largely accurate account of Buddha’s exoteric or non-secret teachings. And there are statements attributed to the Buddha in those scriptures which to some extent back up and support some of the points made by HPB in this compilation. For example:

“One thing only does the Buddha teach, namely, suffering and the cessation of suffering.” (Alagaddūpama Sutta, in Majjhima Nikaya)

“What I have taught you is comparable to the leaves in my hand, and what I have not taught you, to the leaves in the forest. . . . Those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous than those I have. And why haven’t I taught them? Because they are not directly connected with the goal of liberation, do not relate to the basic principles of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment . . . dispassion . . . cessation . . . calm . . . direct knowledge . . . self-awakening . . . Nibbana [i.e. Nirvana].” (Simsapa Sutta, in Samyutta Nikaya)

In the Pali Nikayas and their Sanskrit equivalents the Agamas, the Buddha identifies a number of “unanswerable questions,” not unanswerable due to him not knowing the answer but rather due to him considering them unhelpful questions that can only distract a person from the far more important task of taking active practical steps to free themselves from all suffering and the endless cycle of rebirth. The “unanswerable questions” range from queries about the nature and origins of the cosmos, the intricacies of karma, the after-death existence and state of Buddhas, the interrelation of the jiva (meaning in Indian religions the reincarnating, living entity) and sharira (physical body), to more fundamental philosophical enquiries such as “Who am I? What am I? Did I or did I not exist in the past? Will I or will I not exist in the future? Where do we come from? Where do we go?”

So, as HPB and the Masters acknowledge, Buddha publicly taught only what would bring people prompt practical help in relieving their sufferings and sorrows. But as for “those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught [and which] are far more numerous than those I have,” the Masters claim that he did teach these things to a very select few, rather than living and dying without ever sharing with anyone the rest of his vast knowledge.

There is naturally no way for we, who are not Initiates, to verify H. P. Blavatsky’s statements on this matter but it is at least valuable to be aware of them and to understand them.

As far as we are aware, there are no historians, scholars, academics, or researchers, who believe the Mahayana Buddhist scriptures – which began emerging about 400 to 500 years after the Buddha’s lifetime, and whose most defining feature is the wholesale promotion of the Bodhisattva Ideal and Bodhisattva Path of compassion – to be historical, literal accounts of actual discourses that the Buddha really gave. There is not the slightest historical evidence to back up such a notion and thus even many Mahayana monks acknowledge, when asked, that the Mahayana sutras are essentially “parahistorical,” rather than historical documents. The official academic consensus tends to be that they are the brainchild – or intuition-child – of Indian Buddhist monks who had become dissatisfied with the Theravada or Sthavira approach to the religion. There are a few ancient accounts attesting to some of the Mahayana sutras being received in dreams and visions by monks, who then wrote them down, believing the dream or vision to have been inspired by Buddha himself. That may be true for some but in light of Theosophical explanations, we would suggest the following:

Many – though certainly not all – of the Mahayana sutras are religious “literary devices” (as opposed to historical accounts of actual discourses) crafted by Initiates of real Esoteric Buddhism – over a roughly 500 year period, from approx. 1st century B.C.E. to 5th century C.E. – as a means of putting into general circulation some traces and fragments of the Buddha’s actual esoteric teachings, albeit clothed in a largely exoteric garb that would help to ensure their spread and popularisation.

As we’ll see, HPB describes the scriptures of Mahayana Buddhism as “semi-esoteric” or as “semi-exoteric,” which amounts to the same thing. “The Mahatma Letters” quote from and refer to a number of Mahayana scriptures, such as the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Lotus Sutra, the Amitabha Sutra, and various texts of the Abhidharma system of the Sarvastivada school of early Buddhism. Meanwhile, HPB quotes from or refers to the Lankavatara Sutra, the Heart Sutra, the Sutra of 42 Sections, and the “Five Books of Maitreya” recorded by Aryasanga, amongst others. She and the Masters also quote from and refer to texts belonging to the Pali Canon on numerous occasions. She expresses admiration for Bodhidharma and the Chan or Ch’an school of Mahayana Buddhism which he established in China and which was the original form of what would later become known in Japan as Zen. Ch’an, Zen, Jhana, Dhyana, and the Theosophical “Dzyan,” are all linguistic synonyms, denoting meditation, and meditative concentration and contemplation.

But as we showed in such articles as Theosophy and Tibetan Buddhist Tantra, there is also a close link between the Trans-Himalayan Esoteric School and Indo-Tibetan Buddhist tantra, primarily the Kalachakra Tantra, albeit a still more esoteric version of it than that which has become known to the world. And in The Essence of Buddhism we mentioned that some of the fundamental metaphysical teachings of Theosophy – such as the emphasis and explanations in “The Secret Doctrine” regarding Absolute Space and Absolute Motion – can be found in a few of the more obscure Tibetan Buddhist tantra scriptures, texts which even today have not been translated or made available in English, aside from just a few very brief excerpts. In the first article just linked to, it was explained:

““Tantra,” an ancient Sanskrit word, is not a bad word in itself and merely means “continuum” or “expansion.” It can largely be looked upon as a synonym for practical occultism. Even if a teaching or system does not expressly call itself tantric, if it deals with all or most of such subjects as (1) the occult constitution of the human being and the cosmos, (2) the correspondences or metaphysical links that exist between the various forces of Nature, (3) parts of the body and their occult correspondences and connections to higher energies or higher planes, (4) the esoteric side of colours, sounds, and sacred words or mantras, (5) Kundalini and subtle energies and energy channels in the spine and body, (6) chakras, (7) recognition and reverence in one way or another of Shakti or the feminine, or of the importance of bringing masculine and feminine polarities into union – then it is the very definition and epitome of what tantra actually is. We could add to this an emphasis on the necessity and sacredness of initiations and keeping certain teachings and details secret, although this characteristic is not exclusively tantric. The associated feature of actual transference of force and influence from Guru to disciple is, however. . . . Theosophists sometimes speak of the Book or rather Books of Kiu-Te or Khiu-Ti, having seen HPB and her Teachers – the Masters of Wisdom, “our living, human Mahatmas” – refer to them, but probably very few realise that the term “Kiu-Te” (or “rgyud sde” in Wylie transliteration and nowadays generally written as “gyud” phonetically) is simply the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit word “Tantra.” The Books of Kiu-Te are therefore literally the Books of Tantra. Tantra is not always something sexual. HPB states that there is such a thing as “white tantra” which is of the nature of white magic, and such a thing as “black tantra” which is the opposite. The introduction into it of selfish motives, sexual practices, and immorality, makes it black tantra. But it can exist perfectly well and happily in its pure form, as white tantra. Sexual tantra and sexual magic are stated by HPB to be the worst form of black magic or sorcery; not its only form but its worst form.”

As far as the world is concerned, the term “Esoteric Buddhism” refers specifically to tantric Buddhism, also known as Vajrayana, and which is a division or variant of Mahayana Buddhism. Whilst Tibetan Buddhism is exclusively Vajrayana, Chinese and Japanese Buddhism also have their own Vajrayana-style traditions and practices, followed by a minority. But according to Theosophy, none of these contain the real, actual Occultism of the Buddha himself, although they surely include some traces of it.

But leaving doctrinal technicalities aside for the time being, let’s now see what H. P. Blavatsky reveals regarding exoteric Buddhism, esoteric Buddhism, the relation of these to the modern Theosophical Movement, the work and aims of Buddha, and “the anciently universal Wisdom-Religion” which philosophically transcends and chronologically precedes all religions. In “Isis Unveiled” and other early writings, HPB sometimes termed this “Pre-Vedic Buddhism.” Later, to counteract notions that the Theosophical Movement was really a form of propaganda for the established religion of Buddhism, she called the Wisdom-Religion or Secret Doctrine of the Initiates “Esoteric Budhism,” with just one “d.”

“If the field of exoteric and official Buddhism of the Churches of both North and South, those of Tibet and Ceylon [i.e. Sri Lanka], is covered once more with parasitic weeds, it is precisely the Theosophists who are helping . . . to extirpate them. . . . As to the Neo-Budhism or the “Revival of the Ancient Wisdom” of the Ante-Vedic Âryas, the actual evolutionary period of the Occidental [i.e. Western] peoples will end in a blind alley, if they reject it.” (H. P. Blavatsky, “Misconceptions,” in “Theosophy: Some Rare Perspectives” p. 6, 8)

~ * ~

FROM THE WRITINGS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY

“If the Southern Church [i.e. Theravada] is nearer, in that it has not departed, except perhaps in some trifling dogmas due to the many councils held after the death of the MASTER, from the public or exoteric teachings of Sâkyamuni — the Northern Church [i.e. Mahayana] is the outcome of Siddhârta Buddha’s esoteric teachings which he confined to his elect Bhikshus and Arhats. In fact, Buddhism in the present age, cannot be justly judged either by one or the other of its exoteric popular forms. Real Buddhism can be appreciated only by blending the philosophy of the Southern Church and the metaphysics of the Northern Schools. If one seems too iconoclastic and stern, and the other too metaphysical and transcendental, even to being overgrown with the weeds of Indian exotericism — many of the gods of its Pantheon having been transplanted under new names to Tibetan soil — it is entirely due to the popular expression of Buddhism in both Churches. . . . Both err by an excess of zeal and erroneous interpretations, though neither the Southern nor the Northern Buddhist clergy have ever departed from truth consciously, . . .” (“The Theosophical Glossary” p. 67, Entry for “Buddhism”)

“. . . the semi-esoteric Canon of Northern [i.e. Mahayana] Buddhism . . .” (“The Theosophical Glossary” p. 359, Entry for “Vairochana”)

“ENQUIRER. What is the difference between Buddhism, the religion founded by the Prince of Kapilavastu, and Budhism, the “Wisdomism” which you say is synonymous with Theosophy?

“THEOSOPHIST. Just the same difference as there is between the secret teachings of Christ, which are called “the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven,” and the later ritualism and dogmatic theology of the Churches and Sects. Buddha means the “Enlightened” by Bodha, or understanding, Wisdom. This has passed root and branch into the esoteric teachings that Gautama imparted to his chosen Arhats only.

“ENQUIRER. But some Orientalists deny that Buddha ever taught any esoteric doctrine at all?

“THEOSOPHIST. They may as well deny that Nature has any hidden secrets for the men of science. . . . His esoteric teachings were simply the Gupta Vidya (secret knowledge) of the ancient Brahmins, the key to which their modern successors have, with few exceptions, completely lost. And this Vidya has passed into what is now known as the inner teachings of the Mahayana school of Northern Buddhism. . . .

“ENQUIRER. But are not the ethics of Theosophy identical with those taught by Buddha?

“THEOSOPHIST. Certainly, because these ethics are the soul of the Wisdom-Religion, and were once the common property of the initiates of all nations. But Buddha was the first to embody these lofty ethics in his public teachings, and to make them the foundation and the very essence of his public system. It is herein that lies the immense difference between exoteric Buddhism and every other religion. For while in other religions ritualism and dogma hold the first and most important place, in Buddhism it is the ethics which have always been the most insisted upon. This accounts for the resemblance, amounting almost to identity, between the ethics of Theosophy and those of the religion of Buddha.

“ENQUIRER. Are there any great points of difference?

“THEOSOPHIST. One great distinction between Theosophy and exoteric Buddhism is that the latter, represented by the Southern Church, entirely denies (a) the existence of any Deity, and (b) any conscious post-mortem life, or even any self-conscious surviving individuality in man. Such at least is the teaching of the Siamese sect, now considered as the purest form of exoteric Buddhism. And it is so, if we refer only to Buddha’s public teachings; the reason for such reticence on his part I will give further on. . . . the truth has been sacrificed to the dead-letter by the too-zealous orthodoxy of Southern Buddhism. But how much grander and more noble, more philosophical and scientific, even in its dead-letter, is this teaching than that of any other Church or religion. (“The Key to Theosophy” p. 13-15)

“ENQUIRER. But we are distinctly told that most of the Buddhists do not believe in the Soul’s immortality?

“THEOSOPHIST. No more do we, if you mean by Soul the personal Ego, or life-Soul ― Nephesh. But every learned Buddhist believes in the individual or divine Ego. Those who do not, err in their judgment. They are as mistaken on this point, as those Christians who mistake the theological interpolations of the later editors of the Gospels about damnation and hell-fire, for verbatim utterances of Jesus. Neither Buddha nor “Christ” ever wrote anything themselves, but both spoke in allegories and used “dark sayings,” as all true Initiates did, and will do for a long time yet to come. Both Scriptures treat of all such metaphysical questions very cautiously, and both, Buddhist and Christian records, sin by that excess of exotericism; the dead letter meaning far overshooting the mark in both cases.

“ENQUIRER. Do you mean to suggest that neither the teachings of Buddha nor those of Christ have been heretofore rightly understood?

“THEOSOPHIST. What I mean is just as you say. Both Gospels, the Buddhist and the Christian, were preached with the same object in view. Both reformers were ardent philanthropists and practical altruists ― preaching most unmistakably Socialism of the noblest and highest type, self-sacrifice to the bitter end. “Let the sins of the whole world fall upon me that I may relieve man’s misery and suffering!” cries Buddha; . . . “I would not let one cry whom I could save!” exclaims the Prince-beggar, clad in the refuse rags of the burial-grounds. “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest,” is the appeal to the poor and the disinherited made by the “Man of Sorrows,” who hath not where to lay his head. The teachings of both are boundless love for humanity, charity, forgiveness of injury, forgetfulness of self, and pity for the deluded masses; both show the same contempt for riches, and make no difference between meum and tuum [i.e. “mine” and “yours”]. Their desire was, without revealing to all the sacred mysteries of initiation, to give the ignorant and the misled, whose burden in life was too heavy for them, hope enough and an inkling into the truth sufficient to support them in their heaviest hours. But the object of both Reformers was frustrated, owing to excess of zeal of their later followers. The words of the Masters having been misunderstood and misinterpreted, behold the consequences! . . .

“The Arhats began by following the policy of their Master and the majority of the subsequent priests were not initiated, just as in Christianity; and so, little by little, the great esoteric truths became almost lost. . . .

“In India the Brahmins, jealous of their superior knowledge, and excluding from it every caste save their own, had driven millions of men into idolatry and almost fetishism. Buddha had to give the death-blow to an exuberance of unhealthy fancy and fanatical superstition resulting from ignorance, such as has rarely been known before or after. Better a philosophical atheism than such ignorant worship for those―

“Who cry upon their gods and are not heard, Or are not heeded ―” 

“and who live and die in mental despair. He had to arrest first of all this muddy torrent of superstition, to uproot errors before he gave out the truth. And as he could not give out all for the same good reason as Jesus, who reminds his disciples that the Mysteries of Heaven are not for the unintelligent masses, but for the elect alone, and therefore “spake he to them in parables” (Matt. xiii. 11) ― so his caution led Buddha to conceal too much.“ (“The Key to Theosophy” p. 78-81)

“Gautama Buddha withheld such difficult metaphysical doctrines from the masses in order not to perplex them more.” (“The Key to Theosophy” p. 81)

“Once more [i.e. referring here to the mission of Jesus or Yeshua] the time for a spiritual reform had arrived. The cruel, anthropomorphic and jealous God of the Jews, with his sanguinary laws of “an eye for eye and tooth for tooth,” of the shedding of blood and animal sacrifice, had to be relegated to a secondary place and replaced by the merciful “Father in Secret.” The latter had to be shown, not as an extra-Cosmic God, but as a divine Saviour of the man of flesh, enshrined in his own heart and soul, in the poor as in the rich. No more here than in India, could the secrets of initiation be divulged, lest by giving that which is holy to the dogs, and casting pearls before swine, both the Revealer and the things revealed should be trodden under foot. Thus, the reticence of both Buddha and Jesus ― whether the latter lived out the historic period allotted to him or not, and who equally abstained from revealing plainly the Mysteries of Life and Death ― led in the one case to the blank negations of Southern Buddhism, and in the other, to the three clashing forms of the Christian Church and the 300 sects in Protestant England alone.” (“The Key to Theosophy” p. 82)

“There is an oral tradition among the Chinese Buddhists, and a written statement among the secret books of the Lamaists of Tibet, as well as a tradition among the Aryans [i.e. Indians], that Gautama BUDDHA had two doctrines: one for the masses and His lay disciples, the other for His “elect,” the Arhats. His policy and after Him that of His Arhats was, it appears, to refuse no one admission into the ranks of candidates for Arhatship, but never to divulge the final mysteries except to those who had proved themselves, during long years of probation, to be worthy of Initiation. These once accepted were consecrated and initiated without distinction of race, caste or wealth, as in the case of His western successor [i.e. Jesus].” (“The Doctrine of Avataras,” posthumously published)

“Now the mystery of Buddha lies in this: Gautama, an incarnation of pure Wisdom, had yet to learn in His human body and to be initiated into the world ’s secrets like any other mortal, until the day when He emerged from His secret recess in the Himâlayas and preached for the first time in the grove of Benares. . . . Gautama had sworn inviolable secrecy as to the Esoteric Doctrines imparted to Him. In His immense pity for the ignorance — and as its consequence the sufferings — of mankind, desirous though He was to keep inviolate His sacred vows, He failed to keep within the prescribed limits. . . . He failed to conceal certain dogmas, and trespassing beyond the lawful lines, caused those dogmas to be misunderstood. . . . If the “Good Law ”as preached resulted in the most sublime code of ethics and the unparalleled philosophy of things external in the visible Kosmos, it biassed and misguided immature minds into believing there was nothing more under the outward mantle of the system, and its dead-letter only was accepted. . . .

“Thus, fifty odd years after his death “the great Teacher” having refused full Dharmakâya and Nirvâna, was pleased, for purposes of Karma and philanthropy to be reborn. For Him death had been no death . . . The shock of death was broken, and like many other Adepts, He threw off the mortal coil and left it to be burnt, and its ashes to serve as relics, and began interplanetary life, clothed in His subtle body. He was reborn as Shankara, the greatest Vedântic teacher of India, whose philosophy — based as it is entirely on the fundamental axioms of the eternal Revelation, the Shruti, or the primitive Wisdom-Religion, as Buddha from a different point of view had before based His — finds itself in the middle ground between the too exuberantly veiled metaphysics of the orthodox Brâhmans and those of Gautama, which, stripped in their exoteric garb of every soul-vivifying hope, transcendental aspiration and symbol, appear in their cold wisdom like crystalline icicles, the skeletons of the primeval truths of Esoteric Philosophy. . . .

“The Buddha is in Nirvâna, it is said, though this once mortal vehicle — the subtle body — of Gautama is still present among the Initiates: nor will it leave the realm of conscious Being so long as suffering mankind needs its divine help —not to the end of this Root Race, at any rate. From time to time He, the “astral ”Gautama, associates Himself, in some most mysterious — to us quite incomprehensible — manner, with Avatâras and great saints, and works through them. And several such are named. Thus it is averred that Gautama Buddha was reincarnated in Shankarâchârya . . .” (“The Mystery of Buddha,” posthumously published)

“Why the BUDDHA chose to make this sacrifice [i.e. to be reborn in certain other Teachers] will be plain only to those who, to the minute knowledge of His earthly life, add that of a thorough comprehension of the laws of Karma. Such occurrences, however, belong to the most exceptional cases.

“As tradition goes, the Brâhmans had committed a heavy sin by persecuting Gautama BUDDHA and His teachings instead of blending and reconciling them with the tenets of pure Vedic Brâhmanism, as was done later by Shankarâchârya. Gautama had never gone against the Vedas, only against the exoteric growth of preconceived interpretations. The Shruti — divine oral revelation, the outcome of which was the Veda — is eternal. It reached the ear of Gautama Siddartha as it had those of the Rishis who had written it down. He accepted the revelation, while rejecting the later overgrowth of Brâhmanical thought and fancy, and built His doctrines on one and the same basis of imperishable truth. As in the case of His Western successor [i.e. Jesus], Gautama, the “Merciful,” the “Pure,” and the “Just,” was the first found in the Eastern Hierarchy of historical Adepts, if not in the world-annals of divine mortals, who was moved by that generous feeling which locks the whole of mankind within one embrace, with no petty differences of race, birth, or caste. It was He who first enunciated that grand and noble principle, and He again who first put it into practice. [Note: In “The Mahatma Letters” p. 252, HPB’s Guru – the Master Morya – writes, “There was a time, when from sea to sea, from
the mountains and deserts of the north [of India] to the grand woods and downs of Ceylon [i.e. Sri Lanka, a Buddhist island-nation a little distance from the southern coast of India], there was but one faith, one rallying cry — to save humanity from the miseries of ignorance in the name of Him who taught first the solidarity of all men.”]

“For the sake of the poor and the reviled, the outcast and the hapless, invited by Him to the king’s festival table, He had excluded those who had hitherto sat alone in haughty seclusion and selfishness, . . . and these non-spiritual Brâhmans turned against Him for that preference. Since then, such as these have never forgiven the prince-beggar, the son of a king, who, forgetting His rank and station, had flung widely open the doors of the forbidden sanctuary to the pariah and the man of low estate, thus giving precedence to personal merit over hereditary rank or fortune. The sin was theirs — the cause nevertheless Himself: hence the “Merciful and the Blessed One” could not go out entirely from this world of illusion, and created causes without atoning for the sin of all — therefore of these Brâhmans also. If “man afflicted by man” found safe refuge with the Tathâgata, “man afflicting man” had also his share in His self-sacrificing, all embracing, and forgiving love. It is stated that He desired to atone for the sin of His enemies. Then only was he willing to become a full Dharmakâya, a Jîvanmukta “without remains.”” (“The Mystery of Buddha,” posthumously published)

“The fabled report found in Chinese records that Nâgârjuna considered his doctrine to be in opposition to that of Gautama Buddha, until he discovered from the Nâgas that it was precisely the doctrine that had been secretly taught by Shâkyamuni Himself, is an allegory and is based upon the reconciliation between the old Brâhmanical secret Schools in the Himâlayas and Gautama’s Esoteric teachings, both parties having at first objected to the rival schools of the other. The former, the parent of all others, had been established beyond the Himâlayas for ages before the appearance of Shâkyamuni. Gautama was a pupil of this; and it was with them, those Indian Sages, that He had learned the truths of the Sunyata, the emptiness and impermanence of every terrestrial evanescent thing, and the mysteries of Prajñâ Pâramitâ or “knowledge across the River,” which finally lands the “Perfect One” in the regions of the One Reality. 

“But His Arhats were not Himself. Some of them were ambitious, and they modified certain teachings after the great councils, and it is on account of these “heretics” that the Mother-School at first refused to allow them to blend their schools, when persecution began driving away the Esoteric [Buddhist] Brotherhood from India. But when finally, most of them submitted to the guidance and control of the chief Ãshrams, then the Yogâchârya of Ãryâsanga was merged into the oldest Lodge. For it is there, from time immemorial, that has lain concealed the final hope and light of the world, the salvation of mankind. Many are the names of that School and land, the name of the latter being now regarded by the Orientalists as the mythic name of a fabulous country [i.e. Shambhala or Shamballa]. It is from this mysterious land nevertheless, that the Hindu expects his Kalki Avatâra, the Buddhist his Maitreya, the Pârsî his Sosiosh, and the Jew his Messiah, and so would the Christian expect thence his Christ — if he only knew of it. (“A Few More Misconceptions Corrected,” posthumously published)

“The T.S. [i.e. Theosophical Society] was not created to propagate any dogma of any exoteric, ritualistic church, whether Buddhist, Brahmanical, or Christian. This idea is a wide-spread and general mistake; . . . [H. P. Blavatsky] is undeniably a Buddhist – i.e., a follower of the esoteric school of the great “Light of Asia,” [i.e. Buddha; the title of Sir Edwin Arnold’s poetic rendition of the life of the Buddha was “The Light of Asia”; HPB greatly appreciated that work and asked Theosophists to read from it on the anniversary of her passing] and so is the President of the Theosophical Society, Colonel H. S. Olcott. But this does not pin the theosophical body as a whole to ecclesiastical Buddhism. The Society was founded to become the Brotherhood of Humanity – a centre, philosophical and religious, common to all – not as a propaganda for Buddhism merely. . . .

“In stating that the T.S. is “Buddhist,” M. Burnouf is quite right, however, from one point of view. It has a Buddhist colouring simply because that religion, or rather philosophy, approaches more nearly to the TRUTH (the secret wisdom) than does any other exoteric form of belief. Hence the close connexion between the two. But on the other hand the T.S. is perfectly right in protesting against being mistaken for a merely Buddhist propaganda, . . . the Buddhism of today is none the less a rather dogmatic religion, split into many and heterogeneous sects. We follow the Buddha alone [i.e. in contrast with following any of the publicly known forms of Buddhism]. . . . is it not infinitely better to go back to the pure and unadulterated source of Buddhism itself, rather than halt at an intermediate stage? . . .

“Such then is the simple and very natural reason why the T.S. does not raise the standard of exoteric Buddhism and proclaim itself a follower of the Church of the Lord Buddha. It desires too sincerely to remain with that unadulterated “light” to allow itself to be absorbed by its distorted shadow.  . . .

“Buddhists may well be content with the dead letter of Siddartha Buddha’s teachings, as fortunately no higher or nobler ones in their effects upon the ethics of the masses exist, to this day. But herein lies the great mistake of all the Orientalists. There is an esoteric doctrine, a soul-ennobling philosophy, behind the outward body of ecclesiastical Buddhism. The latter, pure, chaste and immaculate as the virgin snow on the ice-capped crests of the Himalayan ranges, is, however, as cold and desolate as they with regard to the post-mortem condition of man. This secret system was taught to the Arhats alone, generally in the Saptaparna (Mahavansa’s Sattapani) cave, known to Fa-hian as the Chetu cave near the Mount Baibhar (in Pali Webhara), in Rajagriha, the ancient capital of Maghada, by the Lord Buddha himself, between the hours of Dhyana (or mystic contemplation). It is from this cave – called in the days of Sakyamuni, Saraswati or “Bamboo-cave” – that the Arhats initiated into the Secret Wisdom carried away their learning and knowledge beyond the Himalayan range [i.e. into the Trans-Himalayan regions once known as “Little Tibet,” and Tibet itself, and other parts of Central Asia], wherein the Secret Doctrine is taught to this day.” (“The Theosophical Society: Its Mission And Its Future”)

“Unwise are those who, in their blind and, in our age, untimely hatred of Buddhism, and, by reaction, of “Budhism,” deny its esoteric teachings (which are those also of the Brahmins), simply because the name suggests what to them, as Monotheists, are noxious doctrines. Unwise is the correct term to use in their case. For the Esoteric philosophy is alone calculated to withstand, in this age of crass and illogical materialism, the repeated attacks on all and everything man holds most dear and sacred, in his inner spiritual life. The true philosopher, the student of the Esoteric Wisdom, entirely loses sight of personalities, dogmatic beliefs and special religions. Moreover, Esoteric philosophy reconciles all religions, strips every one of its outward, human garments, and shows the root of each to be identical with that of every other great religion. It proves the necessity of an absolute Divine Principle in nature. It denies Deity no more than it does the Sun. Esoteric philosophy has never rejected God in Nature, nor Deity as the absolute and abstract Ens. . . . Indeed, the secret portions of the“Dan” or “Jan-na” (“Dhyan”) of Gautama’s metaphysics — grand as they appear to one unacquainted with the tenets of the Wisdom Religion of antiquity — are but a very small portion of the whole. . . .

“Dan, now become in modern Chinese and Tibetan phonetics ch’an, is the general term for the esoteric schools, and their literature. In the old books, the word Janna is defined as “to reform one’s self by meditation and knowledge,” a second inner birth. Hence Dzan, Djan phonetically, the “Book of Dzyan.” . . . 

“The Hindu [i.e. Indian] Reformer limited his public teachings to the purely moral and physiological aspect of the Wisdom-Religion, to Ethics and MAN alone. Things “unseen and incorporeal,” the mystery of Being outside our terrestrial sphere, the great Teacher left entirely untouched in his public lectures, reserving the hidden Truths for a select circle of his Arhats. The latter received their Initiation at the famous Saptaparna cave (the Sattapanni of Mahavansa) near Mount Baibhâr (the Webhâra of the Pali MSS.). This cave was in Rajagriha, the ancient capital of Mogadha, . . . Time and human imagination made short work of the purity and philosophy of these teachings, once that they were transplanted from the secret and sacred circle of the Arhats, during the course of their work of proselytism, into a soil less prepared for metaphysical conceptions than India; i.e., once they were transferred into China, Japan, Siam [i.e. Thailand], and Burmah. How the pristine purity of these grand revelations was dealt with may be seen in studying some of the so-called “esoteric” Buddhist schools of antiquity in their modern garb, not only in China and other Buddhist countries in general, but even in not a few schools in Thibet, left to the care of uninitiated Lamas and Mongolian innovators. [i.e. much of what is called “Esoteric Buddhism” in various countries, Tibet included, is not the real esotericism of the Buddha himself.]

“Thus the reader is asked to bear in mind the very important difference between orthodox Buddhism — i.e., the public teachings of Gautama the Buddha, and his esoteric Budhism. His Secret Doctrine, however, differed in no wise from that of the initiated Brahmins of his day. . . . the whole Buddhist reform merely consisted in giving out a portion of that which had been kept secret from every man outside of the “enchanted” circle of Temple-Initiates and ascetics. Unable to teach all that had been imparted to him — owing to his pledges — though he taught a philosophy built upon the ground-work of the true esoteric knowledge, the Buddha gave to the world only its outward material body and kept its soul for his Elect. Many Chinese scholars among Orientalists have heard of the “Soul [or Heart] Doctrine.” None seem to have understood its real meaning and importance. That doctrine was preserved secretly — too secretly, perhaps — within the sanctuary.” (“The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, Introductory, p. xix-xxi)

“[For a very long time] the Vedas and the Brahmanas remained in the sole and exclusive keeping of the temple-Brahmins — while no one else had the right to study or even read them outside of the sacred caste.

“Then came Gautama, the Prince of Kapilavastu. After learning the whole of the Brahmanical wisdom in the Rahasya or the Upanishads, and finding that the teachings differed little, if at all, from those of the “Teachers of Life” [“Also called “the Sons of Wisdom,” and of the “Fire-Mist” and the “Brothers of the Sun” in the Chinese records. Si-dzang (Tibet) is mentioned in the MSS. of the sacred library of the province of Fo-Kien, as the great seat of Occult learning from time immemorial, ages before Buddha. . . . the “great teachers of the Snowy Range” . . .”] inhabiting the snowy ranges of the Himalaya, the Disciple of the Brahmins, feeling indignant because the sacred wisdom was thus withheld from all but the Brahmins, determined to save the whole world by popularizing it. Then it was that the Brahmins, seeing that their sacred knowledge and Occult wisdom was falling into the hands of the “Mlechchhas,” abridged the texts of the Upanishads, originally containing thrice the matter of the Vedas and the Brahmanas together, without altering, however, one word of the texts. They simply detached from the MSS. [i.e. the abbreviation for “manuscripts”] the most important portions containing the last word of the Mystery of Being. The key to the Brahmanical secret code remained henceforth with the initiates alone, and the Brahmins were thus in a position to publicly deny the correctness of Buddha’s teaching by appealing to their Upanishads, silenced for ever on the chief questions. Such is the esoteric tradition beyond the Himalayas.” (“The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 271)

“When our great Buddha — the patron of all the adepts, the reformer and the codifier of the occult system, reached first Nirvâna on earth, he became a Planetary Spirit; i.e. — his spirit could at one and the same time rove the interstellar spaces in full consciousness, and continue at will on Earth in his original and individual body. For the divine Self had so completely disfranchised itself from matter that it could create at will an inner substitute for itself, and leaving it in the human form for days, weeks, sometimes years, affect in no wise by the change either the vital principle or the physical mind of its body. By the way, that is the highest form of adeptship man can hope for on our planet. But it is as rare as the Buddhas themselves, . . .” (Master K.H., “The Mahatma Letters” p. 43)

“If the simple, humane and philosophical code of daily life left to us by the greatest Man-Reformer ever known [i.e. in the ethical and public teachings of the Buddha], should ever come to be adopted by mankind at large, then indeed an era of bliss and peace would dawn on Humanity.” (H. P. Blavatsky, “The Theosophical Glossary” p. 67, Entry for “Buddha Siddharta”)

“[The Theosophical teaching, when derived directly from the initiated Adepts of the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood is] an exposition of certain tenets of the secret doctrine of Tibetan Buddhism – that of the Arhats which, as our readers know, is but another name for the “World Religion” or Occult Doctrine underlying all the ancient faiths of mankind.” (“Esoteric Buddhism” article)

“. . . the early Yogâcharya school of pure Buddhism, which is neither northern nor southern [i.e. neither Mahayana nor Theravada], but absolutely esoteric. Though none of the genuine Yogâchârya books have ever been made public or marketable [i.e. the original, most ancient, and purely esoteric Yogacharya or Yogācāra school is not the same as the publicly known – and long defunct – Yogācāra school of Aryasanga and Vasubandhu, and is entirely unknown to the world and to recorded history, as is its founder, the original Aryasanga, who HPB states to have been a contemporary and direct disciple of the Buddha himself] yet one finds in the Yogâchârya Bhûmi Shâstra of the pseudo-Âryasangha a great deal from the older system, into the tenets of which he may have been initiated [Note: The exoteric Yogācāra school introduced into public Buddhism the doctrine of Alaya or Alaya-vijnana, the doctrine of the Trikaya or three Buddha-bodies of Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, and Nirmanakaya, and numerous other terms and ideas which hold a special place – albeit in a somewhat different and more mystical form – in the Masters’ teachings of Theosophy]. . . . the Mahâyana religious works . . . these contain all and far more of the fundamental tenets of the Yogâchârya system, . . .” (“The Theosophical Glossary” p. 32-33, Entry for “Aryasangha”)

“[The phraseology of the Stanzas from the Secret Book of Dzyan, on which “The Secret Doctrine” is based, shows what things are] called by the Esoteric Yogâchâryas.” (“Old Philosophers and Modern Critics”)

“The original Precepts [i.e. of the Book of The Golden Precepts, from which “The Voice of The Silence” is translated] are engraved on thin oblong squares; copies very often on discs. These discs, or plates, are generally preserved on the altars of the temples attached to centres where the so-called “contemplative” or Mahayana (Yogacharya) schools are established.” (“The Voice of The Silence” Preface, p. ii)

~ * ~

This article may have raised more questions about various things. Please make use of the site search function (the magnifying glass symbol at the top of the page) and visit the Articles page to see the complete list of over 400 articles covering all aspects of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. You may particularly be interested in those listed under the heading “BUDDHISM AND TAOISM.”

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~