Religions and Spirituality

David Reigle

Part I:

I agree that the Christian orientation and language was a deliberate adaptation by DK to the historical and Theological fact of a Christian West. This is exactly why it is necessary to recognize this orientation in the Bailey books and make due allowance for it when dealing with other religions, such as Judaism or Buddhism. Judaism objects to Christ, and Buddhism objects to God, two main pillars of DK's presentation to the Christian West.

Regarding your second comment, referring to the Wikipedia article on "God in Buddhism," I do not have to remind anyone here of the level of reliability of Wikipedia articles. The whole first section of this article draws only on peripheral sources, nothing mainstream, and that only to show the possibility of a shared universal principle of enlightenment in Buddhism, still a far cry from God.

In your third comment block, the phrase including the word uniform, "truths which are uniform in all the world religions," followed by "The Fact of God, Immanent and Transcendent," is in fact DK's, and not my paraphrase. I quoted this from an old yellow-colored paperback of Problems of Humanity (p. 141). Possibly the pagination is different in the actual blue books.

Part II:

The quote you give from The Externalization of the Hierarchy in your last comment block is a good example of just what I am talking about:

"Then the Buddha came and demonstrated in His Own life the fact of God Immanent as well as God Transcendent; the idea of God in the universe and of God in humanity evolved."

To a Buddhist this proves beyond doubt DK's utter ignorance of Buddhism. No one who is actually informed about Buddhism could have said this; not unless trying to talk to people who don't know any better in their own language. So we must recognize to how great an extent DK's presentation through Bailey, geared to a Western Christian audience, has been adapted.

The source of the Bailey writings has always been clearly acknowledged. They do not come from outer space, like some writings today are purported to, such as those said to be channeled from the Pleiades. They come from an earthling, localized to a specific area on earth. He is not called an African, or a Russian, but a Tibetan. As such, anyone reading and evaluating these books (and we are expected by the author to evaluate them), can reasonably expect him to be familiar with things Tibetan. Who would take seriously a purported Russian scientist who does not know what vodka is? Even an atheist Marxist Russian would be expected to be familiar with Russian Orthodox Christianity. Similarly, "the Tibetan" would be expected to be familiar with Tibetan Buddhism. If his writings betray an ignorance of this, who would take them seriously? It would show that Bailey's source could not really be a Tibetan as claimed. If Bailey was deluded about her source, the credibility of her whole output would be undermined.

Here in this project we all agree that the Tibetan's insights into the Jewish problem are a deep and accurate reading of the picture, and as such are in no way prejudiced or biased against the Jews. We want to convince others of this. Part of this picture is the New World Religion in which Jews and Christians and Buddhists and everyone else will be united in their acceptance of certain basic truths, the first of which is "the Fact of God, Immanent and Transcendent." Yet any college student who has taken World Religions 101 knows that Buddhists, among others, do not accept the existence of God, whether immanent or transcendent. Must we then assume that they will eventually see the light and accept the existence of God in order to be part of the New World Religion? This is hardly credible.

Buddhism, along with the other two religions of ancient India, Jainism and Hinduism, has always had a strong tradition of reasoning, and has put forth many logical proofs of the non-existence of God. In contradistinction to this, the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have held the position that it is a sin to pry into the ways of God, and therefore reasoning has not been a part of those religions. They accept God on faith, not reasoning. So we are to believe that Buddhists and Jainas and others will relinquish their reasoned denials of God and accept God on faith? If the Bailey writings are so naive as to be oblivious to the fact of the denial of God by a significant segment of the world's population, a philosophically astute population no less, and one that D.K. himself is supposed to live among, how can anyone take his picture of the New World Religion seriously? And if this is called into question, what about his take on the Jewish problem?

The only way out of this is to recognize clearly the extent of the Christian orientation in the Bailey books. It must be explained to Jews, for example, that their constant talk of Christ is a result of their target audience. Personally, I regard D.K.'s presentation as one of the greatest examples of skillful means ever. He needed to reach with his message a certain number of thinking people in the English-speaking Western world at the time between World Wars I and II. This necessitated a Christian approach. It was the Allies, primarily the English-speaking Christian British and American forces, that militarily defeated the Black Lodge sponsored Axis powers in one of the greatest turning points in history. Now that this has been achieved, and the world has moved forward into a much more inter-related and tolerant stage, the Christian orientation is no longer needed. In brief, the ideas presented by the Tibetan can now be divested of their Christian garb. But to do this, the extent of their Christian orientation must be recognized.

Part III:

I'm not sure that Jews will be willing to see the Christ portrayed in the Bailey books as only Love or consciousness, and not the alleged historical figure Jesus Christ. DK talks not only about the reappearance of Christ as an individual, an avatar, but also of what Jesus did in Palestine when overshadowed by the Christ two thousand years ago. This is a particular being, not the principle of love. My understanding of the reason for Judaism's rejection of Jesus Christ is that there is no historical evidence for such a person as depicted in the Gospels. There is historical evidence only for a Jeshu ben-Panthera who preceded the Jesus Christ of the Gospels by about a century. Blavatsky agrees with the Jews on this, noting in her article "A Word with 'Zero'" (Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 4, pp. 358-365) that (1) the accurate historical writer Philo Judaeus, who lived at the same time as the alleged Jesus of the Gospels, never heard of him; (2) the sixteen lines about Jesus Christ in Josephus's history are an obvious forgery, admitted to be such even by Christian theologians; and (3) there is no record in the Mishnah, which recorded all heresies of the time, of any such teacher. I would be interested to hear from Uta more about the opposition to the Christ of the Bailey books that she faces among Jews there in Jerusalem. For example, would they be willing to say the Great Invocation if the word Messiah was put in place of Christ?

On your second comment block, Google Scholar is still in its infancy, and the vast majority of books and journals are not yet online, so it still has too little to give much of a representative picture. The only thing of significance I saw in the first thirty entries was a review of Paul Williams' book, The Unexpected Way, in which he recounts his conversion from Buddhism to Roman Catholicism. He taught Indian and Tibetan philosophy at the University of Bristol, and was for many years a practicing Buddhist. From the clip given, it seems that Buddhism's lack of God is what drove him back into the Christian fold:

"Williams, however, will have none of this. There is no role for God in Buddhism,
God is spiritually irrelevant, hence it is clearly atheistic. ... "

Here is a list of some articles from my files that are of more relevance. I would be happy to mail you photocopies of any of them.

Chemparathy, George. "Two Early Buddhist Refutations of the Existence of Isvara as the Creator of the Universe." Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, vol. 12-13, 1968/1969, pp. 85-100.

Cheng, Hsueh-Li. "Nagarjuna's Approach to the Problem of the Existence of God." Religious Studies, vol. 12, 1976, pp. 207-216.

Dharmasiri, Gunapala. A Buddhist Critique of the Christian Concept of God. Colombo: Lake House Investments Ltd, 1974; [2nd rev. ed.,] Antioch, California: Golden Leaves Publishing Company, 1988.

Dharmasiri, Gunapala, and Jonathan S. Walters. "God." In Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, ed. G. P. Malalasekera, vol. 5, fasc. 2, 1991, pp. 345-347. Published by the Government of Sri Lanka.

Glasenapp, Helmuth von. Buddhism‹A Non-Theistic Religion. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1970; translated by Irmgard Schloegl from the original German Buddhismus und Gottesidee. Wiesbaden, 1954.

Hayes, Richard P. "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition." Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 16, 1988, pp. 5-28.

Jackson, Roger. "Dharmakirti's Refutation of Theism." Philosophy East and West, vol. 36, no. 4, Oct. 1986, pp. 315-348.

Jackson, Roger. "Atheology and Buddhology in Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika." Faith and Philosophy, Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers, vol. 16, no. 4, Oct. 1999, pp. 472-505.

Thera, Nyanaponika. Buddhism and the God-Idea: Selected Texts. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1962; 2nd ed. 1970; The Wheel Publication no. 47 (included in The Wheel, vol. 3).

Similarly, I did not see in the new links you gave anything that supports the idea of God in Buddhism. Kalupahana's book, giving the index entry for Brahma as "the moral god of the Buddhism pantheon," actually refers a Hindu god whose existence is accepted in Buddhism, like all other devas, but not as God. The article on "God" from the Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, listed above under Dharmasiri, says about this:

"The Buddha and his followers borrowed the name [Brahma = God] from their Brahmanical counterparts in order to refute, not only their theology but the basis of all theologies: the idea of God."

I might suggest that you take the two quotes you gave here to the nearest Buddhist center, of any denomination, and ask their opinion about them. Even more instructive for any of us would be to take the Great Invocation to any Buddhist center, and ask if they would be willing to use it. We can even beforehand change Christ to Maitreya. The problem is with "God," which Buddhists simply do not accept. It is this that severely undermines DK's picture of the New World Religion, as well as the intended worldwide Great Invocation work.

In the full quote you give from Problems of Humanity, DK says that the Eastern faiths have ever emphasized God Immanent, the Self, the One, the Atma. In fact, it is only one school of one Eastern faith that has emphasized this God Immanent, the Self, the One, the Atma. This teaching is from Hinduism, specifically from the Vedanta school of Hinduism. It is exactly this teaching that Buddhists believe the Buddha most pointedly denied. The three pillars of the teachings of Buddhism, all Buddhism, are (1) suffering (duhkha); (2) impermanence (anitya); (3) no-self (anatman), i.e., no Atma. To these three the Mahayana or Northern Buddhists add a fourth, emptiness (sunyata). This emptiness, or S'unya, is not God, despite the words you quoted from Od.is'a Parishada calling this "the God of the Buddhist." I do not think you will find anyone else willing to call God the teaching that all things are empty of inherent existence. And since the denial of Atma is a major platform of Buddhism, Buddhists do not accept God Immanent. DK was here giving general teachings to a public that as yet had no knowledge of Buddhism.

Part IV: The Mahatma Letter Reference to Buddhism

Regarding what Buddhists do believe in, I know of no clearer statement than is found in Mahatma letter 10. I have pasted in the whole letter below, since perhaps not everyone here has easy access to it. All can judge for themselves whether they think this is exoteric or esoteric. On the specific question of why do Buddhists, if they do not believe in God, venerate the Buddha or the Dalai Lama like gods, this is addressed toward the end of Mahatma letter 10. Here is that particular part:

"If it is objected that we too have temples, we too have priests and that our lamas also live on charity . . . let them know that the objects above named have in common with their Western equivalents, but the name. Thus in our temples there is neither a god nor gods worshipped, only the thrice sacred memory of the greatest as the holiest man that ever lived."

Mahatma Letter Ten

Notes by K. H. on a "Preliminary Chapter" headed "God"
by Hume, intended to preface an exposition of
Occult Philosophy (abridged)
K. H. to A. O. Hume, Sep. 1882

Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H. Our philosophy falls under the definition of Hobbes. It is pre-eminently the science of effects by their causes and of causes by their effects, and since it is also the science of things deduced from first principle, as Bacon defines it, before we admit any such principle we must know it, and have no right to admit even its possibility. Your whole explanation is based upon one solitary admission made simply for argument's sake in October last. You were told that our knowledge was limited to this our solar system: ergo as philosophers who desired to remain worthy of the name we could not either deny or affirm the existence of what you termed a supreme, omnipotent, intelligent being of some sort beyond the limits of that solar system. But if such an existence is not absolutely impossible, yet unless the uniformity of nature¹s law breaks at those limits we maintain that it is highly improbable. Nevertheless we deny most emphatically the position of agnosticism in this direction, and as regards the solar system. Our doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth. Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahma is not a God, but absolute immutable law, and Isvara is the effect of Avidya and Maya, ignorance based upon the great delusion. The word "God" was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them, and since we claim and that we are able to prove what we claim--i.e., the knowledge of that cause and causes--we are in a position to maintain there is no God or Gods behind them.

The idea of God is not an innate but an acquired notion, and we have but one thing in common with theologies--we reveal the infinite. But while we assign to all the phenomena that proceed from the infinite and limitless space, duration and motion, material, natural, sensible and known (to us at least) causes, the theists assign them spiritual, super-natural and unintelligible and un-known causes. The God of the Theologians is imply an imaginary power, un loup garou as d'Holbach expressed it--a power which has never yet manifested itself. Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of this nightmare, to teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery. Pantheistic we may be called--agnostic never. If people are willing to accept and to regard as God our one life immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that there is not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than God; or as that famous and unfortunate philosopher says in his fourteenth proposition, "praeter Deum neque dari neque concipi potest substantia"--and thus become Pantheists . . . Who but a Theologian nursed on mystery and the most absurd supernaturalism can imagine a self-existent being of necessity infinite and omnipresent outside the manifested boundless universe. The word infinite is but a negative which excludes the idea of bounds. It is evident that a being independent and omnipresent cannot be limited by anything which is outside of himself; that there can be nothing exterior to himself--not even vacuum, then where is there room for matter? for that manifested universe even though the latter [be] limited? If we ask the theist is your God vacuum, space or matter, they will reply no. And yet they hold that their God penetrates matter though he is not himself matter. When we speak of our One Life we also say that it penetrates, nay is the essence of every atom of matter; and that therefore it not only has correspondence with matter but has all its properties likewise, etc.--hence is material, is matter itself. How can intelligence proceed or emanate from non-intelligence--you kept asking last year. How could a highly intelligent humanity, man the crown of reason, be evolved out of blind unintelligent law or force! But once we reason on that line, I may ask in my turn, how could congenital idiots, non-reasoning animals, and the rest of "creation" have been created by or evoluted from, absolute Wisdom, if the latter is a thinking intelligent being, the author and ruler of the Universe? How? says Dr. Clarke in his examination of the proof of the existence of the Divinity. "God who hath made the eye, shall he not see? God who hath made the ear shall he not hear?" But according to this mode of reasoning they would have to admit that in creating an idiot God is an idiot; that he who made so many irrational beings, so many physical and moral monsters, must be an irrational being. . . .

. . . We are not Advaitis, but our teaching respecting the one life is identical with that of the Advaiti with regard to Parabrahma. And no true philosophically trained Advaiti will ever call himself an agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahma and identical in every respect with the universal life and soul--the macrocosm is the microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on it and become agnostics.

. . . Were we to admit that even the highest Dhyani Chohans are liable to err under a delusion, then there would be no reality for us indeed and the occult sciences would be as great a chimera as that God. If there is an absurdity in denying that which we do not know it is still more extravagant to assign to it unknown laws.

According to logic "nothing" is that of which everything can truly be denied and nothing can truly be affirmed. The idea therefore either of a finite or infinite nothing is a contradiction in terms. And yet according to theologians "God, the self existent being is a most simple, unchangeable, incorruptible being; without parts, figure, motion, divisibility, or any other such properties as we find in matter. For all such things so plainly and necessarily imply finiteness in their very notion and are utterly inconsistent with complete infinity." Therefore the God here offered to the adoration of the XIXth century lacks every quality upon which man's mind is capable of fixing any judgment. What is this in fact but a being of whom they can affirm nothing that is not instantly contradicted. Their own Bible, their Revelation, destroys all the moral perfections they heap upon him, unless indeed they call those qualities perfections that every other man's reason and common sense call imperfections, odious vices and brutal wickedness. Nay more, he who reads our Buddhist scriptures written for the superstitious masses will fail to find in them a demon so vindictive, unjust, so cruel and so stupid as the celestial tyrant upon whom the Christians prodigally lavish their servile worship and on whom their theologians heap those perfections that are contradicted on every page of their Bible. Truly and veritably your theology has created her God but to destroy him piecemeal. Your church is the fabulous Saturn, who begets children but to devour them.

(The Universal Mind)--A few reflections and arguments ought to support every new idea--for instance we are sure to be taken to task for the following apparent contradictions. (1) We deny the existence of a thinking conscious God, on the grounds that such a God must either be conditioned, limited and subject to change, therefore not infinite, or (2) if he is represented to us as an eternal unchangeable and independent being, with not a particle of matter in him, then we answer that it is no being but an immutable blind principle, a law. And yet, they will say, we believe in Dhyanis, or Planetaries ("spirits" also), and endow them with a universal mind, and this must be explained.

Our reasons may be briefly summed up thus:

(1) We deny the absurd proposition that there can be, even in a boundless and eternal universe--two infinite eternal and omnipresent existences.

(2) Matter we know to be eternal, i.e., having had no beginning (a) because matter is Nature herself (b) because that which cannot annihilate itself and is indestructible exists necessarily--and therefore it could not begin to be, nor can it cease to be (c) because the accumulated experience of countless ages, and that of exact science show to us matter (or nature) acting by her own peculiar energy, of which not an atom is ever in an absolute state of rest, and therefore it must have always existed, i.e., its materials ever changing form, combinations and properties, but its principles or elements being absolutely indestructible.

(3) As to God--since no one has ever or at any time seen him or it--unless he or it is the very essence and nature of this boundless eternal matter, its energy and motion, we cannot regard him as either eternal or infinite or yet self existing. We refuse to admit a being or an existence of which we know absolutely nothing; because (a) there is no room for him in the presence of that matter whose undeniable properties and qualities we know thoroughly well (b) because if he or it is but a part of that matter it is ridiculous to maintain that he is the mover and ruler of that of which he is but a dependent part and (c) because if they tell us that God is a self existent pure spirit independent of matter--an extra-cosmic deity, we answer that admitting even the possibility of such an impossibility, i.e., his existence, we yet hold that a purely immaterial spirit cannot be an intelligent conscious ruler nor can he have any of the attributes bestowed upon him by theology, and thus such a God becomes again but a blind force. Intelligence as found in our Dhyani Chohans, is a faculty that can appertain but to organized or animated being--however imponderable or rather invisible the materials of their organizations. Intelligence requires the necessity of thinking; to think one must have ideas; ideas suppose senses which are physical material, and how can anything material belong to pure spirit? If it be objected that thought cannot be a property of matter, we will ask the reason why? We must have an unanswerable proof of this assumption, before we can accept it. Of the theologian we would enquire what was there to prevent his God, since he is the alleged creator of all--to endow matter with the faculty of thought; and when answered that evidently it has not pleased Him to do so, that it is a mystery as well as an impossibility, we would insist upon being told why it is more impossible that matter should produce spirit and thought, than spirit or the thought of God should produce and create matter.

We do not bow our heads in the dust before the mystery of mind--for we have solved it ages ago. Rejecting with contempt the theistic theory we reject as much the automaton theory, teaching that states of consciousness are produced by the marshalling of the molecules of the brain; and we feel as little respect for that other hypothesis--the production of molecular motion by consciousness. Then what do we believe in? Well, we believe in the much laughed at phlogiston (see article "What is force and what is matter?" Theosophist, September), and in what some natural philosophers would call nisus, the incessant though perfectly imperceptible (to the ordinary senses) motion or efforts one body is making on another--the pulsations of inert matter--its life. The bodies of the Planetary spirits are formed of that which Priestly and others called Phlogiston and for which we have another name--this essence in its highest seventh state forming that matter of which the organisms of the highest and purest Dhyanis are composed, and in its lowest or densest form (so impalpable yet that science calls it energy and force) serving as a cover to the Planetaries of the 1st or lowest degree. In other words we believe in matter alone, in matter as visible nature and matter in its invisibility as the invisible omnipresent omnipotent Proteus with its unceasing motion which is its life, and which nature draws from herself since she is the great whole outside of which nothing can exist. For as Bilfinger truly asserts, "motion is a manner of existence that flows necessarily out of the essence of matter; that matter moves by its own peculiar energies; that its motion is due to the force which is inherent in itself; that the variety of motion and the phenomena that result proceed from the diversity of the properties of the qualities and of the combinations which are originally found in the primitive matter" of which nature is the assemblage and of which your science knows less than one of our Tibetan Yak-drivers of Kant's metaphysics.

The existence of matter then is a fact; the existence of motion is another fact, their self existence and eternity or indestructibility is a third fact. And the idea of pure spirit as a Being or an Existence--give it whatever name you will--is a chimera, a gigantic absurdity.

Our ideas on Evil. Evil has no existence per se and is but the absence of good and exists but for him who is made its victim. It proceeds from two causes, and no more than good is it an independent cause in nature. Nature is destitute of goodness or malice; she follows only immutable laws when she either gives life and joy, or sends suffering [and] death, and destroys what she has created. Nature has an antidote for every poison and her laws a reward for every suffering. The butterfly devoured by a bird becomes that bird, and the little bird killed by an animal goes into a higher form. It is the blind law of necessity and the eternal fitness of things, and hence cannot be called Evil in Nature. The real evil proceeds from human intelligence and its origin rests entirely with reasoning man who dissociates himself from Nature. Humanity, then, alone is the true source of evil. Evil is the exaggeration of good, the progeny of human selfishness and greediness. Think profoundly and you will find that save death--which is no evil but a necessary law, and accidents which will always find their reward in a future life--the origin of every evil whether small or great is in human action, in man whose intelligence makes him the one free agent in Nature. It is not nature that creates diseases, but man. The latter's mission and destiny in the economy of nature is to die his natural death brought by old age; save accident, neither a savage nor a wild (free) animal dies of disease. Food, sexual relations, drink, are all natural necessities of life; yet excess in them brings on disease, misery, suffering, mental and physical, and the latter are transmitted as the greatest evils to future generations, the progeny of the culprits. Ambition, the desire of securing happiness and comfort for those we love, by obtaining honours and riches, are praiseworthy natural feelings, but when they transform man into an ambitious cruel tyrant, a miser, a selfish egotist they bring untold misery on those around him; on nations as well as on individuals. All this then--food, wealth, ambition, and a thousand other things we have to leave unmentioned, becomes the source and cause of evil whether in its abundance or through its absence. Become a glutton, a debauchee, a tyrant, and you become the originator of diseases, of human suffering and misery. Lack all this and you starve, you are despised as a nobody and the majority of the herd, your fellow men, make of you a sufferer your whole life. Therefore it is neither nature nor an imaginary Deity that has to be blamed, but human nature made vile by selfishness. Think well over these few words; work out every cause of evil you can think of and trace it to its origin and you will have solved one-third of the problem of evil. And now, after making due allowance for evils that are natural and cannot be avoided,--and so few are they that I challenge the whole host of Western metaphysicians to call them evils or to trace them directly to an independent cause--I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. It is the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that man looks upon as sacred, that he has to search out the source of that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind. Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of the opportunity. Look at India and look at Christendom and Islam, at Judaism and Fetichism. It is priestly imposture that rendered these Gods so terrible to man; it is religion that makes of him the selfish bigot, the fanatic that hates all mankind out of his own sect without rendering him any better or more moral for it. It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them. Is not man ever ready to commit any kind of evil if told that his God or Gods demand the crime--voluntary victim of an illusionary God, the abject slave of his crafty ministers? The Irish, Italian and Slavonian peasant will starve himself and see his family starving and naked to feed and clothe his padre and pope. For two thousand years India groaned under the weight of caste, Brahmans alone feeding on the fat of the land, and today the followers of Christ and those of Mohammad are cutting each other¹s throats in the names of and for the greater glory of their respective myths. Remember the sum of human misery will never be diminished unto that day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of Truth, morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false gods.

If it is objected that we too have temples, we too have priests and that our lamas also live on charity . . . let them know that the objects above named have in common with their Western equivalents, but the name. Thus in our temples there is neither a god nor gods worshipped, only the thrice sacred memory of the greatest as the holiest man that ever lived. If our lamas to honour the fraternity of the Bhikkhus established by our blessed master himself, go out to be fed by the laity, the latter often to the number of 5 to 25,000 is fed and taken care of by the Sangha (the fraternity of lamaic monks), the lamasery providing for the wants of the poor, the sick, the afflicted. Our lamas accept food, never money, and it is in those temples that the origin of evil is preached and impressed upon the people. There they are taught the four noble truths--ariya sacca, and the chain of causation, (the 12 nidanas) gives them a solution of the problem of the origin and destruction of suffering.

Read the Mahavagga and try to understand, not with the prejudiced Western mind but the spirit of intuition and truth what the Fully Enlightened one says in the 1st Khandhaka. Allow me to translate it for you.

"At the time the blessed Buddha was at Uruvela on the shores of the river Neranjara as he rested under the Bodhi tree of wisdom after he had become Sambuddha, at the end of the seventh day having his mind fixed on the chain of causation he spoke thus: 'from Ignorance spring the samkharas of threefold nature--productions of body, of speech, of thought. From the samkharas springs consciousness, from consciousness springs name and form, from this spring the six regions (of the six senses, the seventh being the property of but the enlightened); from these springs contact from this sensation; from this springs thirst (or desire, kama, tanha) from thirst attachment, existence, birth, old age and death, grief, lamentation, suffering, dejection and despair. Again by the destruction of ignorance, the samkharas are destroyed, and their consciousness, name and form, the six regions, contact, sensation, thirst, attachment (selfishness), existence, birth, old age, death, grief, lamentation, suffering, dejection, and despair are destroyed. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.'"

Knowing this the Blessed One uttered this solemn utterance:

"When the real nature of things becomes clear to the meditating Bhikshu, then all his doubts fade away since he has learned what is that nature and what its cause. From ignorance spring all the evils. From knowledge comes the cessation of this mass of misery, and then the meditating Brahman stands dispelling the hosts of Mara like the sun that illuminates the sky."

Meditation here means the superhuman (not supernatural) qualities, or arhatship in its highest of spiritual powers.

Part V: More response on 'God' in Buddhism.

Dear James [JD],

We are in total agreement on the fundamental value of DK's writings, and I do not wish to come off as wanting to disagree or argue with the things you bring up in your posts. I do, however, wish to comment on one more thing, the book you quoted, How to Know God, as I believe that this book is a prime example of a misleading translation. I think this case has relevance to the Bailey works as well.

Among the forty or so translations of the Yoga-Sutras that I have collected, the Swami Prabhavananda/Christopher Isherwood translation, titled How to Know God, ranks among the most interpretive. The actual Yoga-Sutras are not about how to know God. They are about the science of meditation, by which one knows the soul. A comparison with DK's paraphrase of the Yoga-Sutras found in The Light of the Soul will show just how interpretive the Prabhavananda/Isherwood translation is.

DK nowhere in his paraphrase uses the word God. He once, in 1.19 refers to the Gods. The Sanskrit word Ishvara, often translated as God, is found in the Yoga-Sutras only five times: 1.23, 1.24, 2.1, 2.32, 2.45. In all of these places DK retains the word Ishvara rather than translates it as God. The reason for this is clear in his rendering of 1.24: "This Ishvara is the Soul." The verses 1.23 to 1.27 describe devotion to Ishvara as a means of yoga, while the other verses, in book 2, are only mentions of it. The meaning, then, is devotion to the Soul, not to God.

The Prabhavananda/Isherwood translation is, to my regret, typical of many translations of Sanskrit books, especially by Hindus. Modern Hindus, like Christians, are often quite theistic in their outlook. They believe in God, and find Him everywhere. Unfortunately, this does not do justice to the Sanskrit books they translate. Their forebears were much less theistic than they are. My shelves are filled with so-called translations of Sanskrit books by Hindus that bring in God frequently. A check with the original Sanskrit often shows that no such word is found there. God is often brought in as an explanation by the translator, but the poor reader has no way of knowing that this in only the translator's gloss, and is not in the original.

Similarly, the quote you give from The Secret Doctrine, including the phrase "with the spirit of God within himself," is the work of a translator, Polier. It is not by HPB, but is only quoted by her. She follows this quotation with, "This is exoteric, of course." HPB's own position, as can be gleaned from the vast majority of her statements, is non-theistic. In other words, she does not believe in God, although she, too, like DK, was willing to use "deity" and even "God" sometimes.

It seems to me that, seeing what theistic Hindu translators like Swami Prabhavananda do to non-theistic Sanskrit texts, we have to be aware of the possibility that DK allowed the use of theistic terminology, such as God, in his work with the theistic Christian amanuensis Alice Bailey. This would mean that DK's own position may not be as theistic as it appears from these writings.

The relevance of this for the current project is that, similarly, DK's emphasis on Christ in these books may not be quite what it appears. They were written for a primarily Christian audience, and would no doubt be quite different if written for a Jewish audience, just as they would be quite different if written for a Buddhist audience.

Part VI: 'God' and 'Buddhism' in "Keys to Theosophy" (From JD as part of a dialogue with DR)

It may be worth while to review the following from HPB's "Key to Theosophy." The first section is on "God" and the second is on exoteric and esoteric Buddhism.

God

"Q. Do you believe in God? A. That depends what you mean by the term..."

"...The Common Origin of Man.

Q. How?

A. Simply by demonstrating on logical, philosophical, metaphysical, and even scientific grounds that: (a) All men have spiritually and physically the same origin, which is the fundamental teaching of Theosophy. (b) As mankind is essentially of one and the same essence, and that essence is one-infinite, uncreate, and eternal, whether we call it God or Nature"

"'The Theosophy of the Sages' he speaks of is well expressed in the assertion, 'The Kingdom of God is within us'"

Buddhism, etc.

"Such people could never be entrusted with divine secrets.

2. Their unreliability to keep the sacred and divine knowledge from desecration.

It is the latter that led to the perversion of the most sublime truths and symbols, and to the gradual transformation of things spiritual into anthropomorphic, concrete, and gross imagery-in other words, to the dwarfing of the god-idea and to idolatry.

Theosophy is Not Buddhism

Q. You are often spoken of as "Esoteric Buddhists." Are you then all followers of Gautama Buddha?

A. No more than musicians are all followers of Wagner. Some of us are Buddhists by religion; yet there are far more Hindus and Brahmins than Buddhists among us, and more Christian-born Europeans and Americans than converted Buddhists. The mistake has arisen from a misunderstanding of the real meaning of the title of Mr. Sinnett's excellent work, Esoteric Buddhism, which last word ought to have been spelt with one, instead of two, d's, as then Budhism would have meant what it was intended for, merely "Wisdom-ism" (Bodha, bodhi, "intelligence," "wisdom") instead of Buddhism, Gautama's religious philosophy. Theosophy, as already said, is the wisdom-religion.

Q. 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?

A. 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.

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

A. They may as well deny that Nature has any hidden secrets for the men of science. Further on I will prove it by Buddha's conversation with his disciple Ananda. 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. Those who deny it are simply ignorant pretenders to Orientalism. I advise you to read the Rev. Mr. Edkin's Chinese Buddhism-especially the chapters on the Exoteric and Esoteric schools and teachings-and then compare the testimony of the whole ancient world upon the subject.

Q. Are there any great points of difference? A. 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 postmortem 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. But the schools of the Northern Buddhist Church, established in those countries to which his initiated Arhats retired after the Master's death, teach all that is now called Theosophical doctrines, because they form part of the knowledge of the initiates-thus proving how 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. Yet Theosophy is not Buddhism.

Exoteric and Esoteric Theosophy

What the Modern Theosophical Society is Not Q. Your doctrines, then, are not a revival of Buddhism, nor are they entirely copied from the Neo-Platonic Theosophy?

A. They are not. But to these questions I cannot give you a better answer than by quoting from a paper read on "Theosophy" by Dr. J.D. Buck, F.T.S., No living Theosophist has better expressed and understood the real essence of Theosophy than our honored friend Dr. Buck:

The Theosophical Society was organized for the purpose of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the promotion of the Theosophic life. The present Theosophical Society is not the first of its kind. I have a volume entitled: Theosophical Transactions of the Philadelphian Society, published in London in 1697; and another with the following title:

Introduction to Theosophy, or the Science of the Mystery of Christ; that is, of Deity, Nature, and Creature, embracing the philosophy of all the working powers of life..."

Part VII:

I agree that we can hardly dispense with the word God, not while working in the Western world. Certainly DK worked to resurrect and reform the definition of God. It will be with us for a long time. No doubt his depiction of the New World Religion with the fact of God as a major platform will come about, with a redefined God. I think, however, this may be more restricted to the reform of the world's theistic religions, and as such will not be a universal New World Religion. I really cannot see Buddhists, Jainas, Confucianists, Taoists, etc., taking up God in any form, when they have for millenniums rejected Him.

Thanks also for the quotes from HPB's Key to Theosophy, although I do not read these the same way as you do. This book was written by request, for a more popular audience. In light of her many other statements elsewhere, I do not see her changing her views in this book. It is here, it seems, that you and I will have to agree to disagree. I regard God as the exoteric teaching, and no-God as the esoteric teaching. So I regard the use of "God" in DK's teachings as a concession to his target audience, and not his actual esoteric teachings. These must be read between the lines in his own books, despite the fact that they are esoteric books, using the occasional definitions he supplies. This is my own personal view, that I had no intention of ever bringing up. But it came up, so there it is. I have no wish to push it.

Comment from PL:

It seems that is the use of the word God which is the main stumbling block. As the Master KH (allegedly?)says in the letter #10, "The word "God" was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them." Ultimately everyone is talking about the same thing, its just that most people do not understand the esoteric subtleties. Perhaps it is a difference between mystical and occult perceptions. Take for instance another passage from the ongoing explanation, what average person would understand this:

"As to God--since no one has ever or at any time seen him or it--unless he or it is the very essence and nature of this boundless eternal matter, its energy and motion, we cannot regard him as either eternal or infinite or yet self existing. We refuse to admit a being or an existence of which we know absolutely nothing; because (a) there is no room for him in the presence of that matter whose undeniable properties and qualities we know thoroughly well (b) because if he or it is but a part of that matter it is ridiculous to maintain that he is the mover and ruler of that of which he is but a dependent part and (c) because if they tell us that God is a self existent pure spirit independent of matter--an extra-cosmic deity, we answer that admitting even the possibility of such an impossibility, i.e., his existence, we yet hold that a purely immaterial spirit cannot be an intelligent conscious ruler nor can he have any of the attributes bestowed upon him by theology, and thus such a God becomes again but a blind force."

As esoteric students, how many of us really fully understand this anyway? The irony in discussing religious thought is that we must be careful of getting caught up in our own theologies. Yet we must understand theology as it is one of the bridges whereby communication is made to the exoteric view. Another quote from this letter 10 affirms this view:

"The God of the Theologians is imply an imaginary power, un loup garou as d'Holbach expressed it--a power which has never yet manifested itself. Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of this nightmare, to teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery."

Back