When we use the term Buddhists, we do not mean to imply by it either the exoteric Buddhism instituted by the followers of Gautama Buddha, nor the modern Buddhistic religion, but the secret philosophy of Shakyamuni, which in its essence is certainly identical with the ancient wisdom-religion of the sanctuary, the pre-Vedic Brahmanism.[63]
While ambiguous, Blavatsky is nothing if not consistently ambiguous. Twelve years later, at the end of her life, HPB wrote much the same thing in one of her final works, The Key to Theosophy (1889):
[Question:] '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?'
[Answer:] '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 latter ritualism and dogmatic theology of the Churches and Sects. Buddha means the 'Enlightened' by Bodha, or understanding, Wisdom. This has passed on root and branch into the esoteric teachings that Gautama imparted to his chosen Arhats only.'[64]
Once again, Blavatsky wants to claim that there is a 'Budhism' (one d) and yet continually refers to its presence within an alleged 'esoteric Buddhism.' She will open her magnum opus, The Secret Doctrine, in the same manner, by referring on just the second page of text to "Budha, 'Wisdom,' or knowledge (Vidya), the faculty of cognizing, from the Sanskrit root 'Budh,' to know."[65] Then, just three pages later, HPB speaks of the esoteric Budhism (one d) of Gautama the Buddha!
In other places HPB further confounds the reader. She states that "Budhism would mean 'Wisdom', from Budha, 'a sage', 'a wise man', and the imperative verb, 'Budhyadhvam', 'Know'."[66] Elsewhere, however, she identifies the "Wisdom Religion" again as 'Budhism,' but this time allegedly related to the Puranic figure of Budha (illegitimate son of Soma and Brihaspati's wife Tara), who symbolizes the planet Mercury and hence, Wisdom.[67] Curiously, though, HPB never refers to any doctrines taught by 'Budha,' but refers again and again to the supposed esotericism taught by Gautama Buddha to his elite disciples, whose texts and doctrines she mentions in detail, as we shall see in the following sections of this chapter. So it is quite strange, then, that HPB feels constrained to protest against the title of A.P. Sinnett's landmark Theosophical work, Esoteric Buddhism (1883). She repeats the comment of a Pali scholar [identity unknown] and adds her own judgment as welclass="underline"
There was in the volume named 'neither esotericism nor Buddhism.' The esoteric truths, presented in Mr. Sinnett's work, had ceased to be esoteric from the moment they were made public; nor did it contain the religion of Buddha, but simply a few tenets from a hitherto hidden teaching which are now supplemented by many more, enlarged and explained in the present volumes [Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine].[68]
And yet, it is this very "hidden teaching" (that she now supplements) which in just a few pages she will ascribe to the secret instructions of Gautama.
However confusing, even contradictory HPB's assertions, her central points are these: (1) there is a hidden side to Buddhism, and (2) like all Mahayanists, she claims it was there from the beginning (whether that beginning is with the historical Gautama, or a timeless Dharma) and (3) this "Wisdom Religion" is the inheritance of all nations the world over.[69] These three things no scholar of the 19th century would claim. They would not even acknowledge such claims made by Buddhist sources. In sum: despite her praiseworthy attempt to launch a non-sectarian platform for the study of world religions, Blavatsky herself was essentially interested in the esoteric Mahayanist doctrines which she attribued directly to the living disciples of Gautama Buddha who dwelt "beyond the snowy range." It was these doctrines, and no other, which she labeled the Secret Doctrine.
Whatever HPB's public posturing in relation to the neutral stance held by the Theosophical Society, there is absolutely no ambiguity about her personal religious affiliation. Barely a week after arriving in Sri Lanka from New York (May 17, 1880), HPB and Colonel Olcott took pansil (panca-sila, the layman's five precepts) at the Buddhist temple in Galle, and took refuge in the Triple Jewel – the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. A great crowd was gathered to witness the historic event, and apparently it was quite a scene. Rick Fields writes,
…It was the first time the Sinhalese had seen one of the ruling white race treat Buddhism with anything approaching respect, and it was (as far as we have been able to discover) the first time that Americans had become Buddhists in the formal sense - that is, in a manner recognized by other Buddhists.[70]
Blavatsky's Mahatmas in their letters also make explicit reference to Blavatsky as a Buddhist, but continue to distance their 'Occult Brotherhood' from Buddhism plain and simple. This is clear, for example, in one letter dated December 7th, 1883:
There are even at the present moment three centres of the Occult Brotherhood in existence, widely separated geographically, and as widely exoterically – the true esoteric doctrine being identical in substance though differing in terms; all aiming at the same grand object, but no two agreeing seemingly in the details of procedure. It is an every day occurrence to find students belonging to different schools of occult thought sitting side by side at the feet of the same Guru. Upasika (Madame B.)[71] and Subba Row [a Hindu, for a time an ardent Theosophist], though pupils of the same Master, have not followed the same Philosophy – the one is Buddhist and the other an Adwaitee.[72]
But again, like Blavatsky herself, her direct teachers appear to be particularly Buddhist, even if their entire 'Brotherhood' is not. KH refers to "our Great Patron – 'the Savior of the World - the Teacher of Nirvana and the Law'"[73] and to the Theosophical Mahatmas as Bodhisattvas,[74]Khobilgans,[75]Chutuktus,[76]Lhas,[77]Byang-chubs and Tchang-chubs.[78] Not only do they call themselves disciples of Mahayana Buddhism in various languages, but they appear quite sectarian despite their protests like the one above. In a letter from Master M, there is the following statement, criticizing certain orthodox Hindus who voiced their disappointment in never meeting a Theosophical "Mahatma" in the flesh:
What have we, the disciples of the true Arhats, of esoteric Buddhism and of Sang-gyas [Tib. "Buddha"], to do with the Shastras and Orthodox Brahmanism? There are 100 of thousands of Fakirs, Sannyasis, or Sadhus, leading the most pure lives and yet being as they are, on the path of error, never having had an opportunity to meet, see or even hear of us. Their forefathers have driven away the followers of the only true philosophy upon earth from India and now it is not for the latter to come to them, but for them to come to us, if they want us. Which of them is ready to become a Buddhist, a Nastika, as they call us? None. Those who have believed and have followed us have had their reward.[79]
75
Barker,
76
Barker,
77
Barker,
78
Barker,
79
Barker,