ESOTERIC BUDDHISM
We have said from the start that there is no Theosophist doctrine properly speaking, and through some of the examples of the variations and contradictions we have dealt with, whether from Mme Blavatsky herself or between her and her successors, it is already clear enough that the word 'doctrine' cannot be applied to such a case. But the Theosophical Society definitely claims to have a doctrine, or rather, claims to have and yet not have one at the same time. What Mme Blavatsky herself says is this:
What is meant by the Society having no tenets or doctrines of its own is that no special doctrines or beliefs are obligatory on its members; but, of course, this applies only to the body as a whole. The Society, as you were told, is divided into an outer and an inner body. Those who belong to the latter have, of course, a philosophy, or-if you prefer it-a religions system of their own. [1]
Thus, belief in this doctrine is 'obligatory', at least for those members who wish to go further than the 'outer circle'; in the latter they no doubt give proof in principle of the greatest tolerance by admitting people who profess any and every opinion; but even here this tolerance very quickly disappears if these people should dispute certain 'teachings', and as is well known that when this happens, these people are given to understand that their place is not in the bosom of the Society. As for the 'esoteric section', those who have given the
least indication of a critical turn of mind can be sure that they will never penetrate therein; moreover, the request for admission that candidates are required to sign includes a formula by which they must expressly assent to the authenticity of teachings about which they are not yet supposed to know anything! [2]
This so-called 'particular religious system', which constitutes the official doctrine of Theosophy and is presented quite simply as 'the essence of all religion and of absolute truth,'[3] bears the most visible traces of the multiple and discordant sources from which it has arisen. Far from being the 'common origin' of all doctrines, as they would have us believe, it is only the result of borrowings made with no great discernment and to which they have tried to give an artificial appearance of unity, a unity which does not hold up under scrutiny. It is after all only a confused mixture of Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Jewish Kabbalah, Hermeticism, and occultism, the whole of it being gathered as well as can be expected around two or three ideas which, whether one likes it or not, are of completely
modern and purely Western origin. From the start this heteroclite mixture was presented as 'esoteric Buddhism'; but since it was still too easy to see that it presented only very vague relationships with true Buddhism, an explanation was needed as to how it might be related to Buddhism even while not being so:
The mistake [which consists in believing that we are all disciples of Gautama Buddha] 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 "Wisdomism" (Bodha, bodhi, "intelligence," "wisdom") instead of Buddhism, Gautama's religious philosophy. ... [4]
In order to show the paltry value of this subtle distinction, it is enough to say that in Sanskrit there is also the word buddhi, which is written (or rather transcribed) with two d's, to designate intellect; and in connection with this last term let us in passing note that Mrs Besant has elected to translate it as 'pure reason', whereas its exact meaning is 'intellectual intuition'. A change in terminology is not enough to dissipate the confusion! In all strictness, 'Budhism' (with a single d) could only mean the 'doctrine of Mercury' (a 'Sanskritized' equivalent), if one can express it so, of Greco-Egyptian 'Hermeticism'; but such an interpretation seems never to have occurred to Theosophists, for we do not think there was an intentional and direct allusion to the teachings of another 'Mercury', who at the time was only known under the name of Koot Hoomi, and this is truly a shame, for such an allusion would not have been devoid of a certain ingenuity.
The remarks cited above did not prevent Mme Blavatsky herself from helping to maintain this equivocation by explaining soon afterward that Buddhism (with two d's) includes at once both exoteric and esoteric teachings, in such a way that one is quite naturally led to ask up to what point 'exoteric Buddhism' and 'esoteric Buddhism' can truly be distinct from each other. Furthermore, Sinnett
had in fact presented the so-called 'esoteric doctrine', which he had been charged to expound, as stemming from Buddhism properly speaking, or from one of its branches, and as at the same time forming a link between Buddhism and Brahmanism. He even established this link in the most extraordinary way, making of Shankarāchārya, one of the most intrepid adversaries of Buddhism in India, a 'second incarnation' of the Buddha, [5] and this according to the assertions of a Brahman 'initiate' from southern India, a 'first-rate Sanskrit scholar as well as an occultist, [6] who was none other than Subba Rao. Despite everything, Sinnett could not avoid acknowledging that 'this manner of seeing things is by no means accepted by noninitiated Hindu authorities,' that is to say, in reality, by non-Theosophists; but no Hindu with any authority has ever had anything but the deepest scorn for Theosophy, and besides, it is certainly not to Madras that one need go to find 'distinguished Sanskritists'. Truly, it is all too easy to forestall the objections of one's adversaries, to proclaim that they are not 'initiated', but perhaps it would be a little less easy to point to initiates of this kind who have no connection with the Theosophic milieu.
Actually, the truth is that there never was any authentic 'esoteric Buddhism'. Should someone wish to find esoterism, this is not where he should turn, for in its origins Buddhism was essentially a popular doctrine serving as theoretical support for a social movement with egalitarian tendencies. In India it was a simple heresy having no real connection with the Brahmanic tradition, [7] a tradition with which on the contrary it had openly broken, not only from the social point of view by rejecting the institution of the castes, but even from the purely doctrinal point of view in denying the authority of the 'Vedas'. Furthermore, Buddhism represents something so contrary to the Hindu spirit that it has long disappeared from the country in which it arose; only in Ceylon and Burma does it still exist in a nearly pure state, for in all the other
lands to which it has spread it has been modified to the point of becoming completely unrecognizable. In Europe one generally has the tendency to exaggerate the importance of Buddhism, which is certainly the least interesting of all the Eastern doctrines, but which precisely because it constitutes a deviation and anomaly for the East can seem more accessible to the Western mentality and less foreign to its customary forms of thinking. This is probably the foremost reason for the penchant a great majority of orientalists have always shown for Buddhism, although some of them also harbored the very different intention of trying to make of it an anti-Christian instrument, which is obviously altogether foreign to it in itself. Emile Burnouf in particular was not exempt from these latter preoccupations, and this is what led him to ally himself with the Theosophists, who were animated by the same spirit of religious rivalry. Some years ago in France an attempt was also made-although without great success-to propagate a certain rather whimsical 'eclectic Buddhism' invented by Léon de Rosny, who, although not a Theosophist, [8] was eulogized by Olcott in an introduction written especially for the French translation of his Buddhist Catechism. [9]
On the other hand, one cannot deny that the Theosophical Society did attempt to annex Buddhism, even mere 'exoteric' Buddhism, as shown in the first place by the publication in 1881 of Olcott's just mentioned Buddhist Catechism. This tract was adorned with the approval of the Rev. H. Sumangala, head of the Vidyodaya Parivena (high school) of Colombo, who for this occasion was styled 'High Priest of the Buddhist Church of the South', a dignity which no one knew to exist until that time. Some years later, after a trip to Japan [10] and a visit to Burma, this same Olcott boasted of having effected
a reconciliation of the Buddhist churches of the North and the South. [11] Sumangala then wrote:
We owe to Colonel Olcott both this catechism in which our children learn the first rudiments of our religion, and our present fraternal relations with our co-religionists of Japan and other Buddhist lands. [12]
We should add that the schools in which Olcott's catechism was taught were only Theosophist creations. On this point we have the testimony of Mme Blavatsky herself, who in 1890 wrote:
In Ceylon we have called back to life and have begun to purify Buddhism; we have established high schools, and have taken nearly fifty schools of lesser importance under our supervision. [13]
Moreover, with Sir Edwin Arnold, author of The Light of Asia, returning to India about the same time also to work for a reconciliation of the Buddhist churches, is it not permissible to find such Western initiatives very suspect? Was it perhaps to legitimize Olcott's role that Leadbeater said that in one of his previous incarnations he had been King Asoka, the great protector of Buddhism, after having also been, in another incarnation, Gushtasp, king of Persia and protector of Zoroastrianism. [14] The spiritists are not alone, then, in their mania for styling themselves reincarnations of illustrious personalities! When Olcott died they placed on his body, along with the American flag, 'the Buddhist banner which he himself had contrived and upon which the colors of the Lord Buddha's aura' were arranged in proper order [15]-a 'clairvoyant's' fantasy to which authentic Buddhists have never conceded the least importance. Basically, this entire history is connected above all with the political role of the Theosophical Society, which we will have occasion to examine later; besides, it seems not to have had any sequel in
what concerns the union of the different branches of Buddhism, although we have to believe that the Theosophists have not given up using southern Buddhism, for one of them, M.C. Jinarâjadâsa, [16] recently announced that he had received from the 'High Priest of Colombo' the power to admit those Europeans desiring it to the Buddhist religion. [17] This reduces the church involved, like certain Christian churches we have mentioned, to the rank of those many organizations used by the Theosophical Society as auxiliaries for its propaganda and for the realization of its special designs.