AVehicle for the Ancient Wisdom Tradition · Dr. Masaru Emoto and Messages from Water Recently, Dr....

Volume VII, Number 2 Summer 2003

The Secret Doctrine aM SirFtan Sirhan)

Assassination 35YearsA90

William Q.ludge: Invesfi9ati1t9 the Evicfence L~

to His Deatli

Looliin9 at Birds in tlie

Ancient Wisdom Tradition

AVehicle for the Ancient Wisdom Tradition

Dr. Masaru Emoto and Messages from Water

Recently, Dr. Masaru Emoto came to Edmonton, Alberta while crossing Canada on a speakingtour of his research into the way in which water carries information. Healthy, energetic watertends to be slightly alkaline. It freezes into the shape of hexagonal crystals and these crystalscarry in their forms the information passed into the water by harmonious influences in theimmediate vicinity of the water. If the water is in the vicinity of influences that are chaotic anddissonant, then the water will tend to resist crystallization and appear very disturbing or ugly.Water impresses relatively easily and, as Man is made up of over 70 per cent water, one canimmediately begin to imagine that there must be consequences to human health when dirty acidicwater is consumed. Dr. Emoto’s research has discovered that there is very little healthy waterthat is naturally occurring left on our planet today. Even areas such as the arctic regions, whichare relatively isolated, have exhibited a sharp decline in water quality in recent years. The planet’swater systems are in dire condition. Is there anything that we as individuals can do?

Dr. Emoto’s research has shown the power of the human word whether spoken or written and inany language. A glass of water exposed to the written word “love” or “thank-you” has been shownto crystalize much more readily than a second glass, untreated but drawn from the same source.The language in which these words are written seems to be irrelevant. Similarly, a small spokenprayer of love or thanks will revitalize a glass of water. This naturally gives occult significance tothe ritual of saying grace or “giving thanks” before a meal. It seems that you are energizing thefood with wholesome vibrations. Based on this research, The Project of Love and Thanks to Waterhas been created. On July 25��, 2003, people all across the world are encouraged to get togetherand give “love” and “thanks” to water in the interest of increasing health in the world’s waterecosystem and at the same time introducing the seeds of brotherhood into the water supply sothat it can be spread to the hearts of people everywhere. I asked Dr. Emoto before the lecture ifhe was optimistic about the future of the world’s water supply. He indicated that a huge numberof people would have to change the way they think and respond to the world, therefore, he couldnot be very hopeful. He may be right, but July 25�� is an opportunity for people to prove himwrong, and I am sure that this passionate champion of water would love to be proved wrong inthis case.

For more information, go to http://www.thank-water.net/english/index.html

This magazine is an invitation for followers of all traditions to enter into adialogue whose goal is Truth and whose means is Universal Brotherhood.

Alexandria West, Inc. and The Serapeum

Alexandria West, a non-profit organization out of California “dedicated to making available theancient and modern wisdom literature from all cultures and traditions for the benefit of today’sseekers” has a new tool with which to accomplish this goal. The first issue of The Serepeum wasreleased Summer 2003. In the words of the journal itself:

. . . The Serepeum will be exploring the ancient and modern wisdom of all traditions and cultureswith an eye upon their relevance and meaning for today [and hoping] to accomplish this through acombination of original articles and columns, as well as reprints of rare or obscure material. Futurecontributions may thus take the form of mythology, parables, folk tales, inspired scripture,dialogues, poetry, symbolic art and architecture. At all times, the focus will be on subjects relevantto current issues in light of our legacy of accumulated human wisdom. . . .

For more information you can write to: Alexandria West, Inc.325 North BroadwayTurlock, CA 95380

or email: [email protected]

FOHATA Quarterly Publication of Edmonton Theosophical Society

ContentsEditor

Robert Bruce MacDonald

Managing EditorJoAnne MacDonald

Assistant EditorsRogelle PelletierDolorese Brisson

PublisherEdmonton Theosophical

Society

The pages of Fohat are an openforum dedicated to the pursuit ofTruth, and consequently theviews and opinions expressedherein are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect theviews of the publisher unlessotherwise specifically stated.

Any articles or correspondencemay be sent to:

FOHATBox 4587

Edmonton, AlbertaCanada T6E 5G4

E-mail: [email protected]: (780) 438-1717

Subscription Rates:1 year (4 issues)

$15.00 Cdn in Canada$15.00 US in U.S.A.$20.00 US international

Become anAssociate of Edmonton TSand help support its efforts.

Additional $10.00Associates receive: ETS Newsletter

Cover Design: Donna Pinkard

ISSN 1205-9676

Volume VII, No. 2Summer 2003

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

What Killed William Q. Judge? - Part I . . . . . . . . 29by Ernest Pelletier

God’s Arrival in India - Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35by David Reigle

The Symbology of Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40by K. Smith

Book Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44T. Subba Row Collected Writings, Volumes I and II

compiled and annotated by Henk J. Spierenburg

The Sirhan Affair Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45by T.G.D.

To be featured in coming issues:

A Deeper Look at Crystal Skull Archaeology

and Its Historical Implications;

Water, Water Everywhere and

Not a Drop To Drink!

Making Visions a RealityAfter the Sioux Medicine Man, Black Elk, described hisfamous vision, and the elaborate ceremonial re-enact-ment of that vision, he made an interesting comment.Black Elk said that the vision alone was not sufficientto empower him, and that the vision had to be ceremo-nially re-enacted in order to bring the power of the visiondown to earth. The re-enactment became the shadow ofthe light in heaven and a lightening rod to bring thatpower to earth. Without the re-enactment, Black Elkwould have had something terrible happen to him, prob-ably resulting in his death. He had been charged with acertain duty to his people which he had to perform.

This naturally begs the question: how many of us on asmaller scale ignore the promptings of our higher self aswe continue leading our busy distracted lives? As we leadthese busy lives how many of us suffer physically becausewe have not learned to listen to and follow our inner voice?As cancer rates, heart problems, and many other diseasesincrease in number, it seems we are being told in anunmistakable manner to, first and foremost, listen. Howdo we do this?

The world often speaks to us in symbols. Karin Smithin her article, “The Symbolism of Birds”, points to onetype of symbol that is easily accessible to most people,that being the rocks and plants and animals of thenatural world. Animals, especially, can be seen as pow-erful guides helping each of us to unravel the mysteryof ourselves. We should be reminded by this article totake notice of those animals that resonate with us moststrongly and try to develop a deeper relationship withthem in our meditations. We have many experiences inthe course of a year, and if we do not try to integratethose experiences into ourselves, then we are left withmany unresolved energies flowing through our subcon-scious and consequently undermining our health. How-ever, it is not enough to recognize the message of ourexperience, we must do something about it.

William Q. Judge is an example of a man who learnedto listen to his inner voice and perform the ceremoniesneeded to realize his vision. Many of us have heard thestories of Judge traveling the United States, lecturing toempty halls on theosophical topics. In future years,branches would inevitably grow up in these communi-ties. Not too many people would argue against the claimthat it is through Judge’s efforts that theosophy grew inthe Americas. Ernest Pelletier, in his article, “WhatKilled William Q. Judge?”, points to the interconnected-ness of all things at another level. This article alludes tohow poisoned thoughts directed at a particular individ-ual can affect the health of that individual. William Q.Judge was busy realizing his own vision, the planting oftheosophy in the minds of Americans, when he was

undermined by members of the very community he wastrying to build. While it may be easy to shrug off the illthoughts of enemies of your community, it is much moredifficult to suffer the arrows of betrayal directed at youby so-called members of your own community.

This leads us to realize how very easy it is for the mindto project phantoms over the guiding light. David Rei-gle’s article, “God’s Arrival in India”, reminds us that bypersonalizing even the most abstract of principles, anddeifying that principle, we ensure that we will end uptraveling down the wrong path. As the True Path leadsto pure subjectivity, it is not to be found on the path of“this” or “that” made objective nor on the path of theirrespective negations. It is the middle path that we mustlook to, the path that places no ultimate import to thosethings made objective to the mind. William Q. Judgewould not have been targeted with hatred had he notthreatened the gods of this or that member through hisactivities in America. Jose and Lena Stevens in theirbook, Secrets of Shamanism, put it as follows:

Coming up with a satisfactory solution to a problemwhile in the midst of an intense, emotional feelingabout the problem itself is most difficult. Your in-tense emotional identification with a situation keepsyou attached to it in such a way that the changesneeded to bring about a result cannot be made.When you are heavily identified with your problemvia these emotions, the result is a blockage of energythat stops progress towards your goal. ��

As attachment to this or that god is the cause of morestrife than anything else in our world today, we shouldbe on our guard if we have a strong emotional reactionto some problem. Perhaps we are being tapped on theshoulder. Had some theosophists stopped and medi-tated over the “Judge Case” rather than reacted, theSociety might be very different today. This was theSociety’s test. There are as many paths to enlightenmentas there are souls in the universe. We should alwayskeep this in mind when we are tapped on the shoulder.If we were to look after our own houses when difficultsituations arise, the world could change radically in avery short time. Very often we react before all the factsare in, condemning people without a trial. William Q.Judge was condemned before all the facts were out, infact, most of the facts are still hidden away today. Herewas a man making the vision of the Masters concreteand he was condemned and put to death without a trial,and this from a Society that professes Universal Broth-erhood. Let us make sure the Society does not makethat mistake again. We each have our own specialpowers and our own special visions. Let us make thoseconcrete, let us be creative, and turn away from destruc-tive rumor and innuendo.

editorial

28 FOHAT

What Killed William Q. Judge?Part I

Ernest Pelletier

It has long been accepted by theosophists that Wil-liam Q. Judge, co-Founder of the Theosophical Soci-ety (along with H.P. Blavatsky and Colonel H.S.Olcott), died as a result of initially contracting Cha-gres fever. He died at nine a.m. Saturday, March21��, 1896 with his wife by his side, an attendingprofessional night nurse, his physician, and his de-voted pupil, Ernest T. Hargrove. Investigation sug-gests that Judge did not die from any disease butrather as a result of iatrogenic causes.

Ague is a term used to define the recurring fever andchills of malarial infection. Popularly, the diseasewas known by names expressive of the locality inwhich it was prevalent. Chagres fever, sometimescalled yellow fever, is a malarial type of disease withmanifested periodic attacks of chills, fever andsweating. Chagres fever was also known as “Panamafever”.� The name is derived from Chagres, a portin Panama from which people would reach PanamaCity on the Pacific Coast by travelling up the Cha-gres River. Steamships which ran from Boston andNew York City to the Caribbean would port atChagres.�

Judge, a struggling young New York commerciallawyer, “travelled often to the northern part of theSouth American continent and also to Mexico.”� Histravels in the early 1880s took him to Carúpano,Venezuela, where he was doing business with a silvermining company.� During one of his trips Judge wasinfected with Chagres fever, a “febrile disease caused

by an arbovirus, transmitted by phlebotomine sand-flies.”� This malignant type of malarial fever oftenhas a predilection to develop into tuberculosis.

Just a few short years after the Society was formedin New York both Blavatsky and Olcott left for Indiain December 1878, leaving behind General AbnerDoubleday as President ad interim, W.Q. Judge asCounsel to the Society, and his brother, John Judge,in charge of conducting the affairs of the Society inthe United States. Judge had been admitted to theState Bar of New York in 1872 and had married EllaSmith in 1874. He was twenty-seven years old whenBlavatsky and Olcott left. The young Irish immigrantlawyer, often penniless, was struggling to make aliving in a city recovering from the American CivilWar. Times were harsh in those days, especially inNew York where the Irish were not always lookedupon as favourable members of the community, andthe populace was not in the least interested in joininga philosophical society. In a letter to Olcott, Novem-ber 4��, 1883, Judge stated that “people are deadhere, and it will be uphill work when we begin to askfor dues and so on to cover expenses.” When Olcottand Blavatsky left America, the Society had beennearly dormant and as Olcott himself later stated,“there were no meetings of the Society for two yearsbefore our departure . . . . We made no attempt torevive the meetings — knowing it would be useless.”

Despite this uphill struggle to establish the Theo-sophical Society in America, and the developing mal-

��

�� !" �##�� $�"�� "� %� &"�� "��"� �� '�� (��)�� "� ��'&� �"�� '� �� '�� '� �� '��*� �� "� �� '�� " �'��"& �� "� �"�� %�� "&�� % �� +�&�� )� %�� '�� % �� ,��"��-��./��./��'�(�&��0��1�

2� �� 3�� 4�� 5 � �'&'�� #67� ��28�

.� " 9'�&�:� �� 3�� "��"�� )�� ;�'�� %�� "�� <'�� '��"�� '�� "�� 9�� =��"� ,9'�� >��&��1 �'&&�� )� &�"� �� ;�'�� " �� ?��&�� %�� @��A�)��*� �� A"�� ?��&�� ,�� 4��.� �� #67� ��.�1� �� '�� 9'�&�:�"� �� %��: �� @&�)� &�'� �� ;�� " ;�'�� " +�� 4�"�B'�� 6/7�

8� �C'�� "� D��)"�� D�� "� D�� )�� &� �� ?�� E � ��"�� "�'��'&'�� 6#2�� #�� ,��%%%�%%��"��"��'��&�(��"��)��-��*2��6#2�#2�7�#2�7��F$1�

7� �� 4�� 82� �� 62�� 70(7#�

0� � �� #(�6� ��'�� ;�� 2� �&�� " �#67� $'�� G� �" �� "�� D�� %�"��($�� ""�)�� ;�� (22�

SUMMER 2003 29

ady within him, Judge managed to establish a net-work of dedicated students throughout America. Bythe early 1890s, because of overwork, his healthwas deteriorating. He needed help — someone hecould trust with the responsibilities of communi-cating the correct keynotes of theosophical ideasacross to his fellow countrymen — American andCanadian.

While attending the European Section Convention inLondon in July 1892, Judge met Ernest T. Hargrovefor the first time. Hargrove was a young twenty-oneyear old member of the Society� who had spent timeat “the London Headquarters at 19, Avenue Road,writing reviews for Lucifer, lecturing at Branches”�

and corresponding for the magazine, The Vahan.Although studying law at the time, he devoted moretime to Theosophy than he did to his law studies.Both met again at the 1893 Convention in London.This time Hargrove asked Judge for an autographedcopy of his recently published book, The Ocean ofTheosophy. Judge wrote in it: “To Ernest Hargrove,from William Q. Judge: The light within is the onlylight which lighteth every man who cometh in theworld; the Mahatmas and the light within are notdifferent.” A few years later he told Hargrove, “I wastold to write that.”�

Upon first meeting Judge, Hargrove had recognizedthat he was “an Occultist.”�� Hargrove had beenextremely impressed with “Judge’s simplicity of de-meanor . . . felt something great, and had loved it.”His blood began to boil when “the air became thickwith rumours adverse and hostile to Judge”�� andwrote to assure him of his loyalty. A few monthslater, in October 1893, Hargrove expressed his wishto work with Judge in America. Judge responded:

Certainly if you ever could in justice to all youraffairs and to the T.S. come to America, then Ishould be glad to see you, but am not yet able tosay come now.��

Judge wrote to Hargrove on February 8��, 1894inviting him to come and participate at the SanFrancisco Midwinter Fair and to attend the EighthConvention of The T.S., American Section to be heldthere as well. Judge wanted Hargrove to participate

at the Fair where twodays of talks had beenarranged as a religiousparliament, a result ofthe success of the Chi-cago Congress, Parlia-ment of Religions, at theWorld’s Fair of 1893.These two days of talkswere to be held a fewdays prior to the April22�� and 23��, 1894American Convention.Judge offered him achoice of topics to speakon and added, “you willmeet so many whole

souls you will never want to live in London anymore.”�� Judge had spent many weeks in London inearly 1884, awaiting the arrival of Blavatsky andOlcott from India, and had felt very uncomfortablethe whole time he was there.

Hargrove took advantage of Judge’s offer and arrivedin New York on March 31��, 1894. He was to repre-sent the European Section and Countess Wacht-meister, who travelled with him on the same ship,had been appointed to represent the Indian Sectionof the T.S.

On Thursday, April 5��, after the Aryan T.S. meeting,Judge and his wife, Ella M. Judge, Countess Wacht-meister, and E.T. Hargrove, left New York for SanDiego. They were joined en route by Dr. J. D. Buckof Cincinnati, Judge’s good friend and one of thedoctors who looked after his well-being. Dr. Buckwas a practicing Homeopathic physician who attimes travelled with Judge on long trips. After theirarrival in Los Angeles at 7 p.m. on April 10��, Judge,Dr. Buck and Hargrove went and spoke at a Branchmeeting. The others, being too tired to go, stayedbehind at the Hollenbuck Hotel. The next day Har-grove and Judge started early for San Diego. Theyarrived at one o’clock, had lunch, and addressed alarge Branch meeting until five. This was followed inthe evening by a public lecture in Unity Church.From San Diego they returned to Los Angeles on April

#� @&�)� <��"�� ;�� (�(�&� �" �� '�� #6� %��'� �)�" �)�"& �� H'�"�"�� "�� @� <��"�� '��" ��"& �� " %�� %�� &� ��"& �� )��"& ��'� �� ""�� A��"��

6� �� 4�� #� �� 62�� 2�0�

�/� �� 4�� 6� �� 62�� 2�#�

�� 4�� #� �� 62�� 2�#�

�� 4�� 6� �� 62�� 2�#�

�2� �� 4�� 6� �� 62�� 2��

�.� �� 4�� 6� 9'�� 62�� 2#�

��

30 FOHAT

13�� for more lecturing and interviews. Hargroveexplained:

So it continued, day after day, without intermis-sion. I was young and sufficiently able-bodied,besides which the experience, for me, was novel,but Judge had been doing the same kind of thingfor years, and was already suffering from thepremonitory symptoms (wrongly interpreted bydoctors as “liver”) of his last illness. How he stoodit, is not easy to explain, except on the ground thathis intensity of devotion kept his body going with-out the slightest sign of mental or nervous fa-tigue.��

From there they went on to San Francisco to attendthe first session of the Religious Parliament on the16�� where both Judge and Dr. Buck gave talks. Thenext day Judge ad-dressed the Parliamentas the General Secre-tary of the AmericanSection of the Theo-sophical Society andDr. Buck spoke as arepresentative. A fewdays later, April 22��

and 23��, the AmericanConvention assembledin the same building,the new Golden GateHall. “Judge was re-ceived with enthusiasmeverywhere, either be-cause of, or in spite of,attacks in the newspa-pers, which naturally made the most of the storiescirculated from Adyar against him.”� The chargescame out of India, from Olcott and Annie Besant, thatJudge was guilty of misuse of the names and hand-writings of the Mahatmas. He was accused of falselypretending to receive and transmit messages fromthe Masters in order to gain power for himself in theSociety. At the time these accusations surfacedJudge tried to shield Besant by not mentioning herby name in public. On February 7��, Olcott hadwritten a letter to Judge demanding that he resignhis Vice-Presidency or face a Judicial Committee.On March 10��, Judge had cabled his reply that thecharges were absolutely false, telling Olcott that hecould take whatever proceedings he saw fit and

informing him that he (Judge) was going to Londonin July.

After the Convention Dr. Buck left on Friday, April27�� for the East, while Countess Wachtmeister con-tinued on a tour to various cities in California andalong the Pacific Coast for the following fewmonths.� Judge sent Hargrove to lecture in SantaCruz and San Jose. Meanwhile Judge visited Oak-land, returning to San Francisco before proceedingto Sacramento where Mr. and Mrs. Judge and Har-grove rejoined. They arrived in Portland, Oregon, onMay 1�� for more meetings and lectures and then onto Seattle. It was there that Hargrove received atelegram from London. He wrote:

In Seattle, to my indescribable disappointment, Iwas called back to England on account of illnessthere — needlessly, as it happened. Judge wasnot at all pleased, and I much regret now that Idid not complete the tour with him, as he travelled— meeting members and lecturing wherever hestopped — to Victoria, B.C., Port Townsend, backto Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Portland, and so toChicago and New York by way of Salt Lake City (alarge public meeting in the Salt Lake Theatre),Aspen, Denver, and Omaha.��

Dr. Jerome A. Anderson, President of the San Fran-cisco Branch, expressed fondness for Hargrove. Hewrote:

Mr. Earnest [sic] Hargrove . . . deserves more thana passing mention. . . . Bro. Hargrove lives andbreathes Theosophy as his daily life. Possessingan address as pleasant [i]s rare, and a flow oflanguage at all times ready to clothe his thought,he was at once a leading and strong figure amongour speakers, and ably, indeed, represented ourbrothers of the European Section.��

By the time Judge returned home to New York it wastime for him to pack up again and go to London tomeet his accusers in a trial arranged by the Presi-dent, Colonel Olcott. The trial or “Judicial Commit-tee” was merely a kangaroo court of sorts to stripJudge of the title of Vice-President of the Theosophi-cal Society and to cast suspicion upon his character.On July 4��, Judge and Dr. Buck arrived atSouthampton and were greeted at the dock by Har-grove and Dr. Archibald Keightley who took them toLondon. Judge appeared tired and frail.

�8� �� 4�� 6� 9'�� 62�� .��

�7� �� 4�� 6� 9'�� 62�� .�(.2�

�0� �� ;� 3� +�� " A"�� =�% I�*� %�� <��"�� ;�� " 9'"� �0��

� �#6/� %� �"��'��" �� 4��: D�&�� "� ��"��"�� &�� =�% I�* �� ;" $"�� +�")�"��"� ;�� "��3�� " � �� '� ��'� ,�� 4�� .� �� #6.� ��80�1

�#� �� 4�� 6� 9'�� 62�� .8�

�6� �� 4�� 4� �� #6.� ��87�

��

SUMMER 2003 31

Here is what Hargrove had to say on the matter ofthe trial.

In their haste to give Judge his death-blow, theyhad lost all sense of the decencies: they had actedas if it were permissible to call a man a liar and acheat, and then, without furnishing him with anyBill of Particulars, to haul him into Court anddemand that he prove the contrary.��

Throughout the entire ordeal Judgestayed at the Headquarters facing hisaccusers daily, instead of residing withfriends. Dr. Buck did the same.

After the Judicial Committee Judge lefton Saturday, July 21��, to return to NewYork.�� All this excitement and pres-sure evidently took its toll on Judge andwhen he returned home he was illagain. For the next few weeks he restedat the Griscoms near New York.�� Mr.Griscom wrote the following:

Of the “Row” itself I cannot speak, butupon result of it I know and that is theeffect the bitterness and strife hadupon the health and vitality of Mr. Judge. Dayafter day he would come back from the officeutterly exhausted in mind and body, and nightafter night hewould lay awake fighting the arrowsof suspicion and doubt that would come at himfrom all over the world. He said they were likeshafts of fire piercing him; and in the morning hewould come downstairs wan and pale and un-rested, and one step nearer the limit of hisstrength; but still with the samegentle and forgiv-ing spirit. Truly they knew not what they did.��

Immediately after this brief rest Judge started “avigorous ‘campaign for Theosophy’ by lecturing for

Branches in Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island,Maryland and elsewhere.”�� After the trial Judgeworked even harder than before. Like the Wander-ing Jew, one wonders if this was not the start ofJudge’s constant moving from place to place in orderto find peace and repose from his beleagueringassailants.

By late fall of 1894 it became apparentto his friends and acquaintances thatJudge’s health needed some serious at-tention. After a lecture tour to the mid-western States, Judge returned to NewYork City on January 17��, 1895. Thenext day he wrote to Hargrove, who wasstill living with his parents in Londonafter returning home in May 1894:

I am so sick just now that I cannot sendany letters. . . . My Chicago trip was allright and useful, but this is my ordinarydeath year, and hence I am just waitinguntil the Rubicon is passed.��

Judge mentioned that he had con-tracted a cold in Chicago and as a

result had developed a bad cough. Hargrove, con-cerned about his mentor’s health, decided to consultwith his parents for a possible return to America tocontinue the work he had started with Judge.�

By February 1895 Judge’s health had utterly brokendown. It was at this time that Katherine Tingley�

offered to make arrangements for him to get away forrest and treatment. She proposed to go ahead ofJudge to Mineral Wells near San Antonio, Texas, toprepare for his arrival. It was “hoped that change ofair and relief from work will enable him to rally.”��

She “rented a small, poorly-furnished house from a

�/� �� 4�� 6� �� 62�� /#�

�� 4�� 6� �� #68� ��.2�(.2.�

�� +��"� ��" �� 9� "� �� %�� "�)��)� ?'��% �� %�� 9'�&�:� �� "�� 9'�&� %�'�� "�� %��*�� '��"& �� "� �� %�* �� )��'� �� "�� '�� &'��'� �� "'�� )�"�� ,�� 4�� 7� �� 6�6� ��2�6�1

�2� �� 4�� 5 � �� #67� ��8/(8��

�.� �� 4�� 6� 9"'� �62�� 2#�

�8� �� 4��2/� 9'�� 62�� 2�J �� !�� " #�$ �� 4�� =��2� 9'�� #68� ��.#�

�7� @�� 9�� ;��"�� @&�)�� %� �"� �� ?�"��":� �� *"�%" �� "� " '�� '�� @�� &�� '�� "�� " � �� &��"�� "�'� ?��'��""� ��"�� @&�)�� )�"� �� "� ;� ��" $��%�� '&�� &�"�� *"�%" %� " �� " �� :� �� %�� %� �� "�� "� %�"�� " %�'�� )� �G�� )� �'��" �" �� '"& @&�)� �� " K"&�"��

�0� � �� "�)� ��" �� %��" 9'�&� ��'�� "&�� K�� =�� "� �� 9'�&�� %� �� "��'�� "� �� "&�� " �� #62 �� 9'�&� ��'"�� "� �� D��&��"�� +��&� 3��:� $� %�� "&�� %�� "��'�� " �� '��"�� "��=�� %� �'��"��" "� �� "&�� %� " �")�"�� "& �� =�� 9'�&� %� ��H'�"�� %�� >��"� ��"&�� "� �� %�"�� %�� ":� <��" �� ;��'"�� 2

�� #6.�

�#� �� 4�� 6� �� #68� ��.26�

��

32 FOHAT

German woman.”�� On February 13��, 1895 Judgeleft New York for Mineral Wells. Tingley looked afterhis health as well as “acting as his amanuensis whenhe was too ill to write himself.”� After a month or sohe returned to New York to prepare for the annualConvention, which was held April 28�� and 29��, 1895in Boston.

After the Convention Judge returned to New Yorkand then proceeded to Cincinnati where he wrote toa friend, “I am away fromhome for my health [whichis] much hurt by others’hate.”�� Judge was refer-ring to Annie Besant and“the conspirators againsthis Theosophical reputa-tion.”��

Hargrove was in Bar-mouth, England, when hewrote to Judge on July20��, 1895 saying that hehad arranged matters withhis parents “and was sail-ing for New York at an earlydate.”�� Hargrove left London on August 24��, 1895��

and arrived in New York on August 30��, 1895.��

When he arrived Judge was staying with Dr. Buck inCincinnati. He wrote to Hargrove, September 2��,1895: “There is no telling where I may go, at thiscritical point.” Hargrove noted that this was in ref-

erence to “Judge’s physical condition,” meaning hishealth had greatly deteriorated.�

Judge told Hargrove tostay with the Griscoms,who lived in Flushing,Long Island, until aboutSeptember 15�� or 25��.He told him to familiar-ize himself with all thetheosophists in the NewYork area, and in-structed him to be care-ful what he said, who hecould trust and who tobe on his guard against.He also told him thatwhen the time was rightthey would meet again and spend time together butthat in the meantime they could communicate inways other than writing. Hargrove mentioned: “Al-ways I carried Judge’s last letter with me in mypocket. It helped me, I believed, to keep in touch withhim.”� This was some of the practical occult knowl-edge which Judge had instructed Hargrove to do inorder to “keep the link unbroken” between them.��

Judge always kept a watchful eye for would-beoccultists whom he could tutor in practical occult-ism.��

By early September 1895 Judge was feeling quiteoptimistic about his recovery. He wrote to Hargrove:

�6� ��"� ��"�%��%�� &��" �' ( )*�� K�� =��

2/� &��" � % ( )*�+ �� %�� ;)�" K�* "� A�� L�*�� 3��"� ?� �� '��"&@�'�� 676� ��2.�

2�� ,�� -� ��) .�� 9�� =��"�� ?�� "&�� +�� +��"�� 6.7� ��#8�

2�� "� ��"�%��%�� &'�' ( )*�� K�� =��

3�� "�� 3�� 9'�&� *�� G��"�� "� ��)��"� �" %�� " �"��)��'� "��*"�� >�� "��"�� *�� " ��"�� ""�� A��"�� " �� /%)�% �� ,4�� 2� 9'"� �62�� 81� 9�� &"�� "& �� ":� �� '�� "��*� ��'�� " ��"�� 9'�&��

22� �� 4�� 2/� 9'�� 62�� 20�

2.� �� 4�� 2/� �� 62��

28� �� 4�� /� ;�� #68� ��66�

27� �� 4�� 2/� �� 62��

20� �� 4�� 2/� �� 62�� #�

2#� �� *�"� �� '�� "��'��" �� " �� +�� " �� '"��"�� @��A� �� '� "�� &� �� ;�� %� &�)�" �� *�� "�&�� '� �"� �� '��"��*�� '� "� �� M �� *�� "* '"��*�"J �� "�� "�"��" �� '�:�� ,�� 4�� 6�9'�� #6.� ��.�1

26� � �� "�� 9'�&� �� "�� @&�)� � �� '�� '�� "�� "&�� '�@&�)� %� �� )�� '"& � �� )� ��" ��'� �'&&��"� �� 9'�&� ��"�� 9'�� >��&�� '�� ,;�� %� �� 9'�� )� ��"�*� ��'"& %��%� %�� F� �� >��&�� ;��%�� '"�� '��"�� 9�� =��"��1 " �� F�� 6

�� #6. 9'�&� %�� '&�� "��

�� %�� *"�%" � �� ;�� "��)�� "� �� "<'�� 9�+�>� &�� "�� "� '&�"��'&�� %�'�� *�� ,�� 4�� 6� 9"'� �62�� .7�1 @� �� "� �� "�� )� ��" ��"��"��

��

��

SUMMER 2003 33

“My health-chances better. I’ve almost paralyzed thebacilli tuber’s.”�

By October Judge had travelled to North Carolinaand then to Aiken, in South Carolina, where againhe was seeking clear fresh air for his health. Thefollowing month Judge, still in Aiken, revealed analmost complete list of the prescribed medications hewas taking to rebuild his health. He wrote:

Just glance at what I have to do medically:

Water, drink 4 times a day. Carbon pills.Hepar Sulph. and Phos.�homeopathic.Oxygen, inhale 3 times.Lynosulfite, inhale as often as you can.Listerine, gargle to try to stop sore throat.Some d�� thing after meals.Hot treatment nightly.Be in the open air all the time.Where does the Path, etc. come in.��

During this time Hargrove kept his correspondencegoing with Judge, informing him of all the happen-ings concerning the Branches’ activities and thepeople he was meeting. Judge in return was givingHargrove advice on how to deal with certain membersand with Branch affairs. Hargrove was on a threemonth tour which took him to Boston on September29��, 1895 then up to Toronto on his way west andsouth. From Macon, Georgia, where he was Decem-ber 17�� to 22��, he went to Aiken for Christmaswhere he stayed with the Judges in a boarding-housefor a two week period. Hargrove left Aiken for Wash-ington to deliver a lecture on January 7��, 1896. OnJanuary 9��, the Judges left for Cincinnati wherethey stayed for two weeks with the Bucks and thenwent to visit Dr. Buchman in Fort Wayne, Indiana.They left there on January 31�� and arrived at GrandCentral Station, New York, at 6 p.m. on February 3��,where they went to the Lincoln Hotel on Broadwayuntil a suitable apartment could be found.

Hargrove observed, upon seeing Judge again in NewYork:

He was far more ill than when I had left him atAiken some three weeks earlier: he was much

weaker, his cough was more frequent, his diges-tion gave him greater pain, he could barely whis-per. But he insisted upon my spending an houror more with him daily, while he went over detailsof the Work in its many ramifications. When hecould, he whispered his comments or directions;at other times he wrote notes on scraps of paper.. . .��

On February 22�� the Judges moved to an apartmenton the third floor of 325 West 56�� Street. “From thatday he grew weaker and weaker.”�� Dr. Rounds,Judge’s physician, “warned him that unless hewould consent to give up all work, he would throwaway his only chance to recover.”��

Early in the morning of the day he died, Judge wishedto see Hargrove. He whispered to him to go fetch adoctor, a specialist, who had been called on previousoccasions to consult with his regular physician.Hargrove pleaded with this famous (unnamed) NewYork specialist but he refused to come without theregular physician being present. Upon returning,Hargrove found Judge in the usual manner — sittingupright on the sofa. Shortly afterwards his regulardoctor came calling but Judge refused to see him.��

For weeks, because of the incessant racking cough,the bad throat which caused aphonia (laryngitis),and the indigestion problems he was having, hecould no longer lay down to sleep, only catching afew winks at a time while sitting. He approacheddeath with clarity.

After Judge’s death conflicting reports were re-corded. Dr. Rounds “said that the condition of hislungs could not have caused his death; that deathhad been due to ‘failure of the heart’s action’.” Har-grove wrote that “all the other doctors who hadexamined him had agreed that his heart was assound as a bell”.�

These are the facts as we know them. These factswill now be analyzed in conjunction with researchwhich will reveal the most likely cause of Judge’sdeath.

./� �� 4�� 2/� �� 62�� .�

.�� 4�� 2/� 9"'� �622� ��/� 9'�&�:� �� "��" %� �%�� %�* E �� "�� "��'��"& �� &��"�

.�� 4�� 2�� 9"'� �628� ��/2�

.2� �� 4�� 2�� 9"'� �628� ��/.�

..� �� 4�� 2�� 9"'� �628� ��/.�

.8� �� 4�� 2�� 9"'� �628� ��/8� "� �� 4�� 5 � �� #67� ��27(20�

.7� �� 4�� 5 � �� #67� ��20�

34 FOHAT

God’s Arrival in India - Part IIDavid Reigle

Although we cannot trace in the Vedic commen-taries how the one impersonal principle came to

be thought of as God, since we lack these, we can seevery clearly from the dar ana texts the arrival of theGod idea in India. The dar anas are the six systemsof Hindu philosophy. According to Hindu tradition,they are based on the Vedas; that is, they haveformulated the teachings of the Vedas into systemsof philosophical thought. We have texts extant fromthese six systems that are much older than theextant Vedic commentaries. So they will provide uswith considerable help in our attempt to trace God’spresence in ancient India.

As is the norm with historical matters in India, wehave no definite dates for these texts. The S mkhyasystem, however, is regarded by Hindu tradition asthe oldest dar ana, taught by the first knower ( di-vidv n), Kapila, so we will begin with it. TheS mkhya system, like Buddhism and Jainism, doesnot teach the existence of God. It instead explainsthe world and everything in it in terms of the inter-action of two self-sufficient principles, purusa andprakrti. The world is explained as the evolution ofeternal substance, prakrti, when in contact withpurusa, what we may call spirit, soul, or life. Thislatter is not God, since it is a purely passive principle,incapable of thinking or acting. The fact that thereis no place for God in what Hindus themselves regardas their oldest dar ana is a very telling piece ofevidence on the question of God’s presence in ancientIndia.

As we have seen before in regard to the WisdomTradition and to Buddhism, it is hard for those whohave grown up within a theistic worldview to acceptthat there can be a true religious tradition having noplace for God. This is also the case in regard toS mkhya. The S mkhya-s tra is generally under-stood to refute God. Its verse 1.92, among others,��

specifically says that God is not proved ( vara asid-deh). But the 16th century commentator Vijñ naBhiksu, and some modern translators following him,understand this as only saying that God cannot beproved, not that God does not exist.�� This is verymuch like the agnostic position, that we cannot knowwhether or not God exists. The attribution of theagnostic position to the Wisdom Tradition was force-fully refuted by the Mahatma K.H.�� He points outthat when a system fully and completely describesthe operation of the cosmos on its own principles,without God, it is absurd to say there might still beroom in it for a God it does not know about or cannot

prove. Such a God would be a non-entity, somethingthat can and does do absolutely nothing.� Theattribution of agnosticism to Buddhism, made bycertain Buddhist scholars, may be refuted in a simi-lar manner.� Likewise, S mkhya gives a full ac-count of the origin and operation of the cosmos, thatleaves no room for God in its worldview.��

The Yoga dar ana presupposes the S mkhya world-view. It provides a system of practice based on thisworldview. The means of practice it teaches is medi-tation, which culminates in the state of sam dhi. Ifthe practitioner cannot attain sam dhi by means ofmeditation, it offers an alternative: devotion to

vara. Thus vara is found in this system, thoughin a peripheral role. Since the Yoga system acceptsthe S mkhya worldview wherein God plays no part,there is little else for this vara to do. Just how

vara is to be understood in the Yoga system is notfully explained in the extant texts. The word varaoccurs only five times in the Yoga-s tra of Patañjali,the textbook of the system.�� Its earliest commen-tary is that of Vy sa. The first person to translatethis difficult commentary, Ganganatha Jha, sug-gested the following to explain vara’s role in theYoga system:

He is nowhere spoken of as the ‘creator’; nor evenas the ‘Consciousness’ permeating through allexistence. He is spoken of only as an object ofdevotion, devotion to whom leads to highest re-sults. In this respect the ‘god’ of the Yogin appearsto hold the same position, as the ‘devat ’ of the

M m msaka, who posits the ‘devat ’ only as oneto whom the prescribed sacrifices can be offered.He has no other function.��

The fact that vara is found in the Yoga system atall is generally seen by scholars as a concession togrowing theism. This only got stronger. The com-mentaries coming after Vy sa’s, such as those of

V caspati Mi\ra (9th century ��), and especially ofVijñ na Bhiksu (16th century ��), give increasingimportance to vara as God.

There is a question as to whether vara means Godin Patañjali’s Yoga-s tra. M. D. Shastri’s important

study, “History of the Word ‘ \vara’ and Its Idea,”��

shows that vara did not mean God in any of India’soldest texts, including not only the Vedic corpus, butalso such works as P nini’s Ast dhy y and Patañ-jali’s Mah -bh sya. It instead only meant a ruler,master, administrative head (r j ) or king, and com-petent or capable of. If the same Patañjali wrote boththe Yoga-s tra and the Mah -bh sya, as assumed

s

s

a

s aa

a

s

a a u

i-sa

a

s a

a

a

i-s i-s

a

i-si-s

i-su

a

i-s

a

i- a- a

i-s

a

a

a

i-s

i-su

I

i-s

a a a i-

a aa a

u a a

.

.

..

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . ..

.

SUMMER 2003 35

by Hindu tradition, but doubted by Shastri, varawould refer to some sort of administrative head(r j ) rather than God in the Yoga-s tra. This makesno sense in the context of Yoga (even though Patañ-jali’s system is known as R ja Yoga, apparentlybecause in it one learns to rule one’s mind), so noone has pursued this angle. At least, it made nosense before the Wisdom Tradition became known.

The Secret Doctrine brought out the teaching of them nasa-putras, the “sons of mind,” also called solarpitrs (“fathers”), or solar angels. They are an ad-vanced class of beings, the perfected humanity of aprevious manvantara or life-cycle, that endowed ourpresent humanity with the spark of mind. In aspecific sense they are our higher selves, and thusour rulers or administrative heads (r j ). The state-ments about vara made by Patañjali, that vara isa particular spirit (purusa), etc. (verses 1.24-26), andalso those made by the ancient commentator Vy sa,could apply to these. So could the statements fromthe S mkhya-s tra describing an vara of such kind( dr a), which is different from the vara as God thatit refutes. This vara is defined in verse 1.95 as aliberated self (mukta tman), or perfected one (sid-dha), and described in verses 3.54-57 as one whoafter dissolution into primary substance (prakrti) ina previous life-cycle has arisen in the present onewith full knowledge and full action capacity. De-votion to this vara as a means to achieve sam dhiwould then make sense. The explanation of varaas a solar pitr rather than as God would make senseof vara’s role in the Yoga system.

In either case, vara as God plays at best a marginalrole in the Yoga system, while he plays no role in theS mkhya system. We will next take up the other

avowedly non-theistic dar ana, the P rva MFm mssystem.

The P rva MFm ms system is the most orthodoxdar ana, since it is the one that deals with the Vedasproper, the hymns addressed to the many gods. Yetit, like S mkhya, has no place for God. This ratherunexpected (at least in later Hinduism) combinationof ultra-orthodoxy and non-theism led T. M. P. Ma-hadevan, modern exponent of Advaita Ved nta, toremark:

It is rather strange that the most orthodox ofsystems should turn out to be atheistic.��

Not only does it not accept God, even the gods it dealswith are not considered real. Its view of the Vedicdeities is described by Ganganatha Jha, the foremost

translator of MFm ms texts:

The deity to whom sacrifices are offered is, for the

MFm msaka, a purely hypothetical entity, positedfor the sake of the accomplishment of a Sacrifice.

. . . this is very clearly brought out in MFm[ ms ]

S [tra] IX—i—6-10; in which connection the

Bh sya explains that the Deity has no body, itdoes not eat anything, it cannot be either pleasedor displeased; nor can it award prizes or punish-ments, as results of sacrifices. . . .��

So the only dar ana that deals with the Vedas properregards the Vedic deities as purely hypothetical en-tities. This fact provides weighty evidence that theVedas never were polytheistic. As to God, he finds

no place in the P rva MFm ms system because theVedas, the all in all of this system, are eternal.

The Vedas are ruti, that which is heard. Even thoughruti is often translated as revelation, this does not

mean, like in other religions, that it is the word ofGod. What the seers (rsi) heard and recorded as theVedas is something that has always existed: theeternal sound that is believed in Hindu tradition touphold and order the cosmos. The Vedic hymns arethese sound sequences, embodying the cosmic order(rta). If these sequences of sound were the word ofGod, there would be a time when they did not exist,before God spoke them. But they are eternal, so theycannot be the word of God. Nor does God play anypart in running the cosmos.

It is by the principle of cosmic order (rta) rather thanby the will of God that the cosmos operates. Hencethis principle can be said to take the place of God inthe Vedic worldview. The idea of rta or cosmic orderwhen applied to the human sphere became the ideaof dharma or duty, what it is necessary for us to dosimply because it is the eternal way of things. Theseare the actions (karma) enjoined in the Vedas; and

this is the sphere of P rva MFm ms . The results ofthese actions are brought about by an inherentunseen potency (ap rva), not by God. Thus in the

P rva MFm ms system, God is not the author of theVedas; God did not create the cosmos; God does notrun the cosmos; God did not lay down human duty;God does not reward or punish; God does not bringabout the results of actions. Here as in the S mkhyasystem, God is left with no role to play in the cosmos.

So the existence of God is denied in P rva MFm ms ,the most orthodox Hindu dar ana.

Just as P rva MFm ms deals with the Vedas proper,the former (p rva) part of the ruti, so Uttara

MFm ms deals with the latter (uttara) part of theruti, namely, the Upanisads. Thus the one univer-

sal principle known as brahman or tman taught in

the Upanisads is the province of the Uttara MFm mssystem, better known as Ved nta, the “end (anta) ofthe Vedas.” The Brahma-s tra is the textbook of thissystem, obviously dealing with brahman. There is,however, no mention in this book of saguna brah-man, the conditioned brahman with attributes, alsocalled vara, God; nor is this phrase found in the

i-s

a a u

a

a

a a

i-s i-s

a

a u i-si- s i-s

i-sa

i-s a

i-s

i-s

s

a

s u a a

u a a

s

a

a

a a

a

a a

u

a-

s

u a a

s

s

u a a

u

u a a

a

u a a

s

u a a

u s

a a

s

a

a a

a

u

i-s

i-

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

. .

.

36 FOHAT

ten principal Upanisads. Neither is the word varafound in the Brahma-s tra, nor is it found in eight

of the ten principal Upanisads. vara is found inthree places in the Brhad- ranyaka Upanisad.�� Intwo of these, as noted in M. D. Shastri’s above-citedstudy of the word vara, “it is unambiguously usedonly in the sense of ‘capable of.’”�� In the third placeit is found in the compound sarve vara, “ruler of all,”used as an adjective describing tman. It is alsofound once in the M nd kya Upanisad, in the samecompound, used as an adjective describing the thirdquarter of brahman or tman. The related word is

found in the Upanisad, where according to Shas-

tri, “it becomes clear that the word has been usedhere more in the sense of Param tman, the supreme

self (or Brahman), than in the sense of Parame\varaor supreme God.”� The word is also found in theMundaka Upanisad, in the same sense, reportsShastri.� So the God idea is not found in the primarysources of the Ved nta system, the ten principalUpanisads, nor in its textbook, the Brahma-s tra.Someone had to bring it in, and do so in a decisive

and convincing manner. That someone was %an-kar c rya.

%ankar c rya is the founder of the Advaita or “non-dual” school, the oldest school of Ved nta. He wrotevery influential commentaries on the Upanisads andon the Brahma-s tra. In these he repeatedly broughtin the idea of vara, God, usually making no distinc-tion between vara and the one universal brahmanor tman.�� In his emphasis on vara, he differedfrom even his own disciples, who very seldom use theword vara in their writings.�� The disciples hediffered from, however, may not in fact be his. Sub-stantial evidence that the author of the extant com-

mentaries was not the original %ankar c rya from

the 5th century ��, but was a later %ankar c ryafrom the 8th century ��, has been provided else-where.� From what we can deduce, the teachings

of the original %ankar c rya must differ significantly

from the teachings of the later %ankar c rya. TheMahatma K.H. writes in a letter replying to A. O.Hume:

In the first [letter] you notify me of your intentionof studying Advaita Philosophy with a “good oldSwami”. The man, no doubt, is very good; butfrom what I gather in your letter, if he teaches youanything you say to me, i.e., anything save animpersonal, non-thinking and non-intelligentPrinciple they call Parabrahm, then he will not beteaching you the true spirit of that philosophy, notfrom its esoteric aspect, at any rate.��

In contrast to this, the main theme of the extant

Brahma-s tra commentary of %ankar c rya is toprove that param brahman is conscious, is a think-ing, intelligent entity. This is as opposed to thenon-conscious primary substance (pradh na) taughtin the S mkhya system, then apparently equivalent

to brahman.�� This %ankar c rya made brahmanequivalent to vara.

The idea of vara, the God idea, is universally ac-cepted in Advaita Ved nta today. It exists alongsidethe ancient idea from the Upanisads of the oneimpersonal principle, brahman. In this way it is notthe same as the God idea in monotheistic religions.Nonetheless, vara has many of the characteristicsof the God of monotheism. As described by T. M. P.Mahadevan, the God of Advaita Ved nta is omnis-cient, omnipotent, the intelligent controller of theoperation of the law of karma, the dispenser ofjustice, the moral governor, both the Law-Giver andthe Law, the bestower of grace on his devotees, theobject of adoration, the giver of prosperity, the gran-tor of liberation, etc.��

In the major Ved nta schools that arose after the

Advaita school, such as the Vi\ist dvaita or “qualifiednon-dual” school of R m nuja, 11th century ��,and the Dvaita or “dual” school of Madhva, 13thcentury ��, the once impersonal brahman was pro-gressively transformed into a full-blown personalGod. Since the 8th century ��, the time of the later

%ankar c rya, Ved nta in all its schools has been amajor force in promoting the God idea in India.

We now take up the dar ana that has been for morethan a millennium the great defender of the God ideain India. This is the Ny ya system. Ny ya is usuallytranslated as logic.�� All three religions of ancientIndia, Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, utilizereasoning to explain their tenets, in contradistinc-tion to the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism,Christianity, and Islam. In each of the three Indianreligions, separate schools of logic developed, eventhough reasoning is used in all their systems. Theschools of logic found in Jainism and Buddhism, ofcourse, use logic to refute the idea of God. But theNy ya system found in Hinduism uses logic to provethe existence of God. Indeed, the use of logic to proveGod reached its culmination in a work of this system,the Ny ya-kusum ñjali, written in the 11th century�� by the great champion of the God idea, Udayana.About this highly influential work Karl Potter writesin his Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies:

This work contains by general acclaim the defini-tive treatment of the question of how to proveGod’s existence.��

Ironically, this turns out to be a reversal of theposition of the system’s founder, Gautama. The origi-nal textbook of the system is Gautama’s Ny ya-s tra. The oldest extant commentary on it is thebh sya by V tsy yana. The next oldest commen-tary on it is the v rttika by Uddyotakara. These threehighly complex texts were first translated into Eng-lish by Ganganatha Jha and published serially from

i-su

I-s

a

i-s

s

a

a u

a i-sI-sa

I-s

a

i-s

a

u

a a

a a

a

u

i-si-s

a i-s

i-s

a a

a a

a a

a a

u a a

a

a

a a

i-s

i-sa

i-s

a

a

a

a a

a a a

s

a a

a

a a

a

ua a a

a

.

.. . .

. .

. . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

SUMMER 2003 37

1912-1919. In November of 1919 Jha presented atthe All-India Oriental Conference a paper titled, “TheTheism of Gautama, the Founder of ‘Ny ya,’” inwhich he brought out the fact that Gautama’s posi-tion on God had been reversed by the commentators.The one and only place in Gautama’s Ny ya-s trathat vara is found, 4.1.19, is in a section giving theviews of others, not those of Gautama, that Gautamacites and then refutes. It took all the ingenuity of thetheistic commentators to turn this around. Gan-ganatha Jha writes:

A study of the commentators however sheds alurid light upon this device of the V rtikak ra; andshows how hopelessly confused is the entire at-tempt to fasten this doctrine on Gautama.�

A few decades later, Harvard professor Daniel Ingallstook up this same topic in his paper titled, “HumanEffort Versus God’s Effort in the Early Ny ya (NS. 4.1. 19-21),” apparently independently of Jha, sinceJha’s paper is not cited. Here Ingalls observes, ashad Jha earlier:

The general movement of Ny ya opinion through-out this period may be judged from one observa-tion: the later the commentator the greater theimportance which he assigns to God . . .�

Ingalls shows the progressive stages this theism wentthrough at the hands of the commentators, begin-ning with V tsy yana, who started it all with whatis characterized by Ingalls as a “bold aboutface (volteface).”

Since then, other studies have further clarified thenon-theistic position of early Ny ya.�� From the vari-ous available sources we get the following picture.

The Ny ya system as described by its founder, Gau-tama, in his 528-verse Ny ya-s tra, has no place forGod. Gautama did, however, bring up the hypothe-sis of God, in order to reject it in favor of human effortor action (karma). Some centuries later, V tsy -yana, the author of the oldest commentary nowextant, although acknowledging that Gautama’sverse on vara is the view of another, inexplicablytreated it as if it were Gautama’s own view.�� V tsy -yana thereby put God’s foot in the door of the Ny yasystem by allowing God to play a role in the workingof karma. A few centuries after that, Uddyotakara,the author of the next oldest commentary, openedthe door wide for God, by making God stand abovethe law of karma, and by giving the first Ny ya proofof God’s existence. The next commentator, V caspati

Mi\ra, seeing that Gautama’s verse on vara was infact the view of another, so that the position of theprevious two commentators who treated it as Gau-tama’s own view could not be maintained, took a newleap for God. Rather than accepting the fact thatGautama here rejects the view that God is the cause

of the world, V caspati Mi\ra has Gautama only

rejecting the view that God is the material cause(up d na) of the world, and thereby proving thatGod is the efficient cause (nimitta k rana) of the

world. The proof that V caspati Mi\ra put forth onbehalf of Gautama became the standard Ny ya prooffor the existence of God. This proof was taken up ina fourth commentary, and the proof of God was madeeloquent in the Ny ya-kusum ñjali, both by God’sgreat champion, Udayana, which put God firmly incontrol in the Ny ya system.

We have now come full circle from where we started.From all the available evidence, it would seem thatthe original Ny ya system of Gautama, like Jainismand like Buddhism, believed in karma alone as thesole regulator of the cosmos. God was not yet in-volved.

Just as the S mkhya system is paired with the Yogasystem, with S mkhya providing the basic worldviewfor both, so the Ny ya system is paired with the

Vai\esika system, with Vai\esika providing the basicworldview for both. The basic worldview provided by

the Vai\esika system is one of eternal atoms. Like inNy ya, where God has taken over the operation of

karma, so in Vai\esika, God has taken control of the

eternal atoms. Thus the joint Ny ya-Vai\esika sys-tem is seen in India as the staunchest upholder ofthe idea of God. This is despite the fact that the

original Vai\esika textbook, Kan da’s Vai esika-s tra, does not even mention vara. How, then, didGod get there?

Again, as in Ny ya, God found his way into the

Vai\esika system only gradually. None of the ancientcommentaries on the Vai esika-s tra, such as thebh sya by R vana, are extant. From what we knowof the commentary by R vana, it, like the Vai esika-s tra itself, did not refer to God.� The basic world-view of the Vai esika-s tra as explained in an an-cient commentary, probably R vana’s, was summa-

rized by %ankar c rya in the 8th century ��, whenthis was still available.� The eternal atoms cometogether under the impetus of adrsta, unseen po-tency, to form the visible cosmos. Adrsta is theunseen potency arising from human actions (karma)that brings about their fruition, even if in anotherlifetime, or even in the next periodic cosmos. Adrsta

explains how karma works. Thus in early Vai\esika,as was practically universal in ancient India, it iskarma that operates the cosmos rather than God.Only later was God brought in to take over adrsta asthe efficient cause of the world, that impels theeternal atoms, the material cause.

The oldest available Vai\esika text after the Vai esika-s tra is the Da a-pad rtha- stra, which was trans-lated into Chinese about the 5th century ��

� It,

a

a u

i-s

a a

a

a

a a

a

a

a u

a a

i-sa a

a

a

a

i-s

a

a a

a

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a s

u i-s

a

s ua a

a s

us u

a

a a

s

u s a sa

.

..

. .

.

.

.

. . .

.

.. .

. .

...

. . .. . .

. . .

.

. . .

. .

38 FOHAT

too, nowhere mentions vara. God first appears in

the Vai\esika system in the Pad rtha-dharma-san-

graha of Pra\asta-p da, about the 6th century ��

In this text, vara, who impels adrsta, is responsiblefor the creation of the world.� The teaching of Godwas attributed to the Vai esika-s tra from this timeonward. A commentary by Candr nanda from per-haps the 7th century �� explains a pronoun in verse3 of the Vai esika-s tra as referring to vara.� The

commentary by %ankara Mi\ra from the 15th century��, for long the only one known, also explains thispronoun as referring to vara, but adds that it couldrefer to the more obvious dharma, the subject of thepreceding two verses. Interestingly, in a commen-

tary by Bhatta V dFndra from the 13th century ��,although theistic, this pronoun is explained entirelydifferently, as referring to heaven and liberation(svarg pavargayoh). This diversity of interpreta-tion is made possible by the terse s tra style. Takingadvantage of this terseness, vara is brought in atseveral other places in the Vai esika-s tra by thecommentators, who made sure that God was here to

stay in the Vai\esika system.

The history of the development of the God idea in the

Vai\esika system has formed the subject of extensiveresearch conducted over many years by GeorgeChemparathy. In 1965 he published an article inwhich he brought out a statement from an earlycommentator specifically saying that God had been

imported into the Vai\esika system. The Yukti-d pik , an early S mkhya commentary that was onlylately discovered and first published in 1938, de-scribes in its discussion of the vara doctrine two

systems: the P \upata and the Vai\esika. It says that

the original Vai\esika system did not admit the ex-

istence of vara, but that the later Vai\esikas ac-

cepted this doctrine from the P \upatas. It calls thisan innovation or invention. Here is this statementfrom the Yukti-d pik , concluding its discussion ofthe vara doctrine, translated by Chemparathy:

This (doctrine of \vara) is wrongly attributed tothe c rya [Kan da, author of the Vai esika-

s tra] in order to put a share of your fault on him,but (in truth) it is not his view. Thus (the doctrine)of the followers of Kan da, that there exists an

\vara, is an invention (upajñam) of the P \u-patas.�

The P \upatas may be thought of as %aivas, those

who worship %iva or some form of %iva such as

Pa\upati. There is no doubt that popular movements

such as this, not only %aivism but also Vaisnavism,contributed greatly to God’s arrival in India.

In summary, of the six philosophical systems ofHinduism, the oldest, S mkhya, and the most ortho-

dox, P rva MFm ms , are avowedly non-theistic;

they do not teach the existence of God. The Yogasystem includes vara, but in a peripheral role, andthis vara may not be God. Ved nta originallytaught only the impersonal principle called brahman;the idea of a personal God, vara, was brought inlater. Ny ya originally denied God, but this was laterturned around and made into the definitive proof of

God. Vai\esika originally lacked God, but God was

later imported from the P \upatas. So philosophicalHinduism did not originally accept God. Nor can asingle, all-powerful God be found in the Vedas. Allthis shows beyond reasonable doubt that early Hin-duism, like Jainism and Buddhism, was non-theis-tic. Therefore, all of ancient India, home of theWisdom Tradition, was once non-theistic. God wasnot a part of the teachings of the Wisdom Tradition.

The Problem with God

The Mah -Chohan, who is regarded as the teacherof the teachers behind the Theosophical movement,and therefore as the foremost authority of our timeon the Wisdom Tradition, is recorded as making thisremarkable statement:

The world in general and Christendom especially,left for two thousand years to the regime of apersonal God as well as its political and socialsystems based on that idea, has now proved afailure.�

Perhaps a big failure. The Mahatma K.H. said thattheir own philosophy “is preeminently the science ofeffects by their causes and of causes by their ef-fects.” He asked Hume to work out the causes ofevil in the world. After enumerating the human vicesthat one would expect as the causes of evil, K.H.continued:

Think well over these few words; work out everycause of evil you can think of and trace it to itsorigin and you will have solved one-third of theproblem of evil. And now, after making due allow-ance for evils that are natural and cannot beavoided, — and so few are they that I challenge thewhole host of Western metaphysicians to call themevils or to trace them directly to an independentcause — I will point out the greatest, the chiefcause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursuehumanity ever since that cause became a power.It is religion under whatever form and in whatso-ever nation. It is the sacerdotal caste, the priest-hood and the churches; it is in those illusions thatman looks upon as sacred, that he has to searchout the source of that multitude of evils which isthe great curse of humanity and that almost over-whelms mankind. Ignorance created Gods andcunning took advantage of the opportunity. Lookat India and look at Christendom and Islam, atJudaism and Fetichism. It is priestly imposturethat rendered these Gods so terrible to man; it isreligion that makes of him the selfish bigot, thefanatic that hates all mankind out of his own sect

i-sa

a

i-s

s ua

s u i-s

i-s

a

a

u

i-ss u

i- a a

i-sa

i-sa

i- a

i-s

IA a a s

u-

a

I a

a

a

u a a

i-si-s a

i-sa

a

a

. . . continued on page 46

..

. . .

.

. .

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

. .

.

.

.

SUMMER 2003 39

The Symbology of BirdsK. Smith

What is it that has inspired so many legends andmyths throughout the world on the symbolism ofbirds? Is it man’s desire to fly and feel the freedomfrom gravity which birds have? That yearning forfreedom comes perhaps as a memory from ancienttimes when man could fly. As H.P.B mentions in TheSecret Doctrine, “the Great Gods, create men with thebodies of birds of the desert, human beings” and ina footnote she reminds us of the “winged Races”mentioned by Plato, and those in the Popol Vuh,beings who “could walk, fly and see objects, howeverdistant” �� . These were the early races of man,and it is very possible that the sacredness of thesymbol of birds comes from such times. As far backas in some Paleolithic caves near Kiev they foundsome figures of flying geese made from the ivory of amammoth, and under their wings was a swastika�� ; an interesting combination of symbols, thegeese as the emblem of the beginning of the Universe,and the swastika, which means the cycles of themicrocosm and the macrocosm, Spirit and Matter ineternal rotation. We will see how each nation in oneway or another uses birds to symbolize higher feelings,gods, life, spirit, soul, and cycles of time.

In the Hindu mythology the Absolute has been calledthe Primeval Waters, and in this water glides theSwan who lays the Mundane Egg. This golden Eggis the Universe, and the Swan, Kalahansa, stands forthe beginning of a new Mahamanvantara. Such abeginning implies a new cycle, and thus cyclic timeis connected with the Swan. Brahma, the god, isdepicted using a Swan as his vehicle, which means,he represents “the emanation of the primordial Ray,[which] is made to serve as a Vahan [vehicle] for thatdivine Ray, which otherwise could not manifest itselfin the Universe” �� . This then is the UniversalMatrix, in the shape of an egg, coming out of the deep,and manifesting into the first Logos, from which thenemanate the second and third Logoi. But Hansa alsomeans divine wisdom, that wisdom which exists inthe darkness of the Absolute beyond our reach.�

H.P.B. mentions in The Secret Doctrine the reasonsfor the reverence of the Swan’s symbol and theMundane Egg. She says:

The “First Cause” had no name in the beginnings.Later it was pictured in the fancy of the thinkersas an ever invisible, mysterious Bird that droppedan Egg into Chaos, which Egg becomes the Uni-verse. Hence Brahm was called Kalahansa, “the

swan in (Space and) Time.” He became the “Swanof Eternity,” who lays at the beginning of eachMahamanvantara a “Golden Egg.” ��

The second reason has to do with the shape of theUniverse, as an egg, something that was known inantiquity.

In one of the versions of creation in Egyptian mythol-ogy, the bird was a goose, the great Primeval Spirit,called the “Great Cackler” whose voice broke thesilence that existed before the manifestation of theUniverse. This was the Word, as given by a GreatBird. But they say more. The egg was invisible,because it took shape before the appearance of light.And the bird burst from the egg, “I am the Soul, thecreation of the Primeval Waters . . . my nest wasunseen, my egg was unbroken” �� and inanother version, instead of a goose, it is the Benu(Benoo) bird, which is also the Phoenix. “The breathof life which emerged from the throat of the BenuBird, the son of Re [Ra] in whom Atum appeared inthe primeval nought, infinity, darkness and no-where” �� . Thus again, the Phoenix breaksthe silence of the primeval night with the call for lifeand destiny, which will determine what will or willnot be. The Phoenix is called the bird of resurrectionin Eternity, alluding to the periodical cycles of cosmicand human resurrection. It is supposed to consumeitself, and be reborn out of its ashes.

Compare what H.P.B. says of the first race of men inThe Secret Doctrine:

They had bodies, or rather shadows of bodies,which were sinless, hence Karmaless. Therefore,as there was no Kamaloka — least of all Nirvanaor even Devachan — for the “souls” of men whohad no personal Egos, there could be no interme-diate periods between the incarnations. Like thePhoenix, primordial man resurrected out of his oldinto a new body. ��

So man is compared to a mythical bird.

In a temple of Pu’to, the sacred island of theBuddhists in China, Kwan-Shi-Yin is representedfloating on a black aquatic bird (Kâla-Hansa), andpouring on the heads of mortals the elixir of life,which, as it flows, is transformed into one of thechief Dhyani-Buddhas — the regent of a starcalled the “Star of Salvation.” ��

We know that Kwan-Shi-Yin is Avalokiteshwara, orin other words Parabrahm, the Absolute, floating on

�� " @�"�' ��&�� %" �� &�)�" ��* ��G�� %�� %�� "*� A'� �" �� %�� %" �� "* �� *"� ��)� �� %�� @�� * ��"�� ;�� "� %�� ! "� #$%�

40 FOHAT

a black swan. The idea of a “black” bird does notmean “evil”, but simply that it could not be seen.

In the Kalevala, an epic poem of Finland,

the beauteous daughter of the Ether, “the WaterMother,” creates the world in conjunction with a“Duck” . . . who lays six golden eggs, and theseventh, “an egg of iron,” in her lap. ��

Not much is said as to the symbology of the egg ofiron, but from the fact that there are seven we canconclude that they are related to the seven principles,and planes, the egg of iron being the egg of solidmatter, while the six golden eggs represent Spirit inits different levels. The Water Mother is no otherthan the Absolute, again the idea of the waters ofspace, and of a bird laying golden eggs. In order tofully develop the symbol, all the legends use waterfowl, for they are at home in three elements, water,air, and earth. All these legends then allude to theidea of the Mundane Egg, the beginning of Cosmos,in the waters of Chaos.

The Persian Phoenix is called Simorgh-Anke. It is amarvelous bird, intelligent, religious, which speaksmany languages, and is the steed of Tahmurath.This bird represents the cycles, and complains of itsage

for it is born cycles and cycles before the days ofAdam. . . . It has witnessed the revolutions of longcenturies. It has seen the birth and the close oftwelve cycles of 7,000 years each, which multi-plied esoterically will give us again 840,000 years.. . . Simorgh is born with the last deluge of thepre-Adamites, says the “romance of Simorgh andthe good Khalif”. ��

But it isn’t only the Hindu and Persian Scripturesthat use the phoenix as a symbol for cycles. Also thePhoenician, Greeks, Chaldean and Egyptian cos-mogonies. The phoenix is connected with the Solarcycle of 600 years, and according to the Turks,Kerkes (the name of their phoenix),

lives another thousand years, up to seven timesseven . . . when comes the day of Judgment. The“seven times seven” . . . [refers] to the forty-nine“Manus,” the Seven Rounds, and the seven timesseven human cycles in each Round on each globe.��

The origin of these allegories comes from the HinduGaruda, the mythological half-man half-bird, andthe vehicle used by Vishnu. Garuda is the “Indianphoenix, the emblem of cyclic and periodical time”and of all Solar cycles. Garuda represents “the greatcycle, the ‘Maha-Kalpa’ co-eternal with Vishnu” ��

�� . And thus we can see how several aquaticbirds were used to represent the beginning of the

Universe, and with that the ideas of cycles, time inever evolving nature.

It is not just the symbology of aquatic fowl that isused but also those birds of prey that rise to the sunsymbolizing Spirit, Soul, Gods and Angels.

In The Book of the Dead, these birds appear usuallyas part bird and part human. In their pictorial rep-resentations of the God Thoth we see him with thehead of an ibis, sacred to the Egyptians, for the ibiskilled the winged serpents that would come fromArabia. Horus, is seen with the head of a Hawk orFalcon, as well as Ra and Osiris who have the headof a Hawk, but with a disk on top of their head,representing the Sun. These are the Sun Gods, whoengender themselves, creators of the Universe. Nek-hebet a moon goddess, is represented by a vulturewho hovers over the dead and dying. The goddessIsis takes many shapes, among them the vulture orthe swallow when she is performing some magicalincantations or administering to the dead.

In their pictorial representation of the death of Ani,for example, we see him lying mummified on a bierand by his head there is a vulture, as well as by hisfeet, while hovering above the mummy is a hawk withthe face of a human being. The explanation is thatthe two vultures are Nephthys and Isis, the twogoddesses “with the character of nursing mothers”,while the hawk with the face of a human being is theHeart-Soul of the dead Ani. Nephthys’ role was toprotect the dead. Ever since she helped Isis to gatherthe parts of the dismembered body of Osiris, this isher role. Thus she is often seen at the corners of asarcophagus, guarding the spirit of the dead. Whilethe hawk represents the Heart-Soul; the Egyptiansalso make a difference between that and the Spirit-soul.

The Spirit-soul is eternal, while the Heart-soul is not.This is the same difference as between Atma, theeternal 7th principle, and our 5th principle, Buddhi-Manas. The symbology used for Spirit-soul is theBenu bird, which became later the phoenix, and oneinteresting aspect of the phoenix is that it is selfengendered, and thus eternal, since from its ashes itwill rise again. The Benu bird symbolizes also thesoul of Ra,� the Sun-god, or that of the Spiritual Sun,which gives life to the whole cosmos, as the eternalAtma, or seventh principle in the universe. Nephthys— a lunar goddess, had different functions, and likeIsis became wife, mother and sister to different gods.In this case they both represent the nursing mother,the eternal divine Goddess.

�� " �� 0��1 �� 2�)� ��' �� 0�%% � �� '� �� D� "� �� &'�� &�� " �� '� ,'"��%��1� ��)�"� ��'�� '��" �� %�� 1� ��'��!� �� '� �� "� �� %�� 1�� $�� @��"� �� " D��"� �&!� '()%

SUMMER 2003 41

There are several chapters in The Book of the Deadwhere the knowledge of each of those chapters willgive certain “powers” to the deceased in the after life.By using specific chants, Ani is able to make thetransformation into a Benu Bird, declaring that “Icame into being from unformed matter. . . . I am ofthe germs of every god” �� . Such knowledgeafter death would give him the power to transformhimself into anything his heart desires, being able tomove with Ra over the earth, and free from any evilinfluence. While the transformation to a heronwould give him “power over the animals”, yet thesepowers could only be gotten if “he was sinless inword and in deed” for as he says: “I do not utter wordsof wickedness instead of words of right and truth,and each day right and truth come upon my eye-brows” �� .

The swallow was always welcomed for it brought gladtidings, and the transformation into a swallow wouldmean that the soul would incarnate in Serqet, theScorpio-goddess, daughter of Ra and of Isis. As theswallow says: “O open thou the doors to me and I willdeclare the things which have been seen by me” �� , and he brings the good news that Horus hasbecome the divine Prince of the Boat of the Sun. Isistook such a form to bring Osiris back to life, and so inThe Book of the Dead, Ani, by taking the form of aswallow, would be able “to restore to life his dead body.”

By reciting the transformation into a hawk of gold,the soul of Ani is able to fly into the sky and go onthe boats of Antchet and Sekter, boats of the Sun-god. In other words he could take his seat amongthe gods. Once there he could transform himself intoa Spirit-soul, and live with the Spirits of Osiris andRa. “I have risen, I have risen like the mighty hawkof gold that cometh forth from his egg” �� . Theearly Egyptians believed that the souls of the justwould fly to heaven on the wings of the ibis of Thoth,but later this was transformed into the hawk of gold.

But the most important of all the transformationswas that into the God-hawk also called the DivineHawk, that is, to incorporate oneself in that hawkwhere Horus appeared on earth. Every worshipperof Osiris wished to become soul of the soul of Horus,heart of his heart, flesh of his flesh. His being thenwould merge with the Great God and become al-mighty and everlasting. He became the great Spirit-soul wherein all Spirit-souls lived.

These transformations remind us of different initia-tions which the soul has to go through. The initiate

must die and be reborn as whichever bird, or entityhe chose, following the inclinations of his heart. Andso the birds that help them to fly into heaven, intothe realms of the gods, were sacred to them. Eachbird would give them a different power over nature.In the words of H.P.B. speaking of some Egyptian basreliefs, she says:

One especially from the temple of Philoe, repre-sents a scene of initiation. Two Gods-Hierophants,one with the head of a hawk (the Sun), the otheribis-headed (Mercury, Thoth, the god of Wisdomand secret learning, the assessor of Osiris-Sun�),are standing over the body of a candidate justinitiated. They are in the act of pouring on his heada double stream of water (the water of life and newbirth), which stream is interlaced in the shape of across and full of small ansated crosses. ��

In Christianity and Judaism, the dove plays animportant role not only in initiations and trials, butalso as a symbol of the Holy Ghost. A dove descendson Jesus, according to the Pistis-Sophia, at hisbaptism, and this is the

“descent” of the “Higher Self” or Soul (Atma-Bud-dhi) on Manas, the Higher Ego; or in other words,the union during initiation of the Christos, withChrestos, or the imperishable “Individuality” in theAll, with the transcendent Personality — theAdept.” ��

Jesus, the man, becomes the glorified Initiate, aftergoing through his second birth through the water ofbaptism, or the “spiritual womb of his second birth”.Water again becomes an important element, for theUniverse was born from the Primeval Waters, andthus is connected with the idea of a womb.

The symbol of the dove has other meanings: it typifiesEros (Love) or Charity, and when it descends uponthe initiate, this purified love, charity or compassionwill help him to unite with his Atma or the HolyGhost. Yet we see Jesus getting angry at the templewith what he sees, for in the temple there are sheep,doves and money changers which symbolize respec-tively the passions and desires which have beensubdued, the doves which are the spiritual aspira-tions, while the money changers in the temple arethose who traffic in spiritual things, money-seekingpriesthood, who would be selling spiritual knowl-edge. Thus the attitude of the Initiate to exotericreligion after he has attained victory, is one of disgustand Jesus throws them out of the temple. From thiswe can understand the use of animals and birds tosymbolize the changes undergone by an initiate.

2� " @��" ��

� � �� %�� "�� '�� '�� )�� &�� "��'�� "� �� %�� "�� "� A�� %��"& �� &�� =��(�(�� %�� %��&�)�� %�� %�� "� '"��"��"& "� %�� "��" �)� �� %� �"�� &!� *+$%

@�% �'�� "�� '� �� ?��*�

42 FOHAT

The divine dove who witnesses the baptism, hoveringover the lamb of God, is not the only bird in Christi-anity which is considered sacred. The eagle alsoplays a role, especially in St. John, author of theApocalypse.

The Eagle was his attribute, the most archaic ofsymbols — being the Egyptian Ah, the bird ofZeus, and sacred to the Sun with every ancientpeople. Even the Jews adopted it among theInitiated Kabalists, as “the symbol of the SephirahTiph’e-reth, the spiritual Æther or Air” . . . . Withthe Druids the eagle was the symbol of the Su-preme Deity, and again a portion of the cherubicsymbol. . . . Pre-eminently the bird of the Sun, theEagle is necessarily connected with every solargod, and is the symbol of every seer who looks intothe astral light, and sees in it the shadows of thePast, Present, and Future, as easily as the Eaglelooks at the Sun. ��

This paragraph gives us a very unique view of sucha symbol.

Among the ancient Aztecs in Mexico, the eagle wasused as a symbol for Spirit. On their flag, to this day,the Mexicans portray an eagle standing on a cactusplant, with a serpent in its beak. This symbol goesback to the Aztec Tree of Knowledge, where at its topis an eagle, Atma. The serpent has always meantwisdom, thus the eagle, or Spirit, with the serpent inits beak, is devouring wisdom. In other manuscriptsyou see the Eagle fighting a tiger, which again is thesymbolic image of the struggle of the higher princi-ples in man against his lower principles.

In some cases, the symbol takes a turn and you seea negative impersonation of birds. In the Mexicancosmogony, Tezcatlipoca’s main disguise is that of aTiger, but he has a second form, the turkey, andSéjourné considers the “clumsy domestic bird,known as the great Xolotl as a symbol of the sunexiled upon the earth” that is, the incarnation of thefallen eagle. It can’t soar anymore to the heights, butmust waddle on earth.

The Peacock was considered by the Hindus as thephoenix, a bird of wisdom and occult knowledge. Hiscrown was the seven pointed star, while his tail

represented “the sidereal heavens . . . and the twelvesigns of the Zodiac” �� . But in a Persianallegory, this bird takes a different meaning. Thecruel demon Angra Mainyu, who was told that hecouldn’t create anything beautiful, decides to createthe most beautiful bird. “It was a majestic peacock,the emblem of vanity and selfishness, which is self-adulation in deeds” �� and so he creates theKing of Birds, who is adored by man and copies himin his peacock-vanity and self-adulation. Such is thecreation of Angra and the downfall of the symbol ofthe peacock.

The raven is another bird which has changed in itsmeaning through history. It was the representativeof longevity, “wisdom through experience, and of theintelligent and firm will in man” �� . In Chris-tianity we see Noah sending a raven which nevercomes back to the Ark, while the dove does. Yet, laterduring the Mediaeval times the raven becomes asymbol of black magic, witches and fiends. This camewith the decadence of white and divine magic, toblack magic.

Birds became the symbols of angels, divine messengers,of the resurrection and the creation of life, symbols ofthe inner man, the Spiritual as well as the Human Soul,that is, Buddhi and Manas. The gods in Egypt wereshown with the face of a Hawk, a Falcon or other birds,the initiated transformed themselves into some bird tofly like the eagle and face the Sun, that is, the SpiritualSun; and in The Voice of the Silence we read:

“In order to become the �� of ALL SELF thouhast first of �� to be the knower.” To reach theknowledge of that ��, thou hast to give up Selfto Non-Self, Being to Non-Being, and then thoucanst repose between the wings of the GREATBIRD. Aye, sweet is rest between the wings of thatwhich is not born, nor dies, but is the AUMthroughout eternal ages. �! ��

Through all these examples we find that there is onething in common with all birds, they are used as abridge between Spirit and matter, between heavenand earth, between man and the gods, the vehicle ofAtma. They exemplify wisdom and the struggle toraise oneself above material existence.

A��&��

A�)��*�� @�� /��) &��%*�� 3��"� ?� �� '��"& @�'�� 66��

A�)��*�� @�� 3%-��)� ��"� +�� N"�)�� 68/�

A�)��*�� @�� 2��%�+ 4��' %) � ��"� +�� N"�)�� 68��

A�)��*�� @�� 4�� %�� *�"&� +��"� A��"& ��62��

A'�&�� K�� 3�� 0��1 �� 2�)� ?�"��"� �� "&'�" ��'�� 6#6�

A'�&�� K�� 3�� 5�)� �� 6*��%�+ 4��' � =�% I�*� F�)� �'��"�� 676�

+�� 9�� .�1� �� 5�)+ ��"��-� .��*�� =�% I�*� 4�*�"& �� 602�

+�*� D� �� D'"�� .�� %) ��"7�� % �%��%� 6*�� =�% I�*� �67/�

;O<�'"O� ?'�� 0 �%�%* &��8 �� *�� %) ��*��% �% �%��%� .�9�� =�% I�*� 4"&'� �� 687�

SUMMER 2003 43

T. Subba Row Collected Writings, Volumes I and II, compiled and annotated by Henk J. Spierenburg.Published 2001-2002 by Point Loma Publications, Inc., San Diego, California. Soft bound. VolumeI, xxiv + 264pp; Volume II, x + 265-654 pp. Price per volume USD 18.50, EUR 24,96.

These two volumes of T. Subba RowCollected Writings, compiled and anno-tated by Henk J. Spierenburg, are thelatest efforts made to bring together allthe philosophical articles, letters, bookreviews, notes and lectures of this great

Vedantin scholar and outstanding member of the Theo-sophical Society in India. Though there exist earlierversions of the collected writings of Subba Row, such asthe two editions of Tukaram Tatya — the first onepublished in 1895 and the second one revised andenlarged, in 1931 — and C. Jinarajadasa’s edition pub-lished in 1931 which already comprises some new ma-terial, this latest edition of H. J. Spierenburg is the mostcomplete one of them all. It includes not only all thematerial previously published in the earlier versions,but many pages never reprinted before, including lettersof Subba Row, his editorial Notes and articles from TheTheosophist, and his lectures on the Bhagavad-Gita.Most importantly, this new edition offers the reader1026 footnotes with their references whenever called for,a very comprehensive bibliography, an extensive wordindex that can be used as a glossary of terms, and finallya short biography of Subba Row. To the serious Theo-sophical student and researcher all these new featuresare invaluable, for they make of Mr. Spierenburg’s com-pilation a truly useful reference work at last.

Having been by profession a lawyer, all of Subba Row’swritings are imbued with a sense of proportion and logic,leaving very little ground for attack by an opponent.This was especially appreciated in the metaphysical andheated debates between H.P.B. and Subba Row, con-cerning the classification of the principles in man, thatran through a series of four articles. Logic and clarityof thought, however, were not the only characteristics ofhis writings. He also displayed a great originality and aprofound knowledge of the occult. All of Subba Row’sarticles are of considerable worth to the Theosophist.They cover a wide range of philosophical topics, thoughmostly of a controversial nature, such as “A Personaland an Impersonal God” and “The Philosophy of Spirit.”Examples of those articles bordering on the occult sideof nature are his “Esoteric Teachings,” “The Twelve Signsof the Zodiac,”and “What is Occultism?” which pertainsto material never reprinted before. Placed in this lastcategory are also his multiple Notes on very diversesubjects and his most priceless work, namely, his su-perb lectures on the Bhagavad-Gita. These lectureswere given before the T. S. Convention of 1886 at Adyarand, according to Col. Olcott, they were a tremendoussuccess, Subba Row having charmed the whole audi-ence with his mastery of the subject. Commenting aboutthe Bhagavad-Gita Subba Row writes that it “may becalled the book of the philosophy of the Logos” �""� ($'%,

its main object being “to explain the higher principlesthat operate in the cosmos, which are omnipresent andpermanent and which are common to all the solarsystems” �""� )+(,+)%.

Little is known of the private life of Subba Row for hewas habitually a very reserved man, even with his ownfamily. This trait was especially noted in matters con-cerning esoteric teachings and the occult life. The bio-graphical sketch given in the first volume of this work isbased primarily on Col. Olcott’s annotations from hisOld Diary Leaves and the Obituary he wrote upon SubbaRow’s death in 1890, though a few other secondarysources are also used. However, the most significantremark ever made public about Subba Row came fromH.P.B.’s pen when she wrote that he was “the mostlearned occultist in India at this time, a disciple of theHimalayan Hierophants” �&�� -� (.,'%, and that “weknow of no better authority in INDIA on anything con-cerning the esotericism of the Advaita Philosophy” �&��"-� /((%. It may be advisable to stress this last remark ofH.P.B. because it was from the viewpoint of the AdvaitaVedanta that Subba Row wrote his many philosophicalarticles. The Theosophist should keep in mind thatthere may be small differences of approach or terminol-ogy between Subba Row’s teachings and those handeddown to us by H.P.B. In the end one really has to balanceall the statements made by H.P.B. regarding Vedanta,which cannot be done in this short review. However,two very important statements will be mentioned here.Concerning the differences between the two EsotericDoctrines — the Buddhistic and the Vedantic — H.P.B.wrote that “the former was a kind of rationalistic Vedan-tism, while the latter might be regarded as transcenden-tal Buddhism” �&�� """� (++%, and though “Truth iseverywhere and may be said to be nowhere. For us it isabsolutely and solely in the Arhat esoteric doctrines”�&�� "-� )*$%.

These two volumes of T. Subba Row Collected Writingsare soft bound, and for a reference work a hard coverwould have been much more welcome. In addition, theproofreading of the first volume leaves much to bedesired: besides having quite a few errors — and not alltypographical — a European (?) convention was adoptedto indicate the plurals of Sanskrit proper names by usingthe apostrophe, such as the Veda’s, instead of the Vedas.This does not make for easy reading since those unac-quainted with the system are always mentally anticipat-ing the possessive case, when in fact such is not theintention. Thankfully this convention was not used withthe second volume. Although not a serious flaw as such,nonetheless it does result in a certain amount of awk-wardness between the two volumes.

Elinor Roos

BOOK REVIEW

44 FOHAT

THE SIRHAN AFFAIR REVISITED

T.G.D.

June 8, 2003 is the 35�� anniversary of the fatalshooting of U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy on thatdate in 1968. The news stunned the civilized world.Terrible in itself, the incident was a chilling reminderof the assassination of his brother, President JohnF. Kennedy, less than five years earlier.

The tragic event generated media coverage of near-hysterical proportions. Reporting the cold bloodedmurder became an excuse for competing outlandishheadlines, to say nothing of panic-generating specu-lations bandied about on TV and radio newscastsand chat shows. Because Kennedy was the currentU.S. Attorney and planning to run for the Presidency,conspiracy theories were rampant. By a strangekarma one of the theories implicated H.P. Blavatsky,further damaging her reputation long sullied byscurrilous biographies. Within hours, the variousmedia and part of the religious right selected her asthe target of malicious allegations.

It was an extraordinary turn of events. Robert Ken-nedy was shot at close range by 24-year old SirhanB. Sirhan and died the following day. In custody, thekiller made a startling request: he asked for a copyof The Secret Doctrine by H.P. Blavatsky, and anotherbook by C.W. Leadbeater. Had it been any otherbook but the S.D., Sirhan’s choice of reading materialwould probably have been given scant notice. As itwas, intrigued by the title, the media jumped on thisunusual request, and disregarding the need for ade-quate research and checking of facts, immediatelyand for days afterward repeated a stream of falsestatements and innuendo regarding the author.(The other book and author were practically ignored.)

In addition to the usual allegations and as to Ma-dame Blavatsky’s morals, the most damaging of themisinformation by the media was the erroneousassertion that as well as the S.D., she had alsowritten a book called A Manual for Revolutionaries,another title which added to the hysteria. Studentsof Theosophy were of course well aware that shehadn’t written it, but had to conduct their ownresearch to find out who did, as the media showedno inclination to investigate the allegation properly.It turned out that the actual author of the Manualwas a 19�� century Russian anarchist, also namedBlavatsky, though no relation to H.P.B. But thedamage was already done. Uninterested in the facts,the radical religious right in the U.S.A. took up theissue and attacked her as a socialist, and Theosophyas a godless cult. In so doing they fuelled the fire the

media had lit. It quickly became a crisis situation towhich Theosophists responded with unusual una-nimity.

Speed was necessary in developing a defence. Borisde Zirkoff swiftly published and widely distributed aspecial issue of his magazine Theosophia containingfactual information on the Theosophical Society, H.P.Blavatsky, Col. H.S. Olcott and William Q. Judge;and also emphasizing the neutrality of the TS con-cerning politics.� The TS in America sought theadvice of public relations consultants on how tocorrect “misinformation about the Society, Theoso-phy or Theosophical literature.”� Theosophists ofvarious persuasions and from all over the worldwrote letters to newspapers, radio and televisionstations and networks, protesting the extremely bi-assed and inaccurate reporting. The writers includedsome of the best known names in the Movement atthe time, including Anita Atkins, Victor Endersby,Iverson L. Harris, Joy Mills, Gordon Plummer, N. SriRam, Emmett Small, Washington E. Wilks and HelenZahara. (Few of their protests were printed or ac-knowledged on air.) The Theosophy Company placedlarge advertisements of Blavatsky books in both theNew York and Los Angeles Times.

The media, realizing they were on the wrong track,and perhaps aware that public concern was wan-ing, eventually abandoned their pursuit of scandaland suspected intrigue. The crisis resulted in noapparent lasting damage to either Theosophy ingeneral, or Madame Blavatsky in particular. Infact, it had at least one immediate benefit. Theadage that any publicity, even “bad”, is good pub-licity may have been proven in the Sirhan affair.Wrote de Zirkoff “. . . the results are very good on thewhole; the name of H.P. Blavatsky has once againresounded all over the world; her books are sellinglike hot cakes . . . .”

How this incident affected the Theosophical Move-ment at the time has been well documented. A fewyears after the event, Iverson L. Harris meticulouslycompiled Mme. Blavatsky Defended� quoting themany letters of protest to Time magazine, NationalBroadcasting Company, Truman Capote, JohnnyCarson and others. Victor Endersby published a24-page “Special Paper” as a supplement to hisTheosophical Notes�, detailing his own and generalactivity in fighting the damaging affair. He continuedto report on the aftermath in subsequent issues.

SUMMER 2003 45

without rendering him any better or more moralfor it. It is belief in God and Gods that makestwo-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful ofthose who deceive them under the false pretenceof saving them. Is not man ever ready to commitany kind of evil if told that his God or Godsdemand the crime?; voluntary victim of an illu-sionary God, the abject slave of his crafty minis-ters. The Irish, Italian and Slavonian peasant willstarve himself and see his family starving andnaked to feed and clothe his padre and pope. Fortwo thousand years India groaned under theweight of caste, Brahmins alone feeding on the fatof the land, and to-day the followers of Christ andthose of Mahomet are cutting each other’s throatsin the names of and for the greater glory of theirrespective myths. Remember the sum of humanmisery will never be diminished unto that daywhen the better portion of humanity destroys inthe name of Truth, morality, and universal char-ity, the altars of their false gods.�

The custodians of the Wisdom Tradition, being com-mitted to the upliftment of humanity, have traced thecause of two thirds of humanity’s suffering. This

cause, theistic religion and the God idea, is some-thing they aim to deliver humanity from.

The God of the Theologians is simply an imaginarypower. . . . Our chief aim is to deliver humanity ofthis nightmare, to teach man virtue for its ownsake, and to walk in life relying on himself insteadof leaning on a theological crutch, that for count-less ages was the direct cause of nearly all humanmisery.�

To deliver humanity from the God idea, their chiefaim, is no small task. According to The Secret Doc-trine, theism has been around for many ages.

Thus the first Atlantean races, born on the Le-murian Continent, separated from their earliesttribes into the righteous and the unrighteous; intothose who worshipped the one unseen Spirit ofNature, the ray of which man feels within himself— or the Pantheists, and those who offered fanati-cal worship to the Spirits of the Earth, the darkCosmic, anthropomorphic Powers, with whomthey made alliance. . . .

Such was the secret and mysterious origin of allthe subsequent and modern religions, especially

Theosophy in Canada rode out the crisis, andemerged relatively unscathed.� One hundred copiesof the previously mentioned special issue of Theoso-phia were obtained to distribute to Canadian mediaand reference libraries. Lodges were provided withcopies to help deal with local problems should theyarrive. Fortunately, the media in this country did notemulate their American counterparts, and Sirhan’srequest stirred only a mild reaction among Canadi-ans. Indeed, in presenting background material onthe affair, one Toronto newspaper commendablywrote factually about Madame Blavatsky and herteachings.

What of Sirhan? Whether his request to see a copyof The Secret Doctrine was ever granted is not known.The following spring he was convicted for killingSenator Robert Kennedy and given a life sentence.

Fast forward to 2003. An Associated Press reportdatelined Washington appeared in the Calgary Her-ald earlier this year. It announced that Sirhan losta U.S. Supreme Court appeal to overturn his convic-tion. His appeal “contended he was hypnotized atthe time [of the shooting] and that a second gunmanmight have actually killed Kennedy. . . .” Prior tothis, he had been denied parole at least 14 times. Onone occasion he claimed that “police and prosecutorsaltered, destroyed and suppressed evidence thatcould have cleared him.”

The Sirhan Affair now rates but a brief chapter in thehistory of the modern Theosophical Movement. Itspositive aspect is that for a few weeks in 1968 itunited students of Theosophy in a common goal: thedefence of Madame Blavatsky.

�� 554� � ,��81 ;'�� 67#�

�� 9�� D"�� D��"�� "��% �� 87�0 ,9'�� 67#1 �� 8�� ;'��H'�"� ��)�� ; �" ��%� �'��B�� " �� " F��"�� @�� A�)��*�� 87� 6 ,;�� 67#1 �� /�(/.�

2� ;'�� %� �� )�+ ��%)�� %)"��%��%� � 7��) 7� �� #��%� 0��)��%* /�"�%�+ �� "%/��+ &�� &�%��+ �� (��% 0�� + ��"� .*:�%� %) �� %� �'�� " �60� �� "� ?��'��"� "��

.� �� ;�� .��

9'"� �67#� �� "�� #�� "&�"& �� 68/ �� 60# �" ��" �&�)��'�� " ��'�� K��"��" �� ;��

8� ;�� ;��" �� /%)�% �� /�� .6�2 ,9'�(�'& �67#1 88(80J "� �;�H'�� ;��" �� /� .6�.,;��( �� 67#1 ##(6/�

7� �;��" ;��" �� '� �� " >�""�� "��"� /�*�� )+ 9"'� �.� �//2�

0� �D�� >�""��:� *�� "�� /�*�� )� �� .� �//��

. . . God’s Arrival continued from page 39

46 FOHAT

of the worship of the later Hebrews for their tribalgod.�

This explains the Mahatma K.H.’s statement citedearlier that “the idea of God is not an innate but anacquired notion.” In our own age, the God idea wasacquired by the Hebrews as the teachings of theWisdom Tradition went forth from their home inancient India, and acquired from the Hebrews by theChristians and Muslims. Abraham is the patriarchof the three monotheistic faiths, Judaism, Christian-ity through his son Isaac, and Islam through his sonIshmael. Thus Abraham is hailed as the father ofmonotheism. The Secret Doctrine explains Abram,Abraham’s original name before God changed it (seeGenesis 17.5), as “A-bram,” meaning a non-Brah-man (the prefix “a” is a negative in Sanskrit). TheBrahmans are India’s priestly caste, originally thekeepers of the wisdom teachings.

The Semites, especially the Arabs, are later ryans— degenerate in spirituality and perfected in ma-teriality. To these belong all the Jews and theArabs. The former are a tribe descended from theChand las of India, the outcasts, many of themex-Brahmans, who sought refuge in Chaldea, inSind, and ria (Iran), and were truly born fromtheir A-bram (no-Br hman) some 8000 years��

�

Abraham is the symbolic non-Brahman who does notkeep the wisdom teachings in their purity, and thushe becomes the first monotheist. For this he iscelebrated in the world. Through the three Abra-hamic religions, monotheism now has become thefaith of half the population of the world. From thestandpoint of the Wisdom Tradition, what Abrahamdid with its teachings outside of India, in bringing inthe God idea, brought about a major world problem.If India is the spiritual motherland of the world, it isto her that the world must turn to solve this problem.But the God idea has now infiltrated India, too. Evenkarma, which had once taken the place of God, hasnow been taken over by God. God’s arrival in India,it would seem, has brought about an even moreserious problem for the world than did the acquisi-tion of the God idea outside of India.

The Mah -Chohan, whose statement opened thissection, also made another statement at the sametime, in 1881:

Oh, for the noble and unselfish man to help useffectually in India in that divine task. All ourknowledge past and present would not be suffi-cient to repay him.�

I had long wondered about the meaning of thisstatement. The divine task he refers to is that of

propagating the idea of the brotherhood of humanity.This is, of course, the first object of the TheosophicalSociety. Were there not already noble and unselfishpeople to help in this? What was so important aboutdoing this effectually in India?

What the Mah -Chohan here alludes to, I now think,is the problem of theism in India. By the end of thefirst millennium ��, Hinduism had acquired theGod idea, Buddhism had left India for other lands,and India had fallen under foreign rule, which wasto last until 1947. India under God is not in a positionto fulfill its dharma as the source of the wisdomteachings, the teachings that alone can solve theworld’s greatest problem, the problem of God. Todeliver India from the God idea, and thereby ulti-mately deliver humanity from the God idea, the onlyrealistic course then available was to promote theidea of the brotherhood of humanity. Attempting todirectly promote non-theism would only have fos-tered the very thing the God idea was responsible forin the first place: intolerance of the beliefs of othersand hatred of everyone outside one’s own sect; inbrief, religious persecution. This was not an option.

The Theosophical movement was successful, I be-lieve, in establishing the idea of brotherhood in theconsciousness of humanity. It also spread the ideaof karma around the world, which must somedaytake the place of God, as it did in ancient India.“Replace the word ‘God’ by that of Karma and it willbecome an Eastern axiom,” says The Secret Doc-trine. Knowledge of the ways of karma, affirms TheSecret Doctrine, would eliminate the cause of twothirds of the world’s evil, i.e., the God idea.

Nor would the ways of Karma be inscrutable weremen to work in union and harmony, instead ofdisunion and strife. For our ignorance of thoseways — which one portion of mankind calls theways of Providence, dark and intricate, while an-other sees in them the action of blind Fatalism,and a third, simple chance, with neither gods nordevils to guide them — would surely disappear, ifwe would but attribute all these to their correctcause. With right knowledge . . . the two-thirds ofthe World’s evil would vanish into thin air.

It is not the Theosophical movement, however, thatis likely to bring this about; for as most observersrecognize, it is no longer a force in the world. Perhapsthis is because it, like Hinduism, acquired the Godidea, and thus ceased to truly represent the WisdomTradition.

(For a copy of the notes please write to: EasternTradition Research Institute, 3185 Boyd Rd, Cotopaxi,CO 81223.)

A

a

A

a

a

a

A free sample of Fohat will be sent to anyone you might suggest.Subscriptions can be purchased according to the rates on the Contents page.

. .

30hat is the Steed, 71wught is the 2?ider

,Jtis the "bridge" by which the ",Jdeas" existing in the "rnivine 71wught" are impressed on Cosmic substance as the "laws of ::Nature." 30hat is thus the dynamic eneroy of Cosmic ,Jdeation; or, regarded from the other side, it is the intelligent medium, the guiding power ofall mani~station. ... 7hus from Spirit, or Cosmic ,Jdeation, comes our consciousness; from Cosmic Substance the several vehicles in which that consciousness is individualized and attains to self - or r4f.ective - consciousness; while 30hat, in its various manifestations, is the mysterious link between ~ind and ~tter, the animating principle electrifying every atom into life. - Secret rnoctrine I, 16

/-- - " FOHAT ,/ ' ~- -- Box 4587 .~~ Edmonton, Alberta ~ Canada, T6E 5G4

@Recycled Paper

AVehicle for the Ancient Wisdom Tradition · Dr. Masaru Emoto and Messages from Water Recently, Dr....

Documents

Transcript of AVehicle for the Ancient Wisdom Tradition · Dr. Masaru Emoto and Messages from Water Recently, Dr....