Now the mystery of Buddha lies in this: Gautama, an incarnation of pure
Wisdom, had yet to learn in His human body and to be initiated into the
world’s secrets like any other mortal, until the day when He emerged from
His secret recess in the Himâlayas and preached for the first time in the
grove of Benares. The same with Jesus: from the age of twelve to thirty
years, when He is found preaching the Sermon on the Mount, nothing is
positively said or known of Him. Gautama had sworn inviolable secrecy as
to the Esoteric Doctrines imparted to Him. In His immense pity for the
ignorance—and as its consequence the sufferings—of mankind, desirous
though He was to keep inviolate His sacred vows, He failed to keep within
the prescribed limits. While constructing His Esoteric Philosophy (the
“Eye‐Doctrine”) on the foundations of eternal Truth, He failed to conceal
certain dogmas, and trespassing beyond the lawful lines, caused those
dogmas to be misunderstood. In His anxiety to make away with the false
Gods, He revealed in the “Seven Paths to Nirvâna” some of the mysteries of
the Seven Lights of the Arûpa (formless) World. A little of the truth is
often worse than no truth at all.
Truth and fiction are like oil and water: they will never mix.
His new doctrine, which represented the outward dead body of the Esoteric
Teaching without its vivifying Soul, had disastrous effects: it was never
correctly understood, and the doctrine itself was rejected by the Southern
Buddhists. Immense philanthropy, a boundless love and charity for all
creatures, were at the bottom of His unintentional mistake; but Karma
little heeds intentions, whether good or bad, if they remain fruitless. If
the “Good Law” as preached resulted in the most sublime code of ethics and
the unparalleled philosophy of things external in the visible Kosmos, it
biassed and misguided immature minds into believing there was nothing more
under the outward mantle of the system, and its dead‐letter only was
accepted. Moreover, the new teaching unsettled many great minds which had
previously followed the orthodox Brâhmanical lead.
Thus, fifty odd years after his death “the great Teacher”(662) having
refused full Dharmakâya and Nirvâna, was pleased, for purposes of Karma
and philanthropy, to be reborn. For Him death had been no death, but as
expressed in the “Elixir of Life,”(663) He changed
A sudden plunge into darkness to a transition into a brighter
light.
The shock of death was broken, and like many other Adepts, He threw off
the mortal coil and left it to be burnt, and its ashes to serve as relics,
and began interplanetary life, clothed in His subtle body. He was reborn
as Shankara, the greatest Vedântic teacher of India, whose
philosophy—based as it is entirely on the fundamental axioms of the
eternal Revelation, the Shruti, or the primitive Wisdom‐Religion, as
Buddha from a different point of view had before based His—finds itself in
the middle‐ground between the too exuberantly veiled metaphysics of the
orthodox Brâhmans and those of Gautama, which, stripped in their exoteric
garb of every soul‐vivifying hope, transcendental aspiration and symbol,
appear in their cold wisdom like crystalline icicles, the skeletons of the
primeval truths of Esoteric Philosophy.
Was Shankarâchârya Gautama the Buddha, then, under a new personal form? It
may perhaps only puzzle the reader the more if he be told that there was
the “astral” Gautama inside the outward Shankara, whose higher principle,
or Âtman, was, nevertheless, his own divine prototype—the “Son of Light,”
indeed—the heavenly, mind‐born son of Aditi.
This fact is again based on that mysterious transference of the divine ex‐
personality merged in the impersonal Individuality—now in its full
trinitarian form of the Monad as Âtmâ‐Buddhi‐Manas—to a new body, whether
visible or subjective. In the first case it is a Manushya‐Buddha; in the
second it is a Nirmânakâya. The Buddha is in Nirvâna, it is said, though
this once mortal vehicle—the subtle body—of Gautama is still present among
the Initiates; nor will it leave the realm of conscious Being so long as
suffering mankind needs its divine help—not to the end of this Root Race,
at any rate. From time to time He, the “astral” Gautama, associates
Himself, in some most mysterious—to us quite incomprehensible—manner, with
Avatâras and great saints, and works through them. And several such are
named.
Thus it is averred that Gautama Buddha was reincarnated in
Shankarâchârya—that, as is said in _Esoteric Buddhism_:
Shankarâchârya simply _was_ Buddha in all respects in a new
body.(664)
While the expression in its mystic sense is true, the way of putting it
may be misleading until explained. Shankara was a Buddha, most assuredly,
but he never was a reincarnation of the Buddha, though Gautama’s “Astral”
Ego—or rather his Bodhisattva—may have been associated in some mysterious
way with Shankarâchârya. Yes, it was perhaps the Ego, Gautama, under a new
and better adapted casket—that of a Brâhman of Southern India. But the
Âtman, the Higher Self that overshadowed both, was distinct from the
Higher Self of the translated Buddha, which was now in Its own sphere in
Kosmos.
Shankara was an Avatâra in the full sense of the term. According to
Sayanâchârya, the great commentator on the _Vedas_, he is to be held as an
Avatâra, or direct incarnation of Shiva—the Logos, the Seventh Principle
in Nature—Himself. In the Secret Doctrine Shri Shankarâchârya is regarded
as the abode—for the thirty‐two years of his mortal life—of a Flame, the
highest of the manifested Spiritual Beings, one of the Primordial Seven
Rays.
And now what is meant by a “Bodhisattva”? Buddhists of the Mahâyâna mystic
system teach that each BUDDHA manifests Himself (hypostatically or
otherwise) simultaneously in three worlds of Being, namely, in the world
of Kâma (concupiscence or desire—the sensuous universe or our earth) in
the shape of a man; in the world of Rûpa (form, yet supersensuous) as a
Bodhisattva; and in the highest Spiritual World (that of purely
incorporeal existences) as a Dhyâni‐Buddha. The latter prevails eternally
in space and time, _i.e._, from one Mahâ‐Kalpa to the other—the synthetic
culmination of the three being Âdi‐Buddha,(665) the Wisdom‐Principle,
which is Absolute, and therefore out of space and time. Their inter‐
relation is the following: The Dhyâni‐Buddha, when the world needs a human
Buddha, “creates” through the power of Dhyâna (meditation, omnipotent
devotion), a mind‐born son—a Bodhisattva—whose mission it is after the
physical death of his human, or Manushya‐Buddha, to continue his work on
earth till the appearance of the subsequent Buddha. The Esoteric meaning
of this teaching is clear. In the case of a simple mortal, the principles
in him are only the more or less bright reflections of the seven cosmic,
and the seven celestial Principles, the Hierarchy of supersensual Beings.
In the case of a Buddha, they are almost the principles _in esse_
themselves. The Bodhisattva replaces in him the Kârana Sharira, the Ego
principle, and the rest correspondingly; and it is in this way that
Esoteric Philosophy explains the meaning of the sentence that “by virtue
of Dhyâna [or abstract meditation] the Dhyâni‐Buddha [the Buddha’s Spirit
or Monad] creates a Bodhisattva,” or the astrally clothed Ego within the
Manushya‐Buddha. Thus, while the Buddha merges back into Nirvâna whence it
proceeded, the Bodhisattva remains behind to continue the Buddha’s work
upon earth. It is then this Bodhisattva that may have afforded the lower
principles in the apparitional body of Shankarâchârya, the Avatâra.
Now to say that Buddha, after having reached Nirvâna, returned thence to
reïncarnate in a new body, would be uttering a heresy from the
Brâhmanical, as well as from the Buddhistic standpoint. Even in the
Mahâyâna exoteric School in the teaching as to the three “Buddhic”
bodies,(666) it is said of the Dharmakâya—the ideal formless Being—that
once it is taken, the Buddha in it abandons the world of sensuous
perceptions for ever, and has not, nor can he have, any more connection
with it. To say, as the Esoteric or Mystic School teaches, that though
Buddha is in Nirvâna he has left behind him the Nirmânakâya (the
Bodhisattva) to work after him, is quite orthodox and in accordance with
both the Esoteric Mahâyâna and the Prasanga Mâdhyâmika Schools, the latter
an anti‐esoteric and most rationalistic system. For in the _Kâla Chakra_
Commentary it is shown that there is: (1) Âdi‐Buddha, eternal and
conditionless; then (2) come Sambhogakâya‐Buddhas, or Dhyâni‐Buddhas,
existing from (æonic) eternity and never disappearing—the _Causal_ Buddhas
so to say; and (3) the Manushya‐Bodhisattvas. The relation between them is
determined by the definition given. Âdi‐Buddha is Vajradhara, and the
Dhyâni‐Buddhas are Vajrasattva; yet though these two are different Beings
on their respective planes, They are identical in fact, one acting through
the other, as a Dhyâni through a human Buddha. One is “Endless
Intelligence;” the other only “Supreme Intelligence.” It is said of Phra
Bodhisattva—who was subsequently on earth Buddha Gautama:
Having fulfilled all the conditions for the immediate attainment
of perfect Buddhaship, the Holy One preferred, from unlimited
charity towards living beings, _once more_ to reincarnate for the
benefit of man.
The Nirvâna of the Buddhists is only the threshold of Paranirvâna,
according to the Esoteric Teaching: while with the Brâhmans, it is the
_summum bonum_, that final state from which there is no more return—not
till the next Mahâ‐Kalpa, at all events. And even this last view will be
opposed by some too orthodox and dogmatic Philosophers who will not accept
the Esoteric Doctrine. With them Nirvâna is absolute nothingness, in which
there is nothing and no one: only an unconditioned All. To understand the
full characteristics of that Abstract Principle one must sense it
intuitionally and comprehend fully the “one permanent condition in the
Universe,” which the Hindûs define so truly as
The state of perfect unconsciousness—bare Chidâkâsham (field of
consciousness) in fact,
however paradoxical it may seem to the profane reader.(667)
Shankarâchârya was reputed to be an Avatâra, an assertion the writer
implicitly believes in, but which other people are, of course, at liberty
to reject. And as such he took the body of a southern Indian, newly‐born
Brâhman baby; that body, for reasons as important as they are mysterious
to us, is said to have been animated by Gautama’s astral personal remains.
This divine Non‐Ego chose as its own Upâdhi (physical basis), the
ethereal, human Ego of a great Sage in this world of forms, as the fittest
vehicle for Spirit to descend into.
Said Shankarâchârya:
Parabrahman is Kartâ [Purusha], as there is no other
Adhishtâthâ,(668) and Parabrahman is Prakriti, there being no
other substance.(669)
Now what is true of the Macrocosmical is also true of the Microcosmical
plane. It is therefore nearer the truth to say—when once we accept such a
possibility—that the “astral” Gautama, or the Nirmânakâya, was the Upâdhi
of Shankarâchârya’s spirit, rather than that the latter was a
reincarnation of the former.
When a Shankarâchârya has to be born, naturally every one of the
principles in the manifested mortal man must be the purest and finest that
exist on earth. Consequently those principles that were once attached to
Gautama, who was the direct great predecessor of Shankara, were naturally
attracted to him, the economy of Nature forbidding the re‐evolution of
similar principles from the crude state. But it must be remembered that
the higher ethereal principles are not, like the lower more material ones,
visible sometimes to man (as astral bodies), and they have to be regarded
in the light of separate or independent Powers or Gods, rather than as
material objects. Hence the right way of representing the truth would be
to say that the various principles, the Bodhisattva, of Gautama Buddha,
which did not go to Nirvâna, re‐united to form the middle principles of
Shankarâchârya, the earthly Entity.(670)
It is absolutely necessary to study the doctrine of the Buddhas
esoterically and understand the subtle differences between the various
planes of existence to be able to comprehend correctly the above. Put more
clearly, Gautama, the human Buddha, who had, exoterically, Amitâbha for
his Bodhisattva and Avalokiteshvara for his Dhyâni‐Buddha—the triad
emanating directly from Âdi‐Buddha—assimilated these by his “Dhyâna”
(meditation) and thus become a Buddha (“enlightened”). In another manner
this is the case with all men; everyone of us has his Bodhisattva—the
middle principle, if we hold for a moment to the trinitarian division of
the septenary group—and his Dhyâni‐Buddha, or Chohan, the “Father of the
Son.” Our connecting link with the higher Hierarchy of Celestial Beings
lies here in a nutshell, only we are too sinful to assimilate them.
Six centuries after the translation of the human Buddha (Gautama) another
Reformer, as noble and as loving, though less favoured by opportunity,
arose in another part of the world, among another and a less spiritual
race. There is a great similarity between the subsequent opinions of the
world about the two Saviours, the Eastern and the Western. While millions
became converted to the doctrines of the two Masters, the enemies of
both—sectarian opponents, the most dangerous of all—tore both to shreds by
insinuating maliciously‐distorted statements based on Occult truths, and
therefore doubly dangerous. While of Buddha it is said by the Brâhmans
that He was truly an Avatâra of Vishnu, but that He had come to tempt the
Brâhmans from their faith, and was therefore the evil aspect of the God;
of Jesus the Bardesanian Gnostics and others asserted that He was Nebu,
the false Messiah, the destroyer of the old orthodox religion. “He is the
founder of a new sect of Nazars,” said other sectarians. In Hebrew the
word “Naba” means “to speak by inspiration,” (נבא, and נבו is Nebo, the
God of wisdom). But Nebo is also Mercury, who is Buddha in the Hindu
monogram of planets. And this is shown by the fact that the Talmudists
hold that Jesus was inspired by the Genius (or Regent) of Mercury
confounded by Sir William Jones with Gautama Buddha. There are many other
strange points of similarity between Gautama and Jesus, which cannot be
noticed here.(671)
If both the Initiates, aware of the danger of furnishing the uncultured
masses with the powers acquired by ultimate knowledge, left the innermost
corner of the sanctuary in profound darkness, who, acquainted with human
nature, can blame either of them for this? Yet although Gautama, actuated
by prudence, left the Esoteric and most dangerous portions of the Secret
Knowledge untold, and lived to the ripe old age of eighty—the Esoteric
Doctrine says one hundred—years, dying with the certainty of having taught
its essential truths, and of having sown the seeds for the conversion of
one‐third of the world, He yet perhaps revealed more than was strictly
good for posterity. But Jesus, who had promised His disciples the
knowledge which confers upon man the power of producing “miracles” far
greater than He had ever produced Himself, died, leaving but a few
faithful disciples—men only half‐way to knowledge. They had therefore to
struggle with a world to which they could impart only what they but half‐
knew themselves, and—no more. In later ages the exoteric followers of both
mangled the truths given out, often out of recognition. With regard to the
adherents of the Western Master, the proof of this lies in the very fact
that none of them can now produce the promised “miracles.” They have to
choose: either it is they who have blundered, or it is their Master who
must stand arraigned for an empty promise, an uncalled‐for boast.(672) Why
such a difference in the destiny of the two? For the Occultist this enigma
of the unequal favour of Karma or Providence is unriddled by the Secret
Doctrine.
It is “not lawful” to speak of such things publicly, as St. Paul tells us.
One more explanation only may be given in reference to this subject. It
was said a few pages back that an Adept who thus sacrifices himself to
live, giving up full Nirvâna, though he can never lose the knowledge
acquired by him in previous existences, yet can never rise higher in such
borrowed bodies. Why? Because he becomes simply the vehicle of a “Son of
Light” from a still higher sphere, Who being Arûpa, has no personal astral
body of His own fit for this world. Such “Sons of Light,” or Dhyâni‐
Buddhas, are the Dharmakâyas of preceding Manvantaras, who have closed
their cycles of incarnations in the ordinary sense and who, being thus
Karmaless, have long ago dropped their individual Rûpas, and have become
identified with the first Principle. Hence the necessity of a sacrificial
Nirmânakâya, ready to suffer for the misdeeds or mistakes of the new body
in its earth‐pilgrimage, without any future reward on the plane of
progression and rebirth, since there are no rebirths for him in the
ordinary sense. The Higher Self, or Divine Monad, is not in such a case
attached to the lower Ego; its connection is only temporary, and in most
cases it acts through decrees of Karma. This is a real, genuine sacrifice,
the explanation of which pertains to the highest Initiation of Gñâna
(Occult Knowledge). It is closely linked, by a direct evolution of Spirit
and involution of Matter, with the primeval and great Sacrifice at the
foundation of the manifested Worlds, the gradual smothering and death of
the spiritual in the material. The seed “is not quickened except it
die.”(673) Hence in the Purusha Sûkta of the _Rig Veda_,(674) the mother‐
fount and source of all subsequent religions, it is stated allegorically
that “the thousand‐headed Purusha” was slaughtered at the foundation of
the World, that from his remains the Universe might arise. This is nothing
more nor less than the foundation—the seed, truly—of the later many‐formed
symbol in various religions, including Christianity, of the sacrificial
lamb. For it is a play upon the words. “Aja” (Purusha), “the unborn,” or
eternal Spirit, means also “lamb,” in Sanskrit. Spirit disappears—dies,
metaphorically—the more it gets involved in matter, and hence the
sacrifice of the “unborn,” or the “lamb.”
Why the BUDDHA chose to make this sacrifice will be plain only to those
who, to the minute knowledge of His earthly life, add that of a thorough
comprehension of the laws of Karma. Such occurrences, however, belong to
the most exceptional cases.
As tradition goes, the Brâhmans had committed a heavy sin by persecuting
Gautama BUDDHA and His teachings instead of blending and reconciling them
with the tenets of pure Vaidic Brâhmanism, as was done later by
Shankarâchârya. Gautama had never gone against the _Vedas_, only against
the exoteric growth of preconceived interpretations. The Shruti—divine
oral revelation, the outcome of which was the _Veda_—is eternal. It
reached the ear of Gautama Siddartha as it had those of the Rishis who had
written it down. He accepted the revelation, while rejecting the later
overgrowth of Brâhmanical thought and fancy, and built His doctrines on
one and the same basis of imperishable truth. As in the case of His
Western successor, Gautama, the “Merciful,” the “Pure,” and the “Just,”
was the first found in the Eastern Hierarchy of historical Adepts, if not
in the world‐annals of divine mortals, who was moved by that generous
feeling which locks the whole of mankind within one embrace, with no petty
differences of race, birth, or caste. It was He who first enunciated that
grand and noble principle, and He again who first put it into practice.
For the sake of the poor and the reviled, the outcast and the hapless,
invited by Him to the king’s festival table, He had excluded those who had
hitherto sat alone in haughty seclusion and selfishness, believing that
they would be defiled by the very shadow of the disinherited ones of the
land—and these non‐spiritual Brâhmans turned against Him for that
preference. Since then such as these have never forgiven the prince‐
beggar, the son of a king, who, forgetting His rank and station, had flung
widely open the doors of the forbidden sanctuary to the pariah and the man
of low estate, thus giving precedence to personal merit over hereditary
rank or fortune. The sin was theirs—the cause nevertheless Himself: hence
the “Merciful and the Blessed One” could not go out entirely from this
world of illusion and created causes without atoning for the sin of
all—therefore of these Brâhmans also. If “man afflicted by man” found safe
refuge with the Tathâgata, “man afflicting man” had also his share in His
self‐sacrificing, all‐embracing and forgiving love. It is stated that He
desired to atone for the sin of His enemies. Then only was He willing to
become a full Dharmakâya, a Jivanmukta “without remains.”
The close of Shankarâchârya’s life brings us face to face with a fresh
mystery. Shankarâchârya retires to a cave in the Himâlayas, permitting
none of his disciples to follow him, and disappears therein for ever from
the sight of the profane. Is he dead? Tradition and popular belief answer
in the negative, and some of the local Gurus, if they do not emphatically
corroborate, do not deny the rumour. The truth with its mysterious details
as given in the Secret Doctrine is known but to them; it can be given out
fully only to the direct followers of the great Dravidian Guru, and it is
for them alone to reveal of it as much as they think fit. Still it is
maintained that this Adept of Adepts lives to this day in his spiritual
entity as a mysterious, unseen, yet overpowering presence among the
Brotherhood of Shamballa, beyond, far beyond, the snowy‐capped Himâlayas.